Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Fresh STAR TREK Still Years Away??

I am – Hercules!!

Paramount still has a new “Star Trek” movie on its calendar set to premiere June 29, 2012, but it’s starting to look like Paramount is about to knock that back another year, maybe to June 28, 2013.

At Saturday’s Comic Con premiere of “Cowboys and Aliens” in San Diego, screenwriter-producer Roberto Orci told Cinepremiere that the next “Trek” would begin shooting “hopefullyyyyyy” in January.

A January 2012 start would not only make a June 2012 premiere nigh impossible, it would mean Bad Robot would have less than a year to get an effects-heavy spaceship action movie into cinemas by Christmas 2012.

Finishing a Star Trek movie in 11 months seems highly unlikely – but not impossible. I seem to remember that Fox managed to get “X-Men: First Class” – another big sci-fi movie swimming in effects – from greenlight to cinemas in the space of a year.

Still, “First Class” was more an exception than a rule and this is why summer 2013 seems by far the more likely release window.

This means of course that four years will have transpired between Kirk/Spock adventures, but do we want it fast or do we want it good? I’m guessing most fans are happy to give the film more time if it means dodging another shitty “Trek” sequel.

The delay would also mean more waiting for another “Trek” TV series. The general thinking is no new TV Trek (presumably set in the new Bad Robot universe) will be contemplated until the next feature is squared away. The last episode of “Star Trek: Enterprise” aired May 13, 2005.

Find all of Cinepremiere’s story on the matter here.


Follow Herc on Twitter!!

Follow Evil Herc on Twitter!!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • July 28, 2011, 5:19 p.m. CST


    by hirsty

    we want it nowwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!

  • July 28, 2011, 5:20 p.m. CST

    by pat p.

    fuck! first.

  • July 28, 2011, 5:20 p.m. CST

    by pat p.


  • July 28, 2011, 5:20 p.m. CST

    asimov hardest hit

    by DoctorWho?

  • July 28, 2011, 5:20 p.m. CST


    by hirsty

    first also btw!!!!

  • July 28, 2011, 5:22 p.m. CST

    Daniel Craig is my wookie bitch now

    by RedLeaderStandingBy

    Funniest shit I've heard this year.

  • July 28, 2011, 5:22 p.m. CST

    GOOD, not Fast.

    by DOGSOUP

  • July 28, 2011, 5:22 p.m. CST


    by Meadowe

  • July 28, 2011, 5:22 p.m. CST


    by Meadowe

    We need an edit function stat!

  • July 28, 2011, 5:23 p.m. CST

    who cares about this?

    by mick vance

    when they gonna make another simpsons movie? my pitch is they just turn the arcade game into a movie.

  • July 28, 2011, 5:24 p.m. CST

    WTF have they been playing at?

    by Jazzmaverickjim

    JJ needs to get his finger out.

  • July 28, 2011, 5:26 p.m. CST

    They successfully re-launch the franchise...

    by krabklaw

    ..and then they totally botch the follow-up. All the major players for this should have been on stand-by for a sequel. WTH?

  • July 28, 2011, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Would rather...

    by Superthug3000

    Them spend more time making a decent movie instead of rushing a turd to the theatres.Start bitching if the final product sucks.

  • July 28, 2011, 5:28 p.m. CST

    Just put Trek back on TV, where it belongs

    by lock67ca

    And get someone who respects the show and it's history to run the damn thing. That is all.

  • July 28, 2011, 5:29 p.m. CST

    If true

    by rahtard

    They'll bump it to christmas 2012, which will make JJ happy as he prefers winter release. They have the sets and the technology already so it shouldn't take a long time to finish. JJ finished Super 8 really quickly. There's no huge casting needing to be done, they've had a story idea for about 2 years. It will come out in 2012. Paramount has nothing left now that the Marvel properties go to Disney. They need Star Trek to come out.

  • July 28, 2011, 5:29 p.m. CST


    by Kevin


  • July 28, 2011, 5:32 p.m. CST

    Just get on with it already

    by j2talk

    Jeeze people, get to work already!!!!!!!!!!

  • July 28, 2011, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Fast AND good would have been nice

    by beelkay

    I guess now we're left with fast OR good. :0(

  • July 28, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST

    oh dear. not good. sequels too long after rarely work.

    by Mysterious_Volvo

  • July 28, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST

    Not too bad

    by locater16

    Again, post being what it is "nowadays" less than a year would be perfectly doable, under the right circumstances.

  • July 28, 2011, 5:45 p.m. CST


    by Marshal_Lannes usually wait until movie 3 or 4 to start killing a franchise. Release past 2013 and they'll have to reboot the

  • July 28, 2011, 5:46 p.m. CST


    by Tera Sanders

    Worst casting since Michael Keaton as Batman.

  • July 28, 2011, 5:48 p.m. CST

    What is it about THOSE glasses...


    Why is it that anyone who wears them is always a cunt?

  • July 28, 2011, 5:50 p.m. CST

    If they wait til 2013, they might as well relaunch Next Generation.

    by Doctor_Strangepork

    And we can tell our grandkids that we remember that JJ Abrams Star Trek movie was "not bad."

  • July 28, 2011, 5:51 p.m. CST


    by Jonas Earl James

    And most of all, I hope for some powerful weapons. Like what this guy digs:

  • July 28, 2011, 5:52 p.m. CST

    At its height Star Trek produced 52 hours per year

    by Nem_Wan

    When DS9 was on simultaneously with TNG or VOY, there were 52 new episodes of Star Trek every year, 26 per season per series. And a lot of them were good or great. There may be an over-saturation point with Star Trek but the pace of the current film series is way too slow. The 2009 movie was delayed for some reason, after filming, and now the next one is taking forever to get started. It's hard to believe Paramount is leaving money on the table. It's hard to believe CBS is leaving money on the table. It's been literally a generation since TNG. It's time for Star Trek The NEXT Next Generation. No nostalgia for the original cast or any previous cast, save that for the movies. It's time for a new series that is as different from all previous Trek as TNG was from TOS. People forget how radically risky TNG was. VOY and ENT were designed to try to keep the audience from defecting. TNG was willing to alienate you until you got it. With Roddenberry dead no one is in charge who is personally invested in pushing Star Trek FORWARD. We need not a reboot, but a new sequel, far enough removed from the "24th Century" that continuity doesn't have a vice grip on the show, the same way TNG was initially very removed from TOS. I have doubts CBS will be willing to take Roddenberry's fuck-it-all-this-is-what-I-want-to-do risks unless they hire someone to do exactly that.

  • July 28, 2011, 5:53 p.m. CST

    Hey boborci

    by Jeff

    Now I know what you look like! I hope the next Trek continues what we saw in the first Abrams reboot. I hope the story goes somewhat more dramatic, maybe, especially with Spock's story intertwining around Starfleet's finest. Or maybe you could invent a much more frightening scenario to build around, involving new races that humanity must ally itself with to fight extinction. Maybe the baddie could be something new: a dark matter entity that's come to shut down all the stars in out galaxy. Whatever the case, I think it could be pretty cool.

  • July 28, 2011, 5:54 p.m. CST

    boborci should stop by this thread.


    And hold a talkback 'press conference' of some sort. Come on, boborci.

  • July 28, 2011, 5:54 p.m. CST


    by Wacky Packages

  • July 28, 2011, 5:55 p.m. CST


    by Wacky Packages

  • July 28, 2011, 5:57 p.m. CST

    I blame AsimovLives.

    by FluffyUnbound

    He fucked this up for everybody.

  • July 28, 2011, 5:59 p.m. CST

    Get Kevin "Too fat to fly on a 737" Smith to direct it.

    by F-18

    Then it will tank like a motherfucker and then we won't have to hear about Star Trek remakes ever again.

  • July 28, 2011, 6 p.m. CST

    Use the extra time to work on the script.

    by FluffyUnbound

    I liked the new cast, liked the look (including lens flare), but the script had a lot of holes. Hit the script harder this time and this could be the best Trek yet. HA! I threw in that "best Trek yet" line even though I don't think that, just to freak out our dear friend. LONG LIVE THE NEW TREK

  • July 28, 2011, 6:01 p.m. CST

    The remake was full of 'wut'?

    by 3774

    But i still liked it a lot. i can't for the life of me, understand how anybody could like the snore-fest that was DS9. It took all i had to make it through the first season, and then i just gave up. Apparently stuff actually happened later, but i was gone by then.

  • July 28, 2011, 6:04 p.m. CST

    OH NO ... I have to wait longer for more Nu-Trek???


    Best fucking news today.

  • July 28, 2011, 6:05 p.m. CST

    On stand by

    by locater16

    Pretty sure all of the cast had some sort of contractual agreement in their contracts for a sequel. The big thing that's delayed it is J.J. Abrams. We should be thankful really, as he stated he wouldn't do a sequel until a good script is ready, and one can only suppose it now is. If it was done quickly we could have gotten another "Quantum of Solace"

  • July 28, 2011, 6:05 p.m. CST

    Paramount already moved it!

    by wildphantom07

    They've put the new GI Joe in that June slot. Announced earlier. Come on Harry!! Keep up!!! I agree, we won't see a new Star Trek now until summer 2013. Which I'm fine with. Pointless releasing it anywhere near the new Bond and The Hobbit next Xmas.

  • or more series set in the 24th century....we need something around 26th century or so PUSHING FORWARD! Something as far removed from TOS as TNG was you are right! BUt we got small tastes of the distant Trek future in some of the TNG, DS9 and STV episodes and I am really hoping we could get rid of the whole time travelling fleet....time travel just mucks things up....I couldnt imagine a series where time travel plays that kind of part....BUT what would be cool would be like warp technology increasing to the point that Federation ships (IF there is even such a thing as the Federation anymore) can travel to other galaxies....THAT would open things up!

  • July 28, 2011, 6:10 p.m. CST

    never gonna happen

    by TheManWhoCan

    with the complete cast of the last movie? highly highly unlikely. nu-trek was a one off, we are never going to get a sequel dispite all the talk talk from JJ and Co!<p> If you believe that bullshit you probably thnk we are going to get a Cloverfield sequel or District 9 sequel. Ignore the talk and IMDB pages, this franchise is as dead as True Lies 2!

  • July 28, 2011, 6:11 p.m. CST

    sequels too long after rarely work.

    by Keith

    Yeah, like Aliens and T2.

  • July 28, 2011, 6:12 p.m. CST

    Hey wait a minute...

    by Keith

    I *hate* T2. But I accept that most people think it's pretty darn good. And it clearly isn't any kind of rush-job botch. Three years between Star Wars and Empire (and every other intra-series release). Would four years between Treks really be such a nightmare?

  • July 28, 2011, 6:17 p.m. CST


    by Margot Tenenbaum

    I hope they never make any sequels to Abrams Trek.

  • July 28, 2011, 6:18 p.m. CST

    I wish fuckin' BlahsimovLives was still fuckin' years away.

    by Al Swearengen

    Finally have some peace and fuckin' quiet in this joint, huh?

  • July 28, 2011, 6:20 p.m. CST

    I want it fast AND good, dammit!

    by Xaximus

    What's taking so long?!? Pretty soon Pine won't look much better than Shatner.

  • July 28, 2011, 6:23 p.m. CST

    It's been a looong time getting from here to there....

    by HSStudios

    Sorry, had the urge to sing that crappy Enterprise theme.

  • July 28, 2011, 6:37 p.m. CST


    by Jonas Earl James

    Really REALLY hoping that the upcoming Star Trek / LEGION OF SUPERHEROES crossover from DC Comics and IDW is adapted as a feature film. I don't even care if it's any good. It's gonna be so awesome though. Actually, I would give my left nut to see a crossover between Star Trek and HE MAN on the silver screen! This guy would love it if Teela and Kirk got it on (even though He-Man and Teela are meant for each other):

  • July 28, 2011, 6:40 p.m. CST

    Use mirror universe and make it like Blake's 7

    by tangcameo

  • July 28, 2011, 6:41 p.m. CST

    Best news I've heard today- Next Gen blu-rays are in the works

    by Carl's hat

    Second best news was this news.

  • July 28, 2011, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Star Trek 09 made $127 million overseas

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Absolutely terrible, half of the domestic box office. Paramount are probably crunching numbers and thinking "Why even bother to make this?". The looming disappointing box office of Kurtzman and Orci's Cowboys and Aliens won't help matters either. Sad to see a once great series being trashed like this by people that have no fucking clue what they are doing. It's a cynical, soulless money-grabbing exercise from people with no sense of art or storytelling.

  • July 28, 2011, 6:54 p.m. CST

    4 years?... Sensors are picking up another re-boot.

    by Tikidonkeypunch

  • especially when you have some investment in the subject. Besides...he's stressed out...the TB brawls are a cathartic experience for him these days I think.

  • July 28, 2011, 6:58 p.m. CST

    If the studio waits until 2013 to get a sequel going...

    by Orbots Commander

    ...then the cast will be roughly the same age as the original Shatner/Nimoy cast. The 'Dawson's Trek' charge won't be able to be leveled at them.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:02 p.m. CST

    But I want it nowwww

    by Robstar

    Got a feeling that there won't be too many Treks with the current cast. They will whip up another one and it will be cool, but that will be it. It would take Harry Potter levels of money to get everybody to come back for a true series of films.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:03 p.m. CST

    And I doubt the same cast gets together.

    by Orbots Commander

    In other words, Abrams' Star Trek was a one-and-done.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:06 p.m. CST

    i sent orci's talkback transcripts to paramount

    by animas

    that is probably why there is no sequel , at least with him involved.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Hopefully they'll just reboot...

    by darthwaz1

    that last movie was a stinker!

  • July 28, 2011, 7:08 p.m. CST

    When you rush a movie you get...

    by DigitalBeachWar

    ...Indy 4. BTW the SFX in X-Men: First Class were pretty awful.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Was anyone really clamoring for this?

    by CountryBoy

    I'd kind of forgoten all about Star Trek. The last one was the definition of a "popcorn movie" -- fun at the time, but instantly forgettable. All the substance of, well, popcorn. I don't really care if there's never another one. I can sympathize with fans who were interested in that universe as it was meant to be. But come on; that was never going to happen now anyway.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:09 p.m. CST

    A retro show needed a retro tune...

    by HSStudios

    What part of the Original Series, that Enterprise was "retro" referring to, featured a Rod Stewart impersonator singing a bad 70s ballad?

  • July 28, 2011, 7:10 p.m. CST

    Is Orci slowly turning into JJ in that video?

    by CountryBoy

    That's hilarious...

  • July 28, 2011, 7:13 p.m. CST

    The cast...

    by HughHoyland

    Was something I didnt think about, that may be hard to keep together. But from what I understand they are under contract.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Good, longer delay allows for at least a

    by Brian Hopper

    possibility the Abrams-Orci-Kurtzman wrecking crew are somehow replaced. And @kwisatzhaderach is right... among the many embarrassing things about ST:INO, perhaps the worst is its anemic overseas numbers. (Though ST has never been a big performer overseas.) In comparison to ST:INO's $127m, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (which also came out in 2009) made $690m overseas! I can GUARANTEE that the most important thing Paramount is thinking about is how to get the overseas number up. One way to do it: better, more coherent, smarter movie. Which means adios Abrams. (Wishful thinking, I know.)

  • July 28, 2011, 7:20 p.m. CST

    kwisatzhaderach......actually trek only made abo

    by southafricanguy

    ut 30% of its b.o internationally.....which really shows treks limited global appeal unfortunatly. I too wonder if Paramount is all that enthusiastic about making more expensive treks considering the fact that they are nt exactly doing Batman/harry potter/transformers I think that maybe its best for trek to remain more low budget so that it can more justify itself and then it can be more free to do whatever it wants, and then they could also be made more regularly imho.....

  • ...So as to actually sell some tickets overseas. It's sad that it's taken this long to get another film going, but what's worse is that the cast, which was the best part of the otherwise shaky reboot film, hasn't managed to launch any careers from the success. I didn't see that runaway train movie, so Chris Pine may as well have fallen off the Earth since that last one. Same with the Spock guy. Most of the others have been working regularly, if not drawing a huge amount of attention. Really, the series needed some of these actors to become more recognizable, if for no other reason than to generate some foreign box office. The last 2 Narnia films both trounced Abrams' Star Trek in combined worldwide gross, for god's sake, and they still debate whether or not to even make another one of those.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:30 p.m. CST

    JJ will make this work

    by JerryAurora

    The sequel will make more money, even overseas. The time off won't hurt it if it still hits screens in 2013. Like other talkbackers have said, Paramount doesn't have many franchises left, so it has no choice to go forward with JJ and co. And it has been reported elsewhere that Paramount has already picked up the options on the entire cast, so there is no concern on that front. I would also agree with what others had said about Trek belonging on tv. As much as I enjoyed the theatrical reboot, it would be much better to have quality trek on tv on a regular basis. I was always a fan of doing a trek anthology series, exploring many areas and time periods of the trek universe.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Have we forgotten the 'original'?

    by TheDarkShape

    Star Trek started shooting in November '07 and was finished and ready to go for a December '08 release. Paramount only delayed it to have something in their strike-hit summer '09.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:39 p.m. CST

    As for overseas...

    by TheDarkShape

    Star Trek's never been a good performer outside the U.S, but ST's 'anemic' $127 million improves greatly on Nemesis' $24 million. Any way you slice it, Star Trek '09 grossed more -- and sold more tickets -- than any other film in the franchise. Trek '09, love it or hate it, has all the markings of a Pirates/Batman Begins-like sequel boost. Audiences loved it, it overperformed versus expectations, and it sold a ton of copies on DVD and Blu-ray. A sequel is going to increase, it's just a question of by how much.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Boborci, I suggest having a redshirt named...

    by Mattman

    Asimov. You know you want to.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:47 p.m. CST

    Further to @chewtoy's point, another way Paramount

    by Brian Hopper

    might try to boost foreign numbers on ST:INO2 is by injecting bankable international guest star(s) into it. Usually a recipe for disaster. Note to movie studios: Johnny Depp can't be wedged into EVERY movie. (ST can't go back to TV quick enough.)

  • July 28, 2011, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Im sure a Next Generation reboot isnt far away

    by sunwukong86

    Michael Fassbender as Picard anyone?

  • July 28, 2011, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Wouldn't James McAvoy be Picard?

    by Mattman

    I mean, since he played Professor X and all? ;)

  • July 28, 2011, 7:50 p.m. CST

    JJ's Star Trek was actually one of the least successful of the franchise

    by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Gravy

    The original series entries - at least until part five - were huge blockbusters when broken down for ticket sales and adjusting for inflation. Moreso than JJ Trek. As for Trek's international appeal, it has only ever been popular in the US, UK and Germany. People in Asia know next to nothing about Star Trek - it is far too Western in its sensibilities and approach to sci fi.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:51 p.m. CST

    McAvoy is too short for Picard

    by sunwukong86

  • July 28, 2011, 7:53 p.m. CST

    Sunwukong, not if Riker is played by... Peter Dinklage

    by Mattman

    Don't react... just think about it.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:53 p.m. CST

    Well How Times Change!

    by Real Deal

    I seem to remember around 2005 when Enterprise was in it's final year and posters on this site were saying things like " Maybe we don't need Star Trek anymore now that we have Battlestar Galactica ". I said it then and I'll say it now. The genre needs Star Trek more than ever. We may have been at a saturation point back then but that was 6 years ago. Six years with only one movie to show. SF is begining to fade a bit and that's sad. Some may say that ST isn't SF but it's clearly one of the key peices in promoting it. If you haven't noticed that you haven't been paying attention. And if you don't like SF what the hell are you doing here anyway? That said I to would rather have a good film than a rushed one.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:56 p.m. CST

    I confess.

    by Truxton Spangler

    Generally, I'm a Trek fan, mostly of TOS, ST I-IV, and TNG, but only got around to watching the last movie recently. I didn't care for it. Didn't like the look, the photography, or the liberties taken. The cast members, individually, and in other roles, are not unlikeable, but they didn't strike the right cord in these roles for me. Paramount may wish to keep milking the franchise until the end of time, but I'll sit this round out.

  • July 28, 2011, 7:56 p.m. CST

    @thedarkshape C'mon, $127m is not

    by Brian Hopper

    nearly enough to compare it to a Pirates/Batman-type possibility of producing a mega-sequel. What's going on at Paramount is the opposite thinking: do we commit to the huge production and marketing expense if this CAN'T be a billion-dollar movie? I love Star Trek (pre-ST:INO), but I'm not at all certain it can ever be a Dark Knight-style success overseas. An aside: I know a (smart) Dutch guy who saw ST:INO in Germany where he works... he found it (and felt the audience found it) incoherent and stupid. Bad movies never do well (i.e., hack Abrams must go).

  • July 28, 2011, 7:58 p.m. CST

    There seems to be an overall lack of interest.

    by skydemon

    By producers and fans. I think now Trek finally begins to slip forever into film history. The film may get done eventually, and it may not. But it won't change anything. The core fans are getting older and less excited about it anyway. And I think the twenty something crowd could probably really care less. It's all about $$ and I don't thing Trek has the Cha-Ching it once did. Too bad.

  • July 28, 2011, 8:05 p.m. CST

    They've done an AWESOME job of rebooting this franchise...

    by Jobacca

    And by rebooting,I actually mean killing. The last movie was great,but they needed to strike while the iron was hot. At this rate Chris Pine is going to be rocking a Shatner toupee by the time the sequel gets made.....

  • July 28, 2011, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Sad Fact - You'll never get what you want.

    by Perigee

    TOS was primitive, but it was on the tail end of the golden age of intelligent television writing. More than half of it was crap (Shadow of the Gun, Spock's Brain, etc.), but when you look at TV Sci-Fi at the time, it was a pinnacle achievement. TNG was an attempt to create the best of what Trekkies (like me) wanted to remember Trek to be. It was a rocky start, but they certainly managed to rise at times to the very best of our expectations. New Trek is not for Trekkies; it is the Real Deal next-gen. Designed for the illiterate, x-box playing, gnats-attention-span morons who find "Transformers" a great franchise. And it made good boxoffice. I even liked it - for what it was. A pretty, petty trifle. But there is zero chance that they're going to endanger this expensive cash cow by injecting the least amount of intellect or thought provocation. Not. Gonna. Happen. And, if they ever put it on television again, it won't be your Trek, either. That's gone. You're old. They'd have to sell it to Lipitor and Hoverround. They're going for the Clearasil demographic. Our time is up.

  • July 28, 2011, 8:09 p.m. CST

    I'd rather see Paramount release Indy 5...

    by darthwaz1

    Just saying, Crystal Skull didn't knock my socks off, but there's still plenty of hope for a part 5, and the older Indy works incredibly.

  • The whole issue with this new TREK film franchise is that unlike every other incarnation of the series, it's not based on a pre-existing foundation. There wasn't 3 years of the original series, or many years of the Next Generation before it launched -- instead they just made 1 movie, and regardless of fans liking or disliking it, it's impossible to build that kind of goodwill amongst viewers as the previous casts had, or build up/sustain mass interest. Making one movie every 3 years just doesn't compare to the hundreds of episodes that the TOS and TNG casts had built up. TREK's foundation is in TV, and it's also a major problem for them making a film-exclusive series, because the old series also made shows with different types of stories. The problem they have there is where do you go? The studio will want an action-heavy, effects-intensive film. They can't say "we're making KHAN" when they just made a film that had a revenge-driven villain plot. Trek was always about different kinds of sci-fi stories, exploration, action, drama, comedy -- it's just so hard to expect Abrams and crew to establish that level of excitement when they're just making 1 movie every few years with a cast that's entirely new and who you don't see at any other point. Sorry to ramble, lol...I do want to see another film but I think they should've done a series first or in the interim to maintain interest.

  • Regardless of whether you liked the 2009 film or not.

  • July 28, 2011, 8:11 p.m. CST


    by FluffyUnbound


  • July 28, 2011, 8:11 p.m. CST

    Also AI.

    by FluffyUnbound

  • July 28, 2011, 8:19 p.m. CST

    LOL-no certainly not.

    by skydemon

    But you know, your absolutely right. The bigger picture here is that Star Trek, like any Sci fi worth it's salt, demands creative writing. Where are the writers today the quality of Sam Peeples, Charles Beaumont, Richard Matheson, Harlan Ellison? Either they aren't being hired, or the bureaucracy in hollywood has stifled them. Movies and TV today are just plain damn lazy at script level.

  • July 28, 2011, 8:23 p.m. CST

    How to increase international box office $$$:

    by Chief Joseph

    Fire John Cho and replace with Rain.

  • July 28, 2011, 8:27 p.m. CST

    Long wait does NOT equal GOOD!

    by Drath

    They didn't take a long time trying to make it good, they're taking a long time because they're fucking around with other projects and not focusing on this franchise like they should. Two years is the window to keep the momentum, and they've squandered it for no good reason. Shit. The original series had six movies, but this reboot will probably slow down and stop with three.

  • July 28, 2011, 8:29 p.m. CST

    Abrams and wrecking crew

    by Brian Hopper

    utterly lost the core ST fan base with their stillborn monstrosity. By comparison, I think about how successful Peter Jackson has been at (1) keeping the millions of Middle Earth fans happy by honoring the Tolkien source material while (2) adding millions of new fans with a revved-up, action-oriented (yet soulful) take on that material. A more talented director than the hacktastic Abrams -- as well as actual writers (other than the "writers" who "wrote" Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and other screeching messes) -- could have handled the project successfully. Instead, ST is ruined until it finds its way into better hands.

  • July 28, 2011, 8:29 p.m. CST

    What a collection of assholes at Paramount.

    by Mugato5150

    How hard is it to make a Star Trek movie? Each Next generation episode cost $1 million each and they did that every week. I know, inflation and everything but still.

  • July 28, 2011, 8:32 p.m. CST

    before you know it they will be too old

    by Norm3

    They are nuts to wait too long.

  • I've seen and heard enough reaction to know that the majority of people, fans and non-fans, liked it. Many many people loved it. I'm a TOS die-hard -- DIE-HARD -- and I thought they did a great job. And I would add that some of the people behind it were indeed doing it in good faith. Orci is a Trek fanatic. He is just one of many people involved who did not just do it for a paycheck. He also did it out of love of the source material. That's a fact. Anyone who days otherwise doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about. Fuck you Robert Orci hatred. And fuck you NuTrek hatred. That was the best Trek we got in YEARS and it was treated with love and respect. No it wasn't perfect. Can you name one film that is?

  • July 28, 2011, 8:36 p.m. CST


    by LT Weezie

    Guess I am part of the original "old school"---the best part of the JJA ST was Leonard Nimoy's cameos. I can wait...the REAL STAR TREK has already been awesomely done long ago as far as I am concerned. That new one was something "alternate" and "speculative"---nice tribute but not the "real" TREK. I'll just enjoy my Blu-Ray ST-TOS, and the first six ST films.

  • July 28, 2011, 8:40 p.m. CST

    They should've started this movie a year ago

    by rev_skarekroe

    Hey, we just gave a huge shot of adrenalin to one of the most successful franchises of all time! Let's just sit on that momentum for half a decade!

  • July 28, 2011, 8:58 p.m. CST

    @ Geektard_Smasher

    by 3774

    i completely agree on the theme song for Enterprise. i got geek chills. TOS was long before i was born, but i grew up fiercely loyal on years of reruns. So much so that TNG actually took some time getting used to, even though it was supposed to be for my generation. Just recently started watching TOS on Netflix with the revised special effects. They're actually not bad so far. i could do with less swooping movements from the Enterprise, though. 'Nimble' is not exactly a way i would describe a starship.

  • July 28, 2011, 9:03 p.m. CST

    I'm with astronut

    by JerryAurora

    Since its release two years ago, everyone I have talked to about JJ's Trek liked or loved it. Truly the only people I have seen trashing it were uber geeks on comment boards like this one. Most casual filmgoers embraced it and enjoyed it. That is exactly what Paramount was aiming for. Had they made the film what fanboys wanted, the reaction to it by the public would have been similar to the fates of Scott Pilgrim, Kick Ass, and Watchmen. They made a film that would appeal to the most people possible. Like it or not, its how the damn studio system works these days. Personally, like Astronut, I am a die hard TOS fan. When they originally announced the concept for the film, I was truly disappointed. But I ended up really liking how they treated the characters and loved the film. So feel free to piss and moan all you want about JJ, Orci & Kurtzman, the cast, and lens flares, the rest of us will be patiently waiting for the next film.

  • July 28, 2011, 9:18 p.m. CST

    Thanks jerryaurora

    by Astronut

    Nice to see some sanity on these boards.

  • July 28, 2011, 9:18 p.m. CST


    by Dave317

    Old School Trekkies were willing to have limited battles and fisticuffs in favor of unique, meaningful stories like Where No Man Has Gone Before, City on the Edge of Forever, Devil in the Dark, etc, and of course Wrath of Khan, which appealed overseas because it was Hornblower in space - a literary classic not made in America - with international star Ricardo Montalban as a villain unique to Star Trek, and ILM outdoing themselves with the Genesis Effect. Those fans embraced Next Generation which was bold enough NOT to be son of Kirk, son of Spock, etc, yet similar enough that it was still the Enterprise and the Federation exploring new worlds in nearly the same way. The kids who never knew TOS and TNG (who grew up with DS9 and Voyager) weren't as interested in "boring" stories with "crappy" fx and didn't mind merely "okay" stories as long as they had action and sweet production values. The old schoolers jumped over to the brilliant writing and low budget of Babylon 5 - the movie I'd REALLY like to see given the A-list makeover. Then lately we've got the Enterprise-Abrams generation, who don't seem to care about story (or know what they're missing) as long as its an fx-laden, HD surround sound spectacle with non-stop action. I'm lucky enough to be a fan of all three, the same way I like Adam West's Batman series nearly as much as the Burton/Nolan films. Paramount has RARELY treated this franchise with the respect it deserves though - they've always hated the rabid and eclectic fanbase who disagree as much as they agree (we all want Trek to be "good", but have three generations to please) and I doubt they'll start changing their tune now. Luckily for Trekkies old and new, they respect J.J., and I still believe that he and Orci/ Kurtzman can deliver a meaningful AND action-packed story. Still, Paramount might want to look at the figures for Doctor Who and reconsider the "no TV" concept. I'm ready for a Trek Anthology that can jump around between eras and not HAVE TO rely on continuity, while keeping all the promise of potential spin-offs if an episode really hits. You can have that idea for free Paramount. STAR TREK ANTHOLOGY

  • July 28, 2011, 9:20 p.m. CST

    Oh. And sorry about all the typos in my original post...

    by Astronut

    I posted using my iPhone. Damn autocorrect.

  • July 28, 2011, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Ditch Orci and Kurtzman

    by Cruizer Dave

    Star Trek 2009's biggest problem was its script and story. Abrams kept the starship afloat with his high energy directing, and utilizing likable characters portrayed by competent actors. Seriously though, if you think about the problems in story and plot of the 09 film, you'll see how damn stupid every fucking thing Orci/ Kurtzman turn out is. These guys write for shit. Abrams would be better off without a script than one from these two clowns. Ditch them! Get real writers. Now! Before it's too late.

  • July 28, 2011, 9:29 p.m. CST

    Bob must be busy snorting cocaine off Olivia Wilde's ass dimples


    Or maybe he's diligently writing Star Trek 2. Nah. That coke won't snort itself off Olivia's ass.

  • July 28, 2011, 9:31 p.m. CST

    How to expand Chief Joseph's box office mojo even more

    by dannygloversadick

    Replace John Cho with anybody known to Asian fans: Rain as Chief J suggests will work, as he won't have that much to do anyway. - Replace Quinto with Adam Nimoy (he needs the work, seems to have straightened up, and Spock's older than Kirk in canon anyway). Replace Simon Pegg with Paul McGillion from Stargate. -Use the Federation TOS novel by Mark Lenard as the plot. That opens up all kinds of possibilities to recasting TNG if desired, or including that original cast. -Have some better T & A frankly, with Yeoman Rand stealing the show and Kirk's affections. Blake Lively gets my vote but any attention grabbing blonde will do. Does anyone else think she reminds you of a young Ellen Barkin? _Have fights that matter, and actual ass kicking. - A detour to Betazed is in order for this R-rated Trek.

  • July 28, 2011, 9:34 p.m. CST

    Fuck new movies, give us the Titan TV show already

    by KoolerThanJesus

    I want Riker, Troi and Worf back on television every week. With regular guest appearances by Captain Data of the Enterprise and Ambassador Picard. Throw in some of the DS9 people to round out the rest of the Titan crew and people will come. Hell, I just came thinking about it.

  • July 28, 2011, 9:48 p.m. CST

    I liked JJ Trek

    by smudgewhat

    If the new script ain't there yet, trash it and start again. Waiting is better than the overabundance years of Voyager and Enterprise.

  • July 28, 2011, 9:50 p.m. CST


    by 3774

    i lol'd. And i can't hear the phrase 'sniffing coke' without Robocop going through my head. Is that weird? There was only 2 1/2 years difference between The Motion Picture and Wrath of Khan. There is definitely momentum-trouble in Lensflareville.

  • The original series entries - at least until part five - were huge blockbusters when broken down for ticket sales and adjusting for inflation. Moreso than JJ Trek.

  • July 28, 2011, 9:52 p.m. CST


    by Dave317

    In a Trek Anthology, you could have Titan episodes, DS9 episodes, Enterprise and Voyager II episodes (freakin V'Ger episodes if you want); shows that follow Janeway as a Starfleet Admiral, Data as a Captain, and show Geordi building Spock's ship for the new movie. You could throw a shout out to the ST:Online universe for keeping it real, and do crazy stuff like follow the Captain of one of the OTHER starships that had to fight off the M5 Computer when it was hijacking the original Enterprise. You could still do WTF episodes by featuring MORE Kirk/Spock universes... like James Cawleys for example. Feature-film universe episodes if the new movie needs a little buzz... and of course, Titan episodes like five or six times a season, with each one of those being the big ACTION episodes in honor of Jonathan Frakes, the director who really kicked the pace into overdrive. Even Orion Slave Girl episods... big geek sigh. Twilight Zone continuity, Star Trek substance, super-cutting-bleeding-quantum edge fx. The Best of All Worlds. STAR TREK ANTHOLOGY. Just saying. Take my idea Paramount; just allow me to enjoy it. Probably been thought of before.

  • The original series entries - at least until part five - were huge blockbusters when broken down for ticket sales and adjusting for inflation. Moreso than JJ Trek.

  • July 28, 2011, 9:52 p.m. CST

    Star Trek 09...

    by HughHoyland

    Freaking rocked IMO. It was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise dead in the water Franchise. I just hope this looong gap in between films doesnt hurt it. Who knows, I know I'll be in line to watch it when it finally does hit theaters! :]

  • July 28, 2011, 9:53 p.m. CST

    Okay, AICN doesn't want to read my replies to adjusted ticket sales...

    by TheDarkShape

    Long story short: Star Trek: The Motion Picture sold the most tickets of the original films. Its $82m in 1979 adjusts to $242 million in 2009 dollars. Star Trek made $257 million. Hence, Star Trek '09 sold more tickets than any other film in the franchise.

  • July 28, 2011, 9:55 p.m. CST

    Strangling the baby in the crib

    by Geekgasm

    Whatever "young hip new audience" the reboot picked up - which Paramount was salivating at the prospect of - will have moved on to something else in the FOUR INTERVENING YEARS its gonna take to sequelize that overrated shitburger. People have attention spans shorter than Harry's cock these days. Marketing that sequel will be like relaunching the whole franchise all over again. The kids will have moved on and all JJ is gonna be left with is the people he didn't care for the first time - the old people! Ha!

  • July 28, 2011, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Even-numbered Trek film, folks...

    by Triple_J_72

    Keep that in mind. The even-numbered films are the best ones. Oh wait... "Nemesis" was an even-numbered one too.

  • July 28, 2011, 10:10 p.m. CST

    Ep. VII-IX

    by IndianaPeach

    Get off your biscuit George.

  • July 28, 2011, 10:12 p.m. CST

    It'll be ready when it's ready

    by Dreamfasting

    The Trek franchise needs quality over quantity if the brand is going to rebuild from years of being over-milked. It would be nice to get a steady tick of movies in this reboot, but if the story isn't ready, it isn't ready. These films need to do more than simply sell popcorn, they need to recapture the imagination if they are to build a solid foundation for the next generation of spinoffs.

  • July 28, 2011, 10:13 p.m. CST

    You whining little piss ants who hate NuTrek

    by Astronut

    You're nothing but a blight on the ass of humanity. You are literally miserable, joyless cretins who couldn't scrape up a good idea if someone had a gun to your head. Yet - you rag on JJ's NuTrek. I've got news for you: the new take on Star Trek is approximately one MILLION times better than anything you talentless fucks could have even dreamt of. Dumb fucks. WAAAAAAHHHH! IT'S NOT LIKE I WANT IT TO BE!!!! WAAAAAAHHHH! IT DOESN'T HAVE SHATNER! WAAAAAAAAHHH! THERE ARE PLOT HOLES! Well guess what you dip-shits... There are plot holes in practically every film ever made! And guess what? There are a BILLION FUCKING POSSIBILITIES when it comes down to plot, cadence, cast, effects, and everything else. Just because it didn't meet your exact standards doesn't mean it is shit. So go fuck yourselves. The whole lot of you.

  • July 28, 2011, 10:13 p.m. CST

    Bring "The Next Generation" movie series back...

    by brocknroll

    I think Cpt. Picard and the gang deserves one more film.

  • July 28, 2011, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Message to all of

    by Brian Hopper

    AbramsOrciKurtzman's and Paramount's PR plants on these boards: claiming that you "loved" Star Trek: In Name Only and that it "rocked" — and then claiming you are a die-hard TOS fan — is a dead giveaway that you're a plant. I can't think of a real ST fan I know who thought much of ST:INO... at best, they thought it was "meh." Most, like me, just thought it sucked, not only because they are ST fans and it offended their sensibilities, but because they are not afflicted with bad taste.

  • July 28, 2011, 10:38 p.m. CST

    Hey m6y a.k.a. stupid fuck...

    by Astronut

    As others will attest to, I'm not a plant. Go fuck your mom in the ass.

  • July 28, 2011, 10:40 p.m. CST

    LOL Im not a Plant...

    by HughHoyland

    But I wonder, do they get paid? Cause I could use some money! :]

  • July 28, 2011, 10:41 p.m. CST


    by Kevin Bosch

    For a second there, I had the power to edit posts and block posters. Did this happen to anybody else?

  • July 28, 2011, 10:42 p.m. CST


    by TheDarkShape

    Since the hardcore fanbase of Trek is insignificant (see also: Star Trek Nemesis), if Paramount had to choose one or the other, I'm sure they're very, very happy keeping the casuals and ditching the uber-fans. Though to address the fans point, my mother of all people -- whose only geek trait is that she loved Trek as a little girl and can name every episode and plot off the top of her head -- loved Trek '09 when I took her to it. there?

  • July 28, 2011, 10:48 p.m. CST

    Considering the first movie...

    by ironburl

    ...was about nothing except gathering up the crew and getting Nimoy's blessings, they will have to make the next one actually good. I sort of assumed they already knew that.

  • July 28, 2011, 11:02 p.m. CST

    Yeah, cause we all know the new Star Trek had nothing to offer...

    by Astronut

    ... just '' gather the crew and get Nimoys blessing. '' you are truly one of the most uninformed, creatively bankrupt, miserable pieces of shit I have ever witnessed on the Internet. You are truly not fit to pro-create. Thats how retarded you are. You deserve to be taken into a field and shot. Stupid fuck.

  • July 28, 2011, 11:05 p.m. CST


    by Triple_J_72

    Well, it's true.

  • July 28, 2011, 11:13 p.m. CST

    Paramount is really dropping the ball on this...

    by DrBathroomMD

    This movie should have a god damn teaser trailer online right now for a 2012 release. While the new Transformers was fun I guess...did they REALLY need to make that one first? The Star Trek film was much more popular and had a far more positive word of mouth than Transformers 2(which was terrible). I mean seriously...people are EXCITED to see a new one...and they're just dicking around. Fuck.

  • July 28, 2011, 11:17 p.m. CST


    by JerryAurora

    I have to admit, I'm much more of a long time lurker and rarely feel the need to post my thoughts on AICN, so being called a plant is a first for me. Gotta love that, because I and few others on here simply have had a different experience and viewpoint than you regarding Trek that we must be fake. Since your opinion and taste is apparently the only valid one on the internet, I wholly encourage you to turn off the computer, go find a theater showing "The Undefeated" and jerk off to a dim witted moron who seems to think much as you do.

  • July 28, 2011, 11:34 p.m. CST

    Hope the extra time allows them to, you know, build some sets

    by Plathismo

    No location shooting, please. A brewery doesn't look like the engineering deck. A brewery looks like a brewery. Apart from that, I liked ST:INO.

  • Until then, hopefully they can find better actors to play the parts, or maybe find a youth machine that'll knock some years off Shatner and Nimoy. The new 90210 kiddies didn't cut it and didn't have any chemistry.

  • Its Star Trek for idiots, a film where Kirk can go from a cadet who's never been in space in his life to a full captain in a bunch of days! Where villains come from the future with advanced technology and do nothing for 20 years waiting to get revenge on someone for something that hasn't happened yet! They don't even go to their home planet that still exists and give them the advantage of the new tech from their ship and knowledge!! Stupidest thing was Spock being changed into ultra human version who is tied to his mother like 6 year old. Spock is actually older than Kirks dad and from an entirely different planet. Why would Kirks dad dying change HIM? And the Vulcans where travelling through space long before their was a Federation, yet these guys had no ships to defend their planet from a junk ship with a long chain with a drill-bit at the end from wiping it out of existence? These are the smartest race in the world of Star Trek reduced to robed idiots so the average joe could enjoy some special Fx space Battles and dumb comedy! BURN THE NEGATIVES!

  • July 28, 2011, 11:46 p.m. CST

    astronut, settle down boy. Here's a CGI bone, in 3-D. Fetch, boy!

    by IronEagle74

    Good boy, good boooyyy!!!! It's the simple things in life you enjoy, I know. You know, like movies with implausible plots, bad acting, and tons of 3-D, hopefully. If it doesn't require you to process a thought bigger than what's required of one brain cell, then it's for you. Sadly, you're not alone. That's why summer movies aren't even worth going to see anymore. Sure, summer movies have never been Oscar winning material, but sometime in the past they used to actually require good acting and good plots. Now all they require is CGI and 3-D, and the mindless idiots pour into the theaters.

  • July 29, 2011, 12:06 a.m. CST

    It's like a greenhouse in here!

    by Dennis_Moore

  • July 29, 2011, 12:09 a.m. CST


    by Queefer Sutherland

    They spread themselves thin and put out of lot of really crappy shit in the meantime, TV and theater. I'm thinking these stupid fucks are going to completely screw up the second film. The good part is that maybe the cast will look a little older. It was a little like Star Trek 90210 if you ask me. Still a good movie, but how come Kirk couldn't kick anybody's ass? What a fucking pussy. And beam that fucking brewery out of the belly of that pretty ship and give us something that isn't so fucking recognizable as A BREWERY! FUCK! You don't just plop computer consoles in front of a bunch of Budweiser tanks and expect us to accept this as Engineering! Goddamned nun-fisting, baby-raping, sister-sodomizing, fucking idiots! And get rid of that fucking Ewok that Scotty apparently bangs in secret. As Elton John said, "it's lonely out in space," but we sure didn't need a fucking George Lucas Ewok on a fucking Star Trek fucking movie! So, de-wussify Kirk, retrofit the brewery, and shoot the fucking Ewok out of a torpedo tube and watch him pop like a big blood balloon. And make the fucking movie alruckingready.

  • July 29, 2011, 12:12 a.m. CST

    i'll just watch Star Trek: ENT again

    by chargester

    ENT S4 is the best season of Star Trek. And I have seen every episode of every series. I feel sorry for the oldtime trekkies who got burned out by the time of Nemesis and Enterprise. I watched some TNG as a kid but I wasn't a true fan until and because of Enterprise.

  • July 29, 2011, 12:17 a.m. CST

    In the words of that great humanitarian, George Carlin...

    by SmokingRobot

    'Fuck these people in the ass with a big, black rubber dong until they die'. FOUR FUCKING YEARS? This is fucking ridiculous. Fucking fuckedty fuck fuck, as they say on 'The Wire'.

  • July 29, 2011, 12:39 a.m. CST


    by JaredP

    WHAT?????!!!!!! i dare you to watch every episode of the original series and tell me its not the best. TNG and DS9 are neck and neck for second, while ENT and VOYAGER are mediocre at best. as far as the movies go WRATH OF KHAN and SEARCH FOR SPOCK are the quintessential star trek films THE VOYAGE HOME and UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY ARE GREAT too. FIRST CONTACT was the best TNG film

  • July 29, 2011, 12:58 a.m. CST

    They should just launch a TV series with the same cast.


    Give the actors some decent cash and let them do shitty movies on their off time. Waiting 3 years for 1 Trek story is retarded. In their prime TNG & DS9 writers were killing it week after week.

  • July 29, 2011, 1:14 a.m. CST

    Hated the old STAR TREK movies!

    by Warren

    But I did really like the new one that came out awhile back, they need to move there asses and make the sequel!

  • July 29, 2011, 1:20 a.m. CST

    I guess Bob ain't coming...musta blew his Hatewad on the other TB.

    by conspiracy

    Guy is one jittery, stressed fuck these days. Then again...being married and having to work around Oliva can't be fucking easy...if he wasn't a chronic masturbator before, he surely is now...

  • July 29, 2011, 1:53 a.m. CST

    Screw it, let's go full populist mode on this

    by Chief Joseph

    Remake Star Trek IV with the new crew, except this time they have to go to 2013 New Jersey and take Snooki back with them. Spock can go to a rave and Sulu can try out for American Idol. With a soundtrack by Kanye West. I mean, we have to dumb this down for the general audience, right boborci? This is not your father's Star Trek and all.

  • July 29, 2011, 2:15 a.m. CST

    NuTrek really lost me when...

    by Chief Joseph

    ...they banished Kirk to Hoth instead of just putting him in the brig because... the plot demanded it, I guess. I almost shut off the DVD right there. I probably should have. Much like Generations, the whole plot seemed like a bad fanfic written for the sole purpose of having two characters meet that shouldn't.

  • July 29, 2011, 3:23 a.m. CST

    X-Men First Class

    by jasper Stillwell

    That looked really rushed and half-formed in places and had all the hall marks of a film completed to meet a deadline, rather than a movie that had been allowed to develop and refine its screenplay and editing choices etc. Too many of these big budget movies are forced into simply ridicuolus deadlines to make the quick profits. I really like the idea that Abrams is taking his time and doesn't want to screw up. When it comes out people can then say it's 'old school'. Mind you, if he does fuck up after 4 years then God help him. (Also this delay will better than Kirk revealing himself to be a Klingon in the final act and then ends up flying around the room doing kung-fu/Matrix-style fighting or something....)

  • Transformers 3 owns star trek and starwars with it's opening scene. You can literally combine all star trek and wars movies and they don't hold up to the spectacle contained in that opening scene. Sorry but hasbro sells more transformers toys than trek toys. Oohhh- I get it- You guys want to see a science fiction movie with intelligent concepts. Well good luck with that. JJ owns this shit now.

  • July 29, 2011, 3:35 a.m. CST

    They'd be better off re-booting the re-boot.

    by Johnny Wishbone

  • July 29, 2011, 3:40 a.m. CST

    Captain Kirk is the Original SpacePimp

    by Jeremy Shanks

    Spock and McCoy are his muscle. Uhura and Yeoman Rand are his Bottom Bitches. P.s remake the Enemy Within, that shit was fucken tight

  • July 29, 2011, 3:44 a.m. CST

    A rushed production would suck

    by eveelcapitalist

    Much as I liked X-Men First Class the rush in production showed. I mean so many things that are usually taken care of in story or film editing, the crap filler score...really, had the movie had a couple of more months it would have been ten times better at least in terms of presentation. If they try to do a Trek movie in less than a year, they'll fucking blow it. JJ would just cover all the flaws with his stupid fucking lens flares. Cap'n Kirk versus the LENS FLARE MONSTER!

  • July 29, 2011, 4:18 a.m. CST


    by knightrider

    At least we'll want it when it gets here.

  • Wrong on that count Shatner apologist. Variety did the math and declared JJ Trek (about $257 million gross) the biggest grosser adjusted for inflation, beating out Star Trek 4: There Be Whales sitcom version (the only $100 million plus grosser of the Campy Cast series) and ST: The Motionless Picture ($86 million in 1979 dollars). All the other Campy Cast pics made in the range of 70 odd million at best and 50 something at worst (in 1980's and 1990's $). "First Contact", the inferior sequel to "Best of Both Worlds" made about 91 million but it was in 1996 dollars so it actually grossed less than ST1 and 4, though it was the most successful of the "Happy No Conflict PC cast" movies. JJ Wins...and in the process wiped out the "extremely cheezy history/fanboyloser canon" of what came before. They're probably delaying the next movie, hoping Shatner will be senile/too addled in the brain by then to pathetically campaign again for a cameo....

  • July 29, 2011, 5:06 a.m. CST

    Kinda old news, I'm afraid

    by AlienFanatic

    It was already reported that JJ Abrams gave up his 2012 slot because they didn't feel they could make production in time. Right now, it's slotted for a possible December release. I would expect a Summer 2013 release, myself.

  • July 29, 2011, 5:09 a.m. CST

    they should make 2 more and film them at once


  • July 29, 2011, 5:35 a.m. CST

    @danielcraig...fuzzy math?

    by AlienFanatic

    I don't care which film made more money, to be honest, but the Variety math is very weird. For example, Wrath of Khan cost $11.2M to make, yet made about $78.9M in theaters. That means production costs were only about 14% of the final gross. For JJ"s Trek, though, the production costs were about $150M vs $257.7M in total gross, or about 58% of the final gross. In terms of profitability, WoK was FAR more profitable (in then-current dollars) than JJ's Trek was: OTHER PRE-JJ FILMS: Star Trek: The motion picture Cost: 46M Take: 139M %: 33 Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock Cost: $16M Take: $133M %: 18 Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home Cost: $21M Take: $133M %: 15% Star Trek 5: Shatner's Cock-up Unknown. Though it only made about $52M, it was said to be done on the very, very cheap, and it shows. Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country Cost: $27M Take: $96.8M %: 27 Star Trek: Generations Cost: $35M Take: $118M %: 30 Star Trek: First Contact Cost: $46M Take: $146M %: 32 Star Trek: Insurrection Cost: $58M Take: $112.6M %: 51.5 Star Trek: Nemesis Cost: $60M Take: $67.3M %: 89.5 (yeouch!!) So you can see, among ALL of the Star Treks that I could find data for, the only film that performed worse in terms of return on investment was the craptastic Nemesis, which killed the franchise for 10 years. Variety can spin all they want about gross revenue, but in a time where marketing costs are through the roof, you have to figure that JJ's cost a shit ton of money to sell to the public. The studio can recoup many of the costs from taxes, but I bet that any suit at Paramount would KILL to have the margins that the earlier films had. Sheer gross means DICK when success is written in dollars and not ticket sales. (The older films are especially impressive when you remember that there were barely any international sales back then.) --- Figures are from Wikipedia, all of which are fully sourced.

  • July 29, 2011, 5:56 a.m. CST

    Nutrek cast will be old.....

    by geodesigns the time they start shooting. They will need to recast yet again.... next time, look at making at least three movies.

  • July 29, 2011, 6:25 a.m. CST

    Paramount needs to recall the so called Abrams Trek supreme court

    by captain Jake

    Paramount needs to dump Abrams and his sanctamonius Trek Supreme Court, and get some people who can freaking make a good movie on time. seriously why are we hearing fear of a rush job for something that was freaking green lit over 3 years ago. these morons need to get over their egos, cause guess what JJ Super 8 sucked and it made even less money than the awesome MI;III and we still dont even know that dumbo JJ is even going to direct it.

  • July 29, 2011, 6:26 a.m. CST

    The Enterprise theme was "great"?

    by DocPazuzu

    Even Macgruber would turn off his Blaupunkt if that thing came on. The only Trek-related musical horror I can think of that's worse is the diabolical Kenny G bit when he played at that Star Trek gala they held sometime during the early 1990s.

  • July 29, 2011, 6:28 a.m. CST


    by captain Jake

    looks like i beat someone to the daniel craig screen name lol and he had to settle for is instead of the way ford actualy said it Daniel_craigs_my wookie_bitch

  • July 29, 2011, 6:30 a.m. CST


    by my liege

    If they're struggling for time, just take the script for Master and Commander, change some names, and voila! Potentially the greatest Star Trek movie ever made.

  • July 29, 2011, 6:49 a.m. CST

    I loved NuTREK.

    by blackwood

    I think they made a mistake in waiting so long to start the second one. Maybe they can work that into the script! STAR TREK: INERTIA!

  • July 29, 2011, 7:45 a.m. CST

    No chance the entire cast will return

    by MoneyGrabSequel

    just wait and see. Also they need to introduce Khan and the Klingons and get it over with.

  • July 29, 2011, 8:20 a.m. CST

    Fresh Trek?

    by BigSteve03

    Wouldn't Fresh Trek be something new and original, not more remake stuff?

  • July 29, 2011, 8:37 a.m. CST

    Dumbasses, Yeah why invest in a sure hit?

    by Knobules

    Lets make a Battleship movie or just spend 200 mil on filming Shia labuff taking a dump.

  • July 29, 2011, 8:38 a.m. CST

    Reboots, prequels... boo

    by snarfo

    I'll be happy when Hollywood gets over this obsession with reboots and prequels. I liked the rebooted Star Trek movie just fine (more than I thought I would, actually), but for me right now Star Trek is on a holding pattern at the point that Voyager blasted out of the Borg sphere back in the Alpha Quadrant. Enterprise was a conceptual abortion and, good as it was, this Nu-Trek reboot is just a slightly more viable abortion. I'd much, much, MUCH prefer someone with some balls and imagination take Trek FORWARD instead or miring it in the 'future past'... we've been there already. Give us something new.

  • July 29, 2011, 8:51 a.m. CST

    What, huh?

    by The Fuck

    They're waiting for the new lens flare plugin.

  • July 29, 2011, 9:08 a.m. CST


    by Jonathan Hicks

    All that being said, it was still shit and only liked by retards. Sorry to piss on your crusade.

  • July 29, 2011, 9:18 a.m. CST

    Paramount, take as long as you need to make it superb.

    by Mr Nicholas

  • July 29, 2011, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Who cares for now! TNG gets its REMASTERED MAKEOVER!!

    by wtriker1701

    So the next years will be embraced with pure Trek joy!! Yeah! Starting this year - and will be continued the years to come! Lots of money to spend for Trek Lust...

  • I haven't watched 'em in years, but man are they f*ckin' great! There's a ton of great ideas in it too, but the cheese level is so high, most of it comes off as hilarious. Oh, but, Charlie X TOTALLY freaked me out when I was a kid and it still kinda does (without irony). Of the new Treks, I only really liked Next Generation. I was pretty into that series for a while. I couldn't get into any of the other ones, though. Like, I watched a handful of each, but none of them were quite as good (imho).

  • July 29, 2011, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Love to see all the Trekkies getting their panties in a twist...

    by kidicarus

    How dare you make a Star Trek film that's actually enjoyable to watch, and with a proper sense of scope!

  • July 29, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST

    Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated.

    by Brian Hopper

    That some people — for example, @thedarkshape's mommy — were allegedly TOS fans and also liked ST:INO are the exceptions that prove the rule. There's stuff I liked about ST:INO, like the BASE jump from space. So what? The movie's still a piece of steaming crap. I mean, my god, the hatred of hardcore Trek fans for ST:INO is such a given that it serves as the basis for jokes on The Daily Show and elsewhere. Now we're to believe that all that taste-deprived juveniles (like the trolls and plants and Abrams buttlovers above) who think Abrams is a "good filmmaker" and ST:INO "revived Star Trek" actually want to be lumped in with basement-dwelling dorks who love TOS? Well, we don't want you. Go find a picture of Orci and Kurtzman and masturbate to it, while the rest of us get off on those chicks in Mudd's Women.

  • July 29, 2011, 11:03 a.m. CST


    by NoHubris

    As has been said, they really should have done a re-imagined Khan and the Klingons, but it should have been released this summer. Of course all the anti-Khan trekkies would have gone beserk, but JJ could have then announced that the third movie would be coming in 2013 where we would see exploration or whatever else the other part of the fan base wants to see.

  • July 29, 2011, 11:23 a.m. CST


    by 3774

    You just made my nipples perky. Link? Are they going to shoop the occasional boom mic out and widescreen them? Did you know they shot them all in widescreen out of laziness? It wouldn't take a lot of work to convert them...

  • It was the Abrams movie itself that had no overseas appeal, on account the movie was quite cleraly made to appeal to an exclusive american public. compare and contrast with movies like THE DARK KNIGHT, INCEPTION or DISTRICT 9 which had a huge, enourmous abroad appeal. To blame the lack of much comemrcial sucess of Abrams Trek on the suppsoed lack of appeal of St abroad is nonsense, and it's one of the usual tactics from Team Abrams and his fanboys to self-justify why the movie was a lesser earned then their inicial predictions and projections.

  • July 29, 2011, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Hack writers

    by Billy_D_Williams

    Hack writers

  • Back To The Future and The Matrix being prime examples. I'm thinking Star Trek 2 in the summer of 2012 and Star Trek 3 in the Christmas of 2012... I actually, believe it or not, think this would be a damn good move...

  • July 29, 2011, 11:37 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Abrams Trek is by far the most expensive Star Trek movie ever made, even accounting for inflaction. Adjcuted, Abrams Trek is 60 milions dollars more expensive then STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, the one everybody thinks as being the expensive one. The huge budget of Abrasm Trek negates a lot the box office it got, which, even Paramount admited, was quite below their expectations. In fact, of all the TOS ST movies, one one other St movie performed more porly on a budget to box office earnings ratio, and that was ST 5: WHY GOD NEEDS A SPACESHIP. All other ST movies of the TOS type have earned more in budget to box office ratio, including such "bombs" as STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE (which actually wasn't, it was a big sucess, earning 3 times more then it's budget.)

  • July 29, 2011, 11:39 a.m. CST

    What's so funny about asimovlives...

    by DocPazuzu that he'll shriek about how box office means nothing when it comes to Transformers, yet wield JJ Trek's bank as a weapon to show how deplorable that film is. <p> What asimovlives pretends to ignore (despite the fact that I remind him every chance I get) is that no Star Trek movie has generally received better reviews outside of the United States than JJ Trek. <p> He'll also pretend that Blade Runner received nothing but glowing accolades outside of the U.S. back in 1982.

  • July 29, 2011, 12:01 p.m. CST

    So we have to deal with stale Trek for now??

    by empty_headed_animal

  • July 29, 2011, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Pros and Cons of "more time"

    by jorson28

    While it is logical to assume that the more time one has to do a task such as making a film, the better that task will be done. However, there are notable exceptions, particularly in the realm of Star Trek movies. In fact, the high watermark for ALL Star Trek films - "Wrath of Khan" - was made for about a fifth of the average film budget (even for the early eighties), far less than any of the other Trek movies, and after a half-dozen bad scripts by various writers, it was done by Nicholas Meyer, a filmmaker who rewrote the script practically from scratch in roughly 1.5 weeks. Granted, films need more time today, anyway, because of the technology involved and the higher audience expectations in the technical and FX arenas. However, there is something to be said for momentum and what it adds to a picture, and momentum is something that can easily be lost if too much time is taken. All that is to say this: In my opinion, I still worry about the sequel. It's well-documented that Abrams was not a Trek fan before the first movie, and even though he claims to be a fan now, I'm not sure more time will compel him to necessarily do things differently or better. Either way, I just don't think "more time" is going to be as big a factor in the movie's favor as most think or want to believe it will be.

  • It is one of my all time favorite ST story.

  • July 29, 2011, 12:15 p.m. CST

    I love Boborci

    by pw

    He's my hero

  • July 29, 2011, 12:16 p.m. CST

    I hate asimovlives

    by pw

    He's a cunt

  • Asimovlives, if you can link to where anyone from Paramount ever said this, or even implied this, I will give you a cookie.

  • Mind you, i never used the Abrams Trek box offcie numbers to use as "proof" or as an argument that the movie is good or bad. I never said that Abrams Trek being a disapointment to their inicial predictions means the movie is bad. Never. And it's a pity that people need to talk about this movie's box office in it's defense. It shouldn't be needed. A movie should hold on it's own without the box office results. A movie should hold on it's own.

  • And what does that have to do with Abrams TRek?

  • July 29, 2011, 12:23 p.m. CST

    You can't pick and choose.

    by DocPazuzu

    Either box office is important or it isn't. Stick to your guns. If you really believe box office means nothing, you wouldn't stoop to debating it -- pros or cons.

  • July 29, 2011, 12:23 p.m. CST

    Say what you want about Trek, but it holds on it's own

    by pw

    Brillinatly in fact.

  • July 29, 2011, 12:23 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Did I just see the ghost of an edit function there? WTF?!?!

  • July 29, 2011, 12:24 p.m. CST

    ^JJ's Trek

    by pw

  • July 29, 2011, 12:25 p.m. CST

    @ hercules...

    by 3774

    For a minute while browsing, i had the power of an admin, with editing, banning and such. i thought it was a ghost error, but it let me enter several posts, including yours. i'm a good and kind-hearted girl. You might want to look into that before somebody evil gets the same chance...

  • July 29, 2011, 12:30 p.m. CST

    mixed feelings.

    by billF

    I think they have had plenty of time to get this new movie made. But on the other hand I hate to see them rush through something and produce an inferior movie.

  • Whenit has been quite well documented that there seems to be a lot of insastifaction with the proposed scripts writen by Orci and Kurtzman so far. Abrams has been constantly vetoing them and making them go back to formula. Frankly, i think that both themand Paramount are just at a loss at what to do next with their new Trek franchise started by Abrams Trek. And the way the first movie played out does make it pretty hard to continue. The way the plot of the last movie was resolved it practically created a dramatic dead-end. And then there's the fact they put so many big shit happening in the movie, with two planets exploding and giant ships destroying a whole starfleet, that they must be at a lost to how to top it for the next movie. They will have to come up withsome huge outragious stuff. Which means they will then shoot themselves in the foot again for the 3rd movie to be, if they keep on with the idea of topping the previous movie, to the point it's all just pure absurdity even for space opera fantasy standards. They should had been more thoughful and restrained with the first Abrams Trek movie. It's no wonder they are so at lost for the second movie now. I bet that even with all the added time allocated, they will still start shooting the second movie without a finished script. Who wanna bet on that? Well, that is, if the more skepticals aren't proved right in their belief that there will be no second movie.

  • July 29, 2011, 12:32 p.m. CST

    barryknowles, and who's you? And why should i care?

    by AsimovLives

  • July 29, 2011, 12:33 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I actually read it from one of your articles in here, a year or two ago.

  • It will not prove the movie is good or bad. I never make that argument. But i can put down somebody who uses that as support for his view of a movie's quality. Specially if their perception of a movie's sucess is quite faulty and based on proclamations from the marketing department instead of the numbers themselves. I think you know what i mean.

  • And speaking of lens flares, save on it too. And the constant close ups to the actor's mugs as well. Next time i want to know how the interior of the starships actually look like instead of just a mere periferal impression.

  • July 29, 2011, 1:11 p.m. CST


    by Hercules

    no link, no cookie

  • July 29, 2011, 1:26 p.m. CST

    pink_apocalypse, don't tease The Choppah like that



  • July 29, 2011, 1:39 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I remeber a coment said by one of you about how Paramount had been disapointed (or whatever word with a similiar meaning you used) about Abrams Trek's box office result that was less then expected. As for finding a link to that, well, considering how many posts about Abrams Trek you made, or about JJ Abram,s in which you would post 3 or 4 A WEEK, it's like lookign for a needle in a haystack, isnt it? You overbombed your own site with ass-kissing "news" about Abrams Trek and JJ Abrams for two straigh years. There wasn't a week that had at least one. So no, i'm not going to look it up for you. I have it from memory and it's good enough for me.

  • July 29, 2011, 1:41 p.m. CST



    You can have a cookie from The Choppah and a whore!

  • July 29, 2011, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Can we get someone in charge of Star Trek who gives a fuck please?

    by spidercoz

    And I'm not referring to just JJ and Dorks, I mean Paramount as a whole. They have not treated this franchise with the respect it deserves in over a decade. Sell it back to NBC, they couldn't do any fucking worse. JJ obviously has more important things to fuck up and the suits at the top are oblivious. Hire that Jim Cawley guy, at least he would care and try to make it good. Maybe it's time we Faithful launched a Crusade to free our Holy Land from the tyranny of the heretics.

  • July 29, 2011, 1:45 p.m. CST

    I dislike Kurtzman as a writer as much as i do Orci...

    by AsimovLives

    ... but something tells me that if i meet Kurtzman in person, i would find him nice and agreable. Orci, however, and if this video is any indication, he acts up like some deranged old queen on crack mugging on the camera as if his life depended on it. And just for for a caught on the moment interview. Look at him in that video! Is that the behavior of a normal person? Was he high on crack or something? Is that his normal state? At least Kurtzman acts and looks like an actual human being. But the nerd glasses have to go. He's rich now, he can pay an operation... or more stylish specs.

  • July 29, 2011, 1:47 p.m. CST

    The real reason Enterprise failed

    by smackfu

    was that it's bridge didn't look like a warm, cozy livingroom. TNG's ship was a warm, fuzzy feng shui paradise, it said 'look, we're so fucking advanced we can afford to make our space ships look like mansions'. DS9 was alien and interesting looking, spending far more time with it's characters in the social areas of the station rather than the bridge. Voyager's look had an awesome, cozy 'night-shift' vibe too it. Then along came Enterprise, with it's cold steel disassociated atmosphere and it's bleak desaturated Law & Order filters. Overall, Enterprise failed because it's look and atmosphere kept the viewer at arms length, it never felt like an environment you wanted to be in, the way the other shows did.

  • July 29, 2011, 1:51 p.m. CST

    smackfu, everything you said is true


    but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

  • July 29, 2011, 2 p.m. CST

    Asimov, given that Nemesis made a total of $67 million

    by Mattman

    I'm sure Paramount wasn't too disappointed with Star Trek's $385 million take.

  • July 29, 2011, 2:01 p.m. CST

    The ONLY good things about Enterprise:


    1. T'Pol's fake boobs 2. T'Pol's perfect ass 3. Hoshi's boobs 4. Crewman Cutler portrayed by Kellie Waymire who died at the way to young age of 35. R.I.P. Even though your crush on Dr. Phlox seriously creeped me out.

  • I remember the setup for one episode... Bakula was in the shower and the power went off. Begin opening titles.

  • July 29, 2011, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Oh, and I had a man crush on Commander Trip for a while


    but that ended when he got pregnant from that alien. Grody! And I was jealous of his erotic massages/casual sexcapades with T'Pol in the final season.

  • everything looked in wrath o khan. Smaller. The first is the dream baby. It's the middle aged trek where they wear pajamas and scoot around on nice carpet with Douglas Trumbul's freaking as good as ILM volumetric digital smoke simulation vger effects unlike anything seen until Tron. Oh, and they SAVE billions of people instead of letting them die. Now we get an alternate incredible failures beyond comprehension team of experts. Don't worry they've learned their lessons now and promise not to let anymore planets with billions of essential castmembers be wiped out of existence. By a completely forgettable shitheel villain that's actually more forgettable than Pruneface. Pruneface got an action figure. Pruneface is here to fix the copier. What the fuck is his name I forget Eric Bana didn't have even that level of motivation. Brewery Trek has potential though. Just inexplicably change the art direction and size of the enterprise like they did with wrath. Have a fucking digital set for the fucking engine room that looks like the fuckin future. Have a holographic moon roof on the bridge. Completely erasing the ceiling so you can see stars cruising by. Should look completely roofless. Why obscure your vision when you have the tech to play with visual reality any way you see fit? Get some fucking shuttles that transform into mechs for exploration and battle. Ya know? Tech that we are actually making today.

  • July 29, 2011, 2:10 p.m. CST

    Enterprise's failure is entirely the fault of

    by spidercoz

    Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. By the time they got a showrunner in there who knew what he was doing (Manny Coto) it was too late. Too bad too, it was really getting good that last season.

  • .... all that other stuff you guys said. And Jolene Blaylock is NOT attractive. Her fake tits are nasty lookin', she's about 20 pounds too skinny, her legs look like sticks - no shape to them at all, and she literally has anti-ass. There's a place where her should be, but there's nothing there. <p> I thought Archer, Hoshi, Trip and Phlox were decent characters, portrayed well by the actors in those parts. But the series as a whole was just. not. necessary. Star Trek starts with Roddenberry's version of the Enterprise. Everything before that should be left to characters in later times talking about it on screen.

  • I've said it before, many times, and I'm just not that twisted about it anymore. My only comment about this apparent delay is, if it makes it better than the last one, wait another five years. I'm more interested in a new TV series than another movie, anyway. A LOT more interested.

  • Get some fucking robots. Perhaps little flying ones like the stormtroopers had that are cloaked so they don't cost anything but you know they're there. We actually have those now that that guy invented the flying ball. In fact Trek doesn't utilize enough tech we are making at all. Ironman suits are being worked on. This is over 300 years from now. Where is the nano suit shit? Get with the fuckng program brewery boy

  • I thought it was mostly pretty good and entertaining, but Star Trek was never really about action, it was about ideas. The original series is SO CHEESY, but it was a *good* show based on the strength of the ideas and analogies to the modern world at that time. I don't new Trek had much weight to it other than as a decent action movie that also happened to be in space. And it certainly didn't seem to comment on present day concerns... unless that concern is "how awesome would it be if I bungee jumped offa this spaceship?"

  • July 29, 2011, 2:26 p.m. CST

    they started pre-production on july 25th

    by Caleb Hellegers

    a kid i know from film school is working on it.

  • July 29, 2011, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Yes, not attractive, at all:


  • July 29, 2011, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Not at all!


  • July 29, 2011, 2:42 p.m. CST

    naughty thoughts a brewin'

    by spidercoz

    down, boy mmmmm, decon chamber with T'Pol and Hoshi thanks, choppah, the rest of my workday will be completely unproductive (like I've done anything so far today)

  • July 29, 2011, 2:43 p.m. CST

    'Jolene Blaylock is NOT attractive.' Wha? Has this

    by Brian Hopper

    board lost it? I mean, the ST universe gave us 7of9 and all those hot TOS women (Roddenberry and his casting people had impeccable taste... there were like NO bad looking women in STTOS) and in spite of all this, the hottest of all is T'Pol. And while we're on the topic, Enterprise is the most underrated thing in the ST universe (especially season 3 and parts of season 4).

  • July 29, 2011, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Trek On TV

    by Barron34

    I have mixed feelings about Abrams Trek at best. I would rather see new Trek on TV, and not a re-tread of the older stuff, but truly new Trek like others on the Boards here have suggested. I am not sure an Anthology show would work. I think Trek viewers want to follow the same characters, not jump around all over the place. Abrams Trek had potential. The cast was decent, Pine and Quinto at least looked the part, and so on. But Kirk going from Cadet to Captain in a 2 hour movie was just ridiculous. Plus, Kirk seemed fairly ineffectual. Quinto's Spock seemed emotionally un-Vulcan. Kirk is randomly marooned on an Ice Planet where Old Spock just happens to be, and we just stumble across Scotty. The villian was bland, and the time travel stuff didn't make much sense. And they blow up the planet Vulcan and most of the Vulcan race. Was this Abrams way of giving the F-You to old Trek fans? Anyway, the movie had a certain kineticism that made it easy enough to watch, and if it wasn't a Trek movie, I would have said "OK, an enjoyable enough two-hour ride", But as Star Trek, it did not really do it for me.

  • July 29, 2011, 2:54 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Obne thing i never understood is why you are all so eager to compate ABRAMS TREK, a TOS movie, with the TNG movies. Shouldn't Abrams Trek be compared to the Star Trek movie that has Kirk, Bones and Spock as characters instead of Picard and company? And yes, Paramount was disapointed with theb results of Abrams Trek because they expected much better. They though that had another mega-millon dollars juggernaut on their hands. they though they had their own THE DARK KNIGHT right there. Regonizable franchise nerw movie made by hip new darling director famed for creating many hit TV shows, who made a new Trek movie in the image of a Michael Bay movie, a new Trek movie made in the imag eof the guy who was making allt hose very sucessful Tranformers movies. Paramount did beleived their new Trek was going to make Transformers numbers. It didn't. Paramoutn then was disapointed. You can say that Paramount's expectatiosn were exagerated. But they though they had another formula for mega-sucess in their hands with JJ Abrams making Star Trek. They over-estimated. As is usual for Paramount.

  • July 29, 2011, 2:56 p.m. CST

    I Want To Stick My Lightbulb Penis Into Blalock's Vulcan Vagina

    by NeonFrisbee

    Thanks for that choppah_related_namesake.

  • July 29, 2011, 3:25 p.m. CST

    @ jaka

    by 3774

    i visited the Science Fiction museum next to the space needle in Seattle a while back, and got a picture standing next to T-Pol's outfit because it would have fit me like a glove. You are the embodiment of every bitter little petulant man-child virgin that can only fantasize about the ability to hold a real woman, which warps your troll-like little mind into believing you could actually reject one if given the chance. Fuck you, fuck your sexist objectification, fuck every man that's every made the 'no-ass, too-skinny' comment, and most of all, fuck your statement of opinions as facts. Thank you.

  • July 29, 2011, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Kurtzman/Orci are terrible

    by sunwukong86

    and dont understand Trek

  • July 29, 2011, 3:47 p.m. CST

    damn jaka, need some salve for that nasty BURN?

    by spidercoz

    that's just good stuff

  • July 29, 2011, 3:48 p.m. CST

    pink_lypse, you continue to tease me


    Now, I have an image in my mind's eye of your imaginary body slipping into T'Pol's outfit and filling it out in all the right places.

  • July 29, 2011, 3:55 p.m. CST

    STAR TREK needs a science fiction writing staff

    by YackBacker

    Ya know, to write stories and develop character and get STAR TREK back in solid genre shape. What defines TREK are stories like CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER and TNG's INNER LIGHT. TREK 2009 was a commercial success but it's endemic of the modern blockbuster- high on concept, not so high on logic. I can watch it and be entertained but it gets old, like strip clubs after 10 consecutive days... (counts to himself) make that 11...

  • July 29, 2011, 4:01 p.m. CST

    damns yous, choppahling

    by spidercoz

    stop putting images in my head! I'm kidding, keep it up

  • July 29, 2011, 4:19 p.m. CST

    long range transporters rendered starships obsolete

    by kimbers

    i think this is dead as the terminator salvation sequel which is about right as abrams star trek was not much better than salvation still both of them piss all over worthingtons godawful titans and thats getting a remake scifi is just for us geeks

  • July 29, 2011, 4:19 p.m. CST


    by 3774

    Meanwhile, back to Star Trek...

  • July 29, 2011, 4:38 p.m. CST


    by spidercoz

    this your first day on the internet? Speaking of Star Trek and perverts, remember the 3-tittied cat girl in Final Frontier? Yeah, that's good sci-fi. I wonder whose idea that was.

  • July 29, 2011, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Not my first day.

    by 3774

    And if you're fantasizing about the cat-woman with three boobs, that makes you a furry, sir! No judgement here, tho...

  • July 29, 2011, 5:24 p.m. CST

    keeping this franchise in limbo is wack

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    all the momentum is gone now. If this movie had come out sooner they could have rode the wave of hype and excitement from the first one. C'mon....are you seriously telling me that Paramount couldn't get a hold of some solid writers and just kept the ball rolling? They could have given JJ the script for a once over and approval and started shooting right away with or w/o him. At this slow-ass fucking rate all of the actors will start aging and looking like the original cast did just like in the first set of movies.

  • July 29, 2011, 5:36 p.m. CST

    amount of time between movies doesnt always matter

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    you can have franchises with long stretches between movies and it can work out or there can be a long stretch and the sequel could still be wack. The only time I would say something is "rushed" was if it came out like under a year later somehow - which is basically impossible. The ideal time for this sequel would have been a year or a year and a half later. The end of 2010 or early 2011 ST2 should have been in theaters. 2 years is pushing it 3 years is retarded 4 years and you may as well fucking reboot again. Keep in mind the first ST was shot in November 2007 to March 2008. So that's going to put a fucking 6-7 year window on these *young* actors aging. Keep in mind - this was supposed to be a *young* crew learning there way who would develop into vets. No way that's happening realistically at this rate. Go watch Lost season 1 and then the last season and try to tell me the actors don't look noticeably older.

  • July 29, 2011, 5:54 p.m. CST

    They need the extra time to figure out...

    by jimmy_009

    ...all the plot holes in the first one.

  • Seriously. He's incapable of empathising with others and accepting opinions which differ from his own. If simple hard cold fact doesn't deter him, nothing will.

  • July 29, 2011, 6:36 p.m. CST

    I think Asi may be right about underperforming

    by Chief Joseph

    Paramount wouldn't be dragging their feet like this if it had made the $$$ that they expected. It's sad that Paramount is favoring the frickin' GI Joe sequel over a Star Trek film.

  • July 29, 2011, 6:55 p.m. CST

    what happened to that new animated series?

    by spidercoz

    supposed to be another 150 years after TNG or some shit? I was more interested in that than the new movie.

  • July 29, 2011, 6:59 p.m. CST

    ENTERISE was great!

    by Playkins

    I never saw it when it originally aired because I was working full time and going to school in evenings for my 2nd degree. Watched the whole thing last year via Netflix. Damn shame I missed it, I thought (save for season 3) it was fantastic.

  • July 29, 2011, 7:07 p.m. CST

    reboot is a disaster

    by obi_juan

    They should have had a new movie or better yet tv show that continued things. Get 7of9, Worf, Quark, and Tom Riker together. Throw in a Vorta and some Jem H'Dar. The Quark/7of9 scenes write themselves.

  • I don't know how to find shit on here. But it was awesome. Had all kinds o things and stuff and whatnot. Of a star trek nature and the like.

  • I think it's got legs.

  • July 29, 2011, 8:49 p.m. CST

    Ummm JJTrek was the biggest in the franchise.. wanna link?

    by darthSaul666 Sure it didn't go over a half billion dollars like TDK or TF:ROTF or HP7... But it would be absurd to think they don't want a sequel.... When does Hollywood ever refrain from beating a dead horse?

  • July 29, 2011, 9:13 p.m. CST


    by NoHubris

    Filming 2 & 3 back to back make sense for everybody (The story in two should lead to three). Besides, it would give them a good excuse for adding another member to the writing team, should they feel the need. How about Goyer?

  • July 29, 2011, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Zoe Soldana was def the biggest fuckup in trek history.

    by bioforge

    Roddenberry knew that great T&A is what keeps trek dorks warm on a cold winter night. Berman and others continued that wonderful tradition of greatly fuckable female crewmembers. Then comes JJ and fucks it all up. There are tons of hot chicks with great assets that would have at least given some weight to Uhura. Michelle Nichols sure knew how to use what she got. If they wanted skinny they still could have got Rosario Dawson ,who is also a lot more likable actress in general. So now we have a sausage fest with no real babes in sight.

  • July 29, 2011, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Agreed. The reboot was a disgrace to Star Trek.

    by MajorFrontbum

  • July 29, 2011, 11:35 p.m. CST

    underperforming? haha. no.


  • July 30, 2011, 12:46 a.m. CST

    pink_apocalypse, get the fuuuuuuck over yourself

    by Jaka

    You ignorant, self-centered, judgmental, fuckwit of an asstard. <p>Why are you personally attacking me? I didn't attack YOU! I didn't even attack skinny people in general (YOU chose to take it that way). <p>How is it that I'm sexually objectifying ANYTHING? In case you missed it for the entire 75 episodes, that's what the SHOW was doing to her, not me. <p> And I certainly didn't make any statements of fact. I expressed my opinion about ONE woman. I don't find Jolene Blaylock attractive. I think she's fuckin' gross looking. Why in the world would that offend YOU?! <p> This is how the fuckin' internet works. If you can't deal with that, or if you're that uncomfortable with your own self-image, maybe you should just log the fuck off. Go eat some pasta and cheesecake, already. At the very least you should try taking a breath and actually processing what you've read before you start ripping people's heads off. Damn.

  • July 30, 2011, 12:49 a.m. CST

    Fuckin' enter button

    by Jaka

    That's awesome, I'm glad to see you didn't make it something personal with me... oh wait... you totally did!

  • July 30, 2011, 12:56 a.m. CST

    spidercoz, really? This is an AICN talback...

    by Jaka

    ... and I've been coming here for over ten years. pink_apocalypse's pantie bunching means absolutely nothing to me beyond this page. She'll completely miss the point of my last post and attack me again. I'll laugh at her and move on. Not a big deal. <p> I will say that I'm surprised no one else called her out on her clear hypocrisy and lack of understanding of the English language, though. Shows just how sexist some of you are. All she has to do is mention she'd fit in T'Pol's costume and people turn into drooling puppy dogs. Something else she seemed to miss while reading.

  • July 30, 2011, 12:59 a.m. CST

    that_said_the_choppah, dude, she has NO ASS

    by Jaka

    And I hate fake tits. She doesn't do it for me. I like shapely women with pale skin, and preferably read hair. Cool that some people like her, she's just not my type at all.

  • July 30, 2011, 1:21 a.m. CST


    by Jaka

    Red hair. Doesn't hurt if they're Irish and have BLUE eyes, either.

  • July 30, 2011, 1:49 a.m. CST

    i like perverts.

    by 3774

    The right type of perverts. And male energy can be fun. i just can't stand it when people come off like a completely negative, basement-dwelling prick that automatically reduces actresses to the sum level of their value to 'fuckability'. That goes on a lot here. i'll admit that i flipped my bitch switch. You might not be that kind of guy. But it came across that way, and hit close to home. Whatever you do, do *NOT* admit that i may have a point in any way. It's important that i learn my place, right? i will say this. You've got some bold, unique tastes to call T-Pol unattractive and declare a preference for gingers.

  • July 30, 2011, 2:45 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You seem to be describing yourself in your post. The irony of your post is so thick one would need a chainsaw to cut through it.

  • July 30, 2011, 2:52 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    English is your native language, so i'm going to repeat what i wrote before, so you can understand better. Abrasm Trek underperformed to Paramount's expectations. Do you understand it now? No? I'll repeate it again: Abrasm Trek underperformed TO EXPECTATIONS. Do you get it now? Was the movie a commercial sucess? Yes. Was it a spectacular sucess. No. It's comparable to the commercial sucess of TERMINATOR CASTRATION and TRASH OF THE TITANS. These 3 movies had similiar budgets and similiar box office results. But Abrams Trek is deemed a big sucess while the other twos are deemed to have problematic box offcie results? Nonsense! The story of Abrams Trek being a huge hit is a myth, with no real representation in reality. The movie was a moderate sucess for a blockbuster. And in respect to it's own budget, average is the right word to describe it. Paramount wanted more, expected more. And they didn't got what they wanted. This is one of the reasons why the movie is dragging. They are not fully commited because the first movie didn't turned out to be the cashcow they predicted it would. Do you understand it now?

  • July 30, 2011, 4:20 a.m. CST

    RE: alienfanatic

    by RR

    You lost me at "Wikipedia"....source of bad info than ANY idiot fanboy can tamper with (maybe Asimovlives spends his days doing that). Abrams Trek: Confirmed global gross - $385 Million US DVD sales $100 million Production budget: $140 million Hilarious that you pathetic geeklosers still champion for sequels for no coherent story crap like "Tron Legacy" - cost WAY more (almost $200 million) made about the same in gross, cost WAY more in marketing ($180 million) and made less in DVD and ancilleries. Abrams Trek is a huge success and Paramount (despite what Asimovlives wants you to believe; they NEVER expected "Transformer" grosses). WANTS a sequel and are/were willing to wait for JJ to complete his "Super 8" film. No one outside you costume wearing losers going to conventions CARES about the old fart campy cast....besides, aren't they all dead or near dead??? Fact is, besides being a financial and critical hit, JJ's Star Trek did something NONE of the other Trek films have done since "Khan"....made Star Trek cool and relevant to the general public, not just "losergeekbait" for the "wedgiecrowd". All you hatebitching about Team JJ and the Trek reboot doesn't change the facts: Studios have finally moved past the theory that Geeks have ANY weight (despite all their internet 'noise") when it comes to box office (thanks to Geeklove bombs like "Scott Pilgrim" and "Kick Ass") and Trek has moved on without it's tiny, stagnant, continuity obsessed loser geek fans and it's success has assured that "their" beloved, campy, cardboard set version of Trek stuck in the 1960's is DEAD. Actually, Paramount has the best of both worlds. They can move on with new Trek for the masses and churn out endless "special edition/remastered" old trek on disc/download every few years and you idiots will buy it again and again like the pathetic losers you are. Hilarious.

  • July 30, 2011, 4:22 a.m. CST


    by RR

    I'll take/trust "Variety's" adjusted gross math any day over Wikipedia (aka "Dickapedia" for you geeks)....

  • July 30, 2011, 4:53 a.m. CST

    Way to strike while the iron's hot!

    by catlettuce4

    People in general LIKED the new Trek reboot, and now they are sitting on their ass. Big huge mistake! Do we want a good movie or a fast one? Well, it took 3 years to make The Empire Strikes Back (best movie sequel ever?), but now we're waiting 4 years for (what will probably be) only a decent sequel to the first Trek movie. I think quality has everything to with the people involved and how badly they want to make the film, and little to do with the time and resources involved (past a certain minimum point, of course.) The window of opportunity for the sequel to hit hard is waning. People are going to forget the first one (even if they liked it.)

  • July 30, 2011, 4:55 a.m. CST

    And I will add:

    by catlettuce4

    There's no reason whatsoever to wait for JJ to direct a second Trek. There are plenty of directors that could handle this, and quite probably, deliver a better film. If he doesn't want to do it, Paramount needs to think of Trek, not JJ, and hire someone else. He is not irreplaceable, nor does he "own" Trek.

  • It traded a franchise and all that franchise brought in for 1 flashy movie.

  • July 30, 2011, 6 a.m. CST

    Bor(e)ci looks like a fucking dwarf. And as for Kuntzman..

    by Stalkeye

    ..well, if he's getting laid, then there's hope for some dweeb who would aspire to be a screenwriter. And I'm sure that there are many who are more talented than these two asswipes.

  • July 30, 2011, 6:35 a.m. CST

    pink_apocalypse, I'll give you perky niopples, girl!

    by wtriker1701 Have fun and let them stay hard, girl!

  • July 30, 2011, 6:35 a.m. CST

    cut that "o" from your nipples, pink! ;-)

    by wtriker1701

    Damn typo....

  • July 30, 2011, 6:49 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Abrams Trek is not a huge sucess. It's a moderate sucess for this type of blockbuster standards. You think the costs acossiated with the movie stoped at the production budget? There's also the marketing budget, which must have been up to about 50 top 80 million dolalr,s which is not unusual at all. and Abrams Trek was an ober-bombed movie inthe marketing department, which even included shooting a teaser trailer with fotage notfound in the movie at all. As for the profits, Paramoudn didn't get it al. It had to be distributed toward the theater distribution house in the domestic run and with international distributors in foreign markets. The usual is for each to have half of the pie of the box offcie results. So Paramount has to add to the cost of the movie the advertizement costs and half the pie of thebox office results. And you think the home video result is also money that goes wholesome to Paramount? Again it has to share with the distributors. Also, and this is something that is rarely bought up, but whrre you think the money for the budget of the movies came from? I tell where: loans. This means the studio has to pay interest since the day the budget was first formalized. Considering a movie takes one to two years to make, you can tell why studios nowadays are so earger to rush a production. As anybody who has a bank laon can tell, the longer the loan is the more you pay. so stop your coments about people like me not knowing what we are talking about. Whenin fact it's the other way around. And by the way, why are you even bothering coment abotu other movies. It seems i made a mistake in trying to compared the result of Abrams Trek with other movies, but i just wanted to point out how other movies with similiar box office and budgets of Abrams Trek, but that was just to point out how the notion of Abrams Trek beign a major sucess is in fact more publicity then reality. And the box office woes of TRON LEGACY is the problem of Disney, not Paramount. TRON LEGACY's box office results will not make Abrams Trek any richer. But for some reason it seems that Disney is more confident in making a sequel to TRON LEGACY then Paramount is about a sequel to Abrams Trek. It has to mean something. I really believe that Paramount and Abrams/Oric/Kurtzman have never been on the level about their movie in all regards.

  • July 30, 2011, 6:52 a.m. CST

    Oh, and Star Trek 2009 was GREAT FUN!

    by wtriker1701

    That sayeth a Fan-for-fourty-years-now! Shut up, you trolly little bitches about that movie being an abortion of film-making. STOP WHINING, BABIES! Let us grown-ups have fun with it and stay in your little basements. Go kill some pigeons in the park and enjoy the weather! Or go, watch Stargate Universe instead, or BSG or whatever YOU like. The next movie will be done "when it's done"!

  • July 30, 2011, 6:57 a.m. CST

    Worst Pilot in history? TNG's Encounter At Farpoint!

    by wtriker1701

    But great finale and I LOVE THAT SHOW!

  • July 30, 2011, 6:58 a.m. CST

    Worst finale in history? LOST!

    by wtriker1701

    But great pilot and I LOVE THAT SHOW!

  • Or you are just one of those who only believes in the numbers you want to believe? Don't pull a creationist on me, friend. That would be disapointing.

  • July 30, 2011, 7:04 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The best sequel ever is THE GODFATHER PART 2, which i quite superiror to the first move, which was already quite excelent.

  • July 30, 2011, 7:05 a.m. CST

    Actually Star Trek 09 wasnt a big success at all

    by Nabster

    But it was perceived to be a big hit, and in Hollywood that's just as important as real numbers.

  • You know, the movies which made a billion dollars worldwide on the theatrical run alone. But that is not what happened, is it? In blockbuster terms, ABRAMS TREK sucess is quite banal. It's average. And it's hardly evne the most sucessful ST movie ever made, due to it's huge budget, 150 million dollars. And still with that huge budget they shot the engereering room in a brewery. I'd really like to know where they fucked up their budget to take such corners like that?

  • Or maybe just a full-on HK Trek. Captain Chow Yun Fat , anyone?

  • July 30, 2011, 7:37 a.m. CST

    @danielcraig #2 (Wikipedia & your rant)

    by AlienFanatic

    Yep, I did get the figures a bit funny on ST (2009). I didn't take into account the overseas, making it 385M (but the production budget was 150M and that's according to Boxofficemojo). And Wiki's numbers are sourced, not made up. While political articles are contentious and often misleading, basic figures that are sourced are perfectly fine. As for your rant, I'm not a fanboy. In fact, while 2009 Trek didn't wow me, I also didn't hate it. I just felt it felt less like Trek and more like a generic action movie with Trek action figures. It was no better or worse than half the Next Gen films, which I also felt were kind of meh. So with the revised figure of 385M against 150M production, you get that production was about 38% of the final revenue. That's not terrible, but it STILL puts 2009 Trek near the bottom of the profit-to-cost triangle. And jesus, stop rolling DVD sales into this. You keep adding figures to make up ground. How many versions of other Trek have sold on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, and Blu-Ray? Keep it focused on the boxoffice numbers, which are where this debate came from. As to your tirade about making Trek available to the masses, we'll see. If the sequel does well, you'll have made a point. If it comes in lower than the original, I think you'll have to admit that 2009 was a temporary fad fueled by pent-up fan interest (from seven years without Trek) and general non-Trekker interest from all the glowing reviews.

  • July 30, 2011, 8:26 a.m. CST

    movies, tv shows, books, videogames

    by obi_juan

    versus this one lone movie with probably won't get a sequel

  • July 30, 2011, 9:25 a.m. CST

    @ wtriker1701

    by 3774

    Thank you. i hope they go all the way and re-source the film for 16:9, as well as revised effects! i'm not a Suicide Girl. No rings in nipples to be found here...

  • July 30, 2011, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Never seen so much hate about a brewery before (nt)

    by Triple_J_72

  • July 30, 2011, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Ok, so that's not Kinky Pink then, is it?

    by wtriker1701

    But regarding 16:9 - that's still my hope, after they included a reused scene from Ten Forward back then in the finale of Star Trek Enterprise. You could clearly see more footage left and right of the picture than way back in the original 4:3 presentation of that particular TNG-Episode. And if you watch those 4:3 DVD's from TNG, the actors loke slightly slimmed. So while I can't put my hands in the fire, yet, and don't have anything to back my hopes up... I just also can hope, it will be presented in 16:9 with slightly to nothing cropped out. Yet, it's just this... hope! But if we're lucky, if we are very, very, verrryyy lucky... let's have children together - or try it, at least... ;-) Glad, you're not pierced! Hey, let an old bastard have his dreams, girl. You were the one comparing herself to Jolene, weren't you? You can name our first born! The second one it's my turn! Let's not do twins, let's have twice the fun. So let's cross fingers. Just a few months away and we'll know. I vote for BEST OF BOTH WORLDS for the test BD. Hopefully we'll meet again, pink - so we can exchange flui... words, of course, words. Silly me... ;-)

  • July 30, 2011, 10:15 a.m. CST

    And, of cousre, pink, I also got a link for you!

    by wtriker1701 That's why I keep being cautiously optimistic!

  • July 30, 2011, 10:18 a.m. CST

    Personally, I Love skinny broads with fake tits and narrow hips..

    by conspiracy

    makes it more believable when I have them dress up as a street walking crack whore for the occasional "Fantasy Fuck". But honestly...when a Talkback pushes the boundaries so far as to even have the discussion questioning whether or not Jolene Blalock is a multi-load worthy cum catcher...; Well, I'm afraid that is too far out on the fringe of sanity for Ol' Conspiracy.

  • July 30, 2011, 10:34 a.m. CST

    alienfanatic...and Asimovlives

    by RR

    I still give more weight to Variety's claim/math that JJ's Trek was the most successful of the Treks based on adjusted dollars for both budget and gross and besides, as a reboot, it was successful enough. I certainly trust their research more than wiki or even boxofficemojo (which is run by ONE GUY BTW who isn't in the industry any more that Fat Harry on this site is "in the industry"). "Batman Begins" was less successful than Burton's original Batflick (and in $ math less successful than JJ's Trek), but it DESTROYED the gross of the last BatFlick (much like NuTrek destroyed by an even bigger $ figure the sad box office of the last "canon" ST flick), and it brought a new audience to the fold and energized most of the old audience...loved by the public and critics...EXACTLY what JJ's Star Trek has done. As to Asimovlives claim that Dis is more interested in making a Tron sequel than Paramount is in a Trek sequel, bollacks. Paramount LOVES JJ and gave him enough time to do "Super 8". The original writers have been writing, JJ has been chiming in and Paramount has said all along they want him to (preferably) direct or at the VERY least produce the pretty much greenlit sequel. Contrast that to Dis...half heartedly, quietly hired writers, let the director go on to other projects and now seems to be waiting to see how the cartoon (aimed at 5 to 10 year olds) does before doing anything more concrete. Also funny how after 2 plus years, Asimovlives has finally run out of cheap pot shots to take at the content of the movie (to the point when even fellow geeks here were telling him to give it a rest and take his meds)so he now starts attacking the box office and "perceived" success of the film, even though he says "box office doesn't matter to him". Sure seems to matter now that it gives you more ammo in your tilting at windmills hate fest against JJ Abrams and his now "official canon" Star Trek. Frankly, it's the only Star Trek you've got and are going to get for the forseeable future. It's not like if the next JJTrek disappoints, Paramount will gather all the surviving geezers out of the old folks home and try another Campy Cast Trek. Christ Shatner will be freakin' 83 to 85 if that happens. Probably at least one more cast member will be dead by then and NO ONE will want to fund a $100 million plus movie with the geezer cast of "Cocoon". NO ONE wants to see another TNG movie after that bad camp of everything but "First Contact" and don't even start with the non starter DS9, Voyager or Enterprise movies. Besides for all you continuity obsessed trekkies out there...that time line is GONE...NEVER existed. Like it or not, THIS is the Trek you're stuck with. Buzz is, even if JJTrek 2 doesn't deliver, if they do another TV show (or non JJ sequel), it'll take place in the 'JJverse" so get used to it. It took Paramount over 40 years to do a full reboot on Star Trek. You think they'll want to do another potentially confusing (for new fans) reboot, even to "restore" the original continuity any time soon? This isn't a "Superman" where, if you include all the TV and movie versions, has been casually rebooted about 8 times in it's history (and at least that many times in the comics, including DC much ballyhooed "Issue #1" relaunches coming this fall). If Asimovlives gets his way and JJTrek2 TANKS (unlikely), it'll take at least a couple years of a failed TV series in the JJVerse (Paramount still owns half of the CW) AND another decade before Paramount even considers "rebooting" the Trek universe again. You hardcore trekkienerds should be PRAYING JJTrek2 succeeds (and is more to your liking), even if you thought JJTrek 1 failed. Either that or go back to your pathetic SlashFanfic....

  • July 30, 2011, 10:41 a.m. CST


    by RR

    Another "sign" that Paramount is fully behind JJ's Trek 2 is, they are (again) delaying the Jack Ryan reboot because Chris Pine is locked for the lead but they want his playing Kirk again BEFORE the Ryan relaunch. I don't see Disney juggling it's production schedule of 2 franchises for Garrett Hedlund (who???)....

  • July 30, 2011, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Holy frik, guys...

    by 3774

    It's like a frat house in here. @ wtriker1701: It was shot on film and edited down to crappy-res video. If they really are going to remaster it, that means scanning in the original stock. From that point, they would have to make the decision as to whether or not spending money digitally erasing the occasional boom mike or tracking dolly would be worth it for having the entire series widescreen. Mama hopes so! But it would be different cost and effort than that of revising the special effects. They may just say, 'to hell with it', and let the original ratios stand. And i said i'm skinny with no ass. That's not the same thing as 'looking like Blalock'. i might be considered attractive, but she's the type of woman that pretty girls hate. Before my current boyfriend, i only dated guys at least 10 years older than me. Dream away. @ Conspiracy: Those aren't fake boobs, big guy. That's a water bra. And stripped naked it's going to be all feet, knees and elbows. Believe me. Her official measurements are 5'6", 135lbs, 36C-23-35. MY ASS! i'm 5'7" and 135lbs. There is *no way in hell* she is a C cup. You couldn't even fit into the costume i saw if you were. Hollywood starlets, and the willingness of men to believe them, cracks me up.

  • July 30, 2011, 12:14 p.m. CST

    @ pink - Well, we'll know their approach soon, won't we?

    by wtriker1701

    After that comic-con commitment it won't be long before an official announce of WHAT and WHEN and HOW and HOW MUCH. Ha! No ass? Don't matter! My current wife says, my dick must be "bigger on the inside"... at least she hoped all that time... ;-D Have you seen the pictures of "Menage A Troi" and "These Are The Voyages"? Boom mike should be a lesser problem once cropped a little bit. And the special effects surely will be redone. After all, there might be a future 3D market to be explored where no Star Trek series has gone before...

  • July 30, 2011, 12:25 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I don't hate breweries. Breweries are cool, you cna make beer and whisky from them. But i hate the misuse of a brwewery, as in Abrams Trek. And truly, when youthink of FUTURISTIC SPACESHIP ENGINE ROOM, does a brewery the first thing that comes to your mind? I'd like to have been a fly on the wall when the "genious2 who made Abrasm Trek decided that using budweisser's brewery was the way to go to use it as a set for the A.S.S. Abramsprise's engine room.

  • July 30, 2011, 12:35 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "Paramount LOVES JJ" Indeed, and it's their biggest mistake. It will eventually bite them in the ass, sooner or later. "Asimovlives has finally run out of cheap pot shots to take at the content of the movie" I never made a cheap top shot at the movie's (lack of) content. They were all explaiend and thoughful. just because you Abramsheads hate to see any negative opinions on your belioved false god doesn't mean the criticism leveled at him is mindless. Quite the contrary, the mindlessness is about those who mindless worship him and can't understand why Abrams Trek is a bad movie. And pelase, stop with the usuala dumbed down argumentationin favour of Abrams Trek. I have seen them all houndreds of time before. As for Variety, that's a magazine that has been variously critcised by their approach to entertaiment and the way hey classify a sucess. That magazine is married to the Holywood studios, and it pratically serves as their unofficial news letter. Variety is run by a bunch of accountants that only measure a movie's worth from it's box office result, and are extremely forgiving on dumbed down blockbusters. I never took what they say with any seriousness, nor should anybody. i have always comented about Abtams Trek pseudo-mega sucess since the movie's box office numbers have been published, and sicne then i have pointed out the mistake that is to claim Abrams Trek to be a mega-sucess that it isn't. I use that to the people who measure that movie's (lack of) quality on it's perceive super-sucess. Which doesn't have. Paramount and the Abrams Fanboy Zombies claim the movie to have a ssucess that it make sit look like it outbeat INCEPTION at the box office. When in fact by all standards Abrams Trek, specially for it's budget, is merely a moderate sucess. I'm probably wasting too much words on this subject already. I'm certain you will read this and go in full creationist mode and reject everything outright because it doesn't conform to the tennents of faith of the holy bible of jj abrams.

  • July 30, 2011, 2:13 p.m. CST

    TRON Legacy > Star Trek

    by GeorgieBoy

    Space... ...the Rehashed Frontier. These are the voyages of the gaudy-looking starship Enterprise. Its continuing mission: To explore new revenue streams and alienate longtime fans, to shine lens flare wildly for 2 hours, to repeatedly go where we've all been before.

  • July 30, 2011, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Grrr... TRON > Star Trek

    by GeorgieBoy

    Worldwide box office for T:L was 400 million. Worldwide box office for Jar Jar Trek was 384 million. Quality = box office receipts, right!?

  • July 30, 2011, 3:12 p.m. CST

    One Good Thing About Abram's TREK

    by Barron34

    He did effectively re-boot the Franchise and revive interest in TREK. Those TNG movies after FIRST CONTACT were just awful. And I like the TNG actors. TREK was effectively dead, and Abrams has revived it. I may have some reservations about how he has done it, but at least there is hope for more TREK, whereas after the awful TNG movies and the poor showing of ENTERPRISE on TV, there wasn't much. My feeling is that Paramount should keep making Abram's TREK on film, and start a TREK TV series based on a far future TREK simultaneously.

  • (Alexander Courage theme playing)

  • July 30, 2011, 4:29 p.m. CST

    by lick_my_rebel_dick

    I seem to remember that Fox managed to get “X-Men: First Class” – another big sci-fi movie swimming in effects – from greenlight to cinemas in the space of a year.

  • July 30, 2011, 4:30 p.m. CST

    by lick_my_rebel_dick

    And look how that turned out. P.S. Fuck this out of date talkback and lack of edit function.

  • Until then, fuck off.

  • July 30, 2011, 4:37 p.m. CST


    by DJB

    RE: Picard's height- Dude Patrick Stewart is SHORT and RAIL thin, I met him at Wizard World last year and I was surprised at how small that guy is.

  • You have a very peculiar way of consideringwhat is a sucessful interpretation of an already established character.

  • July 30, 2011, 6:06 p.m. CST

    chickenstu, tell me again why the fuck i should care about you.

    by AsimovLives

  • July 30, 2011, 6:14 p.m. CST

    What he Abrams Trek lovers loved about the movie:

    by AsimovLives

    Kirk made into a lame ass punk-ass who gets beated by everybody. A mommy-boy Spock. A whored Uhura. A Bones who only quotes from the older shows and nothing else. Stupid assclown versions of the rest of the crew. An orgy of lens flares that do nothing to the movie's mood or as visual support for the story. A supposedly Star Trek movie made in the image of a Michael Bay movie. A Star Trek movie story completly absent of a theme or subject. A story told through an extreme use of deux ex machinas and coincidences. An overbearing but unmemorable score. A great carelessness about what has been already established in the Star Trek universe. Shoving Star Wars references in every 5 minutes of screentime. That is the shit that makes you enjoy this fucking movie? Fuck's sakes!

  • July 30, 2011, 10:49 p.m. CST


    by Jaka

    Whatever you do, do *NOT* admit that i may have a point in any way. It's important that i learn my place, right?

  • July 30, 2011, 10:50 p.m. CST

    Oh wow, that's crazy, don't use quotation marks I guess.

    by Jaka

  • July 30, 2011, 10:53 p.m. CST

    pink_apocalypse, what I tried to say before

    by Jaka

    In response to that bit in my previous post to you, which was supposed to be a quote, is as follows... <p> Really? Why go there? I'm asking from a place of genuine curiosity. Has someone else attacked you for being a woman here? Has someone else told you that you need to learn your place? Because I certainly did neither of those. You attacked me. You made it personal. I'll say again, I think you have some self-image AND self-esteem issues to work through. I'm walking away from this one shaking my head.

  • July 30, 2011, 10:58 p.m. CST

    chickenstu - he's not the only one who doesn't like it

    by Jaka

    Not even close. But he may be the only one who is still typing hundreds (if not thousands) of words deriding it every time there's a new post someplace on the internet. I say "someplace" because I can't imagine he wastes all that vitriol on AICN alone. <p> And I've got nothing against you Asi - you know I agree with your hate of that pile. I just think you're wasting a lot of time expressing your opinion regarding that film when its too late to make any difference. The first movie is done, they're going to make another one at this point. The best I can hope for is that the sequel fixes some of what I hated about the first one.

  • July 30, 2011, 11:43 p.m. CST

    Script Problems, Director Problems

    by Erik Radvon

    Why would a studio hold back on releasing a surefire hit, with built-in franchise loyalty (all the nu-trek stuff aside, 98% of people who like Star Trek are going to see a Star Trek movie) ? Somebody at Paramount must not like something, and that something is likely the script. As we get closer to January, somebody around the Paramount executive table is going to break the icy tension and come out with it - "We have a problem with Star Trek II, and it's the weak script." On the other side of the fence, my spider sense tells me that somebody on the Bad Robot side has perhaps has been drinking extra doses of douche juice with their breakfast, and are probably insisting on some fairly ridiculous stuff. JJ Abrams has been pretty coy on his ambition to direct part 2. Honestly, I kind of think a part of him was reluctant to do the first one. Sure, he professes his love for the gig and blah blah blah, but look at other blockbuster directors - if the first one hits, they are on-board 100% for the sequel. Gone are the days of an Irving Kershner coming in to bat clean-up. Director's of creative properties are usually foaming at the mouth to make a follow up. I have a feeling like JJ will not end up being the director of STII, but will stay on in some producer role.

  • Im a fan of TOS and TNG, and enjoyed much of the other shows, but most of the star trek product has been rather lackluster. The only great ST movie was wrath of Kahn, with first contact the best of the TNG movies. The one with the whales has not aged well, though i remember liking it back in the day. The last movie was, compared to most of the movies, well above average. The effects were far superior to any of the other movies, though the visuals in ST:TMP were probably the most interesting. And the actors were all either as good or better than the classic actors - spock being the notable exception because u cant improve on perfection. The new Kirk is, frankly, a better actor than shatner, and really elevates the entire movie. the main problem with st 9, as many have pointed out, is that the plot is basically a retread of previous material. i totally agree, and hope they go somewhere new next time. plus the movie is pretty much an action adventure, without any of the exploration/speculative science aspects of the original concept. that said, the movie is still billion times better than star trek 5 or insurrection or about half of the tv stuff. fact.

  • that is all

  • That's a give, Jaka my friend. but if perceptiosn can be changed, if at least just for one, the right one, then it's like the seed that from which a whole crop will grow up, if you know what i mean. It was never about changing a movie. As you said, it's a done deal. Nobody here as power about how a movie is made, that's obvious. But to spearhead a movement that brings sanity to the geekdom at AICN and made people realsie they have been prasiing a bad movie made by a false god, that's worth all the trouble. Besides, it's fun to bash a bad dumb movie like Abrams Trek and to see the squellings of it's fanboys.

  • He must fear going back to a gig to which he has no personal connection to. I guess for him making one was enough. He must be very hesitant to return to Star Trek, even in his own version he created for the first Nu-Trek movie. His heart is not in it. And it's understandable if he's so hesitant. As anybody who ever had to work on soemthing they don't like or do not have their heart in it knows, it's hard to do that. Everyday will feel, like a pain in the ass. It's ahrd to stay focused, to find motivation to go, everyday a burden to be endured. The rpbolems get twice as hard and the solutions don't came as far and good. And let us also consider the fact that Abrams is a TV man. This means that, like many other TV men, specially people, responsible for creating series, their job ocnsists mostly in kickstarting the thing. After that, they move on to other things. liek in LOST where Abrams was brough in in the last stage of developement and invented the supernatural elements of the show and directed the pilot and soon after he left the show. And i think the reason why Paramount hired him for Star Trek was with that intention: for him to kickstart a new ST movie franchise and elave the rest for others to continue. I really beleive the reaosn JJ Abrams is so reluctant to return is not so much the script is still shit (which certainly must be, considering who are writing it), but because he has no more interest in it anymore. And little he had from the start. So, i beleive, what's going on is a tug of war between JJ Abrams and Paramount. The script is being used as the battlefield. And things get delayed.

  • July 31, 2011, 4:28 a.m. CST

    RE: What he Abrams Trek lovers loved about the movie:

    by RR

    Are you out of your Vulcan Mind?

  • And by the way, Shatner in his earleir days was a very well respected shakesperean theater actor. It was because he was so good, and that he had leading man good looks, that he was hired for the role of Kirk. Specially in the first season of ST:TOS his acting is quite nuanced and subtle. His trademarked Shatner histronics became more evidenced with the 3rd season, where it seemed nobody bother to tone him down. As for Chris Pine, the dude better be careful, because i see in him a growing tendency to go the Shatner route too. He also uses a lot of thicks in his acting. The dude better be careful. And can he do a theater play and do the whole 3 hours of Hamlet in one go without takes? I wonder!

  • July 31, 2011, 5:08 a.m. CST

    The Overseas Numbers Sucked. Hard.

    by JohnDrake

    And that's why this sequel isn't likely to get made. The whole purpose of the reboot was to introduce foreign audiences to a potential new franchise. NuTrek failed at that task, miserably. Paramount is understandably reluctant to sink $250 million plus into producing and marketing a sequel that'll have to depend almost entirely on the US market to earn its money back. There's the potential to lose $200 million if the film bombs in the US, with no hope of recouping the losses overseas. The bean counters at Paramount can't make the math work for a Trek sequel. There's a slew of less-risky properties they can dump $250 million into. It doesn't help that the reboot had an inane script and the lamest villain this side of Howard the Duck. I thought the rest of the cast was great, but unfortunately none of them have gone on to become internationally bankable, either. My guess is this thing remains in development hell a few more years before Paramount announces it's producing a new Trek series for Hulu, iTunes or Netflix instead...

  • July 31, 2011, 5:27 a.m. CST

    Asimovlives: I do not understand your hate for this film.

    by ChickenStu

    I didn't like Green Lantern. In fact I fucking hated it with a passion to equal your own hatred for Star Trek. Yet I can appreciate that other people like it, and don't try and turn every talkback into a hate campaign for it. I live and let live, you see. And Star Trek? I liked it. As you know. Many people did. It was a fun two hours of space action, and opened up a new mythology for Star Trek in a way that doesn't alienate old fans (hence the alternate universe/changing history plot thread, and the appearance of Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime), and did it in such a way that would not alienate the uninitiated. It made Star Trek modern, and most of all relevant. Yeah OK, it's almost been going in some form or other for almost 50 years but it did pretty much exclusively cater for it's own fans. It got to a stage where Enterprise was cancelled and Nemesis tanked. J.J Abrams movie has made it cool to actually like Star Trek. Asimov: If you hate it, don't watch it. Don't bother going to see the sequel. You have that right. It's not like this movie is responsible for the death of one of your loved ones is it? The passion you put into such a negative and all ecompassing emotion as hatred fucking ASTOUNDS me. And dude. You can't change it. Live with it or walk away, cause you ain't gonna change anyone's mind.

  • What is it in your mind that'as blocking your understyanding that Abrams TRek is a stupid retard movie made by people who think you are a moron? What's so hard to understand? Realyl, are you that easy to be manipulated?

  • I'm certain that Abrams's heart is more into the Mission impossible franchise then Star Trek, a franchise he doesn't like to begin with. If i had to venture another guess, i think Abrams is waiting for the results of MI4. If MI4 is a big sucess, he will say goodbye to Star Trek once and for all. If it flops, then Nu-Trek will be his cushion to fall back to and bite the bullet and make another so he can stay in the big league. The problem with guys like JJ Abrams is that they are studio executives first and filmmakers second, and his major concern is powerplay politics, not making movies. He should had never left TV, that's wher ehe belongs, not making movie. Certainly not making movies.

  • July 31, 2011, 6:01 a.m. CST

    OK Asimov: Let's break this down...

    by ChickenStu

    What was it you expected that you didn't get? As for you calling it a retard movie, and implying that I'm an idiot for enjoying it - let me put it to you this way. If I want a movie that's going to tickle my brain and get me thinking, I'll watch a Kubrick movie, or a David Lynch movie, Wim Wenders... you know, something of that ilk. However, if I want to watch something to be purely entertained and have some fun - I'll pick something like Abrams' Trek movie. And you know what? Yeah, it wasn't perfect. It was no "Wrath Of Khan" (but not much is) and I'll give you that. But on it's own level, I think it's an enjoyable, entertaining movie. Shit, why am I a moron for liking a movie simply for entertaining me? It's not like I'm in here trying to defend "Battlefield Earth" or "Batman & Robin" or something...

  • July 31, 2011, 6:03 a.m. CST

    Modern? Relevant?

    by JohnDrake

    >It made Star Trek modern, and most of all relevant. Seriously? I thought it read like bad fanfic. So much for relevance. As for being "modern", if you mean the CGI was shaky, dark and hard to follow then, yeah, it was "modern". If you mean the script had more plot holes than plot and was full of contrived situations and contrived comedic elements that fell flat (like Scotty's stupid gnome sidekick), then yeah, it was "modern". It certainly wasn't "modern" in its ability to rake in cash overseas... Because it couldn't. Asimovlives may be on a crazed jihad against the film, but his obsession makes far more sense than villain Nero's grudge against Spock made in the Trek reboot. And when the primary factor driving your film's plot doesn't make a lick of sense, your film has a serious problem. The Trek reboot worked alright as a videogame - it was certainly paced like one - and the actors were pretty enough and worked hard to bring life to their characters, but in the end it was the silliest of the Trek movies (yeah, even including Shatner's awful outing as a director) and made the least sense. It was cool seeing Nimoy one last time. Old time Trekkies I'm sure turned out in droves (the main reason why the film did so well in the US, and so incredibly poorly elsewhere). However, a bunch of them hated it and won't be back for seconds. Another reason I'm sure why the bean counters at Paramount are having second, third and even fourth thoughts about bankrolling any sequel.

  • Accept it! There's no honor in fighting a dead horse! Give it up, bro! It's an impossible mission (he) to convince him otherwise. It's also impossible, asimovlives, that you convince us to NOT enjoy this movie and it's sequel, whenever it should riiise in a theatre near you and us.... I'm grateful, that the success of this movie got us Star Trek TNG remastered. That would NEVER have been possible without Star Trek 2009! That's a fact, gentlemen!

  • July 31, 2011, 10:53 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "What was it you expected that you didn't get?" A good movie. "If I want a movie that's going to tickle my brain and get me thinking, I'll watch a Kubrick movie, or a David Lynch movie, Wim Wenders... you know, something of that ilk" What kind of lameness is that? What is that bullshit? What is this ridiculous notion that movies have to be compartimentized like that? since when any type of movie can't be smart and good? What lame ass bulslhit is that? "And you know what? Yeah, it wasn't perfect." Understatement of the decade. "But on it's own level, I think it's an enjoyable, entertaining movie." If complete retardness and disrespect for both the franchise the movie supposedly belongs to and complete risrespect for the intelligent for the paying public can be called entertaiment, then i guess it is. "Shit, why am I a moron for liking a movie simply for entertaining me?" You are not a moron fort that. You are a moron if you suport a dumb shit movie that treats you like a moron. "It's not like I'm in here trying to defend "Battlefield Earth" or "Batman & Robin" or something..." Abrams TRek is in that cathegory. Just because the movie was made by a guy with good publicity doesn't make it any bertter then those disasters. Lucky for JJ Abrams, he hasn't yet outstated his welcome. Let me tell you this: if i called you a moron in your face for two hours nonstop, would you call that fun? Because that's what Abrams Trek foes to you. so why would you not be entertaimend by me calling you a moron form two hours but you are for Abrams Trek? Becasue it's thesame thing, no more no less. At elast i wouldn't be conning you to pay me for the pleasure of being insulted. Jesus Fucking Christ, guys, you are so hooked and brainwahsed in your strange quest for your strange perception of entertaiment you cannot understand anymore when you have been had and conned. What a pity.

  • July 31, 2011, 10:56 a.m. CST

    wtriker1701, it's the other way around, you moron.

    by AsimovLives

    I'm always convinced with good arguments. But the Abrams Trek fanboys never come up with anything even resembling an argument. It's just words taken religiously on faith from their lord and savior JJ Abrams. So no, i don't get convinced by the likes of you. Because never ever an Abrams Trekkie ever brough an argument that cannot be put down in an heartbeat. You guys don't have arguments, just geekasms.

  • July 31, 2011, 10:57 a.m. CST

    Fresh Star Tek is already rotten.

    by AsimovLives

  • You haven't been reading The Catcher In The Rye lately have you Asi?

  • July 31, 2011, 12:35 p.m. CST

    re: The Trek reboot worked alright as a videogame

    by obi_juan

    And oddly enough there was no videogame tie in.

  • July 31, 2011, 1:35 p.m. CST

    chickenstu, don't be stupid

    by AsimovLives

  • Another proof that Paramount wasn't all that happy with Abrams Trek's "sucess"?

  • Search for Spock is not on par with Wrath of Khan, but it nicely finished the first trilogy and in no way approaches "disgrace". <p> ST5, which shall remain unnamed, is a pile of shit. <p> The Undiscovered Country? A disgrace? That's a great movie, man. You're not going to find a lot of Trek fans that agree with you on that one. <p> Generations? I dig it and I'll never understand why so many people don't. I actually find the goofy acting and bad costuming of the people on Earth in First Contact (which is a better movie as a whole) to be worse than any of the complaints I've heard about Generations. It got the old Trek right (that's what Kirk would have done), it got the new Trek right (that's what all of them would have done), it had all the right characters in it (less Spock), it had a protagonist who I actually believed was threatening. Like, don't understand why people take umbrage with that movie. <p> Insurrection is a glorified TV episode. Viewed as that its good Trek. Viewed as a theatrically released motion picture its a bit of a let down. <P>Nemesis.... failed. Its just not very good. It looks and feels like there was a lot of money being spent, but nobody was really interested. <p> Enterprise needs to be sent through a wormhole to a place where it no longer exists.

  • July 31, 2011, 2:07 p.m. CST

    Trek Reboot Had Nothing To Do With TNG Remasters

    by JohnDrake

    >I'm grateful, that the success of this movie got >us Star Trek TNG remastered. That would >NEVER have been possible without Star Trek >2009! Dude, Space: 1999 has been remastered and released on Blu-ray. Was Jar Jar Trek (thanks to whoever coined that name - appropriate!) responsible for it being remastered as well? Paramount is remastering TNG for HD because non-HD programming is rapidly vanishing from syndication. Period. Full stop. If they want to keep raking in the dough from the cable networks on the Trek franchise (and they probably make $100 million a decade off syndication and home video sales and rentals of TV Trek), they're gonna need to remaster the entire thing for HD. Otherwise their earnings will go from tens of millions to practically zilch. I doubt remastering TNG will cost them much more than $20 million, which is chickenfeed these days in Hollywood. The Blu-rays alone will make $40 million their first month on the market, just off the fanboys. That doesn't even include syndication, Netflix, etc.

  • July 31, 2011, 2:36 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I saw the opening theme for that two-part episode. It was sweet. Too bad the same though that went to those episodes didn't go for the rest of the show.

  • July 31, 2011, 2:44 p.m. CST

    re: Old (really old) make-up job as Admiral Archer

    by obi_juan

    I'm skeptical that nuTrek will be faithful to Enterprise canon even though it should be an untouched part of the timeline.

  • I hate Enterprise and always will for a vast number of reasons that I won't get into again here and now. <p> However, I didn't think it right that I keep complaining about something I never watched past season one, so I downloaded the entire series and watched every episode. It did nothing to change my mind regarding everything I hate about, particularly when they tried to tie it in to the established Trek lore. That actually made me hate it even more. I will give them credit for having a nice production value. It looked pretty good most of the time. But there is still probably less than 10 episodes that I would ever care to watch again. <p>In A Mirror Darkly is one of them (two, I guess). Great, mindfuck, original television. Its just unfortunate that more of the series wasn't as good as those episodes. <p>The theme song was a mistake. I know a lot of people grew to like it, or at least tolerate it, but it never worked for me. ST needs an orchestral theme. It didn't need to be like any of the other series, it just needed to be orchestral.

  • July 31, 2011, 2:53 p.m. CST

    Enterprise wasn't faithful to old Trek anyway

    by Jaka

    It tried to convince you that it did, but it was a lie.

  • Sorry if i lumped it in with st 5 et al. It gave us a Klingon Christopher Lloyd, so that alone makes it worth watching. Of the classic cast, i rank it 2nd or 3rd, depending on my mood and what version of ST:TMP we're talking about. V is an abortion, VI is sub-meh. Generations is meh. First Contact is by far the best of TNG cast. Best supporting cast, best villain, best effects to that point. Its a couple notches below Khan in my book because i really dislike the time travel bs, and because the arcs of kirk, spock and kirk are more profound than anything in first contact. to sum up: 1. Khan 2. First Contact 3. Star Trek (2009) 4. TMP 5. III 6. IV 7. Generations 8. VI 9. Nemesis 10. Insurrection 11. V The last 4 are really interchangeable in the sense that I have no interest in ever watching them again. Coming right out of the show, I enjoyed the whole data-emotion chip subplot in Generations, so i might watch a few minutes while channel surfing.

  • July 31, 2011, 3:35 p.m. CST

    i meant kirk, spock and khan above.

    by dahveed1972


  • July 31, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST

    So to tie this into the nu-Trek debate.

    by dahveed1972

    Even if you dislike the new movie, you have to acknowledge that as a stand alone film its as good or better than a large portion of the stuff that preceded it. And I'm sorry but nostalgia is not the proper basis for serious criticism. This isnt the Starlog talkback after all.

  • July 31, 2011, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Jaka we actually agree on most of it.

    by dahveed1972

    i just like vi and generations a bit less than you. totally agree with your insurretion nemesis analysis. i just think that if you take away nostalgia - a feeling i try not to nurture when it comes to popular culture - vi and generations are rather ho hum. i cant deny that they are "faithful" to TOS and TNG, and are at least watchable, but thats as far as i can go.

  • For me there is a way that Star Trek is supposed to be, there's a heart and brain to it that is well established. ST 2009, for me, missed the mark on both counts. If I could have found those things in it, and they could have tied-up a few of the gaping plot holes, I would probably have loved it. As far as Sci-Fi/Trek goes it looked pretty damn good (except maybe that engine room, which I agree with Asi about). So I can acknowledge the craft of it, but the rest was severely lacking for me.

  • July 31, 2011, 4:02 p.m. CST

    dahveed1972, yep, we do mostly agree

    by Jaka

    But I still believe VI is a great ST movie. I also absolutely DESPISE The Voyage Home (yes, I'm one of those people). That movie is the biggest pile of Star Trek Lite time travel bullshit they ever made. lol And I'll probably re-watch Insurrection again, and ST 2009 is at the bottom of my list. But otherwise, yeah, we pretty much agree.

  • Not to mention the advances in science. Im completely ok with evolutionary change. Its natural and necessary. For example, given the advancements in visual effects, and the average person's understanding of science, i would be fine if the aliens the crew encounter going forward arent humanoid. id also be fine with making the klingons, romulans, vulcans more alien looking. there actually was an evolution in the makeup for these beings from the TOS to the early movies, but it basically came to a halt after Khan. Its that, or an explanation for all the humanoid species is in order (they can reference that episode of TNG that covers this). I do think they should get back to the whole exploration of the galaxy thing, as i consider it to be a core element of the ST brand. Oh, and a more radical redesign of the ship is also perfectly fine with me.

  • July 31, 2011, 4:18 p.m. CST

    And how about a new enemy?

    by dahveed1972

    The Romulans and Klingons and Borg are pretty much played out. Suggestions? Those mind controlling parasites from the finale of Season One TNG? Ok, maybe not. The living oil spill that killed Tasha Yar? ok thats also a no. The Horta? Nope. See, we need something completely new.

  • July 31, 2011, 6:51 p.m. CST

    How I rate the Star Trek movies:

    by ChickenStu

    The Motion Picture : Has some interesting ideas and great visuals, but can be a bit of a chore to sit through if I'm not in the mood for it. Robert Wise's director's cut is far superior to the original version. The Wrath Of Khan: Superb. Great action, intriguing story, characters we care about and almost unbearably tense in some parts. Best of the lot. The Search For Spock: I like it. I like how it ruminates on life, death, sacrifice, and Kirk's son getting killed still churns my stomach. I also like how it takes the whole film to bring Spock back, rather than a quick five minute jobby at the start. This movie ages like a fine wine. Great stuff. The Voyage Home: Huge fun from start to finish, with great comic interplay between Kirk and Spock. Brilliant one liners, nice story - and I dig the environmental message (although, not many do surprisingly). The Final Frontier: Utter dogshit. Move on. The Undiscovered Country: Nice sci-fi conspiracy thriller. Parts of it are a little "Scooby Doo" in their execution, and you can see the twist coming from a mile off. But still, they tried - and it's a pretty good movie. Generations: I like it. Great to see the baton being passed from Kirk to Picard, and I love what it has to say about grief and the nature of immortality. Data was a bit annoying in it though, but the bit where he says "Oh shit" as the ship is crashing is still hilarious. First Contact: Excellent, best Trek movie since Khan. Imaginitive story, great villian and superb effects. Loses a lot of the camp too. Love the whole "Captain Ahab" complex Picard has got. Surprising to see him in that light actually. Insurrection: I can see what they were going for, but I think it failed a bit. Some nice concepts, but the execution was flawed. Shame really, could've had something here... Nemesis: Utter dogshit, move on. Star Trek (2009): Huge fun. Well cast (except for Simon Pegg, love the guy but he sucked in this), action packed and extremely entertaining. A nice reboot which sets up a new direction, yet still has nods to the Trek of old (like explaining the circumstances for the reboot within the story). Great to see Nimoy back as Spock too. Not as good as "The Wrath Of Khan" or "First Contact", but easily on par with "The Voyage Home". Good stuff. There you go.

  • July 31, 2011, 7:02 p.m. CST

    See, I find there to be a ton of camp in First Contact...

    by Jaka

    ...and it bugs the shit out of me. It is a great movie and I agree with anyplace up high somebody would want to put it in the list, so long as its below Wrath of Khan. I also think the old Earth (Cochran's time) costumes are terrible. They haven't aged well at all. <P> The Voyage Home environmental message is fine by me, its the jokes, one-liners, Star Trek Lite vibe that I dislike (hate, actually). That and the lame time travel crutch, which I REALLY wish they would stop using.

  • July 31, 2011, 7:56 p.m. CST

    When did Trek come out?

    by TommyGavinsEgo

    2009, was it? And still Asimov is doing the freaky, borderline autistic, same-old same-old schtick. Asimov, god love ya, you're such a NIPPLE. Tell the rest of you good folks something too - I haven't seen Super 8 yet (it's not out here in the UK for another week or two), but I guaran-fucking-TEE you, if it was a love-letter to Gen X Speilberg by Asi's beloved Nolan, he'd be all over it proclaiming it the greatest SF of the decade. Cos he's a NIPPLE.

  • JJ Abrams made a movie that fucked Star Trek in the ass, as he desired. And the fanboys of that movie keep the raping going whenever they proclaim their love for that retard movie and put them in the top of their lists of favorites. It must be a new sport among the geekry nowdays, to see who can rapes Star Trek the most. So sad!

  • Aug. 1, 2011, 4:06 a.m. CST

    Stand Alone

    by JohnDrake

    >Even if you dislike the new movie, you have to >acknowledge that as a stand alone film its as >good or better than a large portion of the stuff >that preceded it. Well, it's better than Insurrection or Nemesis, but then so's a root canal. It's better than V, where Trek "shat" itself. But as a "stand alone" film I think it's worse than II, or III, or IV, or VI, or First Contact, and it's no better than the director's cut of TMP or Generations, both of which at least tried to be more than puddle deep. The reboot, not so much. I really feel for the actors in Jar Jar Trek, because they had so little to work with, and were clearly trying really, really hard to elevate the material. It's hard to take a film with so many silly plot holes - and such a ridiculous villain - seriously. Bana's performance was hands down the worst baddie in any Trek film - even worse than F. Murray AbraHAM in Insurrection. He somehow managed to be both campy and constipated simultaneously. Meh.

  • Aug. 1, 2011, 4:11 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The production design in Abrams Teek is all over the place. There's parts where it does work, like the interior corridors of the Enterprise, which look sleek and functional. And as for the interior of the Narada, well, who knows how romulan miners interior decoration style goes? But the A.S.S. Abramsprise bridge itself is a disaster, over-lit to the point of blindness and it looks like it was designed to be a herbal pharmacy lobby. And the least said about the brewery the better. It's as if 3 or 4 different people were seperatly designing the movie, and nobody bothered to trade notes. And the design of the A.S.S. Abramsprise itself is a disaster. The movie is edited so fast people barely have a glimpse of it, and it amkes them think they are seeing the Enterprise as we know it. But if you get to see a still photo of the Abramsprise, you will notice it's butt-ugly like sin. Again, it's as if the damn thing was designed by seperate people who never spoke to each other. One did the disk, the other the body, the other the nacelles, and nobody comunicated or agreed to a unified look to the shit, i mean ship. The whole movie looks like it was made in the spirit of "that will do". Everything was made in a hurry and with little concern, and they just threw stuff in it to see if it stick. "The will do", the whole concept about the movie. If this movie was a car, it would be a Ford Pinto painted Ferrari red. It can fool the rednecks and the people who love the colour, but not those who are attentive and care and know the difference between good and flashy.

  • Aug. 1, 2011, 4:21 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I share a buit your opinion about ST IV and VI. I really liked VI and given i watched it back in the day when the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the USSR, i loved the paralelisms the movie was making with the way the Federation and Klingon Empire. The movie did what ST had always done, to use SF as a metaphor and mirror to our times. In that regard, ST VI is a more St movie then evne the much beloved ST II. As for ST IV, and contrary to the popular opinion here, it's not one of the TOs movie i like the most. In fact, i have bought all the DVDs of the TOS movies except IV and V. While IV does trie to be pertinent to the times it was made (the conservation of wildlife was still a debatable issue then, as crazy as that might sound to people today), the heavyhanded way it was done put me off. Also, too much comedy. There's some jokes in the movie i realy liked, but there's just too much too often. The movie starts pretty good, with the Vulcan stuff and the V'Ger's Younger Brother new menace. And the scene in the end when the Enterprise Crew is court-martialled is a moment of brillance in how they mannaged to stay true to proper military protocol while at the same time deliver an happy ending to our heroes. But it's the in-between that i do have some issues. And the heavyhandness. ST IV will never be one of my favorite ST movies.

  • Aug. 1, 2011, 4:26 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Maybe Abrams Trek reflect to culture of today, in that, people's preference for shallow ass dumbed down entertaiment with no intrinsic value of their own. But i see that as a betrayal of what ST is. ST cna reflect the values and culture of the day it's made, but that doesn't mean THE WORST AND THE MOST SHALLOW EXAMPLES of our culture. Quite the contrary, ST aims, or aimed, to reflect the best of our culture and values of the given time it was made. Abrams Trek says nothing of our time and of what is happening in our world, a fact even Abrams acknowledged. And it portaits the most ugly and shallow aspects of our culture today. That is not Star trek, that's a fucking Michael Bay movie. There's a difference between being pertinent and in tune to the times and being flashy hipster.

  • Aug. 1, 2011, 5:06 a.m. CST

    How I rate the Star Trek movies:

    by AsimovLives

    STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE: A brillant movie terribly underrated by people with weak bladders and ADD. The purest ST movie of them all. STAR TREK II: Star Trek as pulp SF at it's best. In the middle of all the adventure there's an honest beating heart and a desire to elevate what would just be a space adventure to something higher and better. STAR TREK III: Shares much of the same qualities of the second movie, which unfortunatly are invisible to those who mindlessly follow the party-line and AICN dogma bullshit. STAR TREK IV: Star Trek at it's most populist. It threads a thin line between dumbed down and smart. The court martial scene is a brillant moment of screenwriting. STAR TREK V: The movie which is easy to mock. Too easy, in fact. It's a better movie then the blind fanatic dogmatic screw ups believe. The movie has real ambitions and a desire to return to the type of ST that was in it's origin. The execution of such ambitions, however, was hardly brillant. And not all that is Shatner's fault. It does contain a brillant moment for McCoy's character (his father's euthanasia) and the immortal line "Why does god need a spaceship?". If you can't dig that you are a moron. STAR TREK IV: Another atmept to bring social relevancy to ST, with quite good results. Unafraid to go darker then usual, with good results. Memorable villain, memorable character moments, with a good sense of adventure. Great send off to the classic crew. ABRAMS TREK: It shouldn't even existed in this list. This movie is the result of when a stranger to ST fucks it in the ass. It's an abortion and an abomination. It's a Michael Bay movie in all the sens eof the definition. Dumbed down, desperatly atempting to be hipster with a flashy presentation, but completly beret of theme or substance or character. A fast-paced mess with a story build on impossible concidences and deux-ex-machina trickery instead of a logical build plotting. Which atempts to substitute thoughfulness and care with flashy visuals and fast-facing. A total shameless mess.

  • Aug. 1, 2011, 5:13 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The people who sucks up Abrams's dick are also quite autistic in their admiration of that very obviously retard movie. And their shit is always the same, word for word. Why odn't you go bug them and call them autists? Are you affraid of the gangbang you would get? It's easier to criticise one then the many? Coward! I haven't seen SUPER 8 yet. But if the movie is bad, and if it was made by Nolan, i would trash it. I have trashed bad movies made by filmmakers i admire. Unlike the JJ Abrams fanboy zombies, i can go beyond mere shallow ass mindless adolation. Don't mistake me for the zombie heads, friend. Just beause you for the sake of a easy jab doesn't mean you are right, you know? Do you understand that, friendo?

  • Aug. 1, 2011, 6:12 a.m. CST

    Asimovlives: So you're sticking up for "The Final Frontier"?!?

    by ChickenStu

    Dude. Fuck off.

  • However i'm aware of the qualities the movie has, which for some reason so many of you chose to be blind about. As if you had a dogmatic attitude toward it, and affraid to deviate. And next i have a good one for you.

  • In what way is Abrams Trek relevant for today? What is in the movie that says something about the state of affairs in today's world? What in the movie makes a statement about today's social and political climate we live in? In what is in the movie that makes it so revelent to today's world? Or maybe what you wanted to say was that Abrams made a movie that CATTERS to the public that wants nothing more form their movies just just a collection of explosions and CGI shiny trinckets? Is that what you wanted to say? Because if so, the correct word is cattering, not relevance. To make a movie relevant, you have to make it to be though-provocking. Abrams Trek asks the every opposite, that you leave the brain at the door. And it catters to the most basic demands of an audience, so that people like you can enjoy it at your most passiveness without an effort or a thought. A relevant movie forces you to be participant in the story because it asks you to think about thesubject it presents. Abrams Trek demands you to not think and enjoy it at the most basic level. So, again, explain to be the big ass relevance that Abrams Trek has that JJ Abrams bestowed upon it. I'd really like to know where the fuck is all that mythical relevance that Abrams Trek is supposed to have.

  • Right. Relevance was perhaps the wrong word. The word I think I was looking for was ACCESSIBLE. Star Trek (before this) spanned 5 TV shows (6 if you count the cartoon), 10 movies, books, comics, games you name it. And of course it was succesful. But it did cater almost exclusively to it's own audience. I watched the previous ten movies with the commentaries on, and on nearly every one they state how the budgets weren't very big. Luckily, the core Star Trek audience was very big - so they made a profit on grosses. But by and large, it was only the Trek fans that were going to see them. This lasted long enough and everyone was happy. But when Enterprise was cancelled and Nemesis was a turkey - some kind of rethink was necessary. So in comes your best mate J.J Abrams and makes a Star Trek movie for a wider audience (not just hardcore fans), brings back the iconic characters and freshens everything up (bringing in Leonard Nimoy and the "alternate universe" plot-line to appease the anger of fans who may be upset by this refit). I like it. And I know people who've hated Star Trek before who've gone to see it and enjoyed it. THAT is the achievment of Abrams and his team here. However, this is all stuff you HATE about it - so trying to explain all this to you is like trying to re-invent the wheel. Just let me have my opinion on this dude, cause believe it or not, (and despite a few sly digs which I regret) I do actually RESPECT your opinion on this movie, and believe it or not - in some cases I can understand your arguments. One man's shit is another man's shinola. You've made your fucking opinions SUPER clear. And also, judging by what I've read here a sequel isn't as likely as I thought it would be. If that's the case, you've got what you want. So let's drop it yeah?

  • Aug. 1, 2011, 1:53 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "Relevance was perhaps the wrong word. The word I think I was looking for was ACCESSIBLE." Yes indeed. And it took you TWO FUCKING years to figure that out. You Abramsboys have been saying the relevancy bullshit nonstop for two years, without ever had paused for one second to realise you have been giving the wrong description to the movie. And you know why? Becasue you guys have swalloweed all the Paramount and Team Abrams marketing bullshit unquestionably from day one and repeated it without a thought. You have forfeit the most basic common capacity for thought a human being has for the sake of a stupid retard dumbass movie! "Star Trek [...] did cater almost exclusively to it's own audience." Indeed. It's called knowing your audience. And it worked fine until they left some moron run the show and prioduced such a product destined for failure called ST: NEMESIS. The beauty of the former ST shows is that BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHO THEY WERE MAKING MOVIES FOR, they mannaged to make movies which end up being very comemrcially sucessful. Even ST:5, believe it or not, produced a profit. The smallest of the ST:TOS movies, but it did. It's caleld savvy filmmaking. With Abrams Trek they over-spend tonnes of money for a movie that in the end, in terms of box office to budget ratio, six penultimum in the ST:TOS commercial sucess podium. With Abrams Trek they over-estended their hand. The movie wasn't that sucessful. The peopel who used to make the TOS movies know what they were doing. And they weren't the stupid spenders that the Team Abrams is. and evenwith their modest budgets they didn't need to use a fucking brewery for the engine room set, did they? "And I know people who've hated Star Trek before who've gone to see it and enjoyed it." Yes, the Michael Bay crowd. Abramas turned what wa sone of the most thoughful SF franchises and tuned it into a mindless stupid dumbed dow explosion fiest. And i'm supposed to celebrate that shit? "THAT is the achievment of Abrams and his team here." Repeating what i said before, his great achievement was to turn St into total stupdiity. Great fucking achievement, he made a movie the please the morons. A round of applause to Mr Abrams, ladies and gentleman. Abrams the maker of Dumb Ass Entertaiment, somebody makes this fucker a knight. "However, this is all stuff you HATE about it - so trying to explain all this to you is like trying to re-invent the wheel." It trook intelligence to invent the wheel. You can't use intelligence to justify stupidity. "I do actually RESPECT your opinion on this movie, and believe it or not - in some cases I can understand your arguments." I very welcome your kind words on that, and i'm in no way being ironic. You are probably showing more gentlemanship then i do, and i always respect that. Despiste all my jabs, i have to admit you are a person who writes well and concise, not a very common thing here. And i'm sure that in other subjects we would probably gfound ourselves more in agreement then disagreement. And this is what frustrates me to no end. If you are such a clever guy,why the fuck did you let yourself being sweduced by one of the most retard bulslhit mvoie made in the past 15 years that wa snot made by Micahel Bay himself? This is not a case of what i think is shit is yoru shinola. no, Abrams TRek is shit. You have been seduced to think otherwise. Why that has happened is a mystery for the ages. Abrams Trek is shit, and shit is shit. Dumb ass shit. If i ever wanted to make a padory of Star trek, and a harsh one at that, i wouldn't had made it half as bad as whjat Abrams Trek is for ST. Abrams Trek is worst then a deliberate mockery. -though i suspect much of how the mvoie was made was a deliberate fuck you from Abrams to Star Trek, a franchise even he admited he has no love for. All this love and all this excusing of Abrams Trek blatant and terrible mistakes and idioticies,and all for what? So that you can claim you got some slices of entertaiment from a dumb movie? There's lots of good movies waiting for you to didscover them where you cna get your dose of entertaiment without the need to reduce yoruself to the intellectual level of an amoeba to do so, you know? Lots of good movies wait you to discover them, you don't need to get that entertaiment fix from the shit. We are movie geeks, we should act like ones, and stop being ass-slaves to cyncial filmmakers and studio executives who believe you are a retard. You know what i mean? Abrams Trek is shit and should be treated accordingly.

  • Because i jusy dying to see what other retard shit they will come up with for the next movie. It will be hillarious. I hope they stay themselves, and just do the same. Hillarity will issue. And given the history that Orci and Kurtzman have with sequels, not only we migth have something that will be the same, but even worst, which means, even more hysterical in it's badness. Transformers 2, anybody?

  • You'll get no argument from me there. While we're at it, Transformers 3 wasn't exactly a picnic. But dude, your hatred of "Star Trek" comes from a place that's obviously personal to you - and since I can't put myself in your shoes, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I just cannot see this one from your point of view.

  • Aug. 1, 2011, 8:48 p.m. CST

    Asimov's pretty much talking to himself by now.

    by TommyGavinsEgo

    But fuck it. He lines himself up to be knocked down so impressively, it's too hard to resist. Asi, you've been flaming Trek in every possible talkback for two years plus. You'll flame Abrams in every possible talkback. You'll flame AICN itself for posting "too many" JJ-related stories and somehow "sucking his dick". The REASON AICN has been posting to many Abrams stories in the last few years is because, DUH! - he's been pretty fuckin' busy directing, producing, shepherding a good few projects which cater for AICN's core audience. You STUPID FUCK. And I BET the tally between Abrams and Nolan postings is pretty much evens. As for accusing me - and the MASSES who enjoyed (note I say "enjoyed", not "loved") Star Trek '09 - of sucking his cock - fuck off, come back, then fuck off again. Time after time I, and others of the same opinion, have set out what we LOVE about the movie, what we LIKE, what we didn't much care for but understood the reason for, and what we thought was flat-out dumb and a bad decision. YOU are the one who's blinded and ignorant. Then again, you think the one Star Trek movie (TMP) that - despite it's many, many triumphs in a great many respects - completely betrays the core characters of Kirk, Spock and McCoy is the BEST one. Watch it again. Detach yourself from the admittedly well-intentioned idea of the Enterprise against a true "Great Unknown". Ignore Robert Wise's majestic direction (in certain scenes, it's just fucking sluggish and uninspiring in the horribly-set interiors - and that's not his fault as much as the terribly misfired production design). It's Kirk being a duplicitous motherfucker against STARFLEET - against all the laws and protocols he upholds - to USURP COMMAND OF THE ENTERPRISE from the man who was rightfully in command. It's Spock - for the vast part of the film - showing absolutely none of the "human" attachment and camaraderie he developed for his fellow crewmembers in the years before. It's Bones just being almost-unlikable, instead of the irascible rough diamond we all love. THE MOTION PICTURE, THANKS TO RODDENBERRY'S CONSTANT INTERFERENCE, betrayed FAR MORE of the spirit of Original Trek than Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman did. Fortunately, the Wrath of Khan fixed all that. Thank you, fuck you, and goodnight.

  • Aug. 1, 2011, 8:51 p.m. CST

    And yes, I'll give you this:

    by TommyGavinsEgo

    Transformers 2 is complete shit. I haven't seen 3. The first one, at least there was an attempt at some wide-eyed humanism, in a sort of '80s Spielberg sort of way. Young kid gets magic car, gets caught up in massive events, all that. I'm not saying it was particularly well executed at all, but the intention was there in the script. But one thing I come away thinking about your taste in movies is that you prefer to look at the technicalities, dissect the script and its internal logic or lack thereof, rather than invest in heart or human characters, however much of an archetype they may be.

  • Aug. 1, 2011, 8:54 p.m. CST

    AND -

    by TommyGavinsEgo

    I'm pretty sure I could take a list of your five favourite films and show you a handful of script contrivances, coincidences, "as if!" moments and developments that make no fucking sense when you analyse it, but just WORK ANYWAY. Live a little, for Christ's sake. You'll give yourself a heart attack. It can't be healthy to hate someone or something THAT much and be spouting off about it two years down the line.

  • Aug. 1, 2011, 8:58 p.m. CST

    And before I go...

    by TommyGavinsEgo

    However long it takes you to come up with clever-clever things like "A.S.S. Abramsprise", just pack it in. It makes you sound like a mong. And the reason it looked like a factory down there is because it's a fucking engine room. The Titanic looked nice on the outside. Down in the engine rooms it looked like a fucking coalmine. (But Scotty stuck in the pipes was a shitty, disposable, silly, meaningless setpiece. So we agree on one thing I'm sure.)

  • Aug. 2, 2011, 6:23 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    My point of view is very easy to understand: Abrams Trek is a stupid movie made by people who think the audiences are made of stupid people. That's the whole basis and the whole point of my attitude toward the movie. So, it's not that personal as you might think.

  • Aug. 2, 2011, 6:26 a.m. CST

    tommygavinsego, flatery will take you nowhere.

    by AsimovLives

    "I'm pretty sure I could take a list of your five favourite films and show you a handful of script contrivances, coincidences, "as if!" moments and developments that make no fucking sense when you analyse it" Sure. But the problem with ABRAMS TREK is that it's made of nothing else but that.