Zachary Quinto Says Potentially Three Different Star Trek Scripts Are In The Works

The evolving story of the next possible Star Trek feature film has a bit more information today, thanks to Zachary Quinto. Speaking to Entertainment Tonight Canada promoting his upcoming movie Aardvark, the Spock actor was asked what he knew about the script being written by Mark L. Smith, based on an idea from Quentin Tarantino.

At first Quinto said he didn’t know anything specific about that Tarantino-spawned script, but then he noted it wasn’t the only possible Star Trek script to consider, saying:

I think there are a couple of scripts. There was a script being written before Quentin Tarantino came up with this idea for a potential film. I think they are developing more than one. I don’t know what is going to happen. Quentin is off doing another movie. So, I feel like we are in a state of anticipation. All of us are really excited about the idea of working with Quentin on a Trek film, but I know Simon [Pegg] and Doug Jung, who wrote [Star Trek Beyond] are writing a script and there are another set of writers writing a script.

Quinto’s comment about multiple scripts echoes Simon Pegg’s recent comments, but adds a bit more detail. In addition to the Tarantino-based Mark L. Smith script, Quinto confirms there is another script in development by the Beyond writing team of Pegg and Jung. The actor also refers to a script by “another set of writers,” which may be referring back to the Tarantino-based project, or possibly a third script, likely from the team of J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay, who were announced to be writing the follow-up to Beyond by Paramount in July 2016.

Zachary Quinto as Spock in Star Trek Beyond

While Quinto admitted he didn’t know what was going to happen next with Star Trek, he also sounded optimistic about the future, telling ET Canada:

The good news is that hopefully it means we will be able to make more movies, because we love each other and love that experience and I would love to continue to tell those stories as well, in the midst of other stuff. We will see.

If Paramount did want a Star Trek film to fill an empty slot they have for the summer of 2020, they have until around the end of the year to pick a script, a director, and put together the financing to give Trek the greenlight.

You can watch the segment with Quinto talking to ET Canada below:

Stay glued to for all news, whispers and more about the future of Star Trek movies. You can keep tabs on all updates on the next movie via our Star Trek XIV category.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Par is issuing 4Ks on backlist when new pics come out (TOMB RAIDER, M:I), so that means we won’t have any chance of getting 4K trek classic till whenever this thing gets made – so now I’m hoping for a 2020 film, by any of these people, just to get TMP 4K (theatrical preferred.)

Yep, they’re being really annoying with their releases, and only releasing their backcatalog when they have a new franchise entry coming out :(

According to Bill Hunt, TWOK is already prepped for UHD and HDR from the 2016 restoration for the DC Blu-ray. So I wish they’d just go ahead and release it.

And yes TMP is begging for a nice UHD restoration. The film was made to be one of the last of the breed of truly stunning theatrical experiences. 2019 will be it’s 40th anniversary, so regardless of whatever is going on with Kelvin movies, next year would be a good time to release it.

Personally I’d like to see the TMP DE stuff re-rendered (the VFX artists have the content, they’re just waiting for Paramount to call them), so then we can get a seamless branching version of Theatrical and DE, all in one disc, akin to what they did with the TWOK DC Blu-ray (but obviously quite a bit more involved).

@Matt — I hope you’re right. But, with Paramount’s current financial problems, it seems like home video would likely be the last thing on their minds.

If they do 4K TMP the only option is the theatrical version. Have they even done an HD release of the director edition?

No, no HD version has been released, that’s one of the reasons why I said in my comment:
Personally I’d like to see the TMP DE stuff re-rendered (the VFX artists have the content, they’re just waiting for Paramount to call them) so then we can get a seamless branching version of Theatrical and DE, all in one disc

The assets are there waiting in the CGI artists personal archives, they’ll need some work to bring up to 4k standards, but they were actually prepared with HD in mind back in 2001, however Paramount Home Entertainment cheaped out and final render was in SD, since at the time there was no HD home video standard yet so they didn’t see the value in having an HD version.

Just curious but do you know how feasible it would be to update the TOS and TNG remasters to 4K? I imagine the fact that show was filmed in video would make this an unrealistic prospect, plus paramount hasn’t even given us 1080p versions of DS9 and Voyager so I would doubt there’s an ambition for this endeavour from them.

All Trek up until about half way through Enterprise was shot on film and then transferred to video in post. That’s how they were about to do the TNG remaster. They went back to the original film stock and then redid all the post work like the SFX. A very time consuming and costly endeavour. The film stock of DS9 and Voyager is out there. They just don’t won’t repeat the process because they don’t think they’ll sell enough blu-rays. Personally I think this is short sighted as there will come a time when the video quality SD versions out there just won’t cut it any more in re-runs and they’ll either have to be upscaled well or remastered.

Why make DS9 and Voy on bluray when no one will buy it? I know I wouldn’t, I don’t even own a bluray player, or a DVD player. Streaming is king now.

They remastered TOS and TNG not just for Blu-ray sales. CBS knew very well that syndication (and streaming) rights were where the big money was. So they invested in the two shows that are known worldwide and hardcore and casual fans alike all know. The sales of the Blu-ray were partially to try and more immediately recoup some costs, the lackluster sales meant that they became very gun shy about sinking that kind of money for the lesser known shows. And yes sorry folks DS9 and VOY are not nearly as widely known to public at large. It sucks, but that’s the reality of it.

Anyway we’ve gotten somewhat off topic, because CBS owns the TV shows. Paramount owns the movies.

To put it back on Paramount, they’re being real cheapskates compared to CBS. Paramount only has about 20 hours of movie content that could use new film transfers (and restoration as appropriate). Aside from TWOK, they’ve been recycling early 2000s 1080p versions first made as the source for the DVD releases, and then shown on HD cable channels. They haven’t aged well.
CBS on the other hand has spent a ton of money restoring both TOS and TNG, together, those two series are over 280 hours of content.

If the merger goes through, could we see CBS be tasked with the 4K restoration of the film library?

TUP, the merger would make CBS Home Entertainment and Paramount Home Entertainment the same unit ;)

Also the merger will take years to go through, between board approvals, federal review, and then actually merging corporate structures.

And when the streaming goes out? Or when only doctored versions of a film are available? What then? Streaming is fine as a backup, and as a convenience, but there’s no security there.

Eventually they will have to if they want to keep selling those series in syndication.

Well if you want HD streaming, they’ve gotta remaster it. If you’re gonna remaster it, you’ve got to release it on bluray. You can’t really have one without the other.

As El Chup said, CBS scanned all the film for TOS and TNG at 2k. And reassembling the episodes from scratch for TNG was a massive undertaking, since as you noted TNG was originally finished on video, so the entire editing and post-production process was re-done, they had to go find all the raw filmed takes, all the raw ship model film footage, and so forth. It was effectively like doing post-production on TNG episodes all over again 30 years later. If you’ve not seen this video, it’s a look at the process used for TNG.

Also there’s really no reason to worry about them. They look great, and always will. Simply “Pixel counting” is not really the be-all-end-all way to judge quality in the modern HD-era, for various reasons. A good 2k scan will be fine for years to come, and will never look as unsharp or “old”, as the difference between SD and HD was.

Matt, Paramount cheaped out all the way through the DE — a fellow TMP enthusiast who actually was in correspondence with some of the folks working on the effects end said the entire project was done for something like half a mil – compare that to BLADE RUNNER’s FINAL CUT a few years later, which cost 8 mil (plus BR’s elements were all expertly stored, whereas some of TMP’s are supposedly not even around since the 80s, according to some stories.)

It might be interesting to see the DE shots at higher rez, perhaps they would look more credible than they do currently. I think the way they did them was the error, there is very little perspective change on the Enterprise in the new shots, so they could have done them old-school with photo cutouts using the super-high-quality stills done by Virgil Mirano — as was the case with a LOT of space shots in 2001 and SILENT RUNNING — on an animation stand, and achieved higher resolution shooting them in 35mm directly. No expense of a mo-con stage (which has always been the excuse to go with CGI) and no resolution limitations except the film stock itself, which is still superior to nearly all digital imaging systems.

If Zachary Quinto and Bruce Greenwood want to return to Star Trek and Discovery wants to keep Star Trek’s tradition of doing minimal re-casting, I hope something can be worked out before shooting begins.

They maybe too old to play their characters on Discovery. Also Discovry producers probably don’t want some idiot fans to claim their series is in Kelvin timeline.

Pike was killed.
I don’t think Bruce Greenwood is coming back

Pike is not dead in Discovery, but Greenwood is far too old at this point to play that Pike. I’m fascinated to see who they find to play this younger Pike, assuming we’ll be seeing the character at all.

Again, I don’t know why people keep thinking actors from the Kelvin films would ever show up on this show since they have already recasted other characters like Sarek and Amanda who were also in the Kelvin movies.

I think CBS want to make it clear that this show has nothing to do with the Kelvin films and all it would do is confuse people more if they hired any of those actors (as if the Kelvin universe isn’t confusing enough on its own lol).

I’d be all for Greenwood as Pike on Discovery. The age isnt so much an issue because Pike in both universes was the same character so the age discrepancy is a canon violation in the JJ films. But because Greenwood was so good, we over-look it. I’d over-look it again.

Pike appeared in the ‘Menagerie’ 2 parter in TOS set a good decade after Discovery. Your getting confused between the Prime and Kelvin timelines.

I’m fine with recasting Spock and Pike if Quinto doesn’t want to do the character on TV. There are many potential great actors to inhabit Spock and bring him back to TV. Same with Pike.

They would never be casted because CBS CLEARLY wants to keep those universes separate. It would just be too confusing at this point. Its the reason why both universes take place in roughly the same time and yet look completely different from each other. My guess is thats the reason the Discovery uniforms look nothing like the old ones because the Kelvin movies already had similar ones.

Normally I would agree. Except they had the season end with an Enterprise meet up. Sooo…..

Yeah but thats the problem. THAT Enterprise looked absolutely nothing like the Kelvin Enteprise. I’m trying to imagine Quinto showing up on it with a different uniform and it would confuse some people.

I mean I think CBS just really want to avoid all of that and I can understand why. It took YEARS just for some people to finally just get the Kelvin films were in a different universe entirely, it would only bring back the same arguments if they casted anyone from the films into the show.

All true. But they did open up a can of worms with their own doing when they opted to have NCC-1701 show up. As a viewer, it totally felt like a bad move. Like they were not confident with their own cast doing their own thing. They felt they HAD to bring in Enterprise for some reason. Now they are sort of in a no win situation. Of course, I think they put themselves in one the instant they opted to set the show pre TOS. So I guess they are comfortable being 2nd guessed by fans.

OK well I get your point on that. But anyone can play Spock or Pike and the producers already said we won’t even see Spock anyway.

But yes, if it was up to me there would be no 1701 or anyone associated from that show ever showing up because we wouldn’t be anywhere in this time period. But same time my guess is this is the entire reason why Discovery is in it in so they can pull off one of these stunt crossovers whenever they want.

How long until Troi and Riker show up?

About 90 years. ;)

Except that neither have played their prime universe versions, so it would indeed be recasting anyway.

Kelvin Spock and Prime Spock are two different people. Few seem to get that despite a very explicit line in Trek 09 to this effect.

Cool. If there are 3 scripts then maybe we get 3 movies!!!!

I think the odds of that being the case are exceedingly small, especially considering that we’re coming off of a movie that under-performed at the box-office. I’d love it if they could work out a Star Wars type system, with a main series of films with the expected cast, and other films set in the Star Trek universe but mostly unrelated to the main-cast storylines. However, I doubt this will happen as Trek is simply not as bankable an asset as Star Wars.

No it’s not but there’s clearly a market there. Slightly lower budget movies with lesser known ie cheaper casts could still tell standalone stories within the universe. In fact this model might be better served for allowing guest directors like a Tarantino to showcase there visions of Trek. You’re right though it is a riskier project for cinema but maybe if the merger does happen they will be able to produce movie content for CBS all access.

That would be good – a trilogy/year and a half of 60 to 80 million dollar films.

That said, a lot of the great spots in Beyond, besides the character, was the effects. The effects finally had a sense of wonder and fun. That is besides the worker drone bee things, but a lot of the rest of everything was kind of like an art deco wonderland.

You know, it’s interesting. I felt the first two JJ Trek movies went far too far towards dumbed down blockbuster so as to appeal to the mass audience and rake in their budgets. I think that there is a string argument that with a lower budget the studio would not expect such a hefty return and this might in turn, allow for more varied storytelling.

Paramount is broke. We’ll be fortunate to get one, at half the budget of the last one.

I’m glad to hear that Quinto is looking forward to another movie. There seemed a time where he wasn’t as enthusiastic and maybe wanted to shy away from Trek stuff. Hope it all works out soon enough.

Was his perceived less-enthusiasm phase before or after Beyond’s release? I’ve noticed numerous actors were all the more gung ho about a fourth film after Beyond, whereas they weren’t quite as thrilled after Into Darkness. Karl Urban’s the best example — he almost didn’t sign for Beyond, as I understand things — but it kind of feels reflective of at least half the cast in a way.

I actually enjoy Into Darkness but I’m aware of its overall lasting legacy, lol. Maybe the actors are partially on the “meh” side of the fence toward it as well.

Into Darkness was the best Trek movie I’ve seen to date. I found Beyond too boring and long. Idris Elba was wasted in that movie.

STID may be disliked by some Trekkies. But it is the highest grossing Trek film and is a critical darling, check out the RT ratings. Had Beyond been as successful, there’d be no doubt regarding a sequel.

Beyond is proof that you don’t let a fan nerd (Simon Pegg) write a script. The movie appealed to Trekkies, so only Trekkies went to see it. No amount of press and ads would have made the ticket sales go up. No matter what Pegg says.

Star Trek needs to be mainstream to be successful.

Beyond had a lot of problems in general from many aspects, especially marketing. But yes I have to agree with you part of the problem with Beyond is that it felt like a big budget episode, kind of like how Insurrection felt. It may appeal to the long time fans but not many others.

Of course Star Trek has done plenty of fan service stories before like TWOK and First Contact. Both of those films are very much stories for Trek fans, but they had elements that could appeal to non Trek fans as well which is why they are both really popular.

The next Kelvin film puts the Borg in the movie, they won’t have any trouble getting butts in the seats. ;)

The next Kelvin movie need to be fun for everyone. The Borg plus Khan would make great movie.

The Borg plus Khan? Ugh.

El Chup

I usually like your thoughts HN4…. But no.

It would be awesome. Near the end of the movie, Khan gets assimilated and becomes the Borg King.

HN4, I think you just come here to troll lol. That sounds horrible.

The Borg King?


There’s a Borg King in one of the Star Trek books.

Was the Borg King Will Decker?

All hail Korg!

Sounds more like a BURGER KING commercial campaign than a feature film to me — but to be honest, that is true of more than a few ‘big’ (as in big&stupid) movies.

Except Beyond was actually good. Insurrection was… Well…. Not.

It took me awhile but I actually like Insurrection now, but I agree of course Beyond was better. But that wasn’t my point, its the PERCEPTION of the film I’m really talking about and what kept people away. Beyond just felt like too small of a story similar to how Insurrection did. Being stuck on one planet probably didn’t help either. And the villain just felt and looked generic, again like the villain in Insurrection. Kind of funny both of them were obsessed with immortality. On the other end it clearly had WAY more action than Insurrection lol but then that put off some of the hardcore fans because it looked like a dumb action movie, again based on the actual previews.

So it just had a lot of problems in terms of how people saw it. And I agree with Pegg, the marketing is what helped killed it although it wasn’t the only thing either. But that first trailer was atrocious and it never recovered from that even after the film got pretty solid reviews.

Pegg’s script help kill the movie.

That is definitely up for debate BUT yes I do feel the biggest drawback to Beyond story wise was destroying the Enteprise. Again going back to the first trailer I remember how I personally felt seeing it destroyed, it was like they were killing off McCoy or Spock. The ship has been destroyed in the movies but never so early in a film and I think that zapped the interest of a lot of people.

But I can’t fault Pegg for that, it was actually Justin Lin who wanted that and I got his reasoning for it. But I still feel was a mistake. People want to see them on that ship, even if it looks like the ultimate Apple store its still the Enterprise.

Yeah the destroying the ship was one of those things where they wanted to recapture that shocking moment of TOS but not understanding why it was shocking and sad then.

The original Enterprise was a character on the show. It was beloved. The new abomination was not. We didnt care that it was destroyed. In fact we likely felt “finally, now they can get it right”.

This might seem odd but I would have destroyed it only one time…in the opening scenes of 2009. Instead of Kelvin it should have been the original Enterprise, as close to the TOS/TMP version as possible (with updated materials, flat screens etc).

Captain April in command instead of Robau. And destroy the friggen thing. THAT’S how you signal things have changed. That would have been something.

I seem to recall it was considered but the studio demanded that the Enterprise not be destroyed but in this sense, its not THE Enterprise of the films (because they’d still make the new one).

I sincerely believe Beyond suffered from how bad Darkness was. A lot of people saw it (I think) because Trek ’09 got good buzz. Watched Darkness and were turned off to it to the point where they had no interest in the next movie. But yes, the poor marketing didn’t help. And I agree… That first trailer was a major mistake. It made ME not want to see it.

I nearly didn’t see it for precisely that reason. I found Into Darkness borderline offensive.

Offensive? Why? Genuinely curious

Bob, Because it lacked the heart and intelligence of what Trek is when it’s at it’s best. On top of that I found the use of Khan and the callbacks to TWOK, like Carol Markus and the (to be blunt) cringeworthy “Khaaan” scene, to be patronising to the fans. Obviously I understand your involvement and perhaps the last thing you want to hear is criticism for months if not years of hard work, but the fact is that those elements felt like someone had sat down and thought “the fans will really dig these callbacks to the past” and that’s all it would take to get the fans in seats. That otherwise the film can just be a flat out actioner. Basically, this is a slightly edited version of what I posted on IMDB at the time… “”Space, The Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. It’s continuing mission to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilisations. To boldly go where no man has gone before”. The Star Trek motto. Abrams didn’t need to watch all of Trek’s back catalog to understand the basic concept. He just needed to read that. It’s a shame he hasn’t. Star Trek Into Darkness is completely and utterly void of any of the elements that have made Star Trek what it is. A positive hopeful future, furthered through the exploration of space and one’s own humanity. In two movies we have seen only one new planet explored, and even then only for a five minute teaser. Otherwise it’s been nothing but explosions, plot rehashes and fan winks. I’ve been a lifelong fan of the franchise. But this movie has killed it for me, so much so that I will not look forward to any new films in the future while this team is still in control. I found the whole experience deeply insulting. The writers, including lifelong fans, really should know better. In fact I don’t think any of them are as big a fan as some of them claim. Gratuitous reuse of iconic villains such as Khan (a poor shadow of the wonderful Montalban original, despite Cumberbatch’s best efforts)and scenes from the classic Wrath of Khan directly lifted and reused. Characters pointlessly squeezed in to remind us that the writers supposedly know their Trek (bikini clad Carol Marcus being the chief offender). Convenient plot contrivances that insult anyone with half a brain (Khan beaming to the Klingon homeworld – why have starships?). Basic physics disregarded, when the shows and classic movies went to great lengths to formulate scientific logic as best as possible. Kirk is still a petulant child. Spock is still overly emotional. McCoy is relegated to a bit-part character. Ugh.I could go on. This movie doesn’t seems to get why Star Trek inspired people and stood the test of time for nearly half a century. This movie doesn’t understand how to explore the human condition. This movie does not explore anything, either figuratively or literally. This movie doesn’t get why McCoy was an essential part of the emotion vs logic triumvirate. This movie contains little or no social commentary, either by allegory or otherwise. This movie does not make you feel positive about the future. This movie is not Star Trek to me. It is unintelligent schlock make for low brows who get their satisfaction from endless action and violence.” Those were my feelings and they weren’t knee jerk. They were posted quite a while after I had say and digested the movie, saw it on Blu-ray again and tried my hardest to convince myself I liked it. I apologise if you feel any of that is harsh, unjustified or hyperbolic. But that was how the movie made me feel at the time. In contrast, while I had mixed views, the first Kelvin outing I was happy to give a chance since it was essentially an introductory movie and then Beyond felt a lot more Trek like. It felt optimistic and forward moving. After the set up in the first movie Into Darkness was the chance to tell a great Star Trek story. To do something a bit different. To be out there telling new stories with the blank slate you had created yourselves. Into Darkness just didn’t do that in my opinion. I left the cinema feeling unhappy and down. Trek should make you feel good about yourself and the future, especially in this day and age, where I personally think that optimism is needed more than ever. Like I said elsewhere, Into Darkness is a good action sci-fi film. It just isn’t a good Star Trek film. I have no idea just how much you personally had to conform to pressure to deliver the action quota and to satisfy the general… Read more »

Bob doesnt generally take criticism well (although I genuinely hope he’s cooled off since STID came out). But your explanation for your position is very sound.

I actually think callbacks are important for emotionally connecting with long time fans. But I think these writers werent quite sure what worked and what didnt.

Carole Marcus being in the film was fine though her role was pretty lame and didnt speak to the character we know enough.

Though we CAN imagine that she chose to leave Star Fleet and develop peaceful technology because of her experiences designing weapons for the military. I can buy that.

Of course, the underwear scene was jaw-droppingly offensive and how it made it in the final film is truly a mystery. Imagine them making that today with a superior officer ogling a subordinate while she changed into her uniform. yikes. Its not like STID was 20 years ago.

Im all for seeing beautiful women but good grief, if thats the best you can come up with…..

Im torn on the Khan yell. I didnt mind it. But it elicited luaghter in my theatre and my buddy (a major Trek fan who used to have his bedroom wall-papered with posers, models everywhere etc) burst out laughing and said it was stupid. So I get that. I thought they mixed the yell well into the rise in music and it worked for me.

The problem was that scene, which on first viewing was cool in the sense we saw a modern update of an iconic scene but it doesnt hold up because there is no emotion for us as viewers.

Why was the WoK scene so emotional? 20 years of emotional connection and far better actors and the legitimate belief Nimoy was done and Spock was dead. The lesson was learned…the no win scenario.

In STID, these arent the same characters. We dont care the same way. And we knew it was all BS anyway so even in that moment, we werent tricked emotionally. They had that AWFUL anvil-like scene earlier of Bones and the Tribble so we knew what was coming.

Should have been Pike in there. What lesson did Kirk learn? That death doesnt matter either? What did Spock learn? That he actually loved Kirk? Compare Nimoy’s wonderful, stoic (recall him struggling to stand and straightening his tunic) scene with Quinto’s bawling sloppy emotional mess.

Just didnt work.


I hope he takes criticism a little better now because, well, he asked!

Since he replied a shot at me in this thread, I guess he doesnt take criticism any better lol

Absolutely. STID p!ssed away all the good will with fans and more importantly, with the general public. After 2009, casual moviegoers were optimistic about “Star Trek”

After STID, they weren’t. Beyond had to be really good, needed a major marketing push akin to 2009, a major hook (like Nimoy in 2009) and great word of mouth. It had to be 2009 all over again.

Insurrection and Beyond had similar issues. Small stories that would have been good episodes.

It needs to be a mix of the two when it comes to the cinema. You take it too mainstream and you take out the unique qualities that have keep the franchise going so long. I don’t think it is necessary to abandon everything that makes Trek what it is just to keep the franchise going. If you do that you only keep it going in name only – and the kind of thing you are suggesting elsewhere, CumberKhan/Borg action team ups are just that.

Personally I think Trek needs to stop trying to be a mega bucks movie franchise or Game of Thrones and should go back to being that middle of the road, middle budget production that told good, intelligent stories. That sort of storytelling clearly isn’t for the mindless action crowd, but it is the core of what Trek was for its first forty years. If the powers that be don’t feel they can effectively meld the two than I’d rather Trek just die off rather than it being turned into yet another low brow, forgettable action franchise.

Scifi movie budgets are too expensive not expect big returns. Maybe if they made Lifetime original Star Trek TV movies.

Critical darling? Well, so was The Last Jedi, and we know how that went down with Star Wars fans.

Into Darkness is okay for the general audience and the casual fan. However, it is an absolute mess for the long term fan in my opinion as it misses entirely the point of Trek. The best way to look at it, in my opinion, is that it is a great action adventure movie, but a bad Star Trek movie. If something carries the Star Trek name it should be representative of the franchise’s legacy. Into Darkness is not, except perhaps in the most superficial sense (callbacks to TWOK, etc).

I haven’t seen The Last Jedi yet, but I assume they didn’t like it because Luke died? You would think they would get the clue when Solo died. Old heroes die to make room for new heroes. That’s the point of these movies.

Luke dying was actually the least of the issues. Because a good death is fine. I had ZERO problem with Solo dying. It was gut wrenching. Luke dying was meaningless.

And the wost part is Mark Hamill was SOOOOO good. Like, so friggen good. If you had a camera frozen to just his face or even just his eyes, you’d know exactly what was happening. He was really really good and deserved a lot better then a writer/director who wanted to change Star Wars to prove he could.

My goodness, when you take on a project that is a chapter of an iconic franchise, you owe it to make the best STAR WARS movie you can, not the movie you think will be “challenging” or “different” and slap the title on it.

The Force Awakens was 100000 times better than TLJ because it respected Star Wars. TLJ did not.

Wow, I just saw JEDI and thought it was very good, though the casino planet was just a huge detour they could have completely skipped. I think people didn’t like it because it brought real-world issues front & center with the SW universe instead of just hinting at them. I mean, the original may have been the rebels being Vietnamese vs the evil Empire US in GL’s mind, but he didn’t put it out there in such bald terms where people could get offended. JEDI is very specific (and to my mind, quite truthful) in how it presents the arms business with regard to good guys and bad guys, and it’s a decent lesson to put out there — so long as it is the second level of sell in addition to whatever else they are doing with the movie.

When I say second level of sell, I like to invoke LICENCE TO KILL — you have Bond going indie to get vengeance (FIRST time, not the habitual crap in the Craig flicks), but then along the way, the 2nd level of sell is that he is fouling up the world, accidentally ruining a Chinese operation against the same baddie that took years to set up … putting some context on an event is a good thing, even (perhaps ESPECIALLY) in the SW verse, where sometimes stuff just happens to put eye candy before your peepers.

In spite of it being Abrams, who has the worst track record of any major contemporary filmmaker I can recall, I actually liked TFA, and have seen it twice already (haven’t rewatched any SW since original trilogy, so this is a relatively big deal for me.) But this last one gave some depth to the thing that really enriched the experience, and I think I might buy and rewatch this one on a regular basis.

@Kmart – I had forgotten (or blocked out) the whole Casino planet sub-plot. Honestly, I hear very little criticism of the arms-deal aspect. I had no issue with that. Its everything else.

Rian Johnson seems like someone who took on the middle chapter of a story where the plot threads were very clearly laid out….A to B to C and instead he wanted to “do something different” and so went A to F to L just for the sake of messing with the formula.

I have no idea why LucasFilm allowed this. Or why JJ allowed it. He clearly had a story in mind and TLJ upset the apple cart and not in a good way.

When I was a kid in creative writing class, my buddy and I decided to write a story where we’d alternate chapters as a sort of competition. So ofcourse, we’d end up throwing up creative roadblocks to each other to essentially challenge each other to move the story forward and overcome things. It was kids playing games for fun.

Thats what TLJ seemed like to me.

The whole core premise that Luke Skywalker ran from the fight and essentially sacrificed his family, friends and universe to the Dark Side was so offensive and absurd, it ruined the rest of the movie even IF the rest had been good (which it wasnt).

In the original, Luke was willing to fight the Empire because 1) it was the right thing to do 2) he believed in the Jedi. He was willing to die. That was even before he learned Vader was Anakin and Leia was his sister.

In TLJ, he sees the Dark Side in his own nephew who HE helped create and he runs. Okay, but you better give us an incredible reason. And they didnt.

Every bad thing that happened after that, was because Luke was a coward. And that was absolutely absurd.

Yeah but Jedi has bad audience ratings, but STID has great critical and audience ratings.

Star Wars fans will still line up around the corner for the next movie. I’m not worried about Star Wars. I’m waiting for Last Jedi to stream on Netflix.

Are you planning to watch it on your phone or tablet?

No, I’m watching it nude in my bedroom.

Darkness had great critical and audience ratings? I guess that if you equate the highest box office of the 3 KU flicks as meaning audiences loved the film. A lot of people did see it, but I strongly suspect a lot of that was a result of good buzz over Star Trek. (09) People who missed the first one wanted to check out the sequel. But it was so bad it soured the audiences on the next film. It was much better but the average film goer opted to miss it. Based on the previous outing.

The facts actually speak for themselves. The movie was liked by the vast majority of people. Seems there are plenty of trekkies that disliked it – but the studio wont care as it clearly appealed to a ton of people.

Its true that many fans feel the studio takes them for granted in the sense, fans will always watch no matter how good or bad it is but the fact STID was roundly boo’ed at Trek conventions is not a good sign from the diehards.

And didnt the studio care? They ended up removing one of the writers of STID who was in charge of the story and directing Trek 3 and went with new people.

Didn’t ST diehards protest Paramount for making TNG?

That happened more AFTER the series started than before as I recall. ANGEL ONE and HAVEN and LOUD AS A WHISPER and TIME SQUARED and … well, you get the idea.

For sure. But any franchise will have a segment of fans that protest the direction.

Look at Discovery and how many fans were irate when all they knew was it took place a decade before TOS. They hadnt seen it, knew nothing about it, but because it wasnt THEIR idea, they rejected it.

Heck, how many diehard Roseanne fans hated the idea of a revival?

Fans are fans, for better or worse.

STID was pretty well panned by many people. Regardless of ticket sales or whatever, I think history has judged it as a failure, hence why the studio changed directions in a pretty major way.

The Last Jedi as a critical darling is the perfect example of what happens when critics who dont understand the story or legacy review a film on the basis of a simple plot that looks really nice on screen.

The Last Jedi was an abomination and Rian Johnson was clearly playing games with fans and with JJ.

Oh please. It’s just a movie.

Yes, as a movie it is awful. I mean, if your point is none of this matters so why have an opinion, okay sure, but why do you argue with people here then? lol

Could very well be put on hold for merger talks … big screen could eventually give us Stamets & Culber in “Star Trek: Love Eternal” … “Theirs was a love forged by destiny that death could not tear asunder. And also will save the universe. Actually all universes. Again.”

I’d watch that movie!

Competing scripts is not uncommon and typically a sign that a project is in active development. I’m just wondering who will ultimately decide which script will get the green light and I suspect that Paramount will be taking a far more active role than in years past.

I have a feeling that QT’s idea and JJ’s idea had some similar elements and in the end, they might create a story that uses elements of both.

Oh boy, the last time I’d heard of multiple scripts being written at once for a major movie release it was for “Alien 3” and we all know how that turned out.

It actually happens quute a lot. For example, you are aware that Nick Meyer cobbled together pieces of 3 different scripts to make TWOK I assume?

They did the two competing story approach for GEN as well, with Maurice Hurley’s version being rejected in favor of Moore/Braga’s. That one had Kirk as a very active holo-program schooling Picard on interspace and such, though I don’t think any form of it has been published anywhere.

I was thinking Meyer worked from four different earlier tries: if I remember right, there is THE OMEGA PROJECT by Sowards (Genesis w/o terraforming, just a big weapon), the Sturgeon (which I don’t know about at all), the Sowards (which doesn’t have Khan in it and has Saavik being a guy, plus has a half-man/half-polarbear on the bridge) and an earlier Sowards pass, possibly just a treatment (that was a more literal attempt at doing Bennett’s WAR OF THE GENERATIONS outline.)

The way I heard it was there were two scripts for a TNG feature and both involved Shatner. They planned to do both and planned to make the 2nd one re-wroked without Shat. That 2nd one turned into First Contact.

As I recall, the original story for Generations included Kirk actually on the bridge of the Enterprise D and taking command to fight the Klingons and thats how he “died”

But they managed to screw that up.

Also recall that First Contact originally had the Picard/Riker roles reversed with Picard on the planet and Riker on the ship.

Good point, rant withdrawn.

Well, the “Assemble Cut” of Alien3 is a far superior film and I think the problem with that project was not so much the multipole scripts but the studio interfering and screwing with David Funcher’s wishes for the film. It’s why to this day he refusing to make a “director’s cut”.

If Paramount were to pass on a ST film directed by the great Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, Reservoir Dogs, Inglorious Basterds etc) in favor of the guy who directed Fast Five (a film about morons banging cars into each other) they deserve the series to crash + burn.

This isn’t even worth discussing. Hand the film over to the legendary director and get the hell out of his way. Tarantino would bring a renewed energy + intelligence to the franchise and instantly make the next film into an EVENT. Or they can do what they did last time and make a film that appeals to the lowest common denominator about things banging into each other, people popping wheelies and rap music cut in over space battles that failed miserably. ST needs an event. Beyond was just another movie. The series needs a hit that QT would surely bring

This may literally be the biggest no brainer in the history of Hollywood. Stop production on the other two scripts immediately and hire master film maker Quentin Tarantino NOW!!!

Beyond appealed to the lowest common denominator? That’s the first time I’ve heard that accusation thrown its way.

I don’t know if anyone is questioning Tarantino’s directing talent, the concern is over the story and script. He’s not writing the script. There’s a good chance he won’t even direct it, even if they go with his story idea.

I love most of his films, but I find it quite difficult to connect the dots between Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds,and… Star Trek. It’s a real stretch, but I think he might come up with something good, but it’s certainly not guaranteed.

QT’s a pop culture guy, sort of an unscholarly version of Nicholas Meyer in that way, so like Meyer, pastiche is probably his greatest attribute. Though to show the difference, all you have to do is think music. Meyer thinking using bits of recycled filmscore from other movies is like ‘getting kissed over a telephone’ whereas QT lives to recycle Morricone (and Quincy Jones too.)

Tarantino and intelligence?!…… perlease! He’s the least suitable director/writer for Star Trek…..

Thats absurd. Not liking QT’s films (and even that is odd in totality) doesnt diminish his skills as a writer and director.

Anyone thinking QT’s Star Trek means Resevoir Dogs in space is not even trying to make a coherent argument.

I already did a detailed break down of how Pulp Fiction isnt very violent when people here kept saying how terribly violent it was. QT’s genieus in Pulp Fiction was hinting at violence and rarely showing it at all. It was a talk-heavy film that showed the consequences of the lifestyle and choices the characters made rather then showing the actions they took

For the most part. The most graphic thing is Wallace being raped and then shooting the rapist in the groin. Mia’s OD is pretty graphic too in the sense its a drug OD but its really just a bit of vomit.

Bring us the Tarantino Trek …NOW YOU GOD DAMN MOTHERF***ERS!!! *pulls out .45 and chambers a round*

The only reason I would want Tarantinos script, is because it gives me hope for TNG characters!

Honestly, if I had to pitch the studio and forgetting that they seem to actually dislike Star Trek…the idea of a small character film might be nice but the studio isnt making that.

So I’d pitch a big bold film. You need Star Trek to make a comeback.

What draws? Time travel. Borg. Original actors. Race against time. Earth or Universe or life as we know it at stake yadda yadda.

So you need a time-spanning story that includes AT LEAST Patrick Stewart, if not William Shatner as well that impacts the universe as we know it unless our heroes can solve the problem and restore everything to how it should be.

Sounds crazy? Sounds lame? Good writers can find great stories in anything.

If the studio commissioned a story and said “must have time travel, must have Shatner as Kirk and Stewart as Picard, must be BIG, bust have both Enterprises” are there no writers that would chomp at the bit to make that work?

Putting aside some of my quibbles about Quinto’s interpretation of Spock, it still amazes me how perfectly he looks the part. Paired with Karl Urban’s uncanny channeling of Leonard McCoy, future scripts would do better to keep focus on them heightened.

I always considered the chemistry between Kirk, Spock and McCoy to be what set TOS apart from the following Star Trek iterations. There was really nothing like it in the subsequent series.

I’ve thought for sometime that a minimalist approach to TOS that focused on a Kirk, Spock and McCoy storyline might yield something great.

I would never watch a movie with just those 3 dudes doing everything they are doing since 50 years and that I can watch in my tos dvds all the time I want to. That’s boring. If you want to pretend the 60s being limited in what kind of stories and characters they could focus on is a good thing go ahead and do that, but if you realistically expect nowadays audiences to get interested and make this kind of thing successful after beyond, I find it deluded.

You guys have inflated Karl Urban’s ego to the extent the poor guy now believes he’s entitled of make demands and act as if he’s the protagonist and getting anything less than what Pine and Quinto get means he is victimized by the evil writers… little he realizes that he is no A list and his face and name isn’t even useful for posters and promotion (hence it isn’t used) Only some tos fanboys are obsessed about the original trio and bromance having to be the be all end all of the story, the general audience just doesn’t give a damn.
Beyond focused on that a bit more and it flopped, what makes you think doing that worse than before would be their salvation? Get real.

Got no idea what it is about Trek that works for you if you don’t see KSM at the heart of it all. And honestly, having seen him in a lot of stuff at this point, Urban is probably the best actor in the whole crew, and I wish he hadn’t gotten involved with TREK at all, I think it has hurt his career rather than enhance it.

Am guessing you equate good movie strictly with box office, which is the kind of thinking I associate with a different kind of b.o.

Kmart lol your comment about trek hurting Urban’s career…what career? He is no bigger than the rest of the secondary dudes and at best, he only does an impersonation of DeForest when this had never been the purpose. The only ones of this cast who get awards noms for trek are Zoe ND Chris, sometimes Zachary. People surely don’t watch these movies because Urban is in the posters.

beyond trying to appease to the minority of old fans online who want everything to be like tos backfired. It was the safest and weakest movie of the trilogy both by box office and critics.

Well, I’m an older fan and I didn’t even want TOS mined.

Stop assuming what people think and trying listening instead.

Well, first of all Beyond didn’t flop. It made more than double it’s production budget. It wasn’t as successful as the previous movies, but flop it did not.

Secondly, you can have more of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate while still focusing on the other characters as well. You say Beyond flopped because it was more like TOS, and yet it is arguably a much better Trek movie than it’s immediate predecessor, a mindless action film with an excruciatingly cringe-worthy ending.

To not get what the triumvirate is all about is to fundamentally not understand the dynamic of the original characters. Spock was Kirk’s logic, calmness and brains while McCoy was his passion and emotion. He was in the middle to benefit from the balance between the two. once you remove McCoy from that you remove part of Kirk’s character dynamic – once that isn’t replaced by Uhura or any of the others.

I’m not sure what is motivating your bizarre rant against Urban or the fans of these movies, but by while criticising both them and him you offer no explanation of what you think is the correct approach – and if, by implication, you are suggesting it’s more of the likes of the atrocious Into Darkness then that’s not a very good argument at all.

El chup
Beyond lost money, they didn’t make back most of the budget and even dvds sales performed worse than the first two. Stid is the highest grossing movie of the franchise and critically praised, yet Paramount considered it a disappointment because they want different numbers. From that perspective, it is easy to see why Beyond was a flop for them and the reason why years later no fourth movie is greenlit yet.

Beyond is no less a ‘ mindless action film’ than the other two, it is actually far more safe and less ‘big’. It isn’t more trek either neither in scope or themes. The only reason you guys give it a pass for its bad writing and inconsistencies is because the tos dudebro stuff and tos homages. But that doesn’t mean better movie or more trek.

And still all you do is knock the fans and Beyond, without offering up your explanation of what makes good Trek.

Into Darkness maybe a good action adventure movie for the non-fan, but it is not a good Star Trek movie. Good critical reviews from non-fan critics doesn’t mean it is good Star Trek. You’ve still failed to tell us what makes good Star Trek as opposed top a good generic action blockbuster.

Into Darkness was the best Trek Movie to date. Much better than the one with old man khan.

Into Darkness is the best Trek movie to date? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. *Cough* Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha… Read more »

It bombed. Into Darkness is better.


Using that logic then it follows that TMP ought to be, in your opinion, the best Trek movie to date. It has made the most money of all of them.

TMP could have been two hours of Gene Roddenberry playing with his nips, and it would have still made the same amount of money. Trek fans were easily pleased back then.

Still doesn’t change your logic. That if box office = greatness then TMP was the best in your opinion.

I never said “box office = greatness”. Into Darkness was better because it had a better story and was more interesting. Beyond bored me. I kept looking at the time and waiting for it to be over.

I think this is the issue with STID and Beyond. I think Beyond was a better film story wise but I think STID was simply more entertaining. Beyond I seen about three times now but I don’t feel the need to rewatch it like STID which for ALL its problems its a really entertaining film for me. Its not boring in any way. Beyond definitely has a lot more slower scenes. Some for the better but the story feels more bland so I’m not pulled into it as much. But its not ‘bad’ for me either.

To each his own. I found Beyond WAY more entertaining. Darkness mostly had mindless action sequences that felt they were tacked on just to be there more so than anything else. But remember, I’m also one of the few who can’t stand TVH. That was the most un Star Trek like movie of all of them. And yet it was very popular. Go figure.

Thats the thing I don’t really disagree with people’s issues with STID but I can watch it over and over again. To be honest, with the exception of a few films (looking right at you TMP) I can rewatch all the Trek films over and over again. To this day I still think Nemesis was the worst in the franchise and yet I watch it every time it shows up on TV lol. Same for TFF. I was never bored by that film and has some quality moments as well.

And what’s interesting but sad about STID is that BC IS a great villain. He’s a lot of fun to watch. Sadly they had to go and make him Khan. If he was another guy entirely he would probably be considered one of the top villains in the franchise because he is so calculating, manipulative and brutal. He could’ve just been great as a Section 31 officer gone rogue. But because we are always comparing him to the other Khan is where he falls flat. Contrast him with Idris Elba character who comes off dangerous but feels boring to me. I guess because his motives are the same like so many villains in Star Trek. And whats sad about that one is they actually had a pretty good set up of a soldier being out of time but it made no real sense to the story they were actually telling.

That is unfortunate about Darkness. I find it hard to watch for that and that the Kirk death scene is ruined by both the Spock Khan yell and the fact that it’s the 2nd movie. I mean, it doesn’t outright SUCK. It is watchable. To me, the only movie I just cannot rewatch is Voyage Home. I can even stomach FF and Insurrection. BC did feel amazingly wasted in the Khan role. I agree. But I found Captain Edison more scary than Khan because Edison was an ideologue. He was doing this all out of a personal belief. There is no talking him out of that. Even Khan (The BC version of him)it felt like you could change his mind using logic. Plus it turned out the the Admiral (Starfleet still has an admiral problem in the KU too) was the real bad guy here anyway. Where Beyond failed for me was the lack of explaining about the machine and how Edison was so alien looking and then became more human looking. And when I think about it the maguffin was a bit convenient how those tiny aliens had it. But Beyond had a number of really good character moments that resonated with me far far better than Darkness did. Darkness tried it but it always got interrupted. As if the director felt the audience was getting bored so they needed some sort of action to wake them up. Just how I saw things…

When I watch STID again, I actually dislike BC’s performance. I know he came on board late and you had poor writing and poor directing in that context but he chews the scenes in a way that lacked the balls of Ricardo.

STID would have worked with some re-tooling. It would have been silly to have the BC character be an “augment” and not be related to Khan in some way (distracting). But make him Joachin (sp). You can even have him pretending to be Khan so you can have that silly Khan revelation that elicited laughs in my theatre.

Increase the Marcus role because Peter Weller was the best thing about that movie and commanded every scene he was in. But dont make Marcus so obviously wrong. Make his perspective legitimate.

Dont kill Pike. It was a lousy end to the best character in the films and really didnt have much point other then getting him out of the way.

Alter the plot of Marcus using “Khan” for weapons development. that made little sense. And its such a cliche that the bad guy has a bigger, badder, blacker ship. Silly. And Marcus had a model of his secret ship on his desk? *fart*

The obvious reason Sec. 31 would want the Augments is because they’re augments. To either use them as agents or use their DNA for genetic research.

If you keep Pike alive and in command and have him the “voice of reason” but have Marcus “recruiting” Kirk to be his avatar on the Enterprise to “push the button” at the right time, you create a better moral dilemma for Kirk. It also makes his demotion more of a factor and Marcus can play off the father issues of Kirk.

Nimoy’s cameo should have meant something (in my story, its to reveal that BC is NOT Khan, somehow leading to the heroes over-coming him).

In the end, Kirk realizes Marcus is using him. Its Pike that goes into the radiation chamber while Kirk agonizes, trying desperately to save him.

They can still use the magic blood (or just the technology of the cryotubes) to save Pike, but it doesnt restore him and he’s left looking like he did in the Menagerie and is angry and bitter.

THAT’s the lesson in leadership Kirk learns, that saving Pike might seem like the heroic thing but maybe it wasnt. And he also realizes he shared Marcus’ perspective but in the end it wasnt that MArcus was wrong and Pike was right, that both were right and both were wrong, forming what we know of Kirk and his “cowboy diplomacy”.

And it ends with a slow camera pan over the remaining cryotubes, briefly pausing on the familiar face of a young Khan.

Clean all that up and its WAY better than what we got.

I’m the exact opposite. I have already watched Beyond way more than the other two and had ti literally force my way through Into Darkness when it came out on blu-ray.

I agree. Beyond got the characters more right than STID and was a more coherent plot (even though it had plenty of issues). But it was a “small” story whereas STID was an epic story.

Beyond tried too hard to be a monster movie and have a character revelation that didnt really help the story.

The Franklin crew becoming alien should have been dropped altogether. And yes, the villain out for revenge story was a cliche, especially in Trek, but if thats the story they chose, they should have just played it strait especially with such a good actor in Elba. Why hide him?

You kept using box office as the main reason why you felt it was the superior film. So it was not a bad conclusion to draw at all.

In no parallel universe can Into Darkness considered a good Star Trek movie. Not in this universe.

Into Darkness is a mindless action film with no logic behind it. It white washes an iconic character, features magic blood that can resurrect dead characters and even completely rips an iconic scene from a previous film. It It objectifies the main female character (Carol Marcus) and relegated the other main actress to a whining girlfriend role. Nothing about that fiasco holds up under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

I disagree.


I am forced to agree, Ad. It was already not doing well as it played on but the low point for me was Spock screaming “KHAAN!” It completely took the audience out of an emotional moment. That Shat scream from WOK has become a joke over the years. If the writer was as keen on Trek as he claimed, that line NEVER should have appeared. If the director were worth his salt, he should have nixed the line, too.

BTW… Killing Kirk in the 2nd film was just plain dumb. Everyone knew he would be back. Had they done it in the 3rd film there could have been true jeopardy. It could be the last film. But not the 2nd. Plus, the Spock death in WOK was huge because the fans have seen 16 years of friendship between Kirk and Spock. It was shocking. In this film, they’ve only known each other for what, a few years? Sure there could be a bond but nothing like the death scene we saw in WOK. Also to recite the same dialog was cheesy, too. Considering that plus his work on STD Kurtzman should not be allowed anywhere near anything Star Trek related ever again.

For Beyond, I had my doubts going in but was pleasantly surprised. It was quite good. We got a number of character moments that were missing for Darkness and they did not rehash an old character or story in doing so.

OK. Rant over.

@ML31 I agree with your take on Beyond. I enjoyed it very much. STID could have been so much more had they made Cumberbatch Section 31 instead of Khan. 2009 was a set up film for me, STID was entertaining as an action film but dropped the ball, and Beyond was my favorite.

Im genuinely curious as to why you think it was the best Trek film so far.

Even people here who enjoyed it generally acknowledge it wasnt that great (but can be enjoyed in the sense of mindless action and effects).

There was so much wrong with the script, in my opinion. It really needed a re-write by a more accomplished writer

El chump “To not get what the triumvirate is all about is to fundamentally not understand the dynamic of the original characters.” I perfectly understand the dynamic of the original characters because I’m a tos fan too and I watched the series. I also read behind the scenes books and biographies and could tell new fans some interesting stuff that give a lot of context to some things putting them in a different light. The point is that you guys, however, fundamentally do not understand the dynamic of THESE CHARACTERS AND THIS TREK and keep on saying the same stuff about it since years now, and patronize reboot fans who disagree with your rhetoric by preaching about ‘tos this tos that’ when tos is completely irrelevant to a modern reboot with a different cast set into an alternate reality. This is the point. This is a reboot with a different integrity and structure, and different narrative devices to understand and, eventually, decide to like or dislike. The issue is you guys are so stuck in your nostalgia and blind love for tos that you fail to understand the dynamic of THESE characters that is very different and no less valid than the original (and of course, you will never understand those who like this reboot precisely because it is different. It just doesn’t compute that such people exist ). “Spock was Kirk’s logic, calmness and brains while McCoy was his passion and emotion. He was in the middle to benefit from the balance between the two. once you remove McCoy from that you remove part of Kirk’s character dynamic – once that isn’t replaced by Uhura or any of the others.” But this isn’t tos. In this trek, Spock is the main character too and he doesn’t have the purpose of being just Kirk’s logic. He really doesn’t. The dynamic was never like tos. In fact, beyond is the first movie where he even interacts with Mccoy a bit more and there is a valid reason, more than one, why the previous team didn’t make them interact a lot. This also isn’t, anymore, all about saying something about kirk. The reason why there was no original trio is because in this trek it doesn’t have a reason to exist, beside being a tos homage. The main reason is that kirk and spock, especially the latter, are different. The spock/bones banter itself is forced and harder to create because 1) spock has that kind of dynamic with new kirk already. He is the one he argues with and who clashes with his logic 2) this spock, with Nimoy’s help and blessings, is more contemporary in that he, as a mixed kid allegory, is unapologetically both human and vulcan. This Spock doesn’t hide his feelings and it is thus harder for Mccoy to find pretexts to have with him the same kind of scenes DeForest had. And really, after what happened to him and the fact he is in a relationship with Uhura, it makes no sense for Mccoy to be so prejudiced and attack Spock. He should know better. They should have a different dynamic. Their first scene in beyond for example annoyed me in its pretense to be comic relief when it really isn’t for me. It is just forced. The doctor comes across as mean and xenophobic, especially when this Spock does NOTHING to provoke him. He was just minding his own business and he doesn’t even seem to have anything against Mccoy. Their dynamic ultimately was as forced by tos as the kirk/spock twok friendship scene was in stid. The characters are different and should be allowed to have their own dynamic or they won’t feel authentic to an audience that, in large part, doesn’t care about tos. This is the problem because I, unlike others, watch these movies and like and dislike what I see on its own merit. When I watch them, I forget about tos and only think about the dynamics the characters actually have on screen. Tos is irrelevant. I won’t use tos to explain these characters or, worse, to give more validity to some dynamics compared to others, because it makes zero sense. And really, for the general audience there is no reason why the story should specifically focus on Kirk, Spock and Mccoy. No valid reason why spock couldn’t interact with Sulu, instead of Mccoy, more in beyond. And they might be right, actually, because Spock was a bjt wasted in the movie precisely because to create a tos homage they didn’t allow him to interact with others more. And im sorry, but they can’t make this Spock like tos Spock just to give Mccoy a purpose and make it all about Kirk again because that wouldn’t make sense for the characters… Read more »

Jemini, are you Zoe Saldana agent or something? Its the exact same argument every time you post here. We all got it by now, some just feel differently than you. I don’t mind Uhura, but I love McCoy in these films more and so I had no issues he has a bigger role in them. He’s a lot more fun to watch and the chemistry between Urban and Quinto is great. They were the highlight in Beyond and McCoy made me laugh in literally every scene he was in.

Its really that simple. If you disagree, thats fine too but stop trying to make this into some bizarre sexist or race issue. Its not, people simply like that dynamic like the TV show had in it more.

But your obsessive fixation on it is weird.

Tiger2 I don’t mind Uhura, but I love McCoy in these films more
Gosh I’m glad you don’t mind Uhura ….

The chemistry between Urban and Quinto is great, as is the chemistry between Quinto and Saldana, as is the chemistry between Pine and … the chemistry between *all* the members of the cast. Abrams, for all his faults, chose a sterling cast.

I don’t think the question should be McCoy OR Uhura; this is a false idea that’s been cycling around this site since 2010 when I joined. Why can’t the Trio be a Quartet? MUST we stick to the Three Guys?

By the way, Uhura, in the Kelvin films, lit up a whole segment of the movie market — women of color. I know from fandom that many WOC are really into the KT Uhura. She was a featured player and SHE GOT MORE TO DO. Not more to do than McCoy, or Scotty, just MORE TO DO. And in “Beyond” she was great. She was not “just Spock’s girlfriend” in any of the films, but in “Beyond” she went, er, beyond what she had got to do before.

Yes I don’t mind her. Did I say something wrong? She’s fine but honestly if she wasn’t there I wouldn’t miss her at all. Sorry.

But no one here is trying to get rid of her either. Its just this bizarre argument because McCoy got a few extra scenes in the last movie its a slap in the face to the actress or something. Again I like Uhura but what have we learned about her in three films? And I like them as a couple, but for *me* its more fun to watch McCoy and Spock go at it and the highlight of Beyond. All of Spock’s and Uhura’s scenes were frankly eye rolling in STID not counting the last scenes. I was happy they cut back on that in Beyond. I thought her role was fine in the movie. Hell, she still got more than poor Sulu who got a ten second scene with this husband and daughter basically as character development.

Tiger, What have we learned about Mccoy and the other guys in 3 movies? with Uhura, you definitely still see an upgrade compared to tos and she plays a key role to the main plot with her skills , but with Mccoy even the actor seems to think he can get screentime only through kirk and spock bromance. He makes an impersonation of tos mccoy. People harpy on the screentime given to the romance all the while praising the writers when the male characters are defined by bromance. Or in beyond’s case, Spock not being allowed to truly interact with anyone besides Mccoy wasn’t a good thing. It was limiting and forced how they blatantly put Uhura aside to give Mccoy more screentime, you can’t expect people to not notice it.

I hate the double standards in that Uhura’s scenes with Spock in stid are criticized all the while similar stuff with Mccoy and the guys is praised instead. His behavior towards Spock is at times honestly cringe worthy and xenophobic but he gets a pass. Ditto for kirk. He is unprofessional, he never calls kirk the captain and he just does and says what he wants and it OK, but Uhura cannot even have feelings about her boyfriend being suicidal. Mccoy and Kirk can be racist with Spock because it is funny and fans pass it as them making him see the human perspective on things, yet Uhura doing the same thing in context of being his girlfriend, thus even more entitled to ask him to embrace his human feelings too, is attacked.
You may not realize it, but this shows how much internalized sexism this fandom has. For you and others it is perfectly normal to hypocritical about her (in that she’s criticized for stuff the dudes are praised for)

She had more agency in stid than in beyond when, unlike the dudes, she wasn’t allowed to express her feelings -and her own relationship is used as a pretext to give Mccoy something to talk about. I’d rather see her being upset at spock than just listen to mccoy making assumptions about her feelings and then she doesn’t even get a moment where to connect with someone and express her feelings. Beyond didn’t treat her better by sideling her and her dynamics to give that kind of attention to the dudes instead.

The thing is, as much people may love Mccoy, he honestly is another dude to add to the many and he can’t compete with Kirk and Spock already being the leads..and his dynamics can’t compete with bromance being represented by kirk/spock aplently (not to mention we have the kirk/bones friendship too). Between the two, Uhura is the only one giving the audience different character dynamics and a different potential to explore that is a tad outside of the dudebro stuff that is been there done that material. It is refreshing.
It is a matter of quantity, and with a big cast like this with mostly men you can’t add too much bromance and give screentime to the male characters without that coming across as redundant and, yes, sexist too and out of touch with the needs of nowadays audiences who don’t live in the 60s and may find something more contemporary and inclusive in other successful franchises.
You can totally have a preference for the dudes but still recognize that and thus not pretend that this trek going backwards is a good thing.

For me, the spock/mccoy stuff was a tos homage and at times fun in context of this movie, even if in some scenes it was forced how stuck with each other they were by a narrative that insisted making them a duo, but honestly I don’t see in it much potential for the future to the extent it needs a lot of focus, especially when they have to keep developing the other male focused dynamics. Their interactions should be something organic and not a conscious choice to give them more screentime because you have to placate old school fans. There are other dynamics they can explore that are an uncharted territory and where there is something to add, more questions to reply to.


“I don’t think the question should be McCoy OR Uhura; this is a false idea that’s been cycling around this site since 2010 when I joined. Why can’t the Trio be a Quartet? MUST we stick to the Three Guys?”

It is always about a trio because people are obsessed about it having to be a dudes only trio, including Urban who constantly plays the victim about it now and pretty much blackmailed them into giving him more screentime (and money) for beyond. We are stuck with a trio idea because fans and Mccoy a actor made ut like that. It makes little sense, but it is the way it is.

Since people keep mdntioning, I’ll just reiterate that the only trio this trek’s canon had is kirk-uhura-spock and that’s what marketing and the comics use as well, no matter Urban, Pegg and other fanboys ignoring it and pretending that everything is like tos when it isn’t, or deluding thenselves into thinking that the general audience is a fan just because of bromance with these dudes . And I’ll be the annoying one reminding them that beyond, the movie that tried to restore the old trio, is a flop while the first two with a new dynamics are the most successful this franchise got. I’ll do that because it is years they keep projecting and pretend that if the writers please them, this trek will be more successful in spite if facts once again showing the opposite thing. The general audience doesn’t give a single damn about tos homages, nostalgia and 3 white guys whose actors aren’t even this huge box office draw.

Jemini – good point about a Quartet. There was actually opportunity to have the trio of men and the gf and have commentary on those relationships in a way most people can relate to.

We probably all have experienced being in a close group of guy friends and then one gets a gf that is always around lol


Obsessive fixation is this neverending saga of obtuse posts that pretend that this trek is like tos when it just isn’t, and that everyone must see things the same way no matter what happens in canon, or that the majority of the audience is obsessed about the original trio the way you guys are.

Perhaps I make the same arguments because folks here are making the same arguments I have to reply to, since almost 10 years now. Nothing of what is written in the comments section here and elsewhere is new, let alone original. It is a broken record of the same boring pretentious sh*t about tos. You are too late and accusing me of doing what forceful whiny mccoy/original trio fans are doing since years. I still remember how some folks here would obsessively try to skew the results of every poll to make it seems their opinion was the most if their life depended on the results of a stupid poll and whether it showed that other people hated uhura like them. Please, give me a break.

The thing is you agree with those ‘repetitive’ original trio fans (and their allies, the slash fangirls in disguise we are supposed to pretend that don’t exist..) but of course get annoyed by my opposite opinion. You’d rather only read those people and keep on pretending, with them, that they are speaking for all the fans.
If you want to get defensive for my comments I don’t have to care about it, you can stop being a hypocrite though.

As for sexism and race issues, the trek fandom IS one of the most problematic fandoms ever and I have no intention to placate anyone here. Some so called trek fans absolutely love to preach about trek this trek that and pretend they are open minded and progressive but when it comes down to it, many just want to preserve the white dudes status quo in perpetuity.

No, liking Mccoy or old trio stuff isn’t what makes some fans inherently problematic. It is problematic when in our time you see folks complain about a woman and a woc getting elevated to the original trio level, and you see them demand the creative team to sideline her to get more bromance and restore the old ‘dudes only’ trio dynamic again..this surely isn’t very ‘trek’ in those progressive, modern, ideals trek fans like to preach about. Not to mention it isn’t original or interesting because in a franchise that already has two lead male characters and a prominent male dynamic, focusing on yet another dude and even more bromance shouldn’t be the biggest priority and so needed.

You can prefer the male characters but don’t pretend that the reboot had the same dynamic or that no one liked the new one, don’t pretend that the writers making it all about 3 white guys again wouldn’t make this trek go backwards on the few aspects JJ had actually made more contemporary. Don’t pretend it is inherently a good thing or more ‘trek’ to focus on the dudes more when it just isn’t.

For me, making uhura and mccoy mutually exclusive is idiotic, but I don’t make the rules and since this fandom is obsessed about a trio and some folks insist that a dudes only dynamic is the only way this trek can be successful, I have to disagree. I, for one, liked the new dynamic just fine and the fact the first movies that had it (and the comics) are more successful than the one movie that had more nostalgia and was more male focused isn’t a ‘detail’ I’m going to ignore. Especially not when dudebro fans insist on pretending that their own preferences are that of the majority of the audience, or that everyone disliked the things they dislike when it is just untrue. I’ll rub it into their faces that Beyond, their fav movie that placated them the most, is the least successful and a flop because that’s what they deserve after years of pretentious comments and patronizing reboot fans who liked the new dynamics.
I just love to see people give Beyond a pass now for everything they criticized the first movies for, and using excuses to deny its bad results after they had denied, for years, the success of the first movies.

Trying to please old school fans and making a movie just for them is the easiest way to make movies that aren’t successful, and this trek just is one more trek confirming a well established trend. No more no less.

As for me being Zoe’s agent: if people keep on overinflating Urban’s popularity and that of that the 3 guys using it as an excuse why this trek should only focus on them, I’ll just disagree and point up that, actually, Zoe Saldana is a bigger star and, in fact, it’s her name and face that is used the most in promotion, not Urban’s, and she is the only one after Pine who made this trek get award noms for its characters. She gets more recognition by the general audience. Sideling her and her character isn’t really something no one notices, as Beyond’s reviews already showed.
Folks here remember how popular she is only when they want to concern troll about her being too ‘expensive’ to get included in more movies, in the same breath they keep on pretending no one cares about her and that Urban is A list, thus entitled to make demands and be the third lead.

I’m not saying that the guys aren’t popular, I’m just dismantling people’s own sexist, pretentious comments about the cast and characters and, again, their overinflating the importance and popularity of the dudes and their projecting their own bias on the whole audience.

Sorry I’m not going to read all of that. I just have no issue with McCoy because he’s a more interesting and fun character than Uhura. I think a lot of people feel that way. You seem to think this is some personal issue with the actors or something. Its not. Don’t take it so personally.

you are doing the most with so little here. I mean, you don’t really read what I write, yet you want to lecturize me about my opinions and criticize something you didn’t read by projecting stuff I didn’t even say. My dude, you should follow what you preach and not take it personally because it surely looks like you are the one getting super defensive over a point and opinions you didn’t even read, and just because you got a generic sense of them daring to criticize something you like.

” I think a lot of people feel that way”
..And a lot of people prefer the dynamic of the first movies and thus Uhura, as proved by the success of the first movies and the attention she gets and so does the actress in interviews. An attention that Urban never gets beyond a minority of old school fanboys online (the reasons are obvious, and many have nothing to do with hating on him). You want to ignore it but the movie that gave Mccoy more screentime wasn’t more successful than the ones that gave Uhura more screentime, and even for Beyond it is still her character and actress that got used for promotion the most, not his. Ditto for comics. All points up to them knowing she is more popular thus more useful as third lead than the guys.
I’m pointing that up because you guys keep pretending you are speaking for the majority, and that the writers following your wishes is the only way to make trek successful. That’s not true.

You also seem to ignore the fact that even a lot of the people who love the original trio and Mccoy didn’t mind the new dynamic because they recognize the realistic need to make something different after 50 years, and that challenging the white dudes status quo by choosing to not make it all about 3 guys is a good, sacrosanct, thing. Trek already has male leads, two, and bromance. Focusing more on the guys at the expense of the one female lead is going backwards and IS sexist and repetitive boring, no matter how much pointing that up makes you get offended and defensive.
And I’m not the one here asking them to change this trek to fit my own bias, you guys are the ones doing that with this obsession for the original trio and putting uhura and mccoy into a competition.

Beyond’s team went backwards with their sideling Uhura/Zoe to give more screentime to Urban and Pegg. It was sexist, not to mention counterproductive and I will always call them out on that, whether it makes you unconfortable isn’t a concern let alone a goal of mine.

You can, however, stop trying to shut me up by accusing me of doing what your fellow whiny Mccoy/dudebro fans are doing since years because THAT is pathetic.

Yeah I don’t think the success of the other films was because Uhura had more screen time lol. Sorry, I don’t think it has anything to do with that but a lot other factors. And no one has ever even made that correlation anywhere but you. And I’m talking about people HERE seem to like the Mccoy dynamic more than Uhura.

I’ll say it again, I get you disagree with that and that’s fine. But your ridiculous long essays and attacking Urban over it is someone who is taking it a little too personally. Calm down. They wanted to try different things for Beyond after the complaints of STID. And I can’t blame them for doing it.


I would have given you the courtesy of a read if your first move wasn’t to call me a chump.


Could it maybe have been a typo or auto-correct? The last word of your handle is awfully similar to that word.

Although I see it’s repeated in another jemini comment, so … IDK.

El Chup, I can assure you ‘chump’ was a typo created by the silly autocorrect on my android device. I didn’t even see it before you mentioned or I’d correct it when I could still edit. I’m not 10.

As for your claiming that I make no argument about what makes a good movie, could say the same thing about your own comments but I think I did that. The first movies of this trilogy were successful so they can start from that and invest into what has already worked. Being stuck in nostalgia and making everything about kirk-spock-bones isn’t the way for me.

I’d refer you to COURT MARTIAL and Spock’s line about dropping a hammer and not having to look at it to know it is going to fall in counter-response to your notion that the character dynamics should change due to this alt-reality of the reboot … but I guess you’d dismiss it as an outdated view. Some change would be valid, but what I saw in the Abrams directed films was just arbitrary and bad storytelling that also was character assassination. Not saying Abrams has an exclusive on that — Meyer did a pretty major job of it in TUC with the way he wrote Kirk & Spock, but that doesn’t excuse it as an act of creative sabotage, even if it was necessary to fuel the story Meyer was selling.

kmart I’m glad to know that you watched all 3 movies of a thing you hate and years later, still read articles about them and comment them.

I surely didn’t love everything about into darkness and beyond but I watched them because I loved the first movie, and I love this trek even if the sequels weren’t everything I expected them to be. You, on the other hand, it is a bit too late to still complain about things that you knew since the first movie that you chose of watch.

I vastly prefer TOS Spock, but I think Quinto’s interpretation IS a valid one; a human-Vulcan hybrid could have been as tipped toward the human side as Quinto’s Spock is.

I do wish the writers were giving Quinto better stuff to play, though. Season 4 of Heroes (the one hardly anyone but me watched :-D) showed me that Quinto can play anything. If the writers gave Quinto a restrained Vulcan scientist to play, he could do it, but unfortunately the movies seem to want a pointy-eared action hero instead.

Well, we’ll always have TOS. ;-)

I absolutely love Quinto-Spock and I love that JJ made him co-protagonist and made his character get something outside of the tos homages and some fans’ obsession with original trio stuff and him being kirk’s friend. Nimoy loved him too.
Unfortunately, Beyond relegated him to nerdy friend of hero role again. Aside from getting used as a pretext to pay homage to Nimoy and remember his death, as well as pandering to Urban wanting more screentime (to the extent Spock is barely allowed to interact with anyone but Mccoy, while in the first movies he was more equal to Kirk), he got sidelined and didn’t honestly have a lot to work with. He got nothing interesting to do, he didn’t even interact with the villains. He has one personal arc and they sidelined him even in that.
We are stuck with characters getting used as tos homages only instead of telling their own story, and we are stuck with Kirk and his daddy issues.

After the first movie many were saying that the writers shouldn’t be cowards and they should make Spock the hero of this trek because he is the more interesting character with more potential, but they went backwards instead to focus on the same old stuff over and over and over and over..

Who was saying Spock should be the hero? I have seen literally nobody make that argument. Star Trek is about an ensemble. The mix of the characters. It’s not The Spock Show. Never was and never will be. Better get used to that, especially since you’ll be lucky if you even get one more outing for Quinto.

El chump
I’M not surprised you saw ‘nobody making that argument’ and thus articles like this:

If you are arguing that Spock isn’t the most popular character I dunno what to tell you.

“Star Trek is about an ensemble. The mix of the characters. It’s not The Spock Show. Never was and never will be.”

Funny that when someone is a Spock fan, you guys remember it’s an ensemble. .yet, the rest of the time you want this trek to still be the Kirk show to the extent Spock’s only purpose must supposedly be being ‘his logic’ who argues with his other friend Mccoy (you other comment). Of course. Also all the preaching about how the trio must be the be all end all of the story doesn’t really give credibility to this supposed love for a focus on the ensemble.

As for me having to get used to things, it was the creative team themselves who said that Spock and Kirk were equal protagonists. It wasn’t supposed to be the Kirk show, they even admitted the first movie was more about Spock.
The relationship with Uhura was itself a way to not only elevate Uhura to the original trio/mccoy level(not replace him berase, again, it is a different dynamic), but also allow Spock to be able to be more equal as a lead with Kirk by giving him his own story too just like kirk has one outside of the bromance.

And im all for seeing more of the ensemble, actually. When people say that Spock is more the rightful ‘hero’ of this trek than Kirk I believe they mean a different thing than ‘making it the spock show’. It is rather, once again, a matter of people judging this trek on its own merit and for its own potential instead of having a set of ‘rules’ about it based on what tos did.

Captain Kirk is the central character and his role suffered because of the writer’s obsession with Spock (likely brought on by their affection and involvement with Nimoy).

Quinto is probably my least favorite casting from the JJ films. They found someone that looked like Nimoy rather then finding a really good actor that could pull it off.

Of course, Quinto also had generally poor scripts and directing to contend with but I suspect Nimoy would have pushed back against the lousy interpretation had it been him in the role.

Pine & Quinto didnt really have much chemistry either. It wasn’t negative chemistry, but nothing really there. Unlike Shatner and Nimoy who definitely had great chemistry.

I thought Urban worked well with all the cast members. And he was very good in 2009 and Beyond. STID, again, a lousy script and directing let him down and he was throwing out silly one liners for comic relief that didnt work.

TUP, It’s so interesting that two people can have such opposite views. I thought Quinto and Pine had great chemistry. The whole cast had great chemistry.

You and I will never agree on Quinto, LOL. IMO he’s a really good actor.

Quinto probably is the best and he got the hardest character to play. Nimoy was proud of him and so I’m.
Shatter may have been the central character of tos, but Spock had always been the most popular character of trek (and Roddenberry himself knew that, to the extent the k/s friendship was focused on so much to use spock’s popularity in an attempt to make kirk more popular too) so for many IT WAS ABOUT TIME trek made him co-protagonist. There are many Kirks in other franchises but not many Spocks. Besides, him being half alien adds layers to him and his dynamics that are more fitting to trek themes than focusing on an american human boy and his daddy issues. Spock is allegoric and so iconic to many fans. Quinto should just get more to work with but he surely can’t get that if he’s stuck in the nerdy friend of hero role, or Urban and his fans expect him to be a parody of Nimoy just to not make his mccoy come across as too mean and out of place attacking a spock for his alieNess when this version does nothing to provoke him.

Spock isnt really that hard to play. Usually poorly realized Vulcan’s are the ones who dont want to play emotionless characters. What gives Spock depth is he is half human but there is nothing remotely similar about Nimoy’s portrayal of Spock and Quinto’s. Quinto was far too emotional.

Their chemistry was fine, like I said, it wasnt negative chemistry but I didnt think it was something special. It was like any two actors playing friends. Nothing special.

Quinto is a fine actor. But he didnt sound right and certainly didnt act right for that role. But that’s not really his fault. He wasnt playing a Vulcan. Poor writing and directing.

I suspect there are plenty of scripts floating around in Paramount’s storage room. It’s not going to matter how many there are, but what is Paramount’s level of risk tolerance for going back to the Trek well for what may well be a break even project for them.

It’s great to hear that Pegg and Jung are still writing a script for Reboot 4; I hope theirs is the one that eventually prevails.

I think that would be ideal. Beyond was solid and they did it on a rushed schedule, I’d love to see what they could do with more time. I’m still not convinced that I would want to see a Tarantino Trek film.

God I hope not. One more of those stinkers will destroy Trek at the movies. They need to bring back Khan, he’s still frozen and ready for more fun.

God no more Khan. I think everyone has moved on from that and why that movie was completely avoided in Beyond.

I never like Star Trek 2, Kelvin Khan made more sense.

Well then thats a small minority you are in. ‘Khan’ in STID was KINO: Khan in name only. Nothing about him felt like Khan. Its like casting Idris Elba in a role and then call him Superman. It felt that awkward to me. I like BC as an actor but this was a horrible casting decision they made.

Why couldn’t Elba play Superman?

He could play Superman but he would feel too distracting because he looks or sounds nothing LIKE Superman. Thats the issue. Same with with BC as Khan. People expect a certain image and look to characters, especially iconic ones. They can try but it would only draw unnecessary controversy as BC proved playing Khan.

That’s what people said before Doctor Who became a woman.

No one was saying any such thing when Dr Who became a woman. Dr. Who could be anyone. He does not have an iconic look at all. That’s why the regeneration thing was dreamed up. So he CAN change. Whether or not she works out in the role remains to be seen. She’ll probably be fine, I suspect so long as the new show runners provide good material for her.

I never seen Doctor Who but even I know her casting has been controversial with some fans. Now that said maybe when she shows up on screen it will calm the naysayers down but the controversy is there.

Again I’m NOT saying the guy can’t be Superman, I’m saying it would feel like a big distraction for a lot of people and for good reason. Look, I feel like you just want to argue just to argue. Of course you can disagree with me, but you clearly get the point I’m making. For a lot of people out there, it would feel hard to accept and there would be way too many message boards over it to count. But sure, if they made him Superman I would give it a chance, but like Khan it would be very divisive because nothing about the actor reminds you of Superman. Thats just the reality.

Idris Elba has been mentioned as a possible James Bond. Is the racist response of some fanboys to this possible casting a distraction? Or is the race of the actor a distraction in the iconic role?

In my book, “James Bond” is a very boring, static character. But various actors have brought their skills to the role and made him somewhat more interesting. James Bond, to me, is wine-em-dine-em-di*k-em and dump-em, while fighting flashy fights and unbelievable villains. [YAWN] … But I understand that he is a hero to many. “Chacun a son gout.”

So, to me, using Elba as Bond is pretty much a waste of talent. But it could make him a multi-millionaire, and actors do kinda like that. Most of the actors in the Marvel movies are fantastic actors who bring all that talent to making comic-book characters shine and come to life, for their five minutes of character building moments … but I’d rather see the actors in more meaningful movies.

[Hides from hordes of Marvel fans]

“Is the racist response of some fanboys to this possible casting a distraction? Or is the race of the actor a distraction in the iconic role?”

Both. Without a doubt.

I would be curious to see a black Bond but I don’t think its going to happen anytime soon. He was created a British white male and every incarnation up until now has only shown that. If they deviate from one of them, its probably not the end of the world but it would create an issue for sure.

And I think he may be considered too old now. I mean he’s not old, but since Daniel Craig will probably do at least one more it may be another five years until we get the next Bond and he’ll be pushing 50.

Honestly, I think if Elba was 35, he’d likely be the front runner. Because the character of Bond has been played by many different actors with different looks and even nationalities, I dont think Bond fans would really be all that upset.

SOME would be of course.

As I said it wouldn’t be the end of the world but yeah it would definitely raise concerns for some fans. I imagine no different if they made Kirk or Spock black. Or if they made Uhura white. And I don’t think it has anything to do with racism (although some for sure) but just questioning the idea of what actually defines a character? If you can change their race, can you change their nationality too? Or religion? Or gender? Thats really the issue, especially for iconic characters.

In comics, especially Marvel these days, they have changed a lot of iconic characters race and sex but some of those are essentially different characters just taking up the mantel of the old ones.

There is a big difference, in my opinion, between Bond & Superman.

Elba cant be Bond because of his age, not because he’s black. ten years ago…or even 5, sure. Many people thought Craig was already too old last film and he’s the current Bond. They wouldnt start our with a Bond who’s mid-40’s.

Superman has been an iconic image for 80 years. All the actors to play Superman have looked remarkably similar to the traditional image of the character.

Of course, being human and especially in the time of Trump where it seemingly a source of pride to wear racism on your sleeve, whatever role Elba takes he will experience racist backlash.

Im actually surprised there wasnt more backlash to the whitewashing of Khan but I guess it was only Star Trek.

TUP, as I recall there was plenty of backlash on my part ;^)

For sure. It probably should have been a big deal. Perhaps confusion over the ethnicity of the character vs actor played a role.


Ian Flemming wrote the character to be a bland individual. He even chose the name as one that he considered to be rather run of the mill. That makes it a very difficult part to play in my opinion. I like seeing different takes from Moore’s light hearted version to Dalton’s serious to Craig’s broody silent version.

PS.. Flemming was not happy with the Connery casting. He actually envisioned Bond to be more like Moore. But after seeing Connery’s version Flemming reportedly cooled off on that stance.

As far as Bond goes, Im a Pierce Brosnan fan!

Tiger2 –

You never seen Doctor Who?

You need to fix that.

We have not seen her properly yet

Well, for that matter, neither does Henry Cavill … to me, personally.

It’s not really a horrible casting decision per se. What is horrible was that the character was Khan. He had no reason to be Khan. He could have stayed the terrorist John Harrison. He could even have been genetically enhanced by Section 31, or whoever it was that Admiral Robocop was working for, and then everyone would’ve said that Cumberbatch and his performance were fine. The disservice to Cumberbatch, the fans and the movie itself was to make him be an iconic and irreplaceable villain from the past from the most highly regarded and memorable Trek movie of them all. Montalban is too ingrained in the minds of fans.

Khan was not irreplaceable. Khan is just a fictional character and can be played by anyone.

Of course not, but you still need to find someone who can ACTUALLY play the character and not just anyone, call them Khan and expect fans to accept it. THats what happened and why many were upset.

And El Chup is saying STID just didn’t need Khan in the story since the story was about Admiral Marcus and Section 31 fear of a Klingon war. Khan was just shoehorned in. And I think that would’ve been OK if they came up with a better reason to use him then to have us think a guy who has been asleep for 300 years can suddenly design advance starships and weapons that didn’t even exist when he was alive. It just felt ridiculous on its head.

Tiger2, yep.

HN4 of course that’s silly. Khan was an established role. He could not be played by just anyone.

Tell that to the guy that plays Kirk now.

Uh, in what way? At least they found someone who looks a bit like Kirk and tried to emulate the character in some ways. What was so bizarre about BC is that even when you take away he looks or sounds nothing like the guy it feels like he’s playing a completely different character entirely.

@HN4 – what do you mean? Pine? The actor who resembles William Shatner and does a fine, if unspectacular job?

Saying Khan could not be played by anyone does not mean the role could ONLY be played by Ricardo. That’s silly.

If STID was a reboot, they could cast anyone they want and we’d ONLY be critical of the writing and portrayal. But because it’s essentially a sequel, the character in STID is the SAME guy we saw in Space Seed. So resembling that character in appearance and behavior would certainly be relevant.

When Quinto was cast, I dont recall the headlines talking about how they cast the BEST ACTOR available, it was all about how much he resembled Nimoy (which is not a knock on Quinto who is a fine actor but his appearance definitely played a part as it did with ALL the casting, except Khan)

Pine looks nothing like Shatner.

Pine looks a 100 times closer to Shatner than BC look like Montalban lol. The only thing those two have in common is maybe the same height.

lol Pine looks nothing like Shatner? If you dont want to have a reasonable discussion, just say so. lol

Well yeah thats what I mean, he shouldn’t have been Khan, that was a horrible decision. Nothing about him looked, sounded or felt like Khan….but then they made him Khan. It just felt ridiculous and it still feels ridiculous.

Why should he have to look and pretend to be Ricardo Montalban?

No he should have to look and pretend to be Khan. Ricardo Montalban is who originally defined the character and he’s been around for 40 years so thats how people envision the character. No one is saying he has to look and act EXACTLY like that but if you don’t bring any elements of what the character is, why are you that character??? In your honest opinion, what felt like Khan to you? I literally can’t think of anything other than being strong.

Multiple actors have played Batman and they have all put their own spin on it but yet they all feel like they were playing some version of Batman. The issue with BC is that you wouldn’t even know he was playing Khan unless he told you his name was Khan which is what happened lol.

Strong and CHARISMATIC. Hrithik Roshan comes to mind. Sendil Ramamurthy.

Exactly, HN4. I was so amused and smdh when people got excited about Benicio del Toro possibly playing Khan, because he would “sound like Khan” … LOL …

Benico would have been far better choice than BC. He’s a very good actor and resembled the part more. And he comes across as a far more fearsome, strong character than BC.

People are weird.

he should be familar to the original character since in STID, he was playing the same character seen in Space Seed.

Ricardo was Mexican playing an Indian. I mean, you have a lot of leeway there. And they chose wrong.

Recall that Benicio Del Toro was linked to the role originally which would have been far more appropriate. Then again, asking casting someone of Indian heritage would have been appropriate too.

Yeah I don’t understand why not just get an Indian actor to play the role?? I think Benicio Del Toro would’ve been fine too but once he dropped out just get someone who actually suppose to fit the parameters of the character? Even for Montalban they darkened him in Space Seed so he can pass for the role more. Obviously you can’t do that today but today they can use any actor you want. And oddly they went the complete opposite with BC. Everything about it was just so odd.

If I recall, they basically had BC available and loved him as an actor and decided, to heck with how wrong he is for the role. And I respect that – BC is a GREAT actor..but, you either change the script to suit the actor or get an actor that suits the part. They did neither and figured ‘its only Star Trek, who cares’.

It was particularly silly because the way the plot played out there was no need for him to be Khan. It could have been any genetically enhanced individual. They just made him Khan so they could copy lines and plot elements from WOK. Which was a tremendous mistake to begin with. Forge your own path. Don’t copy what came before.

Indeed, and every reference to TWOK was SO. LAME.

You guys treat Khan like he’s jesus. Weird.

No, people just want to see the role represented correctly, like any popular character. For many, he wasn’t at all in STID. Mostly because they didn’t even try.

No, you guys want to see that. Most people don’t care that much. I use to be just like you guys when I was a kid, but after DS9 ended I lost interest in ST and moved on.

I only got back in to ST after the news of Discovery came out. Still the things you guys get huffy about is beyond bizarre to me. I saw nothing wrong with Khan in the movie. The TOS Khan was a joke, in ST2 he was even worse. And what happened to Khan’s brown skin paint in TOS?

“The TOS Khan was a joke, in ST2 he was even worse.”

“Brown skin paint”

Sorry, but this has to be trolling.

You’re on a board with dedicated Trek fans, you have to realize the audience you are talking to.

It doesn’t matter when you lost interest, the point of the argument is the character felt grossly misrepresented. If you don’t care, no one is telling you to care, right? The rest of us however DO care and we simply saying (no begging) for no one to make that same mistake again. And I think even Paramount understands that and why STID was completely avoided in Beyond. In fact you can literally skip STID and not miss a single beat in those movies. They didn’t even bring Carol Marcus back.

I like BC as an actor but he shouldn’t have been that character.

If you dont care then why are you making a fierce effort to convince other people their opinions are wrong?

You think TOS Khan was a joke and WoK was worse. Okay, those arent relevant expressions. Feel free to expand on them, otherwise you’re just arguing for the sake of it. And surely you know you’re in the minority when it comes to Khan.

The fact he was a “beloved” character is WHY Bad Robot chose to use him in the first place. if he was such a lame, throw away character as you purport, they wouldnt have used him as there would have been no point


Like many others, I think it was a terrible mistake to cast Cumberbatch as Khan.

I think they cast Cumberbatch because he’s enormously popular overseas.

Why didn’t they just let him be “John Harrison” of Section 31? With experimental DNA that rendered him hard to kill?

And why, oh why did they have to have the awful skull-crushing scene. Jaysus, I’d watch it again except for that. Oh, and that terrible, corny, KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN

Is this a wind up?????

About Elba playing Superman? No… I really want to know why you think that.


Kelvin Khan made zero sense. Especially when you consider that he was “frozen” before Nero arrived so THAT Khan was the same Khan from Space Seed. Made zero sense.

The whole premise that Marcus found him because he needed someone to help him designs weapons…a guy from the 1990’s was absolutely ridiculous. It simply didnt hold up.

When you look at the film as a metaphor for the W@r on Terr0r, you see just how awful it was.

Which is unfortunate because the basic premise had a lot of promise. If they could lock Bob Orci in a room and just let him submit general ideas but get a much better script writer to bring it to fruition, I’d be all for it.

Bring back Khan? Ugh. No thanks. The second half of Into Darkness is probably the single worst and most cringe-worthy hour of big budget schlock in the entire franchise.


Yes, let’s bring back a white washed villain from a film that even the producers want to distance themselves from.

That will solve everything.

We have a white supremacist in the White House. It’s all good now.

I hope the best one prevails. I dont care who writes it.

Right now it seems that the next Trek movie has not yet been greenlit and remains in shall we say, “development heck.” Having three stories is a neutral fact element; having at two two potential development tracks is also neither particularly here nor there. I am not sure I am supposed to be reassured, worries, or simply advised about this news.

Processing… processing… please stand by….

Happy Easter or just Happy Sunday, to all.

I guess the takeaway is the movie isn’t completely dead. Yes its probably on the back burner as far as Paramount is concerned and why two years after they ‘greenlit’ the fourth film nothing has been set but they clearly haven’t given up on the idea either.

My guess is Paramount DOES want to make another Kelvin film, but they simply fear the next one could do as badly as Beyond and they don’t have the excess cash like other studios that can afford another big bomb. In other words, they are trying to figure it out. Maybe whatever Tarantino comes up with will excite them enough to roll the dice again or maybe they may just put the Kelvin films to bed for good and come up with something in a few years time.

Another Trek film will happen eventually, but like Discovery, its just a matter of when and in what form.

Wise words. Good post!

Beyond wasn’t a “big bomb”. It grossed $344m on a budget of $158m. Granted it was a good $100m shy of what Into Darkness did, but it wasn’t a flat out failure.

Production budget was $185,according to box office mojo. Then there’s the marketing, at least $100 million. The studio get back around 50% of the gross. It’ll have made a small profit after dvd, Blu ray and streaming. Make no mistake though, Beyond was a disappointment for Paramount.

No way was the marketing budget $100m. If that poor, last minute half arsed marketing campaign cost $100m then I’m St. Jerome.

What are you talking about? I saw those ads everywhere. Everyone that was a fan knew about that movie. Pegg is just blaming the ads for his poor movie.

Do you live in L.A. by any chance? Or NYC?
Where I live, THE WEEK BEFORE THE MOVIE OPENED, there was a big … thing in the lobby that was neither poster nor interactive display. It looked cool, but I repeat, ONE WEEK BEFORE THE MOVIE OPENED.

Before that? One crappy trailer, hastily ditched, and, I think, a second trailer rarely seen* that came out about two or three weeks before the movie opened. Sorry HN4, Paramount may have done a good job marketing in your area, but not here.

I go to the movies every Sunday, and saw the second trailer, hmmm, on my Youtube at home.

I live in southwest florida, and I saw the ad for that movie everyday on tv. I still didn’t see it, me and ST had a falling out during that time.

Marketing was definitely late. there was even a large debate here about when it would begin.

Hello, St. Jerome!

No it didn’t cost $100 million, it cost $120 million actually. ;)

That was reported in several places, including here on TM. Yes it was a $120 million budget and yes it was handled very poorly. So many things about this film was which is probably why it bombed in the first place.

Didnt it go over budget and werent there talks of Bad Robot’s fee and the studio having concerns?

The marketing for Beyond was indeed handled VERY poorly. I know I didn’t see much beyond trailers in theaters and some on TV. Where were was the play on the 50th anniversary? Nowhere to be seen. Where were the tie ins? And while I did see some ads on TV there certainly could have been a lot more. That money was not well spent. Was it spent overseas? If it was then they screwed up on that front, too. I recall Darkness made a conscious effort to market internationally. Looks like it could have paid off considering the box office. But it seemed like there was very little for Beyond. Something just smells fishy about that whole thing…

Yes, I agree, the marketing sucked worse than a black hole.

@James — that’s correct. I actually thought the marketing budget was $120 million. Regardless, that’s pretty standard for a worldwide Summer Tent-pole movie. Most of that money was likely spent outside the US. Add to that Paramount had to scramble for additional money to underwrite the $35 million overage when Bad Robot blew past their agreed upon $150 million budget. And who knows how much Paramount had to pay the Chinese financers, or if they ever got their Chinese box-office share. So no, Paramount did not make any money at the box office. Home video sales will eventually make the film profitable, just like NEMESIS, but that’s a long way off. For a studio struggling to make payroll, they can’t really afford another “success” like BEYOND.

Yeah Beyond clearly bombed, which is why nearly 2 years later and another film hasn’t been greenlit yet. Both STID and Beyond were both greenlit while the first and second films were still in theaters.

Simon Pegg was literally suggesting Paramount was hoping for Beyond to be big like a Marvel film and instead went the opposite way.

Why, WHY does Paramount insist on trying to make Star Trek a summer blockbuster? It. just. isn’t. that. kind. of. franchise.

Well it was big enough, put it that way.

Insurrection did OK at box office but did not make nearly as much money as Paramount hoped. They bit the bullet and gambled to make another and the rest is history.

They probably realise that the same thing could happen again. Mainstream audiences barely care or remember all that much about the jj films or Beyond. They are occupied with Star Wars and Superhero films right now…

Rushing into another ‘Kelvin’ film doesn’t make any sense at the moment.

I think you hit it on the head DataMat.

I think sadly Paramount didn’t strike while the iron was hot with the Kelvin films. It took 7 years to release 3 films. This isn’t the 80s anymore, in a world where we are getting three Marvel films a year, you have to keep the audience interested. The films have never been big which means there was never a huge demand for them in the first place and my guess is a lot of people have just moved on.

It doesn’t mean they won’t see it, just not a rush to see it in the theaters because unlike Marvel, Star Wars, etc, the films don’t have a ‘must see now’ vibe. I guess STID probably did but Beyond certainly didn’t and very few cared.

“I think sadly Paramount didn’t strike while the iron was hot with the Kelvin films. It took 7 years to release 3 films”

Yes, too long for the 2nd film and did well as kill it with a TWOK rehash.

But I liked Beyond

Agreed. Paramount shouldn’t have let JJ Abrams fiddle around with other films for two and half – three years before he commenced work on STID.

Insurrection followed FC so there was a lot of goodwill going into it.

Insurrection could have been a lot better but too many fingers in the pie and star-servicing ruined it.

Is “Tomb Raider” a Paramount release?
Critics hate it, is it a box office bomb? I don’t plan to see it myself.

I’ve taken potential script development to mean if someone pitches a good idea that’s low risk, high reward potential Paramount will green light it. Nothing more, nothing less.

“development heck”, I LIKE it!

Thanks, Phil. It’s kind of “Far Side”-type humor as you have recognized. Along those lines, I envision “Heck” to be the domain of the entity known as “665,” whose main method of torture is (a la’ Monty Python) to force people to sit down in the comfy chair and hit them with pillows for at least a few minutes. Or the most extreme version: To concurrently force people to read messages on other Trek boards that rehash the same old thing a number of times (though this torture is rarely used, due to its severity).

My sense of humor is the product of a misspent youth watching said Python skits and wondering why the world couldn’t be as rational as they were….

May the Farce be with you. ;-)

I mean, Gary 8.5, not Phil. Sorry, too much work and too little sleep. :)

Any resemblance between my normal self and me at this moment is purely unintentional.

If they are really going to make something on a lower budget instead of a huge tent pole, I would like to think audiences would warm to a romantic adventure story focused on Chris Pine and Alice Eve. They’re two gorgeous white people perfect for a Danny Devito directed War of the Roses in Space.

“Do we have to call it Star Trek?”

In quotes because spoken by a studio exec? Or another of TPTB?

Bob are we EVER going to hear your story over what happened on your Star Trek film and why you left? My guess is maybe you have an NDA of some sort but I know plenty people are curious.

Someday, If I live that long and prosper🖖🏼

LOL, well hopefully some day. I’m just sorry it soured you on Trek in general.

A Tellerite and an Cardassian spending ninety minutes in a café telling stories. My Dinner with Dukat would be Star Trek, no?

Did they have to call it Star Wars

Fired with that Question if I was a suit

Cute but they could call it anything they want if the story was great. Unfortunately, while “Star Trek” was featured prominently, the execution of STID sucked.

So true, I’m thinking about what I can learn from you while looking out the window of my private jet.

OK that was a dig lol. Boborci, I can only imagine how hard it is for anyone to have their work criticized so harshly and I know its not easy. And yes, TUP is ridiculously mean about it. But you know how this works. Its easy for me to say not to take it so personally but you know what you get when you come to places like this. I had MANY problems with STID and I don’t shy away from it. But I also know your heart was in the right place when writing the film. I will never understand a lot of the decisions you guys made on it but I respect you tried to do something different with it. But it just didn’t work for a lot of hardcore fans. But I always say for casual or new fans it seems to work just fine which tells you the disconnect there can be when probing source material and trying to cater to both old and new fans. Its just hard to please both and STID definitely did not!

It is a tightrope to walk… Pleasing fans of the source material as well as opining it up for the non fans to enjoy. Yet Marvel seems to do it. Peter Jackson did it with The Lord of the Rings. So it is possible. I have no screenplays on my resume, however. So what do I know? I’m just the consumer.

Thats true with Marvel BUT the difference being though they made it clear MCU was its own canon, ie, they may follow some of the comics but could completely avoid others. I mean Captain America: Civil War had almost nothing to do with the original comic series other than having the superheroes fight each other but everything from the plotting to most of the cast of characters were completely different in the original story. The Winter Soldier also nothing like the original comic. IW looks like it will have some scarce references from that comic but little else. And to be more honest my guess is only 10-20% of MCU fans actually read the comics anyway so for most its all new to them.

Star Trek is a different animal where my guess is the majority of watchers are hardcore fans. They may not make up the majority with the Kelvin films but they are the most outspoken about them. And since they keep telling us they are following canon when its CLEAR they aren’t with the Kelvin films and now with Discovery only makes it worse.

At least with the Kelvin films though they gave themselves a way to create new canon and yet with Khan they still screwed it up. But Discovery, they seem to change whatever canon they want but then say with a straight face it all fits, somehow. And then people wonder why fans are so divisive over both of them?

@ML31 – as the consumer, you have the right to share your opinion. Its incredibly unprofessional for a writer to publicly insult the fans. When he tries to pretend he thinks little of those fans by insulting them, it exposed how much it actually bothers him.

Write a better movie.

Bob sort of takes on more of the blame by his own actions since he posts here. But he didnt write the film by himself. And I dont think anyone here singles him out, certainly that doesnt come across when people discuss the film in a general manner.

Hopefully Bob eventually releases his Trek 3 story(ies) because I have a feeling it was a lot better than Beyond.

Oh please, Tiger, don’t try to endear yourself to Bob by insulting me lol

Bob has been INCREDIBLE rude and mean to Star Trek fans, including right here on this board and never apologized (I believe he was forced to publicly apologize for an insult on another board or outlet though).

But here’s the thing, its not personal. I dont know Bob. But as a paying fan I have every right to be critical. But you also know me to be highly critical of people who simply whine and take pot shots without providing relevant explanations. For example saying “it sucks” without adding anything is silly.

Providing reasoning for your criticism is great. I’ve made many, sometimes very long, posts about pros and cons of STID. And I believe my points (and those of many others) are reasonable.

The fact Bob has not learned to take criticism is alarming. I wont recount some of his words and behaviour here that would also be alarming. Its simply, he can’t take criticism.

He was a darling of this site when everyone was raving about 2009. But when those same people were critical of STID, he suddenly thought all those people whose opinions he loved had lost their minds.

Ive been very complimentary of work I like. 2009. Watchmen. The fact Bob wanted to bring Shatner back. Ive had a few pleasant exchanges with the guy. But he’s been a jerk many times.

I create work for public consumption as a hobby (on a very small scale compared to Bob of course) and I’ve received nasty criticism (even death threats, horrible things said about my gf and family etc) so I get it. But critique my work? Sure, Sometimes I look at it and say “man they dont get it” and sometimes I say “yup, they’re right.” But if you insult fans who take the time to offer their feedback, especially when they are simply taking part in a general discussion on a fan board, you’re in the wrong business, despite your jets and bank accounts. lol

How am I’m tying to ‘endear’ myself? I just believe you can get your point across without insulting people, thats all. I bring up criticisms over Trek ALL the time. I have talked about my issues with the Kelvin films as I do Discovery over and over again. What Discovery writers or producers have I ever personally attacked over it? And none of them come here.

No one is saying you can’t be critical man. Don’t turn me into Rose lol. I just don’t understand why so many on the internet has to be so mean and vicious about it? And then YOU take it personally anytime someone attacks something you like like Discovery. There can be a middle ground, right?

But I ALSO said it to Boborci he has to realize where he is. People are going to be very honest and if he can’t take that he shouldn’t be here. And yes he has attacked other people here too which is I think his right IF he is feel he’s being attacked. But I don’t think thats healthy to do but we now live in an age where a U.S. President attack vothers on a daily basis who agrees with him for the world to see. And considering STID was nearly four years ago and he’s still here then he chooses to hear it no matter how much it hurt.

There was only one insult in that exchange, Bob’s sarcastic shot at me. In fact my use of the word execution even implies it was not an issue with writing but he got characteristically offended anyway.

I’ve never taken it personal when someone is critical of Discovery. I reject the irrelevant drive by shots like “it sucks” “Its the worst ever” etc. Anyone who has expressed a relevant opinion, I generally agree with or discuss the perspective. That’s why its a discussion board.

Bob has been terribly insulting to people on here in the past. I’d have no issue with Bob defending himself when personally attacked although I’d advise against it since this is the internet. But he attacked people, paying fans, for giving their opinion of his WORK, work he submits for public consumption.

Its our RIGHT to critique it. I’ve had many complimentary things to say about Bob. I just think his work on ONE film sucked. He prescribes far, far more weight to MY opinion of his work on that ONE film than I do lol

You should spend that down time working on yourself, perhaps learning to handle criticism better.

There is a big difference between quality and quantity.

But to be fair, I’ve never been hired to write or direct a Hollywood movie. That’s very true. Then again, I’ve never been fired from one either.

Given the amount of relevant and reasonable criticism of STID, I think you could actually learn if you were willing to be open to feedback from your audience. Correct me if Im wrong, but dont you write films for the audience?

Having said that, I know you get triggered by criticism but I thought 2009 was a solid effort and I would have much rather seen your (rumoured) idea for Trek 3 than the one we got.

And Watchmen is one of the best movies ever made. Good job.

Wow. Who cares you have a private jet? How do you know TUP doesn’t own 2? Does that make your opinions better or make anything you do an automatic success? If I had written STID I’d have gone into hiding too. Just that comment says a lot about what kind of a guy you are, but your comments here have already told us that years ago. Hollywood bigshot in your own mind…

@Silvereyes – thank you. I agree. Its the same as his defense of STID by talking about how big his bank account is. Just classless and unprofessional really. And he of all people should know revenue doesnt equal quality.

Are we to believe he thinks Avatar, Titanic and the Force Awakens are actually the BEST films of all time? lol

Bob Orci wouldn’t have a career without riding the coat tails of other people. Without personal connections, his storyline pitches would get him laughed out of the room. He may have money, but he is a crass vulgar individual with little talent.

He has a lot of talent.


I have to admit this comment gave me a hearty chuckle.

Only in an ironic sense. Like calling a fat guy slim or a tall guy tiny. Rich guy with private jet wrote STID. THAT is funny. lol

Hey, you’ve earned it.

I for one enjoyed STID, though I did have issues with it, but I’ve had issues with every Trek movie, and Star Wars, and Marvel, and DC, etc etc etc


Re: Someday, If I live that long and prosper

Well, from the jet, apparently you’re half way there. How long do you need to live? ‘Til it enters the public domain?

If I were a betting man I would wager that there will be at least on more KU film.

@ML31 — I wouldn’t. There was almost no BEYOND.There’s no movie before 2020 at this point, and I’ll bet that Paramount won’t be able to get its act together by 2019 to produce it, especially with a potential merger on the horizon. That means at least 2021, and after 5 years, I’m betting the studio will heavily favor a reboot. Add to that Bad Robot has a first-look deal which means another huge budget debacle Paramount can’t afford or finance, and CBS won’t approve — especially given the bad blood rumored to be between Abrams and CBS over merchandising. So my bet is on Trek at the movies being pushed past Abram’s current deal term.

Last year I would have agreed. But there seems to be more brewing for it now. That’s all.

There’s chatter but only because the actors are being asked.

I’d trust Cadet’s opinion on this.

With the merger, all bets are off though. If Discovery continues to perform well, perhaps CBS creative gets tapped to helm a new film in the same universe. That likely would mean Kurtzman though…

I hope it is not another film that pretends the previous did not happen. Like what happened to Carol M, and the Klingon war that was coming after Kirk comitted war crimes by going to Kronos surface.

Let’s see which movie is going to be made.

They really take way too long to deliver these movies. They should be banging them out every other year. And so far, the three movies they did deliver were only ok. I don’t think there were any true stinkers, though STID wasn’t that good. But there were no homeruns either. You would think that with the talented writers out there, and the historically classic characters they are working with, they could do better than what they have done. But I guess they are too busy “updating” things to remember what made Trek great in the first place.

All this time between movies is just inexcusable, especially since Abrams may be the most overrated showrunner/exec producer ever. He’s more worried about secrecy than making a good movie.

Making them quickly and often is a great plan unless you’re a studio that cant afford to under-perform.

I agree as well. They need to make them more frequently or at least try and build on the previous films better to keep people involved and look forward to the next one when it does come out. Its such a different landscape for franchise films today and sadly Paramount is not capitalizing on it although they clearly are for Transformers.

I don’t hate the Kelvin films at all but to me they are how I feel about Discovery in general, decent but far from great. None of the films have knocked it out of the park for me but I can certainly enjoy them, even with the flaws. They are all fun film but they could be more for sure.

Exactly. I find myself enjoying the Orville more. Not that Discovery was bad. It wasn’t at all. I liked it, but it just doesn’t feel like Star Trek. It’s almost like The Orville was more Star Trek, and Discovery was more like another franchise.

As for making them quickly, I’m not asking for them to do what Marvel is doing. I simply want a Captain Kirk adventure every 2 years. But 4 years is inexcusable.

I thought Star Trek Beyond was a decent movie. Not a great one, but better than STID, but I think one problem was that it took too damn long to make. Same with STID over ST09.

Two years is NOT too fast. Consider this–they were making at one point, 26 episodes of Trek a year. That’s 13 movies worth of Star Trek per year. If they only need to make 2 hours every 2 years, or one hour a year, they should be able to come up with amazing scripts every time.

Yet they don’t.

Yeah it is weird how Orville felt more Trek than Discovery does. Hopefully that will change in season 2.

And Star Trek had movies every two years average. The TOS movies especially. The only ones that went longer was WOK and TFF which was three years between films. But look at the Kelvin films. The NEXT one probably will be another four years at the rate its going. They have to make these films more quicker but I obviously get the hold up with this one since Beyond bombed.

This is standard territory for Trek movies since the first one in 1979. I don’t know the last time we were ever completely sure if and when another would be made. Shatner wanted more cash, Nimoy wanted more, the last one underperformed, etc. and so forth. Time for Paramount to pull its finger out and do it. Or not.

When will JJ Abrams be available? He should direct the next film. The only one that flopped was the one he did not direct.

STID was terrible.

Can you explain why you thought it was awful? The first time i saw it i thought it was a bad remake of star trek the wrath oh khan. I had to watch it a couple more times to enjoy the story it tried to tell.

I actually liked it more the first time I saw it. But I go to movies to enjoy them so with all the Trek films (and Star Wars also), I try to just be open minded and enjoy and then on later viewings I start seeing things to critique. Not that I loved it on first viewing but I think I enjoyed it more, including the WoK scene. But some of the issues for me: – Kirk’s portrayal. The opening sequence on the planet was okay. It looked great. i’d have done a classic TOS episode in that segment but thats just me. But they use what we know of Prime Kirk – his cowboy diplomacy and willingness to violate the prime directive as a negative set up for the character. His demotion was silly. I know they tried to imply the much0criticised super-fast promotion from Cadet to Captain in 2009 was done intentionally with the idea they’d demote him. But come on, thats not true. Kirk came across whiney again, a slave to his emotions. A kid. – Spock/Uhura romance. I have no problem with the romance per se but Uhura was too emotional in an unprofessional way. This was also true of 2009. – The core premise of the film was a metaphor for the US W@r on Terr0r. I LOVE that as a concept. But the message here was a very left wing, anti-government one where the government/military was bad, aggressive and murderous and the terr0rist (Khan) committed mass murder but only because he was forced to and is a sympathetic character we’re supposed to feel sorry for. I thought it was a poor choice for an American-centric film for starters. And didnt do the concept justice. The Dick Cheney roll (Marcus) was such a one note, mustache twirling villain when in reality, Peter Weller was the best part of the film. But it seemed the writers could not bring themselves to create a Cheney metaphor and then give him a position we could believe in. And you have to, if you want to tear it down. If you present the argument as lame and shallow from the beginning, there is no way the audience can be emotionally invested in Kirk tearing down that position. Its not in keeping with what we know of Kirk. They had the opportunity to have Kirk see Marcus’ point of view in a better way, have it be “wrong” but have Kirk also admit he wasnt totally wrong, thus forming what we know of Kirk – a guy who was not opposed to arming civilians in one episode. – Khan. I mean, most people agree this was a bad idea. I vehemently supported using Khan before the film came out and, on this site, I debated people repeatedly who said it was a bad idea. I was wrong. Or more accurately, it wasnt the inclusion of Khan that didnt work, it was how they portrayed him. This Khan is the SAME Khan from Space Seed. He didnt look, sound, act like what we knew. There is really no point in using a legacy character if its going to be a completely didnt character in every way but name. STID was so cliche – the bad guys’ ship was like Enterprise but bigger, stronger, blacker. Khan was like any other bad guy except he had super powers. It was like the only thing they could come up with to make their villains interesting was to make them super strong (ship and Khan) when in reality the BEST villain was Marcus and he was so shallow. The whole premise that Marcus brought Khan in to help him develop weapons because Khan would be willing to go that extra mile? How did that even make it out of the writer’s room? Why would this super advanced agency need a guy from the 1990’s to help develop weapons? Because some scientist says “well, we have this new ship but man, its really strong and could be used for really bad thing so we shouldn’t do it” and Khan says “I think you should” and so they say “okay, we will”. Makes no sense. The fact Khan is an augment and we know that tech was banned, the OBVIOUS use Starfleet would have would be in augment research or using Khan and his people as soldiers/agents. And thats far more interesting then “he helped us make a bigger bomb” – Killing Pike was shallow and meaningless. It was really about getting the character out of the way and giving Spock that moment of reflection on death. The fact Pike, Kirk’s mentor, was killed for Spock moment rather then Kirk did the character a disservice. Kirk had just been demoted, rightfully so. But as soon as Pike… Read more »