‘Star Trek 3’ Will Stay True to Original Franchise, Go Into ‘Deep Space’

star trek into darkness

Star Trek 3” will boldly go where no man has gone before.

Director Roberto Orci promises that the latest installment of the rebooted franchise will stay true to its roots as it heads back to deep space.

“In this movie, they are closer than they are to the original series characters that you have ever seen,” Orci said during a podcast for Geoff Boucher’s Humans From Earth. “They have set off on their five-year mission. So their adventure is going to be in deep space.”

This means the USS Enterprise will explore the universe rather than the San Francisco cityscape, which fans took issue with in previous installments.

“In [‘Into Darkness’] they set out finally where the original series started,” he said during the interview. “The first two films – especially the 2009 [‘Star Trek’] – was an origin story. It was about them coming together. So they weren’t the characters they were in the original series. They were growing into them and that continues on in the second movie.”

The sequel marks Orci’s directorial debut. Orci, who co-wrote the first two movies, will also help pen “Star Trek 3.” He co-wrote “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” and the first two “Transformers” movies.

“Star Trek 3” is set to debut in 2016.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 105

Leave a Reply

105 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. clt says:

    2016 is going to be expensive at this rate movie-ticket-wise.

  2. Eddie Artist says:

    I was an original Trekker that fought to save TOS and appreciated it’s serious science, social messages, and creativity. Abrams lost me on reboot, when he used the tired ol’ time travel gimmick to make a different version of Star Trek, with silly, plot lines and slapstick comedy. Why would Nero travel back in time seeking revenge by destroying Vulcan…when he could just go back in time to save his home planet from Spock’s “mistake”? And I hated the “paint-by-numbers” storytelling, where Abrams recycled lots of stuff from old Treks and added a twist. (Instead of destroying Genesis they destroyed Vulcan. Instead of Uhura kissing Kirk, she kisses Spock.) Felt creepy to me, but I guess they were catering to the Twilight demographic, and Spock is the closest thing to having a vampire love interest. We all know that the old writers would have found a way for old Spock to travel back and restore Vulcan by movie’s end. (But that whole Nero’s revenge story was just dumb!… Almost as dumb as a doctor being allowed to take his sick patient from a safe location into a space battle, just so he can care for him personally…) But I did like the first 60 minutes.

  3. derpity derp says:

    garbage. absolute fucking garbage.

  4. TheRentman says:

    It absolutely fascinates me how many people who claim to be “Star Trek” fans don’t get that these films take place in a Parallel Universe, created from the Quantum Event that was the destruction of the USS Kelvin. Complaining that these characters are not the mirror image of their Trek Prime Universe copies is comparable to complaining that “Evil Kirk” from the OTHER Parallel Universe was just too darn evil. We are the sum total of our experiences. These characters, whose lives have been forced to be radically different than the Trek Prime Universe crew, are naturally as different as the “Evil” Universe ala “Mirror, Mirror” and all other following Parallel Universe stories told from ST:TNG thru ST:Enterprise are. Seriously, how is this hard to understand. If a fan doesn’t like the new Universe, that is perfectly fine, experience the Trek Prime Universe to your hearts content via “Star Trek Online”. I however am gratified that Star Trek was resurrected from the dead, which means we will get a Star Trek 50th Anniversary film in 2016.

    • Please explain to me then, how the alternate timeline caused by the arrival of Nero managed to reduce the 13-year age difference between Kirk and Chekov which existed in the original series, eliminated Kirk’s older brother Sam from existence, and resulted in Kirk’s parents having witnessed his taking command of the Enterprise in the old continuity–according to Old Spock–when there was an entire episode devoted to how they were killed by Kodos the Executioner when Kirk was just a kid.

      This is not an alternate timeline issue. This is a lack of knowledge of the source material on the part of the writers. Which might account for the second of two great wastes of cinematic opportunity in the franchise’s history. Had they made Gary Mitchell a character in the reboot *from the start,* they’d have been able to milk that for more dramatic tension than possibly any other character in movie history.

      • minbari says:

        Who cares? NewTrek stinks, with video game special effects and story lines meant to appeal only to tweens.

      • theneedsofthemany says:

        Sam is still alive, as seen in uncut first scene where Jim steals the corvette. I don’t recall Kodos killing Kirk’s parents; I thought that he killed Kevin Riley’s parents. Kirk was on the colony, but I don’t think that his parents were killed.

    • Dwayne says:

      Hmmm…. I thought it was alternate timeline, as evidenced by the original Spock.

  5. Eric says:

    If the next movie intends to do homage to TOS, the producer needs to pay homage to Gene Roddenberry. Roddenberry was a classical science fiction writer, who did what all good sci-fi writers did an still do: He examined the human condition. He used the space venue to create utopias and dystopias and then tore them down. He also tore down the human psyche into its basic parts and
    put it back together. The earlier comment regarding Kirk (the alpha) was correct. Kirk did not lose a fight because he represented more than just himself, he stood for humankind. Since Roddenberry’s vision of the future was positive, Kirk always overcame the obstacle, as would our descendants.

    • Jack says:

      Yes. Nero and Old Spock breaking into the ST universe from the future changed history. They even say so in the first film, but people don’t pay attention.

  6. mister_rocket_engine@hotmail.com says:

    All I can say is the only way they’ll be able to redeem this “reboot” is to kill off Chris Pine’s Kirk. Pine’s interpretation of Kirk comes off like a cocky frat boy at a beer pong competition. He grates on my nerves…..I couldn’t help but cheer when Quinto strangles him in the first movie and when he died in the second movie…… Alas, like a bad case of diarrhea, he just won’t go away………

  7. Steve says:

    Wow, this thread is awesome… waggling between the ‘know-nothing’ folks who have the audacity to enjoy the 2 newest entries into the ST celluloid universe… and the ‘know-it-all’ nerds who get upset if someone doesn’t know the deck and location of co-ed shower room # 5 on the 3rd version of the Enterprise.
    First, though I’ve always loved watching the original series & TNG, and thought ST movies 2, 3, 4, 6 and yes, 7 were pretty good.
    But the original cast wasn’t Shakespeare quality, and many of those originals were pretty goofy. The depth of our knowledge on TOS is because we watched those nearly 80 eps dozens of times.
    So many of you want new, but also don’t want change.
    You want to see 5 foot 6, 300 pound Shatner karate-chopping his way across the galaxy…?
    You want to the the Lizard captain from ‘Arena’ just the way he was in 1967?
    Gee, that would look great in HD!

    I like that they are using the iconic characters to further the story, and I don’t care that they blew up Vulcan, or are changing up some of the characters. We didn’t get to see the origin story of the Enterprise until these last 2 movies… they’re young and developing, and that’s fine.

    To me, TNG was the realization of Roddenberry’s vision of cerebrally-exciting sci-fi (… and a lot of DS9, too)… but for the big screen, it’s better to have this new cast from TOS creating some new memories.

  8. I love the original Star Trek show as well as many of the movies with it’s characters. However, I also enjoy the new movies. You don’t have to hate them just because you enjoyed the original. It’s a decent reboot without doing the same things. I, for one, am looking forward to more movies with this great cast.

  9. Kirock says:

    None of these movie makers seem to understand what made TOS successful.

    First, Kirk was always the alpha male — no matter how difficult the task, how impossible the situation, how formidable the foe — Kirk always won. And he did it brilliantly. (For instance, he NEVER would have gotten his ass kicked in a bar fight, as in the first movie, no matter how many guys he was fighting.) Moreover, he wasn’t reckless. He took chances when he had to. He can also have any woman he wants. As for casting, although Chris Pine isn’t bad, he lacks the Shatner charisma (and ability to overact).

    Second, the clever banter and interplay between the main characters is critical. They are, essentially, Freud’s id, ego, and superego. Character development is key.

    Third, the future was positive. TOS came out during the space race in the 1960’s. The hope at the time was that the moon was only the first step to interplanetary travel. Not only would there be space travel, but the idea, the concept, of the United States (“The United Federation of Planets”) was extrapolated into the universe.

    Fourth, it was often allegorical. Many of the episodes reflected the times — the Cold War — where the Klingons were the Soviets. Would it be difficult for the writers to depict an even more menacing foe now?

    Finally, the stories were exciting, often clever, but not reliant on special effects. Obviously great special effects didn’t propel the show. (In fact, they were pretty cheesy — think of the lizard in “Arena.”) Today’s moviemakers rely heavily on effects, mostly cartoonish CGI, to impress viewers, but I’d argue that it has the opposite effect. Effects are important in science fiction, but not if its to the detriment of the story. Alfred Hitchcock used to say that if a scene, no matter how good, doesn’t propel the story, cut it out.

    Hopefully, someone with a better appreciation of Roddenberry’s genius will come to the rescue.

    • theneedsofthemany says:

      Kirk always did it brilliantly??? Like when he ignored Saavik’s suggestion to raise the shields as regulations provided for in Wrath of Khan? How many people died due to this bone-head mistake? I can remember sitting in the theater saying”raise the shields, dammit!” Kirk is still the alpha male in the reboot, just in a different way. Shatner’s Kirk was a 60’s man’s man. That wouldn’t work today. i like Chris Pine and his Kirk just fine.

    • PushingBack says:

      Since you are looking to see the same thing over and over again, why not just buy TOS and just watch until the DVDs wear out?

      Remember…Infinite diversity in infinite combinations!

  10. vsndesigns says:

    I hope they reboot the Doomsday Machine episode!

  11. rocky-o says:

    here’s how you solve this horrendous situation…start the next movie pitch black…great ‘classic soft’ star trek music fades lightly in, as the camera slowly pans in the dark, with barely shadows of grey to comprehend…a familiar voice softly speaks…”…jim…it’s time…”,,,suddenly, two recognizable eyes open in the dark…they belong to james t. kirk, as played by william shatner…he softly replies…”…spock…” to the voiceover heard by leonard nimoy…another voice enters, one similar to that of spock’s father, as once played by marc leonard…”…kirk…you have seen what might have been…and you already knows what has been…now…there is only what will be…”…suddenly the movie blasts the familiar ‘dun-dun-dun…dun-dun dun dun…DUN…” as the title credit comes up to thuderous applause……

  12. The needs of the many says:

    I’m an original trekker. Although I was just a kid, i watched the TOS episodes when they first came on TV in the ’60s. That being said, I don’t despise the last 2 movies the way others seem to.

    Star Trek was beyond dead in the water. There were only a couple of decent movies, Wrath of Khan being the king. And, although I am still a huge fan of the original series, in fact there were only a dozen or so really good episodes. The rest were so-so at best.

    The new movies brought Star Trek back from beyond the grave, and I am thankful to JJ Abrams and Paramount for that. I found them to be entertaining, fun, and pretty well done. For the most art, the casting of the actors is good. Chris Pine plays a great Kirk, not just a good one. Karl Urban can’t be beat as Bones. Etc.

    Having said all that, I hope that XIII addresses the many problems with the 2 new movies: plot holes big enough to drive a starship through, miscasting (Cumberbatch is a fine actor, but he was NOT Khan…I still wonder if we’re going to find out that he wasn’t really Khan after all, but one of the other crew members who claimed to be Khan, and anyway, wasn’t Khan a title, not a name?), unworkable loose ends (already mentioned, Kirk’s superblood and the magic transwarp transporter), the Spock-Uhura romance (it is an unnecessary complication and serves no purpose), lens flares (I don’t understand why JJ did these…it isn’t cool and is just a distraction), character distortions, like Uhura being a badass who like to mix it up, instead of the communications officer, and an overly emotional Spock.

    One of the themes that ran through many of the TOS stories was that, while he denied it, Spock had emotions, but he did his Vulcan best to keep them in check and to be logical and dignified. This Spock is an emotional volcano. It doesn’t work. I think that Zach Quinto would be capable of playing Spock truer to the Nimoy portrayal, but the suits need to let him do that. Kirk should be the guy shagging the chicks.

    I think the solution would be to get the Guardian of Forever involved. the plot in a nutshell could be that things have gone so awry in this alternate universe that should never have existed, and the Federation is now on the verge of an all-out war with the Klingons that will destroy the Federation worlds. Kirk and company stumble upon the Guardian during their 5 year mission, and somehow the moral dilemma is that it falls to the crew of the Enterprise to decide whether to use it to change a key point in history which will then collapse their universe back into the Prime timeline that we know and love.

    Just a thought.

    • Neil Godwin says:

      I could have written this myself! As a fan since the BBC started showing the Original Series, it was heartbreaking to see the franchise deteriorate to the worst of Enterprise (although that was not as bad as some claim), and the appalling Nemesis (which was!) I was almost relieved to see the apparent end of the franchise. The new films are fresh and vibrant. To those old time fans who hate the changes, I say think of the Mirror Universe depicted in TOS, DS9 and Enterprise. Think of the Chris Pine version of Kirk as being an alternative, while Shatner survives in another timeline / dimemsion…..

  13. billhweld says:

    I think both Abrams films were entertaining… but after leaving the theater and thinking about them, particularly the last, they don’t hold up well. Something’s “missing” — felt too much like something you might see on The WB, SciFi or USA. Original films are far and away better, particularly Star Trek VI.

  14. Raoul Duke says:

    I honestly didn’t understand the last movie. The one before it didn’t make much sense either. I won’t be seeing any more.

  15. Doctor Nefario says:

    Why even bother with Starships now? That stupid Into Darkness had Kahn using a portable transporter to get from Earth to the Klingon homeworld. May as well mothball the Enterprise.

  16. jmorlife63 says:

    These boneheads couldn’t bring back the magic of the original series with all the money in Hollywood. As a devoted Star Trek fan, I’ve never seen Into Darkness and could care less. It’s all a soap opera now.

    • Terminus says:

      STID was a terrible movie; you made the right choice. I rather liked the first new one, but was so irritated by the last one, I don’t even know if I’ll watch this next one.

  17. Zidders Roofurry says:

    http://www.startrekcontinues.com/ This is where Trek lives now.

    • Dane says:

      Great.. Great Great….. The should be hired to remake the series, they do a better jobs than the pros. I would like to see SIFY Channel or someone pic them up for a series.

  18. KK says:

    We need to see the epic war between The Federation and The Klingons. ASAP!

  19. Jonathan Dunn says:

    No more Orci for me. No thanks.

  20. bigbendjc says:

    My only problem with the new ST is that the Enterprise seems a lot more advanced than the original Enterprise from the tv show. Wasn’t really explained unless Nero changed the whole time line.

    • Actually, it was indeed explained. Thanks to the scans of the Late 24th Century Romulan Borg Hybrid ship that was Nero’s Narada, Starfleet in this Parallel Universe gained a technological boost that they never dreamed of. If you’d like more info on Nero’s past, the history of his ship, the story behind Spock’s involvement, who built Spock’s Jellyfish ship, read the “Star Trek Countdown” graphic novel (written before the first films release by Orci and Kurtzmann). It ties the previous films (and ST series) with these films.

    • JohnnyNash says:

      I’m actually okay with that – I think it’s necessary to keep it from looking dated (ironically). My biggest problem with the new ST is that Spock has been way too emotional, IMO.

  21. The Lorax says:

    When is a spoiler a spoiler that shouldn’t be a spoiler? When you have a caucasian brit playing the part of a south asian originally played by a latino. It wouldn’t be a spoiler if Benedict Cumberbatch’s character was played by someone brown (Dev Patel after a serious workout regimen?). That was appalling. Oddly, ever since the series finalé of “Star Trek: Enterprise” where Jolene Blalock used the term to describe that episode, I’ve been using “appalling” a lot to describe how the Star Trek franchise has been abused by the PTB at Viacom.

  22. Why is everybody against destroying Vulcan? This is probably the best plot nuance possible. Now every Vulcan can be a rare and treasured presence. They can become a cult-like people whose death is particularly tragic. Every Vulcan can embrace every other Vulcan like family. It allows the writers to change the “pure logic” dedication into an embrace of only the highest emotions.

    Good or bad, destroying Vulcan was a bold step. It’s what they do now that counts.

  23. I am a fan of Star Trek from the original series on, and while I was skeptical about the “reboot,” I found the new movies with the young crew to be mostly innocuous and even entertaining. What I missed was the trademark Roddenberry pacing and formula. There seems to be a different dynamic with the new movies, and not enough character development. The new films are way over the top with “gee look at me, I’m a FX wiz, see all the awesome stuff I know how to do!” Some of it’s okay, but too much is too much. When FX is overdone and unnecessary, it’s distracting. I mean, lens flares upon lens flares upon lens flares? Distracting at the least, bad for cameras at worst. Camera abuse! 8p

    My chief gripes beside that:
    The death of Vulcan? No. No, no, no!!! Not right! Bring back the planet – AND AMANDA!!!
    Spock & fisticuffs. Bad. He’s not violent, and should be able to figure out ways to subdue a villain without beating the cr@p out of him. It’s not Spock, it’s unnecessary emotionality, and quite vulgar. Where is Spock’s dignity?
    Spock & Uhuru – I don’t object, but it’s too “public.” Get a room, ya know? Again, where is Spock’s dignity?

    Gawd, don’t get me started! (oops, too late) d8^)

  24. Buford Floyd says:

    I like Star Trek very much. The new cast I like very well and well play to the old cast. But the for the last two story is a total down fall to me. I hope that this will bring the kinks out and bring back Vucan that should never been distorted in the first place.

  25. I have enjoyed thoroughly both Movies so far and look forward to the 3rd installment…
    People, if all you want is your Old TOS, then buy the BluRays…
    I’m an Old fan who saw the Original airings as they happened, I have liked or loved all the incarnations of it… If you can’t grow with it the loss is yours…

  26. Jonas S says:

    The credits listed for Orci at the end are not endorsements, they’re indictments… Those are some of the worst scripts ever put to paper.

  27. John says:

    So when are they going to correct the incorrect timeline problem?

    Abrams has completely trashed Star Trek by destroying the original characters and their personalities.
    Since when would Capt Kirk put up with Uhura and Spock (who expresses emotions??!!) arguing about their stupid relationship when they’re supposed to be focusing on their mission involving million lives at stake?

    Gene Roddenberry must be turning in his grave.

    • The Bruce says:

      John, what really bugs me is that JJ thought it appropriate that, in the “new” Starfleet, a junior officer could openly fraternize with her superiors.

  28. peterblood71 says:

    Funny, the ST original series had no issues jumping into it’s five year mission without a bunch of set up’s and origin moments. Hollywood is hung up on repetitive origins instead of just getting on with the mythology and telling new prime tales.

    Superman too has barely crawled out of his cradle over the last 34 years and deeper into the mythos and many villains (Hint: there’s more then Lex Luthor to pick from and hey what about things a writer should love like red kryptonite?).

  29. nerdrage says:

    Netflix, PLEASE put Star Trek back on TV (or “TV” in Netflix’s case) because it’s depressing watching nothing but Abrams hackery every couple years. If there was a nice TV series happening at the same time, the movies really wouldn’t matter so much.

  30. Sue Hutchings says:

    I consider it the J.J. Abrams parallel universe. I love Karl Urban as Dr. Bones McCoy & Simon Pegg as Scotty. They were always my favourite characters and the new movies got them right. That said, the originial series from the sixties will always be my favourite and the true timeline in my opinion. I refuse to let my timeline not include the scene where Amanda (Spock’s mom) set up Bones with the remark about the Vulcan teddy bears. And Spock’s reply: ‘the teddy bears are alive… and they have six inch fangs’.

  31. Dave says:

    I’d rather they parody TOS than another one of the first 6 films.

  32. Alex says:

    I am a major Trek fan and despite the fact many complain of the reboot of the series I am just happy to still have Star Trek around. I grew up watching the original series and own all of them on dvd including Generations! Star Trek allows me to be a kid in the most interesting personal and professional settings while discussing the latest movie or episodes from the original series! How great that a series from a long time ago can still bring out the kid in you and how fantastic that there are those that can create a reboot!. What is more powerful than a reboot of a series is the fact that they have created new fans of the original series! Deep Space I can’t wait!

  33. TONY says:

    As a major Trek fan, this reboot is ‘Trek For Dummies’.
    Just a marketing plan to take advantage of a franchise never seen by kiddies.
    Awful dialog, shitty costumes, over the top sets, AWFUL ENGINEERING ROOM, so-so casting and the Enterprise is way too agile.

  34. Jay says:

    Real fans wouldn’t whine and complain about the reboot. To expect ever aging casts from long ago TV versions to keep making films is ridiculous. The reboots made new Trek fans, my wife included. Me I’ve loved Star Trek since I was five, some 39 years ago. J.J. Abrams was the BEST thing to happen to this on it’s deathbed franchise.

    • JD says:

      Try 49 years ago,

      • Scott says:

        He was saying he has been watching it for the last 39 years, not since the beginning of star trek.

    • rocky-o says:

      i don’t think the problem is so much that there are new trek films (although the reboots have been pretty awful as films themselves), but the major complaint might have something to do with the fact that they had to go back to the original characters…few complained when ‘next gen’ arrived, and ‘deep space’, ‘voyager’ and ‘enterprise’ were all welcomed…so now’s the time to come up with something new, not someone new simply playing kirk or spock…

  35. giobravo says:

    At the end of this franchise, I want Q to appear and smirk blinking it out of existence as a voice booms for computer to end the Holodeck simulation. Then Sisko looks at Khan disgusted like o.O getting told “well its not your movie.” Then Sisko growls “yet.”

  36. dZa19 says:

    “In this movie, they are closer than they are to the original series characters that you have ever seen.” I’ve seen the original characters. Are they closer to the original characters than that? Is Spock still going to be banging Uhura? Is Kirk still going to be a panic-stricken turd? When they go to deep space, will a magic transporter that fits in a dufflebag take them there, or will they need a star ship? Can I call the Klingon homeworld on the next iPhone, or did Bob Orci make that up special for Star Trek Into Darkness? Is Bob Orci as good at directing as he was at writing Cowboys vs. Aliens, Transformers, the first two Star Treks, Hercules The Legendary Journeys, and Hawaii Five-0? Has anyone done him a favor and bought him the box set of Star Trek The Original Series on bluray?

    • ifirefly says:

      No worries, dZa19. Bob isn’t writing it all. Payne/McKay are only known by insiders, but, trust me; they can write. Prepare to be wowed.

      Chris Pine is as sick of being a “panic-stricken turd” as we are of seeing him as one. His character may mature between Into Darkness and ST3, but I don’t actually know. JD and Patrick are so tight-lipped, nothing leaks. Not even to their wives or best friends.

  37. Benerese says:

    “Star Trek 3′ Will Stay True to Original Franchise”…
    Now if only Star Trek 1 & 2 could have done that, in terms of actually being true to the spirit of the original Star Trek, not just recycling plot points and characters with extra explosions, whitewashing, and sexism. :)

  38. JJ Johnson says:

    This was totally useless nformation. It says nothing we are not expecting to see. Of course they go into deep space, it’s Star Trek. How about telling us who they will be dealing with, what alien species will they encounter?

  39. Normandy says:

    co-wrote ASM2? uh. oh-that was a truly terrible flick!! hands off star trek!!!

  40. Brocktoon says:

    Since death is out the window (see Khan’s blood) and there is no need for space ships (see transporter from Earth to Klingon) i’m guessing that the third installment will be about a brokered peace deal between the trade federation and the republic?

  41. bitter trekkie says:

    Good, poor San Francisco can’t take any more of Starfleet’s so-called protective shield…but after the Khantastrophe, they got a lot of trust to rebuild, even if the major culprit, JJ Abrams, has moved on to destroying a different franchise.

  42. tim says:

    yikes…this guy is responsible for the Amazing Spider-Man 2 and the Transformer films…not exactly the type of resume you’d want for a film like this.

  43. AJ says:

    That’s what they were saying about Star Trek 2 before they wrote it.

  44. damned says:

    Good to know, but I’d still rather see someone else than Orci as director.

  45. Finally. Something I know ahead of time that I’ll enjoy watching! Contraversies be gone! <3

  46. billoconnell13 says:

    V’ger should be part 3, explore the mentioned possibility that when the Voyager probe left earth it ran into the “machine planet which created the Borg.”
    The crew of the Enterprise could also run into the Borg from the Enterprise TV show, the ones which were frozen in the arctic in the past after battling captain Picard. The Q could be trying to fix giant tears in the space time continuum caused by the alternate history & Q could be responsible for the “Nexus” energy ribbon, as a side effect of those changes.
    I’d like to see William Shatner captain the enterprise one last time. Whoopee Goldberg & Malcolm McDowell could help explain the plot. LLAP

    • bitter trekkie says:

      After what they did to Khan, do you really want them to destroy the Borg as well? (Then again, Voyager destroyed the Borg pretty thoroughly by turning them into a joke, so do your worst, Orci.)

  47. boraxo says:

    It’ll have plot holes you could drive a truck through, but it’ll still be terrific. Abrams got right the one thing that made the original zoom from good to amazing: the casting. Incredibly good choices of actors, who would have thought you could find a guy to play James T. Kirk who was even better in the role than Shatner? But they did!

    • marnie says:

      This may be a dumb (but serious) question but what did they do to Khan that was so bad? I’ve never seen the originals but am a big fan of the new films and I thought Benedict Cumberbatch was awesome as Khan! I’m really looking forward to the 3rd instalment. :-)

    • Balanced Integer says:

      “[W]ho would have thought you could find a guy to play James T. Kirk who was even better in the role than Shatner? But they did!”

      No true fan of Star Trek would think that Chris Pine is an improvement over William Shatner. You must not be much older than 16.

      • nerdrage says:

        How can we tell if Pine is better than Shatner? They’re playing two entirely different characters! Shatner’s Kirk was a fascinating mix of contradictions, a complex evolution of the unimaginative Right-Stuff square-jawed space hero who was standard in the early 60s. (See Jeffrey Hunter’s performance of Christopher Pike – the original Star Trek lead – as an example of the type.) Pine’s Kirk is an infuriating whiney punk who needs a good hard slap or twelve. Maybe as of STID, this characterization will be in the past. That alone would improve this dire situation.

  48. Mervyn Boliver says:

    I have been a fan of Star Trek for many years and JJ’s Trek films were great, he chose the cast very well and the new make up for the Klingons Into Darkness was awsome.. I hope the next film will continue to be a good as JJ’s

  49. Ken Gorman says:

    JJ’s Trek films were both awesome. love the cast choices they made, especially with Simon Pegg and Zach. Co-writer of the crapfest that was Amazing Spiderman 2 has me a little concerned. I want to see Klingons that look human and just have bushy eyebrows like original series ^_-

  50. ob says:

    The reboot is for dummies. It’s Michael Bay style idiocy. Lots of pretty graphics stringed together in scenes with pretty people. The storylines are silly. Abrams likes to splash money around on screen, and has no idea what makes Trek “Trek”, and has no idea what makes “Star Wars”, “Star Wars” (although neither did Lucas at the end of the day). I’ll download it on PB and watch it in a waiting room somewhere…

    • Jack Tatum says:

      I agree with your argument to a degree. Yes, the original “Trek” and the subsequent spin-off franchises were far less “dark”. I enjoyed Abrams films, however, I agree with Michael Dorn, a great deal of SciFi in recent years sadistic and largely post-apocalyptic as well as somewhat nihilistic.

      One thing all of the ‘old’ Treks gave us was hope that the human race could over come its utter indecency toward one another. Its greed. Its anger. And achieve something truly amazing!

More Film News from Variety

Loading