J.J. Abrams: ‘Star Trek’ must escape the shadow of ‘Star Wars’

Jan. 31, 2009 | 12:44 a.m.

J.J. Abrams, who has made a name for himself writing, directing and producing such hits as "Lost" and "Star Trek," was tapped in January to direct "Star Wars: Episode VII." (Tracey Nearmy / European Pressphoto Agency)

Abrams made his first foray into television in 1998, co-creating the coming-of-age drama "Felicity," which starred Keri Russell as the title character. The show won a Golden Globe and an Emmy. (The WB)

Abrams created the Jennifer Garner-starring spy thriller series "Alias," which won four Emmys and a Golden Globe. (Norman Jean Roy / ABC)

J.J. Abrams on the set of "Mission: Impossible III," the first feature film he directed. The film earned nearly $400 million at the worldwide box office. (Paramount Pictures)

Director J.J. Abrams and star Tom Cruise on the set of "Mission: Impossible III." (Paramount Pictures)

Director J.J. Abrams and star Tom Cruise pose atop Shanghai's historic Bund 18 building after wrapping up filming in China for "Mission: Impossible III" on Nov. 30, 2005. (Associated Press)

Abrams co-created "Lost" with Jeffrey Lieber and Damon Lindelof. The suspense-filled show followed a group of people after their plane crashed on an island. The massively popular series became a cultural touchstone, with millions of viewers tuning in for twist after twist. (ABC)

J.J. Abrams is photographed in Los Angeles in April 2006. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times

J.J. Abrams, second from left, poses with the cast members from "Fringe," a sci-fi television series he co-created with Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. (Rich Lam / Getty Images)

J.J. Abrams reveals his first casting for his 2009 reboot of "Star Trek" during a 2007 Comic-Con panel in San Diego. (Spencer Weiner / Los Angeles Times)

A scene from Abrams' 2009 film "Star Trek," which raked in more than $385 million worldwide. (Paramount Pictures)

Steven Spielberg, left, co-produced the 2011 film "Super 8," which J.J. Abrams wrote and directed. The pair are shown here at a 2009 dinner honoring Spielberg in Beverly Hills. (Michael Kovac / WireImage)

J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg on the set of "Super 8." (Paramount Pictures)

Director J.J. Abrams and actor Kyle Chandler on the set of "Super 8." (Paramount Pictures)

Young actors Joel Courtney and Riley Griffiths discuss a scene with director J.J. Abrams on the set of "Super 8." (Paramount Pictures)

J.J. Abrams, left, and Eric Kripke executive produce the post-apocalyptic adventure series "Revolution." The pair are photographed here at Abrams' company Bad Robot in Santa Monica on Aug. 20, 2012. (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

Abrams, second from left, shares the stage with "Star Trek Into Darkness" actor Benedict Cumberbatch, star Chris Pine and producer Bryan Burk during a December 2012 press conference for the sequel to their 2009 blockbuster. (Koji Sasahara / Associated Press)

J.J. Abrams and his wife Katie McGrath are co-chairs of the Children's Defense Fund of California. They're photographed here in December 2012. (Mark Davis / Getty Images)

J.J. Abrams is photographed in Beverly Hills in June 2011. (Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)

J.J. Abrams is photographed in Beverly Hills in June 2011. (Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)

EXCLUSIVE: This is the second part of an interview with J.J. Abrams about his cinematic voyages aboard the Starship Enterprise. Today he talks about his concerns that “Star Trek” is “clearly in the shadow” of George Lucas. He also addresses premature talk of a “Trek” sequel: “I’m in the middle of lunch and someone asks, ‘What do you want for dinner?’ “

You can read part one here.

“Star Trek” is back. The 11th film in the storied franchise returns to theaters in May and this time the director is J.J. Abrams, who was just 2 months old when the original television series premiered in 1966. Abrams has conceded that he was never an impassioned fan of “Trek” but his take on the mythology promises to be intriguing considering his television success with “Alias,” “Lost” and “Fringe” as well as his work as director of “Mission Impossible III.” He talked to Hero Complex about navigating his movie through the neutral zone that lies between hard-core “Trek” fans and average summer moviegoers.

UPDATE: J.J. Abrams directing ‘Star Wars’: Many voices cry out in reaction

GB: Is it your sense that you are winning over skeptical fans to this point?

JJA: You know, I would think that especially fans of “Star Trek,” which is an optimistic universe, a universe about working together and the possibility of the human endeavor, you would think that people who appreciate that wonderful portrait of the future and that universe would be open to literally going to a place no one has ever gone before. I’m very optimistic that fans of the show, even the purists, will be willing to embrace the spirit of Roddenberry and once they see these actors doing this extraordinary work, I think they will not have to intellectualize it all, they’ll simply enjoy the experience. It’s a cliche now to say “Where no man has gone before” because it has been the vernacular now for more than 40 years but if you actually think about it — and actually remind yourself that we live on this planet and we are creatures inhabiting in this space with undefined limits and with technology that will invariably come — “Star Trek” is positing a future that is incredibly inspiring. If you can get past the cliche and make it real and relevant, there’s something very exciting about that. This is not “Star Wars” which happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. This is us and our future.

GB: Can you talk a bit about the story of this film?

JJA: This story is ultimately about a guy who is full of unbelievable potential but he is aimless, he is lost. He ends up finding a path that takes him beyond his wildest dreams. It helps him find his purpose. That’s a great story in any situation, in any culture. There is something about that spirit of innovation, collaboration, possibility, adventure and optimism that is inherent in what “Star Trek” was.


GB: How much did you go back to the various “Trek” shows, films, novels, etc., to research the mythology? I imagine at some point sifting through all of it would become a counterproductive exercise.

JJA: I looked at a lot of the episodes of all the series that came after the original “Star Trek” but because we are focusing on the original series I didn’t really need to know every episode of “Deep Space Nine” or “Voyager” or even “Enterprise.” But, yeah, I watched episodes, I read up a lot, I watched the movies, I talked to people, whether it was our “Trek” consultant or one of the two writers [Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci] about what it would mean to do what we wanted to do. We have one producer, Bob [Orci], who is a complete Trekker and another in Bryan Burk who had never seen an episode of the show ever. And it was a great balance. We could make sure it passed the test of the ultimate fan and the ultimate neophyte and make sure that it was equally entertaining to both parties.

GB: It’s awkward to talk about sequels for a film that has not even been released but there is such a Hollywood emphasis on tent pole properties that it’s impossible to ignore. So, given that, where do you see yourself going if the movie this May is the success you hope for?

JJA: I’d rather not be presumptuous that this will go on — I mean we’re still finishing up this movie. I have to say I sort of feel like I’m in the middle of lunch and someone asks, “What do you want for dinner?” I have no idea. But I gotta say that the idea of seeing this cast and these characters live on and go on further adventures — it’d be a shame not to do. Obviously the story would need to be great. But the beauty of what Roddenberry created is there is such an abundance of opportunities with these characters and [deciding] which elements of the original series we want to revisit. There’s this great opportunity there for further stories and I would definitely be involved in that. Whether I’m directing or producing, whether Bob or Alex are writing, obviously all that remains to be seen. Paramount is hungry to get going on that, but we’re still finishing up the first one.

GB: I was struck by the aerial platform scene that you showed in the preview of footage from the movie. It was such a high-adrenaline sequence and it had a frenetic combat style we’ve never seen in a “Trek” production before. But it also gave you a spot for two grand “Trek” traditions — putting a sword in the hand of Mr. Sulu and killing off an overeager red-shirt.

JJA: Oh cool. Well, that was very much a homage to the stuff that Sulu had done on the original TV show. We thought that to make a movie like this and not give Sulu his opportunity to a hold a sword –well, it just felt like we had to do it. And it was one of the things that was incredibly important to me was that this film — in addition to being character-centric and having the classic “Trek” debates and rapport between the characters — that it also be a movie that actually realized the promise of the adventure that “Trek” often had but didn’t always have the resources to pull off. We wanted the visual action that was always promised but that you didn’t get a chance to see.

GB: It’s interesting that when “Trek” did get the resources with the Robert Wise film the choice was made to go to a sort of epic, cosmic feel, like “2001: A Space Odyssey” instead of the rollicking spirit from the television series.

JJA: It is interesting. And Doug Trumbull did the visual effects for that “Trek” as well as “2001″ and there was that feeling to it. It was definitely a more slow-moving, epic feel. It’s a slow movie but some people love it.

GB: “Star Wars” vs. “Star Trek” is sort of a classic Beatles vs. Stones debate for sci-fi fans of a certain age. You have said you wanted to infuse your “Trek” revival with some lessons learned from the George Lucas universe. Can you talk about that?

JJA: Well, I’m just a fan of “Star Wars.” As a kid, “Star Wars” was much more my thing than “Star Trek” was. If you look at the last three “Star Wars” films and what technology allowed them to do, they covered so much terrain in terms of design, locations, characters, aliens, ships — so much of the spectacle has been done and it seems like every aspect has been covered, whether it’s geography or design of culture or weather system or character or ship type. Everything has been tapped in those movies. The challenge of doing “Star Trek” — despite the fact that it existed before “Star Wars” — is that we are clearly in the shadow of what George Lucas has done.

The_bridgeGB: How do you overcome that?

JJA: The key to me is to not ever try to outdo them because it’s a no-win situation. Those movies are so extraordinarily rendered that it felt to me that the key to “Star Trek” was to go from the inside-out: Be as true to the characters as possible, be as real and as emotional and as exciting as possible and not be distracted by the specter of all that the “Star Wars” film accomplished. For instance, we needed to establish that there are aliens in this universe and yet I didn’t want it to feel like every scene had four new multi-colored characters in it. That is something “Star Wars” did so well with its amazing creature design. The question is how do you subtly introduce the idea that there are different species here. And to also do it differently than the ["Trek"] TV shows, which basically had someone wearing a mask sitting in a chair [in the background]. It was the balance of doing what the story needed us to do but also not feeling like we were trying to rip off or out-do what Lucas did.

GB: It is a challenge. There’s an early scene in your film where you have a crowded bar, music is playing and your callow young hero walks in, rubs shoulders with aliens, and then ends up in a brawl. You have to know that a chunk of your audience will be thinking about the “Star Wars” cantina scene…

JJA: That cantina scene is obviously one of the classic scenes in “Star Wars” and it was such a wonderful introduction to how amazing, how diverse and how full of possibility this “Star Wars” universe was going to be. In the subsequent films, especially the last three, so many scenes have that feeling, that they are just expanding and expanding the worlds. That was definitely something where I felt the burden of “My God, they’ve done it all.” And the challenge is how do you do it where it feels real and meaningful and not like you’re borrowing from someone else. That’s just one of our challenges.

READ PART ONE: J.J. Abrams on tribbles and the “Galaxy Quest” problem

– Geoff Boucher


Leonard_nimoy_1952 Rare photo: Leonard Nimoy at age 20

“Star Wars,” “Trek” and “Battlestar” look for their future

First look: The new “Star Trek” action figures

VIDEO: “Star Trek” meets…Monty Python?

CREDITS: J.J. Abrams photo by Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times. All “Star Trek” photos courtesy of Paramount.


44 Responses to J.J. Abrams: ‘Star Trek’ must escape the shadow of ‘Star Wars’

  1. Jeff C says:

    So, Star Trek is becoming Star Wars, with Kirk as Luke Skywalker, the "guy who is full of unbelievable potential but he is aimless, he is lost. He ends up finding a path that takes him beyond his wildest dreams." In the trailer is the shot of Kirk on the bike looking at the Enterprise, like Luke looking at the twin suns. Old Spock must be the Obi-Wan Kenobi figure, there to impart wisdom and set him on his way. And they even have a Cantina scene. Whoo-wee. Big surprise. So, does Kirk have a dead or missing father who will show up one day as his main adversary? Can we expect Antonio Banderas, channelling his inner Ricardo Montalban to say that he, as Khan is really Kirk's father?
    That's not true! That's impossible!!!
    At the same time, Star Wars is becoming more like Star Trek, with a new television show, and dozens of reference books, like the massive three volume Star Wars Encyclopedia. You can't just write a Star Wars story in the vein of Flash Gordon anymore, you have to make sure that you get all the planets and their orbits right.
    Which is sad. Because Star Wars was designed to be Whiz-Bang action adventure and Star Trek, although it has adventure trappings, was always a "message" show, more attractive to people who like to think and have social commentary. Where is the social commentary in the new movie?
    Whatever. I give up.
    The look of the movie is horrible, with ugly Apple-store design and a badly proportioned Starship and of all the things they could have brought back, the sexist outfits for the female crew…which, when you watch the original pilot didn't exist at the supposed time this movie takes place.
    I'll watch this with the horrible movie remake of Lost in Space sometime on basic cable–and pop in a DVD of the real Star Trek or real Star Wars movies when I want to see the good stuff.

  2. Tim Kieper says:

    I broke out laughing when I read the story ! This is the guy we have entrusted the Trek franchise to ?
    Like saying ; "Chess is clearly in the shadows of checkers"

  3. Origami says:

    Star Trek 90210

  4. Original Trek fan says:

    "as a kid, Star Wars was much more my thing" – well duh, the director who says that should realize that Star Wars was a movie for kids. Star Trek was a show for adults, addressed on issues like racism, and examined potential outcomes if people could time travel and change the past.
    Redoing Star Trek as an actioner with a bunch of teenagers playing Kirk and Spock and the rest sounds like a bad parody.

  5. Cal Godot says:

    Some Star Trek fans are just laughable, aren't they? Almost religious in their zealous devotion. They are the original snarkers of the Internet, a band of daring keyboard adventurers who originally met on Usenet, then went on to pollute the World Wide Web with their childish attachment and infantile fear of change. I recall the amount of hatred spewed upon TNG when it premiered – then the criticism of DS9, the Voyager… shows which now are beloved, since the Trekkies have Enterprise and not Abrams to hate. Many, if not most, Trek fans are simply never happy, always complaining, intolerable of any difference of judgment or diversity of opinion regarding their hallowed subject. Understand that I'm a lifelong Star Trek fan, a kid who wore a Kirk shirt, festooned his room with posters, and who counts among his proudest moments the time he got to do the Vulcan salute to Leonard Nimoy. A kid who grew up to write SF, attend cons, and eventually become bewildered by the near-insanity of his fellow Trekkers. I've nothing but praise for Abrams effort, in spite of the fact that i dislike most of his previous work. His fresh take on what was fast becoming a stale idea may be just what is needed to revive Trek from its Braga-induced morbidity. At the very least, Abrams deserves praise for having to courage to take on the only segment of fandom likely to spawn a murder over trivia. My judgment, unlike the hasty opinions of snarky prognosticators who cannot withhold their premature judgment, will come when I've seen the film: this is the position of any fair-minded person, and the proper position of anyone who confesses an affinity for the open-minded, tolerant worldview of Star Trek.

  6. TommyHawk says:

    What is laughable is I am not sure the people below know what they are even saying. More or less trolling.
    J.J. is fine, what he says is true. Stop the trolling please.

  7. TommyHawk says:

    Okay I have to address some of the comments as definitely some of the people saying what they are saying don't even know what they are talking about.
    "as a kid, Star Wars was much more my thing" – well duh, the director who says that should realize that Star Wars was a movie for kids. Star Trek was a show for adults, addressed on issues like racism, and examined potential outcomes if people could time travel and change the past."
    Which makes no difference as plenty of adults in the Star Wars league like it.
    "Redoing Star Trek as an actioner with a bunch of teenagers playing Kirk and Spock and the rest sounds like a bad parody."
    You have NO idea what you are talking about. The actors are all in their late 20s to late 30s. Hmm, I guess 36 is the new 16 now?
    Tim Kieper – You have a poor sense of humor.
    Jeff C- Help your parents pay their cable bill and you might get to see it, that means get a job, that means GET A LIFE.

  8. sirrant says:

    Well said Cal… How could anyone not agree with the fact that ST is in the shadow of SW? Of course it is. I grew up on both and have an appreciation for both… and I like both cheese and crackers. I'm just glad we get more Trek. I hope for a movie that rivals ST2 and First Contact, but even if it's one of the worst, there's always been something special about the ST universe.
    The only thing that saddens me about this new movie is that we won't see the TNG crew in action again. I'd like one more movie from that crew with this type of big budget treatment… but if it was my money on the line, I'd probably be going the same direction that paramount has.

  9. Rich says:

    I wouldn't take the negative comments above as the common thought, but rather the opposite. As often happens in all types of debates, the grouchy people tend to be the one's with the extra time to complain since they have nothing better to do, whereas those of us that welcome the new touches and hope for the best, choose to sit back and laugh at the fanboys.
    I for one think the new movie has great potential, since all I've seen are bits and pieces, I can't say whether it's going to be good or bad, but I'll decide after I've seen it. As for the guy waiting to watch this as his DVD double-feature with Lost in Space, be sure to stock up on extra cat food for your friends.

  10. patrick says:

    I like to discuss Star Wars and Star Trek as differing forms of poetry.
    Star Wars is likened to the limerick in my comparison and, therefore, relatively easy to compose, perform and recall. Its rhyme affects the listener in a simple, basic way.
    However, to me, Star Trek is more akin to a classic haiku. Therefore, it’s style is constricting and often more challenging to create with instant satisfaction for the larger audience. Special discipline and skill is required to craft and deliver this type of poetry to make it appealing to the masses
    Yet it’s reassuring and gratifying that director-Abrams has repeatedly proven he’s in touch with the tastes of contemporary audiences in a way Roddenberry and Berman, god love ‘em, never were. And, FINALLY, Paramount Studios has stepped up-to-the-plate and provided adequate monies and production values to advance Star Trek’s success in a way they NEVER did for those preceding, disadvantaged-producers. Nevertheless, I do find it ironic, that the Studio has, once again, turned to a budget-conscious, TV-based talent to advance the Trek-franchise. Just as Roddenberry and Rick Berman and, most successfully, Harve Bennett were.
    May I confess my preference for more “superstars” among it’s cast? I mean the first Star Wars featured Peter Cushing and Alec Guinness! Jack Nicholson’s Joker helped Tim Burton’s Batman initiate the rebirth of that franchise. The Dark Knight co-stars Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman. Harry Potter flix have their big-names as do the Spiderman and X-Men series (as did Lord Of The Rings, etc). The Day The Earth Stood Still remake even had Keanu Reeves (oops! I just disproved my point! Lol).
    Of course, I am expecting fantastic surprises from this new cast. Yet there’d be more PROOF that Star Trek is seriously movin’ on up to the motion-picture “big leagues” if proven box-office names were attached to it. And the older-stars would contribute some gravitas to the performances, while simultaneously broadening the pic’s demographic-potential. This isn’t simply a Smallville-does-Star Trek effort, is it?
    Yes, with screenwriters Orci & Kutzmam, Abram’s Transformer-features do achieve great commercial success with a profitably large, although limited, demographic. However, nothing could differentiate and distinguish a new TrekFilm more than to emphasize its intelligence, maturity and true sci-fi roots (while capturing its humanity and futuristic outlook). Remolding Trek into more fantasy-adventure retro eye-candy (merely populated with broad themes of loyalty and love and finding a purpose in one’s life) obviously turns Star Trek into Star Wars. To me, that’d be a cheat. With all that money, inexpensive-cast and lots of expensive-CGI, it’s so much easier to clone Star Wars. As opposed to, finally, making the new Star Trek REAL and entertaining to modern audiences. Just as the original series was during it’s appearance in the late 1960’s.
    Will this TrekFilm, or it’s inevitable sequel, achieve Academy Awards nomination in MORE than simply the technical-fields (as Chris Nolan’s 2nd Batman flick has)? Is this gritty-007 with Daniel Craig or a lighthearted Roger Moore Bond-romp? Is JJ aiming high or low here?
    Finally, perhaps they “boldly” went where no studio-trek “has gone before” and made Sulu gay in this alternate timeline? That would sure outdo Star Wars and make Star Trek contemporary!

  11. clu009 says:

    Oh, these comments have been great…. there's no fanboy tantrum quite like a STAR TREK fanboy tantrum!
    Thanks for the laugh. Idiots.

  12. Joe says:

    To all JJ naysayers ——-You guys! C'mon! Has anyone checked to see when the last Trek movie came out? Oh yeah, 2001. That is now 8 years ago folks. It was dead in the water due to an overall stale state of affairs. If you don't believe me…..Go watch Nemesis again. It uses the same old jokes and cliches that were used in 1982! I got to a point that If I heard another
    "Romulan Ale should be illegal" joke, I was gonna throw up.
    To me something had to change to keep the franchise going in a positive direction. Its never going to be what we saw as kids growing up but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy it. I get a kick out of the possibilty that is will be a great series. We'll see for sure, but so far I think it could be just what was needed to be successful again.
    As for clu009. If you like to make fun of these blogs so much then what are you doing hanging around to read the threads? Go read something that is worth your while.

  13. Scott says:

    Another Star Trek movie is fine, and I hope it's good. I was a fan of the original series, hard to believe it was on prime time on a major network. Would a science fiction program run in prime time on NBC today? Not unless it was about ghosts or psychic ability (not really science fiction at all).
    There are literally thousands of very good, even wonderful, even thrilling science fiction stories out there. Why not mine the works of Silverberg, Asimov, Gibson, or Le Guin? The really good, intelligent science fiction movies might include Contact and Gattaca…what else?
    Star Wars was for children with the Ewok (sp?) action figures. Star Trek was for adults, stories limited by the production values of the time. Why continue to make more and more sequels of these old war horses when there are so many other possibilities out there?

  14. "Would a science fiction program run in prime time on NBC today? Not unless it was about ghosts or psychic ability (not really science fiction at all)."
    You mean besides Lost? And I guess you don't count Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. And you must not consider Dollhouse to be sci-fi. Plus, it wasn't that long ago that all of the networks had shows like Threshold, Invasion, etc. But if you completely ignore those examples (and all of those Star Trek shows that were aired in prime time) you are 100% correct.

  15. Captain Fatty says:

    Why is it that those amateur fan-made Star Trek videos look "better" than this "new Trek" amateurish-looking movie?
    J.J. Abrams's Star Trek movie looks like … well … The Bridge looks like a wrong-shaped set on a sound-stage somewhere. And the uniforms look like poor-design costumes made from the wrong materials. And the actors look like … well … they look like friends and relatives dressed up in those meager costumes reciting dialog in some lit-up back room (if I may overstate the case to make a point). It just doesn't have the look & feel of uniformed Starfleet officers commanding a Federation Starship with a ship's roster of 400 crewmen.
    Whereas the fan-made Treks got it right (by simply using what already worked on the series), the Abrams movie looks like a TV pilot, before the weekly series got it looking natural and right.

  16. james says:

    "Star Wars" is a series or movies. The first 3 were great. Star Trek is a way of life.
    Star Wars is fantastic entertainment and Star Trek is almost a calling. Comparing the two is unfair to both.

  17. Michael M says:

    It looks like fan fiction. Just fan fiction on a good budget. The plot from what I have seen has that same amateurish quality. It looks like they completely missed the mark.
    I always thought a prequel should have been capt. Pike on the enterprise. You start your movies or series or whatnot with Pike taking command of the Enterprise. Somewhere along the line,if your doing a series,you do a remake of "The Cage". Somewhere after that you might bring in other characters from the old crew that were there in actual series pilot,and optionally you could bring in any that would not reasonably be seen. (Jr engineer Montgomery Scott?),and of course Spock is there all along. When you finally decide to wrap it all up,we would get to see what happened to Pike that put him in the "Iron lung". (clearly he would end up that way doing something heroic) Thats a story with potential.
    The second thing of course to remember is,a prequel is like a Haiku. There are very tight rules,and the whole point is to weave your story within those rules (plot elements0 and not just make stuff up as you go.

  18. Star Trek…*YAWN*…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

  19. Justin Smith says:

    STAR WARS is much more my thing, too.
    But I LOVED the new Star Trek.
    Good work, Abrams.

  20. [...] Abrams: “Star Trek” still in shadow of Lucas More in: Movies, J. J. Abrams , J. J. Abrams , J. J. Abrams Star Trek [...]

  21. madmonq says:

    Had I known that Abrams had said something this stupid, I would have commented years ago.

    The Beatles don't have to escape the shadow of Elvis and vice versa. ANYONE who doesn't understand that shouldn't be allowed to burp out their opinion. No matter who they think they are.

    Everything this hack says makes me like his well done but easily imagined take on Star Trek less. Yes. Give me the franchise. I'll slap the hell out of Abrams dumb comments with it.

  22. [...] Abrams: “Star Trek” still in shadow of Lucas More in: It's Alive, Movies, L.A. eventsLeonard NimoyStar TrekWilliam Shatner [...]

  23. [...] Abrams: “Star Trek” still in shadow of Lucas More in: TV, Star Trek [...]

  24. [...] Abrams: “Star Trek” still in shadow of Lucas More in: TV, Star TrekWilliam Shatner [...]

  25. [...] Abrams: “Star Trek” still in shadow of Lucas More in: Movies, L.A. eventsStar Trek [...]

  26. [...] Abrams: “Trek” still in shadow of George Lucas More in: Movies, Damon LindelofE.T.J. J. AbramsMatt ReevesSteven SpielbergSuper 8 [...]

  27. [...] Abrams: ‘Star Trek’ still in shadow of Lucas More in: Hero Complex: The Show, A Clockwork Orange, Hero Complex Film Festival, Hero Complex: The Show, Malcolm McDowell, Stanley Kubrick, Star Trek, The Avengers [...]

  28. [...] Abrams: ‘Star Trek’ still in shadow of Lucas More in: Hero Complex: The Show, Movies, Hero Complex Film Festival, Hero Complex: The Show, Peter Weller, Robocop [...]

  29. DOnDonP1 says:

    Truth is: "Star Trek" is owned by CBS while "Star Wars" is owned by Lucasfilm. I have been growing up on those two sci-fi franchises.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

E-mail It
Powered by ShareThis