I went and bought the movie novelisation in the hope that Alan Dean Foster could weave a bit of extra back-story in order to make sense of the massive amounts of story coincidences in order to progress to the next big set pieces..... the best he could come up with was "maybe the timeline was trying to heal itself.....weeeeak."

So it says something when an author can't wrangle a better back story and excuses for technology tweaks from 22 years of tangent Star Trek universe. It says that the Star Trek movie had some newly massive (twice the size or the original series) Enterprise holes in the plot which relied on a breathtaking pace to cover up. In other words.... it was the Transformers movie with Transporters and Phasers.

I hope that the 2nd movie has more breathing room to progress the plot and not rely on warp-speed and trans-solar system transports and a planet-wide coincidental meeting of a temporally relocated character with a cadet promoted to first officer.

I'll be watching the TF2 movie to see how they handle a sequel.... if the story blows then I have equal fears for Trek2.

*Disclaimer* I liked the movie spectacle that was Trek.... it was after the movie when you had a think (and read the book) that made the "What the?" elements more apparent.

Oh and my vote for story elements used from the Original Series are:

(a) Start the movie with the Doomsday Machine (mirrors the first movie opening with a ship sacrificing itself to save Kirk)
(b) Infect Kirk with the aging virus and give Shatner a go in the centre seat
(c) A maaaasive Klingon / Federation space battle on a movie budget.

Here come the "there were too many plot holes" crowd. Artificial gravity, faster than light speed, transporter technology, time travel are all within the realm of possibility, but when a cadet is promoted to captain, that's not believable.

The movie is a success, get over it Mechanimorph.

Please Please pretty please, let them make a modern T.O.S, even with the same story the outcome will be completely different especially when the makers use the newest technical improvements.

Actually they set up the logic for a really rapid advancement of Kirk to captain rather well.

They lost a huge portion of the fleet at Vulcan. Lots of up and coming officers were lost there. It seemed as if they were short handed already given that they emptied the academy to man that fleet. Plus it was 8 years on a fairly normal track to Captain according to Pike which seems awfully short.

@Danimal

My suspension of disbelief was calibrated for Trek.... which made the story decisions to progress to the set pieces more jarring in my opinion. I have other issues with the first 15 minutes of the movie but have no bearing on the writing so I didn't bring them up.

I'm sure this has been discussed to death... i just wanted to say my piece about the Trek writers' methods of story progression and hope that they do better next time round.

You know, people complain about this version of Kirk becoming promoted to captain so rapidly, but we don't know anything about this universe's rules. All the complaints I see are based on our reality's military approach.

No one complained about the inconsistencies in the original versions with rank.

Harry Kim was an ensign for seven years.

There were two captains on the Enterprise (Kirk and Spock) in the later films (5 and 6) without an air wing or Admiral to back it.

There were no enlisted personnel at all. Everyone's an officer.

My view is this: since I don't know what the status of the fleet is, I have to suspend my disbelief and accept that Starfleet Command needed to man starships with cadets/midshipmen. Further, I have to believe that the fleet is comprised such that a loss of the task force to Vulcan is crippling to Starfleet.

It's easy to throw stones when you don't know any backstory in this new universe.

These guys will repeat the same formula they've always used: cynical approach to storytelling that relies on commercially accessibility through machismo, dramatically unrealism that might weigh the film down with having to make dramatic sense, lots of shock and awe, and absolutely no political or social insight. Plus some more cheap references to nostalgia that mainstream audiences will get.

Essentially the same film. These guys have absolutely no artistic or public integrity. Look at their track record.

The defenders of this film and Abrams' garbage keep thinking the problems many bring up refer to setting. However, the problem that I knew would arise is one of character and drama. Everything is about easy to understand archetypes and bad dialogue. There's no ambition on a human level at all. It's all cynical film-making like a porno.

These writers did a better Trek than Enterprise or Voyager. Period.

I was a hater then I saw it. I was blown away. Yes this is a deviant timeline that they made very clear in the movie.

Leonard Nimoy who is picky on Trek scripts said it was a winner and he is right.

My friends who did not like Trek now watch the original Series reruns and love the show. This did what B&B hacks could not.

Do a good Trek.

If the TNG Movie scripts were treated like this. We would all be very happy.

muldfield, that is a fairly cynical summation. truth be told, you have no idea what the writers will come up with. and to be honest, most of star trek is filled with characters that meet your description of lowly writing.

i love ds9. but even my beloved ds9 came down to good vs. evil (sisko vs. dukat in the firecaves) in an easy-to-digest way. for such an ambiguous series to end in such a simple way was a tad bit disconcerting.

correction: muldfeld. sorry about that.

It would be nice for the next movie to treat women characters as more than just mothers, sex objects and love interests. For a "reboot," it was really, really backward in that respect. Tasha Yar, Janeway, Seven of Nine and then...whiny Uhura in a mini dress? Blegh. Give me a Starbuck anyday.

muckraker, i agree with what you are saying about female characters. i think this portrayal of uhura was a step-up, in that her character was more integral to the story. but there is certainly room for growth. it would also be nice to see number one, chapel and rand.

also: i would not mind seeing a strong female adversary in the next film. yes, i want an original story (strong sf), with a new enemy. save khan for the third film.

".. or go back into Trek lore and retell a story that's been dealt with before."

Translation: We're considering remaking "Wrath of Khan"???

Although I probably won't bother with the next one, I'd rather they do something original. These guys are pretty sucky writers and I'd rather they not sully my memory of decent Star Trek any more than they have. It would be absolutely absurd of them to try and redo Khan. Khan was Montalban, there's no recasting him.

Perhaps in the next movie, they go go back and time and make earn their rank, rather than just give a bunch of cadets command of the federation flagship. I guess Starfleet lost all sense of logic when they lost Vulcan.

"Translation: We're considering remaking "Wrath of Khan"???"

not necessarily! more like "space seed." and remember, it can turn out completely different...and could involve other villains as well - like romulans, klingons, tholians, etc. it could be more epic in scope than “space seed” was. i actually would not mind something like this. i just do not want to see it next. it is too predictable! but it is a story that should eventually be re-told…just not yet.

What they are wrestling with, without saying it outright is the question: "Do we make a new story, or do we revisit the best villian Trek ever had and do a new spin on Khan (e.g. the Space Seed episode).

I'd love to see something new.

If they went Khan I'd REALLY love it if they wrote it in such a way that Kirk was saving Khan, just to see how different things could have turned out.

Maybe he strand him but this time goes back and saves them before Ceti Alpha 5 (?) blows up...

Wrath of Khan couldn't be remade, because in this timeline Kirk has not yet stranded Khan on Ceti Alpha V. More likely, they'd do a feature-film remake of "Space Seed," with Antonio Banderas (or some other actor like him, though I can't think of any at the moment) stepping into the very large shoes of Ricardo Montalban.

It seems to me like A/O/K have decided to treat the Star Trek source material the way that Sam Raimi or Bryan Singer treat comic book source material—which is fine by me. In that case, the main villain in any of the subsequent films in the series should be a character we remember from the original series, someone who stood out prominently and whom we remember very well as one of Kirk and Co.'s biggest enemies. Khan would of course be at the top of that list; even if STII had never been made, Kirk never faced a bad guy more menacing than him. Other possibilities would be the Romulan Commander from "Balance of Terror"; Kor, Kang, or Koloth; the Gorn; the Tholians; or maybe even the Talosians, even though it was actually Pike who faced off against them, not Kirk (strange how that doesn't seem to have happened in this timeline, since the Enterprise was almost brand new when Kirk took command). Trelane is another possibility, although since he's a child I'm not sure that would work. At any rate, I am almost certain the next movie will feature someone we've already seen.

Of course, they could just as easily go way out there and have Captain Kirk fight an enemy from one of the other series. Personally I've always wanted to see how he'd deal with the Borg. Whatever A/O/K decide, I'm sure it will be good, because personally I have thoroughly enjoyed everything they've done up to now.

PLEASE do not recycle old plot lines. I am getting so tired of reboots and re-imaginings. Take the characters and the universe of Star Trek and give me something new.

Lets see more of the other cultures in the federation. Enterprise did a great job giving life to the Andorians and the Orions.Lets see more of that. No more Romulans no more Klingons. They have been done to death.

It might be fun if, alla James Bond they opened the movie with the end of a mission similar to what we have seen on TV but then shifted gears to give us something new for the rest of the film.

New Story.

No old stuff.

I vote Kirk vs the Borg. It's never been done before.

How about Star Trek Q?

I loved the movie! I've been a TOS trek fan all my life and I'm an old (42) Trekkie.

The only "logical" idea for a sequel:

Firstly, start off the story right at the beginning of Kirk's five year mission-- OUT IN SPACE! It's absolutely ridiculous to keep starting every Trek film on Earth yet again. Can you imagine if that were how every television episode opened?

Secondly, create a story around hard sci fi SPACE EXPLORATION! When was the last time we had a Star Trek film that focused on seeking out "STRANGE NEW worlds" and "going boldly where NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE"?? Exactly.

Taking any other direction would be quite ILLOGICAL! (not to mention painful)

I have long felt that the problem with the follow-on Trek series was that byt the time of STTNG, the Federation was just too darn big. I'd like to see this incarnation develop the idea that the loss of Vulcan tipped the balance against the Federation, and that humanity has to do some clever scrambling to stay in the game.

They better not rehash old stories.. F*** the f***ing remakes already.. New original story please!

My main issue with the new movie, ignoring the plot hole (which are big enough to drive a truck through, but some suspension of disbelief is required for any Sci Fi movie) is that basically for anyone who like the other Treks like TNG or DS9, they'll never get any more movies or series based on that Trek. It is, for all intents and purposes wiped from existence both in the story sense and the in production sense.

All the people that seem to love it are fans of TOS and why not? They have all their favorite characters back What do they care what JJ Abrams or some production company had to do to make it happen? They get to relive what made them love Trek in the first place.

For those of us who grew up and their first trek was TNG, that's now dead and will probably never be back in any form.

Say what you will about not liking Voyager or Enterprise, TNG and DS9 took Trek to a new level and without them there would be no new Star Trek movie.

And if that's not enough, just remember... Enterprise is still technically canon in the "alternate universe" while TNG and DS9 no longer are.

And I agree with ONE^^^ completely. Space exploration based storyline.. YES!!

I agree with you about Dukat versus Sisko, shawn, but what about Damar and the rest of Cardassia -- an enemy for whom you could feel sorry -- or the Dominion -- whose insecurity drove it toward aggression? For most of DS9, Dukat was a very subtle character and he had some great dialogue even in the final 10 episode arc in which he seduced Kai Winn. Even the quick ending with Dukat showed him to be far more interesting than Nero.

Look, it's obvious how these guys write, if you look at their present work and what they did with Trek. It's completely superficial. Barring some life-changing event that steers them toward actually changing how they write, it'll be the same drivel they always put together. Britney Spears or American Idol-type stuff to Ira Steven Behr's Radiohead.

I just rewatched the first 3/4 of Season 3 of The 4400 this last week. Amazing stuff with brilliant commentary on the complexity of terrorism, identity politics, bold and interesting characters in the leads and Shawn Farrell and Richard Tyler, a wonderful secondary character full of wonderful dialogue in Dr. Kevin Burkoff, and just a great character in Isabelle. With all the network pressures that interfered with story and budget constraints that led to lesser directors, extras, and guest actors, Ira Behr did an impressive job. I can't wait for Crash Season 2 that he's been hired to head write!

I think the next movie should be a re-make of the episode about the Space Hippies. I don't know who they'd shout "Herbert" at though with this new Kirk being such a rebel.

I wouldn't mind seeing a lesser known character like Harry Mudd (So long as he isn't done as annoyingly.). No Khan. I want to see two things:

I would like to see this crew in the past or on Earth in the 23rd Century. I know time travel has been done to death but here's my logic. I would like to see them in the present day and get involved in a car chase. Since we know Kirk can drive it would be freaking awesome. The flip side is if they chase a villain in vehicles on Earth in the 23rd Century you could have Kirk in some classic roadster but the villain could be in a futuristic car and it could be on some super cool highway where it's like the damn Autobahn.

Also I would like to see them fight The Borg

Question:

Does the new Star Trek movie create an alternate dimension that will move forward in its own trajectory and thus allow the original dimension of the other series to have existed and continue its own trajectory even though we will likely have no new information about it?

Or

Does it create a new timeline which erases or alters all of the future history which we have seen in the original series and the subsequent ones (not including Enterprise since it technically happened before this new movie)?

I watched every episode of the original series as it aired for the first time, and watched most of what came after, both series and movies, and this is the best Star Trek I have ever seen. My hat's off to everyone involved with the project. It left me exhilerated and excited about the reboot more so than I ever thought possible -- writing, acting, pacing, music, directing, being true to the original universe while making something totally new for a new era -- it all worked in spades.

That said, what I would like to see for the sequel is something that echoes of the original series but is handled in a new and different way (not Khan, please!) -- for example, what if the trip back in time had the effect of setting the Borg onto the Federation way early, way before they had the improved technology of Captain Picard's time? Now seeing how Kirk would handle that one and save the day would really be something to look forward to!

Agreed, muckraker. If you watch "Lost", you'll notice that Uhura is basically Kate around Season 3; she's defined more by her fawning over the action-oriented male leads. I did appreciate that she got more to do, since the Trek series generally neglected the non-trio leads, but it was pretty cliche stuff. Checkhov was just annoying.

Winnona Ryder as Spock's mom was thoroughly unconvincing and highlights yet another J.J. Abrams attempt at gaining cheap attention by casting celebrities -- just as he did on "Alias" and did with nearly all the casting for "Trek". If "Heroes" as a show had died in Season 1, he wouldn't have cast Sylar. Same thing with his pick of Sulu, though I have nothing against that actor. The guy has no sense of originality beyond the "wow" factor.

Shaun, I've always loved Dr. Pulaski in TNG; to my mind, TNG made a huge mistake in taking back the boring, work-defined Dr. Crusher. Pulaski was great.

Anyway, more than just superficiality, the new Trek just encourages unmitigated aggression. There's no attempt to understand "the other" or conceive of conflict as emerging from conflicting interests and differing perspectives. A generation raised on this kind of Trek will lead to a dumber set of voters, and I won't have that!

@ revrogers

Unless Abrams has rewritten Star Trek physics, every series has held pretty consistantly to the idea that time travel alters the timeline by erasing the old and replacing it with a new timeline.

Space Seed and Wrath of Khan are perfect as they stand, and such a part of the canon, that re-doing them would probably HARM the franchise rather than improve it. While I'd love to see Bandaras as Khan, I think doing it from the perspective of the Eugenics Wars would be much better.

I rather like the notion of an aging virus and Shatner in the center seat for say the middle third of the film.

The Borg is also an intriguing idea - after all, if Archer met them in Enterprise, why not Kirk? BUT if Archer did meet the Borg, why didn't anyone know about it? IIRC, Picard's meeting with them was the first on record.

So, who's going to be in charge of security on Voyager now that Tuvok is dead (or will never be born)?

For those of you who are concerned about canon this or that, that was the point of this movie. To change everything so that none of that ever happened and they can do what they want.

So basically, anything is fair game at this point.

IF and this is a big if, I were to see the second movie, continuing with a Romulan type storyline would be my vote. The Romulans were meant to the primary enemy in TOS, but there was some kinda of monetary concern about this (not sure what it was) so it was switched to the Klingons after that. It might peak my interest if they explored that a bit.

Why not go back to the book that explained why the Klingons went from flat foreheads to bumpy ones and do that? I believe that involved the TOS crew??

Or the Vulcan books that told the tales of Spock and Savvik? They were also good stories.

Or just something completely different - adventures from the five year mission that have remained in the fleet archives? Why rehash something already done and risk all the controversy at all??

The reason I raised my question is because the original series and sequel series contain both timeline travel alteration and correction (City on the Edge of Forever; ST IV: The Voyage Home; ST; First Contact) and interdimensional travel (Mirror, Mirror Universe in both TOS and DS9).

Did this red matter singularity create only timeline hole for temporal travel or a timeline/dimensional creation hole for travel of the Narada and Spock's ship?

Time travel correction has always been a major issue in the Trek series. Usually the first thing that happens when someone realizes time has been alterred is to go "correct" it. (Yesterday's Enterprise, First Contact, etc...) But if time travel truly has no affect on the original timeline and creates a parallel universe, then the whole idea of "correcting" the timeline is pointless. Nothing was changed, so nothing needs to be corrected.

There are a few instances of time travel not being corrected, but these are usually examples of casuality loops. I.E. the timeline is the way it is because of the uncorrected time travel (Future's End, Time's Arrow, Cause and Effect)

Whether or not Red Matter changes this or not I guess is a valid question, but that just goes back to my caveat of Abrams changing the rules. He made it pretty clear in interviews the only Trek he cares about is TOS.

I think the Borg in a new movie is analagous to Spider-man fans clamoring for Venom... sounds like a good idea at the time but may not be so good on screen.

If this reboot is about bringing aboard new fans, then a reintroduction to the Klingons seems like the next logical step.

Notice how I deftly worked in some logic?

On a completely irrelevant side note: on my new wish list is for someone to take the voice track to the old animated series and put it with some new (and decent) animation.

Hm, Spock Prime, after getting the new Vulcan colony established, takes a ship, locates the SS Botany Bay (Khan's sleeper ship) , and tractor tows it to Orgainia. Problem solved!
I personally would seek out the Gamers of Trieskellon and sell the SOB (Khan) for a trillion Quatloos! New Vulcan need money!

If there is a next movie how about doing it about the earth romulan war.We have heard about it in almost every one of the franchises so why not try .Start with the catalyst that led to war throuhg the federation getting it's arse kicked and on to the point inthe war were the feds' turned the tables .logical yes?

If they follow the path changing the time line again to save 6 billion Vulcans they could always use the Guardian of Forever as a possiblility.

Restore the timeline or I will ignore the movie. Star Trek did NOT need to be re-invented.

I don't carewhere or when the story takes place. Real Or Abrams universe. But For the Sake Of the Great Bird Of the Galaxty, Do'nt let Abrams Do a thing And Let Peter David Write it!!!!!! He can Spin any seven Items from Any Version Of Star Trek and Still Keep them In the Right Order. If you want something New for the Next Rek Do A New Frontiers Story.

I don't care where or when the next post takes place, former or re-booted universe, but for the sake of the Great Bird of the Galaxy, don't let the spelling and grammar check installed on the SSD Dexterous anywhere near it. Apparently, it can't spin together any form of words or letters into a coherent sentence, let alone keep them in the right order. If you want something grammatically correct, install a known product, then try posting. Better yet, take an English class.

i'd be happy with pretty much any quality star trek sequel, but it'd be just awesome for that saltsucking monster whatzit to appear in the opening act before the main story launches.

Although I do have some issues with the Trek Film I won't bash it here.I have been watching Trek since it first aired live (i am 53) and love the show.
This is the one thing I will say so I don't start a big war on Trek film sucks or not sucks.

If they do make a 2nd one and they will if they do go and "re-make" a movie or take a TOS episode to turn into a movie then I will no longer go near Trek and will still love watching my original Trek shows/films.

I have no patience for remakes.I created the word YARM (yet another remake/reboot).
YARM disgusts me.I want to see new films and Trek should be trying to give us that much.
Please don't destroy Trek.

Star Trek II: The Rise of Khan

Nuff said.

SPACE EXPLORATION!!!

(isn't this what Star Trek is supposed to be about?)

Hmmm So could we ever see our favorite future characters again?

Guinan is alive and well at this point in time as well as her home planet.

The Dax symbiont is alive during this time.

Changelings? Could happen. It all depends on how long Odo was sitting out their before he was found.

Q is of course immortal and omnipotent so he is possible.

And I'm betting that even with the loss of Vulcan we will magically meet at least one other Vulcan we have seen before.

You mean they're really going to make a sequel to this flop?

It's only a flop to those who liked Star Trek the way it was. The thing made a ton of money and appeals to the masses as well as a lot of TOS fans.

The rest of us are SOL.

Actually, Vulcans creating time portals for rescue with the potential time paradox ramifications while trying to fortify the federation with technology to look the other way, as the federation deals with klingon and andorian expansion might make some interesting dilemmas and be a good back story as they revisit Talos IV with Admiral Pike ( or one such episode )could be fun. The borg cameo could be in the next movie after that.....

I'm available for plot assistance, if the PTB are watching!

“A generation raised on this kind of Trek will lead to a dumber set of voters, and I won't have that!”

i would not go that far, muldfeld. i appreciate your passion for good storytelling. and i share your respect for ira behr. but i do not agree with your pessimistic view of j.j.’s star trek. i think there was an honest attempt by the writers to sew actual emotions throughout the script. the moments between spock and uhura were unexpected, yet completely believable. and the connections forged between kirk and pike and kirk and mccoy all had real depth and meaning; with a solid foundation clearly laid for the kirk-spock friendship. i enjoyed the character-driven aspects of the story and the aesthetics of the movie. visually, it presented what i have always wanted to see. now, in future stories, i would like to see more actual exploration of space and contact with new civilizations. i will not get into plot points because they have already been picked apart ad nauseam.

honestly, i would worry about “syfy” and what its name change represents more than this film. there does seem to be a concerted effort to make the population more malleable. and if one disagrees, his/her thoughts and feelings on the subject vanish away. that is my bit of pessimism for today.

Danimal:

Just because it sold lots of tickets does not truly make it a success, just as poor box office performance doesn't, in the age of home video, relegate it to failure. The true test of whether Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman's "Star Trek" is a true success is how well it holds up to the test of time. I suspect that, like their TransFormers effort before them, most viewers will find that while the eye candy was stunning, the story was feeble and trite. At least in Star Trek, the actors could act, though that's just likely a difference between being in an Abrams film and a Michael Bay "production" (a term I use quite loosely in referencing such a horrid...I can't even bring myself to call him a "film-maker" since he is not one...a maker of solid bodily waste is the only apt descpriptor).

27 years on, we're still lauding the excellence of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, yet will such accolades be awarded to this 2009 film some thirty years on? I highly doubt it. That is not to say that it may yet spawn some wonderful sequels, perhaps by more accomplished scriptwriters whose only real credits are not the horridly SFX-bloated, intellectually stunted efforts akin to puerile cinematic masturbation. But make no mistake, Abarms' Trek is a far cry from Nolan's Batman Begins, or even Casino Royale. It is a reboot in name only, and has yet to prove to anyone but the credulous that it can find the heart of franchise in later adventures.

Maybe now the even numbered ones will be the bad ones. With all it's faults this one feels as fresh as Star Trek The Movie did at the time. Yes, I was very disappointed with The Movie, but something I loved was alive and while there is life there is hope. There was life in this one - more than in the first one. Find a new story worth telling and then make another movie. But not until you have a good story to tell.

They should get their stories from the many star trek books that came out after the TOS ended up until Roddenberry died. Also, what happened to Kirk's older brother Sam?

The new Trek film is an "international hit"?

The box office returns say otherwise for the world outside of the US.

ok , i just got back from seeing the movie. yes i have watched all the old star treks and a lot of the other series. OK i know story plot holes are around . its just weird to me that i guess before Kirk's father did not die so he grew up with a father and this Kirk did not but yet he still gets into star fleet and somehow does the same thing and cheats in the no win situation test. just weird how they made us see how the characters formed together almost the same but not. why did we need to reboot . just like star wars when they went back to beginning. they could have done the same here. there are so many gaps of when Kirk first started out. they could have done a lot with piecing it all together . what made the movie for me was seeing them young and starting out. love how we understood bones nick name don't think it ever got explained before in series. point is i get the reboot for the fact that it gives the writers freedom not OT have to go back and make sure they piece it together right. but that could have been the fun. so much to think about i need real trekkers to help me understand all that was lossed and maybe gained. yea all the Vulcan that are loss that probably contributed to development of the universe. for that matter so many other people loss . i mean as time goes on in this reality civilizations that later join the federation or get saved and for that matter so many close calls on the universe not continuing because of what the old crew did and how they saved the universe so many times. interesting how pike still gets crippled and in wheel chair. was he crippled in this knew version of just recuperating also he was captain of the enterprise for a lot longer time. so now what. i guess i am l saying so now what. i think there is a lot of explaining to do which bothers me in some ways... yea we can have the borg and shit .. i would like to see Q some how come into play but we could have done it still by being true to the original time line. there is a lot to consider but the question is will they really try and understand how to do it right from here on out...have these writers seen every episode do they get it or do they care? btw two spocks in the same time line ....help this brother out...how is this all going to work

I'm not sure where this interviewer gets the idea that the fans want to see a remake of some past episode of movie - but they are dead wrong. MAKE IT AN ORIGINAL STORY - please! It would be a huge mistake to bring Khan in or retell an old story that was done - and done well already.

"It is a reboot in name only, and has yet to prove to anyone but the credulous that it can find the heart of franchise in later adventures."

so...you insult those of us who enjoyed the film? and fans wonder why they face stereotyping from the media. the elitist mentality of some poisons the rest of us.

Three words for the sequel, writers:

DO SOMETHING ORIGINAL.

No recycling old stuff, please. No Khan,or even Borg- after all, we've just lost an entire planet- let's do something with the aftermath of that, as well as the loss of a huge chunk of Starfleet's people and ships.

I trust you guys. You can do it. And I look forward to the end product.

We haven't had anything that resembles space exploration in a Star Trek movie for a very long time. This was Roddenberry's original vision. We need something truly unique. Space battles are fine, saving the Earth is fine, but it's been done enough. I want to see some truly bizarre and exotic worlds out there.... something NEW. Personally this is why I'm such a big fan of the first film (which was Roddenberry's baby). If you combine the epic mystery and discovery of ST:TMP (in the vein of 2001: Space Odyssey) with the action, adventure, suspense, peril and drama (w/ the right balance of comedy) that we got with Star Trek 2 & 3 as well as the new movie, then you would have created something never seen before!

Imagine a hard sci fi space exploration film with the action, adventure, and excitement of Star Wars, or the new Trek film, and with truly awe-inspiring locales that we rarely get to see in a science-fiction movie (something truly alien and strange, like we got a glimpse of toward the end of Revenge of the Sith, or like the planet of the Dark Crystal, or like especially what we caught a glimpse of in ST: The Animated Series). An action-packed exploration adventure QUEST story in space would be awesome!! It's never really been done, and Star Trek is the perfect vehicle!

YES.... space exploration!! The new movie was great, but we don't need another villain who wants to destroy earth. Nero served his purpose as the way for Kirk & crew to prove themselves, but now that the Enterprise is theirs start the next movie in space during their five year mission, and give them an action-packed EXPLORATION adventure we won't forget!!

Personally I think the Borg should be in the next movie, as long as it's done truthfully...

"This is AbramsOrciKurtzman of Borg. Resistance is futile. Star Trek as you have known it, is over. From this time forward, you will service us. You will be assimilated."

Yes, please do something original. Do not remake or rehash an existing story.

It would be neat to have more references to exisiting Trek. For instance, we know Dax had a fling with McCoy, so perhaps we could see that. Guinan can make an appearance too, and so could aging Archer and T'Pol. Maybe we could see Tuvok being the first Vulcan born on their new settlement planet. Maybe a Dr. Soong can stop by as well.

I think that covers all the series.

for me this movie breathed new life into a franchise that had painted itself into a corner with far too much political correctness. the prime directive was a surefire way to kill anything really inovative and exciiting happening in the tv series . how many times did they build up a story only to wimp out at the end . this film was the best thing to happen to trek in over a decade or more .

Star Trek...The Search For Vulcan' or Star Trek...The Rediscovered Episode' or what about Star Trek ...The Lost Voyage' !!! Think we might be on to a winner there!
Lets deal with the new universe and not re-hash the old one. The poltical dynamics with Vulcan gone has changed the alpha quadrant ...for ever.
...and finally...the technology and feel of the Enterprise is finally right. Gene would have loved that. And hey! I think mini skirts are back in fashion...again!?

I definitely agree on the space exploration part, I think we should see the Enterprise exploring part of the Beta Quadrant, not many of the story arcs have taken us here, I think they should run into another one of the Travelers race, A strong Female lead, Maybe more of an Anti Hero, not a direct Villain per say, We could see the Enterprise pulled to the edge of our Galaxy or even into another Galaxy and make the return of home impossible, Kirk & crew save the day against all odd’s they must decide to go with the prime directive and avoid getting involved in an alien dispute where on side is totally getting screwed and is begging for their help and also promise of some type of some sort of ancient travel gateway form a race like the Iconians, but it will be destroyed if they don’t help the race that’s losing, In the End Kirk risk his crew to save the group of people that are battling for their survival and overthrow their government. Get to see some good fighting and a few more red shirts bite it! The Enterprise could be so badly damaged, maybe it could get a retrofit to be a little closer to what we know and love of the old girl and have our red busad collectors back! And none of this crap about the Enterprise being over 700 M’s Long heck that would make it bigger than the E! Maybe we can see a more familiar part of engineering, the Warp Core!!!!! Maybe through a flash back if we introduce any old Characters, it could be Carol Marcus, Maybe Kirk works Things out this time and she is on board with him, we could even see bay David!

"the elitist mentality of some poisons the rest of us"--Shaun

Ah, a Fixed News man...if you look up the word "elite" in something even approximating a dictionary, you might notice that it's something to aspire to. Only the feeble-minded seek to heap derision on those who shine brighter than themselves.

And who says I'm a Star Trek fan? I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who actually writes literature, the heart of all forms of storytelling, whether they take place on the stage, the cinema or even the "small screen." They turned the script of this "film" over to two so-called fans who, when you see them in interviews such as the ones they did for the "TransFormers" DVD, come off as total fan-boy geeks. That would be just fine, except that their ability to actually write a narrative that makes even a fraction of sense is simply non-existent.

That's not to say fan-boys can't do justice to the object of their affection when given the chance. Virtually every one of the crew behind the revamped "Doctor Who" were huge fans. The difference is they have true talent. Abrams would do well to consider finding writers who possess some as well. Unfortunately, the fact that he and Cruise are about to team up again with Orci & Kurtzman for another "Mission: Impossible" (more like "Mission: Implausible"), that seems rather unlikely.

Again, just because a large number of people find something entertaining doesn't make it "good," let alone excellent. Lots of people listen to Brittney Spears and Jessica Simpson, despite the fact neither writes their own songs, plays a single instrument, or can actually sing. Should we then give their work the same credence as that of Luciano Pavarotti, John Lennon, or Janis Joplin?

My final thought is simply this: you seem to take the criticism rather personally, yet I don't seem to recall heaping scorn and derision upon those who enjoyed the film. I believe the only remark I made is that some (perhaps many) of the ticket-buyers were "credulous." All that implies is that they are perhaps less studious of their media, less critical, and easier to please. This is hardly a revelation, however, if you know your history. The Roman emperors and social hierarchy (note that I didn't use the term "elite") soon realized that the mob could be easily distracted with mindless bloodsport, hence the term "bread and circuses," which I believe was actually the title of a "Star Trek" episode. If realizing that time-worn truth makes me an "elitist," I take your poor attempt at insult as a great compliment.

I seriously doubt the plot of the next film will be space exploration based. That works fine in a series where you can do a "planet of the week" but I don't see how they could make it fast paced enough for a 2 hour action movie. It's just too bad they couldn't relaunch Trek as a new TV series instead of just a movie, but I guess the studios go where the money is.

@Martin

You can most CERTAINLY create an exciting fast-paced exploration themed storyline-- you only need to up the stakes! Let's say the Enterprise is doing a routine survey of an unknown planet, and while studying some new and bizarre ecosystem (w/ Spock inevitably raising his eyebrow..."fascinating") they have a run-in with a dangerous lifeform, and a skirmish ensues. Shortly afterward they discover the ruins of an ancient advanced civilization on this same planet. Within these ruins their presence unwittingly awakens some sort of mysterious inter-dimensional omnipotent intelligence (not yet explained) which eventually threatens the time-space balance of the universe. Spock uncovers an ancient plot that involves many solar systems. This propels the crew to go on a planet-hopping adventure to save the universe as we know it.

Just an idea off the top of my head. There are infinite exciting story ideas that can be born out of the catalyst of EXPLORATION (setting out with the initial intention of fighting against an enemy is not the only thing that can create ensuing action and adventure).

You only need to use your imagination....

Apparently there's a more pragmatic reason why Paramount felt the need to divorce the film Trek universe from the TV Trek one: The actual 2005 divorce of the two.

www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/movies/26itzk.html?_r=4

''That year[2005], the corporate behemoth Viacom, which owned “Star Trek,” was splitting itself in two, divorcing its CBS studio (which made the “Trek” shows) from its Paramount studio (which made the films). “Trek” was likely to go to CBS, where another television show might eventually be developed. Gail Berman, then the president of Paramount, convinced Leslie Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, to allow her one more chance at a “Trek” film; he gave her 18 months to get the cameras rolling or lose the property. (Under the arrangement CBS retained the “Star Trek” merchandising rights.)'' - Dave Itzkoff, NEW YORK TIMES

It seems almost a certainty that a new tv series will have absolutely nothing to do with the movie.

That means Paramount and its ST09 investment partners are also isolated from the Trek merchandising stream and thus can not use it to recover the costs of their investment in the film's production.

Fascinating...

Vulcan is gone, no need for another planet killer (no Doomsday machine)
Khan would be too much of a rehash
New story, explore new aspects of the Star Trek universe, while drawing elements from the classic series (many episodes to draw from)

They could always pull in Q for some surprises!

Forgetting for the Moment that this is Star Trek . . .

* The Bridge was completely overlit everywhere - even under the floors (?).
That amount of light would seem to washout the workstation screens. And
along the back wall, a line of bare ' lightbulbs ' (!), very much like a beauty-salon !!

The Bridge is in an oval shape, which makes it difficult for bridge officers
to confer with each other, one end to the other. However, the simulator's
bridge was round (Even US Navy ships' bridges are circular).

* The wide forward viewscreen presented views that were inexplicably stretched
out horizontally. And showed the stars moving left to right, instead of heading
toward the ship (or away from it in a reverse/departure angle).

* I was never able to figure ship dimensions. Advised that it's length is 2500
feet - it's 2 and a half times longer than the 5000-crew, 90 aircraft, 100K ton
USS Nimitz aircraft carrier !!

* The ship's exterior has to be on the screen long enough in space scenes
to give a feel for realististic mass and rock-steady solidity as it moves. That was
never established with the high amount of editing (watch Forbidden Planets'
Cruiser C-57D as it arcs right to left - also, the stars are way in the distance,
not appearing to be closer at all).

* The engineering deck unaccountably consisted of just yellow non-descript high
walls with no nomenclature - pipes going in every direction - and no workstations
or screens of any sort. And no engineering crew noted.

Oh jeez guys, we're obviously all trekkies here... Even if there's only one more movie, or even TEN more... whatever happens, can't we just be happy that they're TRYING to reboot? I can remember when Nemesis was such a failure (despite being somewhat likable in a few respects) and Enterprise was cut off... I was horribly disappointed.... so let's just put down our opposing views (I have my own here too but am NOT mentioning them) and be happy that Trek isnt dead yet... It's the fans that keep it alive, and if we keep dividing our thoughts and standpoints, it'll die much faster... instead of arguing over plots, writing, character progression... let's recruit more to the fold and truly enjoy what we still have after so many years. End of rant.

@lordprometheus,

While I welcome your conciliatory tone, and I believe there's a call to end personal attacks in there that I agree with too, you seem to be expressing an alarming take on what the corporate machine regurgitates.

You acknowledge that the fans are what kept/keep Trek alive but you seem to be taking the view that we are simply a massive Trek consuming machine in that we'll even buy pond scum if they slap STAR TREK on it? Your take seems to be: so what if it's pond scum - at least they are still trying to profit from our devotion?

Now I'm not saying the current movie was that bad, but neither was it THAT good. All the liberties taken with it were not an attempt to reach for high artistic "fresh" goals as hyped, but for simple corporate expediency.

a). the parallel universe concept was introduced because in 2006 CBS became the sole owner of STAR TREK and Paramount had to try to make money from Trek in a way it never had before: by licensing it from CBS. They needed to isolate their Trek from CBS' Trek as much as possible to minimize any possible extra CBS siphoning-off of Paramount's profits in copyright royalties for pre-existing characters and settings. This step was largely necessary because there's bad blood between the two entities so extra precautions were necessary..

b). While much ado is made about "new" fans, statistically none materialized as this was marketed to essentially the same core ToS fans that launched the film franchise and made TMP so successful. Planetary-wide ST09 did not best TMP in attendance but it did reverse the downward slide in attendance from TMP to NEMESIS.

Now, if you'd like me to say that I can find some fragrant roses in all the fertilizer, I can"

1. Les Moonves despises this new "Paramount" even more than he does STAR TREK but his CBS so far is the only entity making obscene amounts amounts of money in return for a minute amount invested (via merchandising). There's a chance CBS might launch another TV Trek and for the reasons of "a)" it won't have anything to do with the movie.

2. As alluded to in #1 more Trek merchandise from every aspect of Trek - not just the 2009 movie.