‘Star Trek’ writers: ‘We have broken the story’ for sequel [updated]

Nov. 30, 2010 | 8:59 a.m.

The 2009 reboot of “Star Trek” was a shining moment for fans of sci-fi and spectacle films and the sequel, due in 2012, may well follow the box-office trajectory of the Christopher Nolan Gotham City films — “Batman Begins” earned the credibility with fans old and new and then “The Dark Knight” delivered the billion-dollar payoff. “Star Trek” writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, the tandem that also penned “Transformers” and next summer’s “Cowboys & Aliens” and also created the Fox sci-fi series “Fringe,” are back to script the sequel. I caught up with the screenwriters, who talked about the challenges ahead and also shared a playful aspiration — an on-screen showdown between Captain Kirk and Darth Vader.

star trek chris pine zachary quinto Star Trek writers: We have broken the story for sequel [updated]

Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto in "Star Trek." (Paramount)

GB: It’s early days on the “Star Trek” sequel, but is there anything you can tell us about the story direction, tone or even the types of challenges you’re anticipating with this next-step project?

AK: Well, we have broken the story, which is very exciting. I think one of the weird challenges that we’re facing on this one is that in many ways, with the first movie, I don’t think people knew what to expect, so when we were in the writing process, Bob and I really spent our time going to things that we loved about “Trek” and it was a very unfiltered process. It felt intimate and small. There weren’t a lot of voices other than [producer] Damon [Lindelof], J.J. and [executive producer] Bryan Burke. Now, that first movie has come up and did well and everyone wants to know what happens next. We didn’t have that pressure, exactly, on the first one.  That said, part of what we have to do is listen to it all, ask a lot of questions about what people’s expectations are — and then let all of that go when we sit down to write. We need to find our way back to the same kind of vibe that we had when we wrote the first one: What do we want to see here? What moved us about “Trek”? Where can we go from where we left off?

RO: One of the big challenges is all of the characters are together now. A prequel is a pain in the butt, but one of the nice little advantages was that you get to meet the characters as you go through the story and they get to meet each other. That’s fun. We don’t that luxury of not having the entire family there together at the start of the story. So now you want the character stories to be good for everybody but also not just be there to be stories but also fit into the plot and be organic. We’re looking at a lot of the old episodes for inspiration, still. Whereas the last movie was all about breaking free from “Star Trek” and its canon, now that we can do whatever we want, we still want it to feel like good ol’ “Star Trek” even though it’s a new story.

GB: Well, if you guys need a horta, I’m available. I can send over a head shot …

AK: We already have your head shot on our wall.

kurtzman orci Star Trek writers: We have broken the story for sequel [updated]

Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. (NBC)

GB: Is your approach to this going to follow the lines of something like “The Empire Strikes Back,” where it’s essentially a second act and everything the heroes have built up in the first film is taken away from them and there’s doubt and despair before the resolution of the third film’s final-act story? Or, with that episodic heritage and optimistic spirit of that classic “Trek” archive, do you see these movies as more like self-contained adventures?

AK: It’s a great question.

RO: Yeah, that is an interesting question. I don’t know that we’ve ever thought of it in terms of a trilogy. We thought of the first one as, “How do we tell how this happened the first time and how do we free it so that it can go on forever without stepping on what came before.” So, if you were thinking of this movie as a second act, yeah, you would think of it as an “Empire Strikes Back” sort of story, but I’m not sure we’re thinking of it as a second act. I can’t speak for everybody on that, though.

AK: The movies you’re talking about are movies that we’re still talking about, what, 25 or 30 years later, because they have such emotional impact not just on us as viewers but because they put the characters through the mill in a way that was so primal and visceral. Good sequels do that; they find ways to challenge their characters in ways that they couldn’t have necessarily been challenged with in the first movie because, as Bob said, the first is always, ultimately, an origin story. So now [with the second] it becomes about this family that’s together, so now it becomes about the thing that shakes them up and challenges them.

leonard nimoy star trek Star Trek writers: We have broken the story for sequel [updated]

Leonard Nimoy on "Star Trek," the original series (NBC)

GB: Your great advantage going in is the chemistry between this bright, young cast. It must be a treat to write for an ensemble that has already shown a lot of spark, humor and nuance.

AK: “Treat” is literally the perfect word. We spend a lot of time talking about how — now that everyone is together — they all need really clear, defined moments. Moments that are specific to their characters, specific to way they interact with each other and also build on the dynamic of those amazing, amazing actors. It’s going to be joy for us.

RO: What do you think, should Spock and Kirk play 3-D chess?

GB: Clearly. Absolutely. But it should be like “Harry Potter” chess where they’re in the game, like on the holodeck or something.

AK: Or Wookiee chess. Kirk and Chewbacca. Always let the Wookiee win.

RO: A third movie would be great [if it was] a crossover between “Star Wars” and “Star Trek.”

AK: I know I would buy a ticket for that.

— Geoff Boucher

For the record: An earlier version of this post identified J.J. Abrams as the “Star Trek” sequel’s director. No director has been named.


star trek poster Star Trek writers: We have broken the story for sequel [updated]

Chris Pine takes command: “I am not Shatner”

Nimoy riffs: Shatner, “Star Wars” and … Hendrix?

Shatner: My whole career has been a close call

“Star Trek 365” is a special stardate

Shatner on the outside: “Strange to say goodbye”

Pegg: “I felt damn sexy” in Starfleet uniform

Nimoy’s farewell: “Live long and prosper, my friends”

Klingon opera makes some noise in Holland

Nimoy: “Trek” fans can be scary

Abrams: “Star Trek” still in shadow of Lucas


111 Responses to ‘Star Trek’ writers: ‘We have broken the story’ for sequel [updated]

  1. Paul says:

    Shining moment? How about a complete bastardization and violation of EVERYTHING great about Star Trek! That is what Abrams first movie was. It got pretty much EVERYTHING wrong. Turned Kirk's character into an idiot, used Spock as a sex doll and made the Enterprise a ship run by a bunch of cadets (the flagship, no less). And that's just a few off the top of my head (not to mention destroying Vulcan and a major pillar of the Star Trek universe. The next movie will no doubt make things worse, but then again there's barely nothing left of Trek anyway, so have at it boys. Piss all over it. Abrams already made it so myself and many other lifelong true Trek fans will NEVER see it (nor any other thing Abrams works on). Bunch of "p tachs".

  2. aagjmb says:

    Hey guys, FEWER LENS FLARES next time! Please!

    Fans hope that your next foray into Trek "alternate universe" canon will be more plausible with fewer leaps of logic.

    Kirk goes from cadet to Captain of the Federation's flagship without any practical experience?

    Giant beer tanks and old pipes in the unstaffed (!) engine room of a 23rd-century starship?

    At the end of the movie, they're getting ready to warp out and Spock just shows up and offers to be First Officer? You would think the ship would have personnel in place prior to departure.

    The list goes on…and on.

  3. Franchesco says:

    "We've cracked the story?"
    Was it as hard as the first one, coming up with that "oh yeah! time travel!" idea?
    Screenwriting is in a sad state now in Hollywood. This genre might never have attracted Robert Towne, but at least under Gene Roddenberry's guidance, the scripts for the original show aspired to show tests of character, rather than "fresh" ways to update the look of the story with CGI, or making some pop-culture junk food combo meal.
    Interactive 3D chess and Darth Vader death matches, my arse.

  4. sophie says:

    I thoroughly enjoyed the first one. But then I'm a Star Wars fan. ;) I was pleasantly surprised by the tone of the film. You can tell J.J. Abrams is Team Star Wars.

  5. fabbeaux says:

    Unhappily, I must agree with the above posts, though more dispassionately. You can crack, or try to remain faithful, or whatever you believe you are doing (no one who really loved Star Trek in any way sees your movie as part of the heritage – but it was adequate enough on its own terms as a sci-fi chick flick). So I too say "do what you will" – when I want Star Trek, I've got DVD. Classic is still unparalleled: TNG has true moments of greatness even among its lumbering at times…Chris Pine is cute (no depth however, and certainly not Kirk! – but then, who is?), I'm not sure what Zachary Quinto is doing other than playing Justin Bieber in space to bring an older fan-boy crowd to the theaters (Spock is so way way deeper than this trite Vegas imitation – please!) but if you put about 15 pounds onto Zoe Saldana, you might actually make something else out of this milkshake. I enjoyed some of the special effects, but the plot (excuse me, what?) and believability were simply absent. Don't kid yourselves – you get a B for screenwriting effort, but you passed the real thing by completely.

  6. Quarky says:

    Daddy let jimmy have the keys to the boat once and look what happens! he hocks the chronograph and uses it to buy a [self censored]! What did you expect? Subtlety? Canonical adherence to Star Trek? It looks like daddy is going to have to cancel the insurance policy until it comes back into harbor intact!

  7. Cully Hamner says:

    "…it should be like “Harry Potter” chess where they’re in the game, like on the holodeck or something."

    Now, I'm totally aware that the above was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but I really do hope that these talented guys resist the urge to "Next Gen"-ize the original characters and their Enterprise. I know that the changes in this new timeline have uplifted some of the technology existing within the show, but let's please avoid things like holodecks and the like.

    And I'd really like it if they'd at least concede to the more anachronistic jargon of TOS, rather than what became standard with Next Gen; "landing parties" instead of "away teams," for example, or "engine room," rather than "engineering," for another. I realize that it's only a function of style, but just to give it an old-school flavor, I think fans of the original characters would really appreciate it, if only to temper all of the other things that have necessarily been updated.

  8. Trekstorian says:

    The original Star Trek is honestly not as good as we seem to remember it. These new movies get a lot right in terms of feel (boring actors playing flat characters in a laughable storyline), but that's the fun of the series! And yes, they did 'screw up' everything about Star Trek, but as they said "the last movie was all about breaking free from 'Star Trek' and its canon." If that doesn't float your boat, take your boat somewhere else to float it.
    And all this plot-believability nonsense…the only reason the current Star Trek canon works is because the fans and the decades of new shows filled in the gaping holes left by the original series, and most of those are still a stretch.
    Furthermore, if you watch Shatner the entire first season, you'll clearly see him trying not to laugh for most of it.

  9. Cal Godot says:

    For the life of me, I can't understand the hyperbolic reactions so many Star Trek fans have to the Abrams film. The notion that Abrams somehow betrayed the material by not using the dated ideas of the original series astounds me and strikes mas a quite absurd. Did these people really think Abrams would make a cookie-cutter clone of the original series? Are these fans so bereft of creative vision and devoid of tolerance that they can't simply encounter the new film on its own merits? Mus they always decry things because they are not exactly like the original?

    I am quite literally a lifelong fan of Star Trek. I had no expectation that the film would be a recreation of the original series – and while I had some large problems with the film (particularly the Moon of Amazing Coincidence where Kirk finds old-Spock and Scotty), I found it to be an interesting revision of the series, retaining enough of the original concept and engaging the new in such a way as to make me wonder, "What will they do next?" Apparently, a number of other fans wanted a carbon-copy of the original series – and it seems they demand "Return of the Wrath of Khan" for the sequel.

    Some even point to picky details: "Kirk goes from cadet to Captain of the Federation's flagship without any practical experience?" A significant portion of the fleet was destroyed at Vulcan. This would result in a shortage of people at captain rank as well as experienced commanders. And point of fact: he had just proven his ability to command. "Suspension of disbelief" being a key factor in enjoying fiction, I wonder why someone can accept faster-than-light travel without any explanation but demands perfect realism in other areas.

    It's really a waste of time to engage with such petty people, so I'm not going to continue. Fans who can't handle the "reboot" should stick to their DVDs of the original series and the movies. Don't bother going to the sequel – you'll just be disappointed that it isn't "Where No man Has Gone Before," "City on the Edge of Forever," etc.

  10. Trekprincess says:

    I loved the last movie it had the perfect blend of everything you would want :)

  11. STFANRENEJS2010 says:

    I am an Star Trek TOS fan!!!!!! And I mean Fan just like most of the fans of all Star Trek original shows and movies but I am already 44 going on 45 in January and I feel that I was also upset with the storyline and a lot of other things with the movie. Since growing up with Star Trek BUT BUT I have realized that Star Trek was going NO Where where no one wanted then to go….Even the TNG Movies were getting dull and old (Not a big fan of the TNG) but thats another story LOL….anyways after careful studying of the New Star Trek 2009 Movies I have come to realize that Star Trek was back on the BIG SCREEN not matter what anyone says and I'd have to say 80% of people who probably watched this movies loved….Of ocourse I was shocked when I first viewed it!! But I love the Movie now and is part of Star Trek history no matter if we like it or not….I even had friends who never watched, heard of or thought they would like anything Star Trek enjoy the movie and talk about it later in conversations.

    So people just move along and enjoy movies especially SCI FI movies because thats what were suppose to do….In my heart Star Trek and the Original Crew and storylines will always live forever "Thank you Gene Rodenberry!!! For everything and leaving a Legacy even if others change it but as long as it goes on better for ME and well all of us!!! ;-) Hey just give the New Star Trek crew a chance to prove themselves……To Boldly Go Where do We go from Here?? Bring on the next Movie I'm ready for another….

  12. 12345 says:

    Star trek is Star Trek, Star Wars is Star Wars. Don't make ster Trek some thing it is not. Star Wars is great a story with begin and end. Star Trek is a story about the human race exploring the the galxey. JJ wants to take Star Trek into the next century that is fine, however be orginal. If I want to watch Star Wars, I will watch Star Wars.

  13. lucas says:

    I am not sure why everyone got their panties in a wad about with the first one. It was a fun movie, in a year of truly great films it was one that really stood out. Not quite as good as the masterpiece that was District 9, but easily superior to Avatar in almost every way, making it (in my opinion) the second best sci-fi movie of last year, and thats really saying something.

  14. John F. C. Taylor says:

    I was of a mind to agree with most Trekkies that the reboot was a total train wreck. However, I see great possibilities for it being an excuse to do the old time travel gig in the secong film. Kirk and crew get to go back in time and save Vulcan from extinction. The one thing that I felt should have been in the first movie was the sense of humor we had with the original series.

  15. Ozone says:

    I loved this new take on Star Trek. It was a great MOVIE. I too am a Star Trek fan since the original series. Frankly, I thought the latest Next Generation movies and the endless variants on the TV series had started to lose their way. "What are we going to do?", "Let's reverse the polarity of the deflector shield!", "It's working!" Repeat 100X. Really? Really. But as others have said, suspend your beliefs for 180 minutes – after all, it's a MOVIE. Not real life. A MOVIE. Beam me up…

  16. Gimme Narrative says:

    Rational people don't have a problem with 2009 Trek because of its relation (or lack thereof) to the original series in movies. The problem is that it's just a horrible plot, driven by coincidence and deus ex spockina. Seriously, is it that hard to construct a narrative that doesn't rely on ridiculous coincidence? As soon as 2009 Trek hit the ice moon, it fell apart.

  17. Ryan says:

    I don't understand what everyone's problem is with the Star Trek reboot. It was entertaining and fun. Is that not enough? Seriously J.J seems to be passionate about his projects and he seemed ESPECIALLY passionate about rebooting Star Trek. The movie was a great reboot as far as reboots go and if you think about it if the movie was under someone else it probably would have gone much worse. So instead of griping about every little detail, why can't all of you just accept this for what it is?

  18. blanklogo says:

    I think it's safe to say the Star Trek I have known and loved will never come back. Star Trek was always written with an intelligence and an eye to social and human issues that most other series couldn't match. That can be said of TOS, TNG and DS9 for certain. Voy and Ent deviated from that and suffered for it (though I still enjoy Voyager to a degree). The movies have been a bit of a free for all, some ups and some downs, but the new Star Trek gained a new "respect" and commercial success among a more general audience and I think that will be the death blow. With the studios trying to cast as big a net as possible, future movies will likely be further dumbed down and loaded with crappy CGI pointless moments "specific to character". The makeout scene between Uhura and Spock, for example, was so completely out of place it was cringe-worthy. Perhaps it was meant to be a throwback to Kirk's "alien of the week" days, but those days are long since past.

    I shed a tear for my favorite series, but as has been pointed out, I have hundreds of hours of real Trek to comfort me in the years ahead.

  19. Mark says:

    Star Trek was a horrible movie. Badly written and directed. I've never seen so many people gush over what is clearly a bad movie. Seriously people, watch Wrath of Khan and JJ's movie back to back, then come back here and have a serious discussion about it. Star Trek used to be all about ideas, there were no ideas in this reboot, just a cynical cash grab.

    China Mielville summed up the problem with the whole project rather nicely: "I disliked Star Trek intensely. I thought it was terrible. And I think part of my problem is that I feel like the relationship between JJ Abrams' projects and geek culture is one of relatively unloving repackaging – sort of cynical. I taste contempt in the air. Now I'm not a child – I know that all big scifi projects are suffused with the contempt of big money for its own target audience. But there's something about [JJ's projects] that makes me particularly uncomfortable. As compared to somebody like Joss Whedon, who – even when there are misfires – I feel likes me and loves me and is on some cultural level my brother and comrade. And I don't feel that way about JJ Abrams."

  20. Kenny says:

    Ladies and gentlemen…if you were born before 1995 and are/were a Trek fan before 2009, your Star Trek is dead. As soon as those ships collided in the opening sequence of ST-JJA, it was killed instantly. Be assured, it did not suffer needlessly, unless you count the last season of Enterprise, or the "poor box office" of Nemesis (I loved them, as I love all of Roddenberry's children). Our Trek is in a better place now. We just have to believe that.

    "It is a far, far better thing I do/than I have ever done/It is a far better rest I go to/than I have ever known…"

  21. CSM says:

    On first viewing of J Js film I thought it was a good start to the reboot. However like people have mentioned, I was concerned by the lumbering enormous plot holes in the story and the lack of charisma/depth of the main antagonist, Nero. He lacked any subsidence and was never fleshed out. This was a big failure of the film. I’ve watched all the various Star Trek series so was hoping for a decent adversary for Kirk. I really hope the second film offers more logic in it’s story telling and provides fewer moments of coincidental reunions. One last thing…… Please fewer lense flares, not good in IMAX and make you feel like vomiting.

  22. Spock's eyebrow says:

    Hey so im not even close to being old enough to have enjoyed the original series or even TNG. But you have to realize how many people my age or younger are watching the old series because of the new movie! You may not love the new ones but love the fact it has jump-started a brand new generation of fans! That has to count for something for all.

  23. johhny dep says:

    I hope they figure out a way to get tribbles into the next movie – I wonder if that weird looking tribble seller actor is still alive to reprise the role.

  24. Nerve Pinched says:

    Roddenberry Trek was, at times, preachy, ham-fisted, and clunky…and had moments that could provoke a sense of hope, wonder, and excitement. Abrams Trek is completely uninspiring fluff, with a silly plot. Maybe the franchise had lost some of its appeal, but dumbing it down and turning it in to pop culture drivel isn't saving it.

    Oh, as for the endless "Cadet-to-Captain" debates, natural leadership talent is fine and wonderful, but it doesn't match experience and knowledge…it's obvious that all of the people who find this plausible have never spent a day in the military. You give a hero a medal and a one-rank bump, not command of the flagship. Yet another deviation from the Roddenberry canon…"If it wouldn't happen on a modern aircraft carrier, it wouldn't happen on the Enterprise."

  25. JDintheOC says:

    Although I can remember every line and scene from the first TV series, I honestly don't remember much at all from this movie. I don't even remember how it ended which is really sad.

  26. karen dodd says:

    I loved the movie and thought it was brilliant how the actors replicated even the smallest of habits of their predicesors, that quriky eyebrow of spock the way kirk has that cheeky boy sideways look ect. As for the plot well come on folks a lot of the appeal of star trek is that it was always a bit tounge in cheek in the old days and i think this movie replicated that well and didn't miss a trick.

  27. James Van Hise says:

    I've been a fan of Star Trek since 1966. In fact I saw it two days before most fans did because I lived in Buffalo and Canadian TV stations showed many US TV programs a couple days before their US airdate. I've read and written books about Star Trek and what I saw in the J.J. Abrams movie is what ST fans had been doing in fan fiction since the 1970s, asking "What If?" and creating an alternate reality. The original Star Trek stories still exist. As has been demonstrated in Trek before, time travel can alter reality and create an alternate reality, and that's what the new Star Trek is. Doesn't bother me at all.

  28. barbaraS says:

    You folks did a wonderful job on this new Star Trek. You kind of filled in the blanks between all the lines that were spoken in the original TV series. You gave sincerity and added humor relief to the characters, it just felt so 'at home'. Science fiction can be anything possible, just go with it viewers and enjoy the character interactions, enjoy the ride.

  29. bigjtw says:

    I just hope they figure out ther problems and get it going , and get the klingons in the new movie

  30. adam says:

    i enjoyed it

  31. Brian says:

    Yeah, TOS: the Yangs and the Coms. Kirk in a woman's body. The celebrated lawyer in a dress making the kids do baaaaad things. Yep. Classic Trek.
    Now. I *like* the original series, but good gravy, it could be horribly bad.
    So, now we have, as I like to call it, Star Trek 90210 (I don't know if that's original, but I thought it applicable).
    But you know what? I enjoyed it. I bought it. And there are things to like in it. But you have to remember this is a first date, and things always are a little awkward on a first date. The second should go a bit better…more of a deeper kind of relationship-building thing. And, I'm looking forward to it. It's a brand new thing. Just remember that NBC wanted to get rid of Spock's ears all those years ago. I think JJ and the writers can do it justice.

  32. CHITREK says:

    Ok… I’ve got some major issues with these comments. I don’t understand WHY people are so alarmed by this new vision of Star Trek?? Let’s remember that what we ALL fell in love with was a show that lasted only a few short seasons, then was re-booted through film. The original is still great….but look at it! If men/women showed up in mini-skirt-uniforms & go-go boots with bee-hive hair in a Trek film now….the world would implode! Re-vision is the only way to keep the spirit of Trek alive. I LOVED all of the Trek films (except the weird one with the horse guy in the desert) but EACH one was different! If Trek fans would have gone nuts over each of the last few films, Picard would be in the next movie…but they were also ready for a re-boot… This movie was brilliant & JJ did a great job respecting the Trek world while showing another way to tell the story.

    Let’s also talk about timeline…..just b/c Picard & Crusher are ex’s in “All Good Things” doesn’t mean they ever start a relationship beyond what we’ve seen….why? Because Q showed him the timeline he wanted to. Does Tasha Yar still exist? Yes….in another TIMELINE where the Federation was losing the battle with the Klingons. At least this movie wasn’t trying to re-enact the original series….it simply re-told it using an alternate reality. That is a theme that has been used before & at least this movie allowed true fans to see a re-vamped version of what they love…..AND IT ADDED NEW FANS to the world of Trek.

    I think Gene R. would have been proud to see his original vision re-vamped instead of dying in the world of re-runs & collecting dust on our dvd shelves.

    I loved this movie…..and will go see the next one with an OPEN MIND….which I’m sure was what Gene R wanted when he created the world many yrs ago…..

  33. vincent says:

    First off I am 57 years young…….Saw the original series when it first aired. Took a few episodes to get into Next Generation(refusing to give up the ghost) but found out I loved it for different reasons then the original. Hated Deep Space 9, Liked Voyager because of 7 of 9 and my son dragged me screaming and yelling like the old coot I have become about how they are going to destroy the dam thing……………………………………………………………….At first watch I got it the second the ship came out of the space storm (wormhole) and just went Oh my God he is going to change everything with an alternate time line(one of JJ Abrams favorite things to do ….the man seems obsessed with alternate universe's just watch Fringe) and you know what as someone who grew up with Star Trek , my wife and myself loved this reboot…and to all the naysayers you all seem bitter and hatefull and crumpy but seem more upset that you live in mommy basement and need to move out for god sakes you are all over thirty…..it was a great idea the cast were spot on and want more of this universe as I do with any good SciFi and to all the naysayers like the great William Shatner said "GET A LIFE"

  34. Oakleafmold says:

    Fundamental differences: Star Wars is for kids, though grown-ups can enjoy it. Star Trek is for adults, but kids can dig it too.

  35. Marianne says:

    I was never a fan of the TOS series, but alle the other series were my "babies", so I really thought JJ Abrams and the screen writers could do no harm from my perspective. However: Destroying both Vulcan and Romulus nearly gave me a heart attack. There are also major plot holes related to these to ridiculous planetary destructions. We know through ENT that Vulcan had colonies as early as Archer's time (P`Jem et.al.) Therefore there can't be as few Vulcans left as Nu Spock states at the end of the movie.
    But even worse from a Romulan fans point of view: In DS9 The Pale Moonlight, it is clearly stated that Romulus have several colonies, this is ALSO present in the name itself: THE ROMULAN STAR EMPIRE!!! Heeeeeellllllllooo, Orci!? Where were you at when you researched Romulan history? So how could Nero be the last of the Romulan Star Empire. Aren't you at all embarrassed? I thought you were a fan counteracting Abrams' sad love of Star Wars:-(
    You make me cry, seriously…

  36. Bear says:

    I've heard that J.J. Abrams is considering doing a Tarzan movie. Anyone else hear this ?

  37. Trek Fan says:

    As much as I love the classic Star Trek, I thought the most recent interpretation was fun and refreshing. Sure, there are some absurdities (Kirk promoted from cadet to Captain in a matter of days), but somehow I was able to overlook them and enjoy the ride. And let's face it…the old Trek canon is dead. We haven't had a TV show or movie based on the old canon in years. If reimagining the Star Trek universe is what was needed to bring our much-loved characters back to life, then so be it. I'm looking forward to the sequel.

  38. Jason Davis says:

    I thought the first Star Trek by Abrams was absolutely perfect. And I've always been a Trek fan. I thought he played homage to the series and the history beautifully. And on top of it all, he made it his own. Very hard to do. I can not wait for the next one. And I can not wait for his other movies either. Abrams is brilliant!

  39. Scott Wright says:

    I think this is a great idea. The old Star Trek, although entertaining, was limited by many of the what we can see now with 20/20 hindsight as quaint and somewhat foolish ideas about what it meant to be advanced and futuristic…the sterile almost hospital like aesthetic, the assumption spirituality and "religion" are always backward and in need of extinction, the belief uniformity of beliefs and morals would end conflict and liberate humanity, that passion is primitive and the emotionless Vulcan is somehow superior…operating on pure logic…when in fact this would lead to a soulless and cynical view of the Universe drained of all joy and meaning. So I say kudos to the new team tweaking with an old model…it reflects the reality of life in a Universe of constant change both in values, desire, morals and needs that we as a people are becoming more aware of and was epitomized by the philosophies of Pre-Socratic Heraclitus and the much maligned and misunderstood genius of the 19th century, Friedrich Nietzsche.

  40. justin says:

    just as a reminder for anyone whining because the abram's movie isn't anything like what rodenberry would have done: rodenberry only got to make one star trek movie, and for good reason…it was terrible.

    he hated wrath of khan (perhaps out of bitterness due to being kicked off the project) and he hated the second best trek movie (undiscovered country) so much that he died soon after seeing it, it literally killed him.

    say what you will about how the abrams movie is horrible because they didn't dust off the dated bridge from the original series or whatever. as for me, i'd take abrams trek over insurrection any day.

  41. ragweed says:

    It's all about "Q" and the UFP has only a supporting role. By the way, who is the united federation of planets anyway?

  42. Chris says:

    Wow. The commentators really need to get a life. Just frigging enjoy something as it is instead of overanalyzing it and sucking the life out of it.

  43. Dave says:

    If J.J. Adams wanted to deviate from TOS and gain a new audience, he didn't need to alienate the fan base that has loved this series for so long. Even if they want to be able to go way off like they did. Gene Roddenberry created the Alternate Universe. They could do what ever they wanted and I personally would love to see a movie about the Alternate Universe

  44. Alex Michaels says:

    I am a long time fan of Star Trek and I did enjoy this movie. I took it for what it was. An alternate reality of the characters. I agree that Star Trek 2 Wrath of Khan was a greater movie but it had the history of the series behind it and wasn't about Kirk's beginnings. We all have to admit some of the movies were not that good. There is the belief and somewhat true that odd number Star Trek movies sucked. Think about it.

    Still I wish to give this a chance. You can't replace Shatner and Nimoy And Dr. Mccoy (the late great DeForest Kelly) and the rest but this is a good way to keep Star Trek alive after the dismal Nemesis and the end of Enterprise. Although I did like Enterprise more when they went into the Mirror Mirror universe

    I am eager to see what is next for this new crew of the Enterprise. And of course if I want to revisit the original crew, I have the movies on DVD, with the original series and even the Animated Series.

  45. bawc says:

    i have been a trek fan since the original.i enjoyed every series and movie except ds9 i dunno i tried watch it time and time again but couldnt get interested.but as for the last movie it was seriously different and took some getting use to.i would realy like to see a movie based on a timeline with flashbacks from the original shows from old star trek ,next generation ,star trek voyager,ds9,and of course star trek enterprise with scott bakula with flashbacks of how each show ended.say for instance when the borg took over picards enterprise and data saved them in the end by blowing his self up and some of the other trek series find him and put him back together.that would be an exceptional movie with the whole life of all the star tek series.

  46. Dan says:

    This will go round and round. I, like many, love Trek, and I love Star Wars. The Original Series is my all time favourite and ST2, is my favourite Trek film, but JJ's did the series justice, it was back to the old style, a good old space adventure. You can't expect a 21st Century audience to accept a 60's Enterprise, you also can't expect a studio who is plunging millions of dollars into a budget to get something that looks like cardboard. This film was meant for a wider audience than just Trek fans, if that were so, it would have been a DVD flick.

    If the hardcore fans bother to read, the continued canon of the "prime" storyline is now part of the Star Trek Online game, where the Romulan Star Empire is falling apart, but still exists, leading to mass political collapse. JJ's is an alternative universe, a "What If?". It's not infringing on what already has happened, it's something new and different. Films reflect the time in which they are made, an din a world where your mobile phone has more power than the Apollo Space Program, you need to adapt.

    So, enjoy the film, it's not real, it's fiction, and damn good fiction at that.

  47. madmonq says:

    Wow. It's the morons who don't know the difference between Elvis & the Beatles. Given a crack at some of the best America fiction in the past 40 years and like the BS they confuse it with Star Wars again.

    Telling a story is more than dead end plots (Lost) and tracing over someone else's shaky hands (Star Wars) you f'ing idiots (Star Wars). Mentioning Star Wars to make your work crapping all over the Star Trek franchise easier is evidence of your hackery and the crap Hollywood continues to squat out. And what passes for talent too. Your crap doesn't qualify. The public deserves better story telling than this crap

  48. Wayne says:

    I'm a big trek fan, and I thought "star trek" was the best movie since wrath of khan, and let's be honest, wrath of khan is the only other good trek movie.

    what was great about it was it had all the trek elements, but kept things moving along with enough action and emotion that the underlying cerebral themes and philosophy, etc. is much less obvious and nerdy as the typical trek shows.

    Star Trek is finally accessible for everyone, has real action, real emotion, real story, real plot (with typical hollywood holes, but what else is new?), so it's not just meant to stroke fans, it's meant to be enjoyed as an actual good movie. That's why it did so well at the box office and with the critics.

  49. Rhetoric says:

    I totally agree with the previous post on the gratuitous over-use of lens flares.. It was downright distracting!! It was like "we're in the FUTURE.. and everything is insanely bright!! Too bright for the cameras filming us!! we ALLL radiate light!!.. oh, and sorry bout them lens flares, fellas."

    For the love of God, PLEASE leave the lens flares out of the sequel!

  50. Tess says:

    Thank you to the person who decided that we can all enjoy Star Trek in a movie that will not only attact new fans but will suit all the older fans as well. As one of the older fans, I have introduced Star Trek and Star Wars to not only my children but now my grandchildren, and they all love them.

    It will be great to see the next installment.

  51. brian says:

    Wow. I’ve been a trekkie for 37 yrs and I’m only 35. Having said that…its FICTION. And I loved the movie for the fact that it did open up the star trek universe..as well as giving the characters new dimension. “IMAGINE” what new adventures and discoveries are now in store. Genes vision was as much to provoke thought in the audience as it was to create this universe we’ve all grown to love. He was also very controversial. How many television firsts were achieved by the original series? The reboot is horrible because it blew up vulcan? Thinkabout the possibilities of what the vulcan race can achieve now? The greatest triumphs come from tragedy and tribulations. Heck that could be a movieor series all on its own standings. We all. love trek for different reasons..but we love trek. I. can’t wait to see wher it goes from here.

  52. El Ronbo says:

    It was a wonderful movie.

    It wasn't Star Trek. They used the character names, updated the art direction (wonderfully, I might add), they used many of the settings (Starfleet Academy, the Enterprise, etc) and the technology.

    But it was a contemporary action-adventure movie, without any of the thematic greatness of Trek, without the internal consistency that (usually) was present and made it believable, without the greater vision.

    Its the same thing that made DS9 stink for the first three seasons, and much of Enterprise, and its why TNG was like pizza – even when it was bad, it was still kind of good.

    This doesn't make me upset: it was a fun film, the next one will be a fun film. They did a great job with the casting, this group of actors are far better than the original cast, with the exception of Nimoy (who was so much better an actor than the rest of the cast he worked with, it made Shatner look, well, like an average tv actor).

    But it isn't Star Trek, its just using the brand name and recognizable elements to make an action adventure flick. Do I wish they had the ambition and vision to make an actual Star Trek movie? Sure. But getting to see the Enterprise barrel through space with phasers blazing and torpedoes firing is better than settling for TOS re-runs with updated special effects. And Zoe Saldana in her underwear is a nice bonus.

    So I'll take my Trek where I can get it, and who knows, maybe this new audience will open the door for a new tv series, where some good writers and some time to develop and a little less spectacle will create something with the heart and vision of the original. Because wheezing around tired plots with the aging TNG cast and shrinking production budgets was never going to get us there.

  53. Frank says:

    It was effects driven rubbish and you all know it. It was aimed 18 – 25 males with their 10 second attention spans. Babes in skimpy costumes and lots of pointless action. Who needs a plot?

    Spock doinking Uhura! Like father like son. Vulcans really like our earth women.

    Drivel from beginning to end.

  54. Heisenberg says:

    A showdown between Kirk and Vader would last literally three seconds.

  55. in the "World of Warcraft," "earth fission" media group activities, visits, media reporters to Blizzard Executive Vice President FRANKPEARCE ask for anti-addiction expert TAO open view. FRANKPEARCE said: "The TAO open the human family paladin, dwarf priests." Sudden burst of laughter inside. Rogue martial arts will be invincible, the gods can not stop ~

  56. George2060 says:

    If somebody forgot there was a show called STARTREK that had a story line.

    Now how would everybody feel if some jackass wanted to make Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia Lovers instead of bother and sister.

    Chewbacca as woman wouldn’t work ether!

    My point is the title and its history is the reason the movie was made in the first place.

    So let us not forget when you here the word’s STARTREK!

    You remember the series first!!!!!!!

  57. nyogu says:

    I am a lifelong Star Trek fan. I loved the original series for everything that it was, preachy, ham-fisted, clunky, campy, naive, inspiring, and all.
    I still THOROUGHLY enjoyed the new Star Trek movie. The cast was dynamic, the action was fun, the plot was classic Trek with a twist…Not that it was perfect, because it wasn't, but it was hella entertaining. It was smart and snappy and interesting, and it was, objectively, a really well done movie.

  58. Karl Lehn says:

    I was there for the first episode and I will watch Trek until I die.

  59. VValkerBoh says:

    I didn't like it at first either ,but after watching Star Trek several times something occurred to me .The idea of Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry was to wash away prejudices and stereotyping
    and look to what might become our future.I think gene would be greatly impressed with this new movie cause it kept to the ideals of star trek.Just cause the story has been moved around doesn't mean the end but rather a new beginning of fighting prejudices and stereotyping,something that some of the spin-offs have forgotten.I love star trek and all its spin-offs but lets not forget why star trek was created

  60. Mark says:

    Spock's nerve pinch should be on the base of the shoulder/neck, not the shoulder.
    I believe a lot of the old Trek's battle music, by Sol Kaplan, is superior to Abram's choice.
    A young Matt Decker declaring: "we are stronger with you, than without you", to a young Kirk would be apropo.
    Regardless of the new villian. Robert Lansing aka: Gary Seven has left a powerful impression.

    Mark in Houston

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

E-mail It
Powered by ShareThis