Why? (other than the money to be made.) the last one sucked. There arn't enough worrds to describe how bad it sucked. the ship sucks, the female uniforms suck, the lighting sucks, the only way to save it is to do another time story and reboot it again. only do it right.

something totally different and completely new, that means no Khan, Mudd, or anything that I could see in an TOS episode.

I thought the first one was absolutely brilliant, I even got it on BluRay for Christmas :) All I can really think of is more Scotty, I adore Simon Pegg and can't wait to see more of him in the next film :D

-Klingons
-Space Exploration, Boldly going where no man has gone before
-NEW villian (NOT KHAN!!)
-Darker story, cool mysterious happenings perhaps
-Epic Space battles
-That good ol' iconic witt!

@iknowtrek

You didn't like it, but a lot of people did, and it ended up making almost 400 million worldwide. That's why there's another one planned. The next one will crack 500 million at least. The blu-ray/dvd sales/rental numbers are so good that also makes paramount want a sequel.

Forgot to add: I think its more than just the money, its the amount of people that liked the first one too. The buzz, critics, and word of mouth was fantastic for that movie.

That said, I do hope the new one goes back to being a little more like classic trek, but I accept the alternate timeline for what it is. If I want the "real-deal" I'll just through in the 3 seasons of original TOS I got on blu-ray for Christmas :)

So does anyone actually think they should make it visually as much like the original series as possible? That would suck; it was made like that because they couldn't do better with the technology of the day, and those were the designs of the mid/late 60s. I'm as rabid a fan as the next Vulcan, but I like the new film, and I for one look forward to seeing what they do with the new continuity now it's up and running.

I agree with Flux Cheese, i would love to see some gigantic klingon VS Federation space battles. Something that brings some more action into the franchise,

war with Klingons, More Constitution class ships, lot more space battles...NO MUDD..

Wonder what part of the lore he will ruin this time.
Uhura will make a sex tape, Kirk gets a side job as a detective. Spock gets an afro. Bajor blows up.

I agree with Flux Cheese!

Iknowtrek also sucked, but... That's not the point.

Lookin' forward to it. The movie was fantastic. It deserves a sequel. It's like, reimagining Star Trek, by making it something that everyone - not just the sci-fi fans - can like.

Star Trek '12 = WIN.

It's kinda strange but I began hating the first one until I realized it was in fact an alternate reality...once I accepted that it wasn't supposed to be like other incarnations it started getting good!

The one thing I would be adamant about is don't make the interior shots of Enterprise look like a poor imitation of an oil production facility, not to mention the "long shots" of the interior were waaay out of proportion to the actual size of the ship!!!

It would be kinda nice to see this new project go into the early history of the concept, something the TV show Enterprise did fairly well but didn't get the support it deserved...

It seems a storyline involving Q would work. He has the ability to travel through time and alternate dimensions. He might show up to wonder what happened to change his future meetings with Picard, Janeway, and Sisko. I'm sure Jim Kirk would keep him amused.

I personally am looking forward to it, I grew up with TOS & like the current Stargate reboot I had real doubts & worries about the Trek re-imagining. Star Trek was brilliant it bought back the fun that made TOS so watchable & was lost in the the later incarnations, sadly MGM has made the same mistake that Paramount did & SGU is pants. So roll on 2012 & the new Trek film, I will be at the front of the cinema que!

DD

My question to all the haters is this. EXACTLY what were they supposed to do with this film? Let's play armchair quarterback, shall we?

They couldn't exactly do another movie with the original actors because they're all either dead...or WAY too old to play the parts

They couldn't exactly come up with another totally different Trek ship because let's face it...Voyager and Enterprise failed, epic style.

They couldn't exactly start the whole thing over without changing the timeline because that would COMPLETELY destroy continuity.

This leaves us with 2 options....

1: Let die a billion dollar franchise

2: TRY to come up with something original enough to make it somewhat believable while not totally ruining the whole series.

Face it fanboys...The movie was better than anything Trek related since TNG went of the air. And for those of you that scream "It was all about the money" do me a favor...raise your hands and let me know how many of you went to work today and told your boss you'd work for free for the next 8 months..."Just for the love of your job"

Holding out for an equally awesome sequel

I'd like to see another movie that's worth going to see. Just like the first one. If he can do that, I don't care what it's about!!

I'd like to see less xenophobia. All of the non-Americans are belittled (Scotty is played as an idiot savant and Chekov's sole contribution to the first half of the film is for his accent to be made fun of), and the non-whites, rather than representing the disparate and numerous peoples of Earth, and just Americans. Pale skinned and with strong American accents.

It's hilarious that a film about global - and galactic - cooperation is so pigheadedly pro-white and anti-non-American.

I guess I'll have to play Star Trek Online if I want to get real Trek.

Or, you know, dust off my copies of B5 since they out-Treked Star Trek a long time ago.

Or play Mass Effect 2 when it comes out, which supports a universe just as large and far more detailed, where the aliens are explained biologically and culturally, and the story is a hell of a lot more interesting than anything post-DS9.

I would like to see them build on the first one and bring in what made classic Trek great - lot's of symbolism.

The first one ended with the Klingon fleet detroyed by a Romulan vessel. Seems like there might be a major war going on. All you would need would be a Pearl Harbor attack to bring the Federation into it. Great commentary on war.

Just for shits and giggles - what would happen in this alternate timeline if Kirk's mother met Spock's father?

JDKIng

@asfm

"It's hilarious that a film about global - and galactic - cooperation is so pigheadedly pro-white and anti-non-American."

Probably because they're trying to adapt a series that was made 50 years ago. Or, maybe, because sci-fi plays mostly to young, white males with lots of extra cash to spend and living in this wonderful 21st century post-racial utopia REALLY means that white boys no longer have to feel guilty about not inviting outsiders to the party. Or giving them sex object roles like Zoe Saldana seems keen to play. Weren't you wondering why there was more genuine feeling in the bromance between Kirk and Spock?

Between Avatar, Star Trek and Transformers 2, sci-fi race relations seem to be stuck in the 1960s here in 2009. What's next, a sci-fi epic about overcoming segregated schools?

What I would like to see, not necessarily in the next film, but in a future sequel (God willing) is for our Enterprise crew to cross swords, or phasers or what have you, with the Mirror Universe. 'Mirror, Mirror' is perhaps one of THE iconic stories from the original TV series, and it would be interesting to see how the altered timeline has effected their doppelgangers.

they should do a big budget Babylon 5 movie next!!!! That was the anti-trek!!!

PLEASE PLEASE blow up bajor they are way to whiney! Or at least have Q destroy the worm hole aliens that would be great

Hopefully everyone involved with the bastardizing of Star Trek (that is everyone involved in the wannabe Trek film) will keel over & they will make a real Star Trek film by 2012.

exploration, exploration, EXPLORATION!! When was the last time we actually saw a Trek film "explore strange new worlds"? Try 30 years ago! Loved the new movie, but lets move on to something TRULY unique. Take a cue from 'Avatar' and let's see some real exotic stuff "out there". Especially after Nimoy reminding us at the end of the new film what their mission is REALLY about! How many times can the Enterprise keep abandoning their "five year mission" to save the Earth from alien attack?!!!

1. Start right where the new one left off, and create the FIRST Trek film series that actually chronicles their five year mission!

2. Center the conflict around their REAL mission: EXPLORATION!

3. The Earth doesn't need to be saved ANYMORE!

Try THAT for a change!

I would like to see the second Abrams Trek film do what the first did - take advantage of the new Star Trek universe that has been formed.

My problem wasn't with the new look, it was with the same old time travel plot. Why can't they tell a story without falling back on time travel. My other issue was with Spock. They made him all angry and touchy feely. Maybe we can go forward without another time travel story, and with the characters staying true to their roots.

First, Star Trek IX was AWESOME! Frankly the "villain" and his evil "plot" were completely full of holes, but it DIDN'T MATTER. This movie was an origin story and the antagonist could have been the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man and it wouldn't have mattered. You could watch the movie cutting every scene with Nero, and it would still be a fantastic, exciting, fun adventure. The villain could have just been that big ship with the drilling thing. Didn't even need to see anyone inside it.

That said, the biggest challenge with Star Trek movies is that they always have to be so darn epic. 28-odd seasons of ST TV shows were not built on a weekly end-of-the-universe battle for survival. The series and the movies are two different types of storytelling. If every movie has to be that big, you're really setting the bar high. Everyone who wants a movie about "the real mission" of exploration, should go back and watch ST Insurrection. Those aching for some Human v. Klingon, ST VI. Whatever the movie is about, it has to be about the CHARACTERS. That's what made ST XI so awesome.

1. The missing Shatner scene from the last movie.
2. Q! Why has no one used him ever in a movie? Surely a major timeline shift would grab his/their attention.
3. Some sort of reference to TNG crew and the other later shows.
4. Another excellent movie. That's all I really need to get me in a seat.

What are you talking about, beakernxo1? Star Trek IX WAS Insurrection, and Nero was not in it, nor do I recall any new origin in it.

Actually I loved the star trek movie. It supposed to be new for the next generation of veiwers, and they should deffinetly do a sequel after they left off ,It shouldnt reflect too much from the arriginal series

@TattsDee

1."They couldn't exactly do another movie with the original actors because they're all either dead...or WAY too old to play the parts."

2."They couldn't exactly come up with another totally different Trek ship because let's face it...Voyager and Enterprise failed, epic style."

3."They couldn't exactly start the whole thing over without changing the timeline because that would COMPLETELY destroy continuity."
Where do I begin?

1. What a ridiculous comment. It is clear they cannot continue the Trek franchise. No one in their right mind would want to see that movie. No matter how much we love the original crew.

2. Why would they need to? They can keep the basic shape and design around that. While I can live with the outer look of JJ's starship, I've seen better designs web that I wished they used. What the hell was wrong with the design from Star Trek 2 on? As for the interior of JJ's ship, It's so shockingly 60's retro scifi. same could be said for the costumes. Also who came up with the phaser designs they look like flipping toys. I hate them. Are we go to use the 50's idea of what the future will be too? Shouldn't they be trying to improve upon what came before which is what all the TV and movies have done and tried to do? That is what Star Trek: TNG did do.

There were some ideas I wish they did on the big screen with the original cast 1st. Like The Borg. They sort of did a Q like being. DS9 had epic space battles with fleets and they couldn't do it for the big screen? WTF. This lead to my next point.

3. Why not? Isn't that what JJ Abrams did? My problem is not that he did it, it's how he did it. As I started to say above, wouldn't it make things more interesting story wise to see things rearranged or added to improve the story that is trek. It will work as long as it is a good story well told. Basic things like character definitions, interactions should remain the same. As well as basic design elements like the Enterprise Starship shape and bridge setup. Any new Star Trek should stem from projections of what the future would be like from " our present time ". When I watch the original series and I imagine the designs from Star Trek 2 on as how it was meant to look.

If Gene Roddenberry, D.C. Fontana and Harlan Ellison created Star Trek now instead of then. It would be completely different. I point you to the Star Trek movies and TV Series 80's and 90's etc. as proof and Babylon 5, which DS9 Ripped off.

@ TattsDee

Your Imagination is limited only to 2 options? what a shame.

Rob: "Hopefully everyone involved with the bastardizing of Star Trek (that is everyone involved in the wannabe Trek film) will keel over & they will make a real Star Trek film by 2012."

And what exactly would constitute a "real Star Trek film" in your expert opinion, Alfred Hitchcock?

Can't wait for the sequel and I have the perfect storyline. The crew picks up a drifitng spaceship after responding to a distress call and there is only one survivor. But the survivor is carrying a deadly virus and starts turning the crew into flesheating zombies!!! Cue Scotty and his record collection and wide range of green alcoholic beverages to bash everyone in the head with and watch the redshirts fly!!!!

seriously though, another movie would be awesome!!

I read a Star Trek book as a child called Enterprise: The First Adventure. Although books are not considered canon, this was one of the better stories I had read.

It happens before the historic five-year mission, in fact it is, as the title suggests, the first adventure of the entire crew. It is a wonderful book about how the crew first comes to be on the Enterprise and how they interact with each other.

Spock thinks Kirk is too emotional and should never have been made captain over his own head. Scotty thinks Kirk is young and reckless and only out to endanger his precious ship. People have mysteries which must be faced to overcome the obstacles.

Although the original book would not work as originally written (because of the changes Abrams and crew made), it is still an interesting idea: a mission the entire crew must embark upon and face their own demons while trying to save thousands of lives. I think it's the only thing that will work. I think they need to come up with a story that explores their characters while also exploring "strange new worlds, to boldly go where no man has gone before." In this day and age of computer graphics and special effects, to "go where no man has gone before" may be more difficult than you think.

Star Trek IV was amazing because the Probe was something we had never seen before. They need a new Probe. They need something that wows us. I have no idea what that could be.

I would like to see Kahn, be the bad guy, as well as klingons. Spock needs to use the vulcan grip, and uhara and spock need to get it on.

Star Trek was spectacular. Only a mindless bafoon would state otherwise. Abrams has taken what had become a boring predictable franchise and gave it a rebirth where nothing that came before pertains to the future. Didit happen? Didn't it? Did it end the same? Who cares They only need is to continue where they left off. No need to retail what's been done in the past. Keep it fresh and unique. Maybe the Klingons apearing for sure. with the severe cranial foreheads of course. LOL

@crimsonblack

I believe that the word you were looking for is "buffoon", correct?

AngryJonny, if you have to ask, then you will never know what Star Trek is. Take an orange, peel it, throw the inside away & fill the peel with applesause. You can call it an orange, but it isn't an orange anymore. What don't you get about that? Also anyone who asks 'who cares it's only a movie' has no business being here.

@TattsDee

This whole notion that a single film or series of films can usurp and be the only embodiment of a creative work of art that existed prior is pure malarkey. Next, you'll be alerting Marvel and DC that SUPERMAN and SPIDERMAN are dead comics because their movies have been suspended.

STAR TREK was created as a TV series and not meant to tell one story every 3 years. In that respect, it is difficult to see what exactly it is that you are declaring as undead.

Besides it's the ancillary content that has actually done more to keep Trek alive over the decades than anything else:

"I think that Star Trek survived as long as it did because the fan base was fed ancillary content for years and years. They kept that torch burning when that property should have been killed two or three times in its lifetime." - Jeff Gomez, Starlight Runner Entertainment head

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iDQkwj-Hl0in-nLpglAXaQARdXMg

And speaking of ancillary, one of the most important ancillary markets of a major motion picture in this millennium is the rest of the world, and this picture's performance in that area was very anemic compared to the rest of its brethren. A sequel has work to do.

Glad to hear it! And, for the record, the new movie was just as "real" and "true" and Star Trek" as the previous umpteen variations. It's not about preserving the purity of STAR TREK's sacred continuity and precious bodily fluids, it's about keeping STAR TREK young and vital and alive. To my mind, the new movie did a great job of capturing the zest and spirit of the original tv series.

And that's coming from a fifty-year-old, lifelongTrekkie who has been watching the serie ever since it first aired on NBC.

I'm quite bored with the comments bashing last year's film. It was what it was and was a heck of a lot more fun than the last 4 trek films combined. i enjoyed the next gen films but with the exception of 'first contact' they all sucked... a lot. the original series cast put out about 4 good films, 2 or 3 of which were brilliant, but trek's quality level has not been the same since the early 1990s. let's at least acknowledge the fact that the latest romp was, if nothing else, a lot of fun to watch, which i have not been able to say of any trek for years and years. it did well. it was exciting. it was well-written. people liked it. stop whining about how it sucked without any rationale as to why you feel this way. when i critique the net gen films i usually bring up character inconsistencies with 7 years of backstory rather than saying, "ewwww, they sucked." but hey, that's just me. i've watched everything trek since the early 80s and this fan enjoyed the recent film. i enjoyed the pacing, the look, the wit, and the fun. like it or not, star trek is back and somehow managed to be cool in the process. go back to your 'enterprise' dvds and leave the rerst of the world alone.

I simply cannot fathom the level of stupidity that seems to be eminating from Hollywood these days... The first one sucked monkey spit so bad I was tempted to leave halfway through it.Kirk was an arrogant jerk, spock was even more arrogant and totally wrong. The whole thing with Uhura was just ridiculous and put in just to get people worked up to see it. McCoy was the Only one who was even remotely believable. I won't even get into what I thought of the new Scotty... Just freaking ridiculous. The ship's design was both impractical and out of place. The Nacelles should have torn off the pylons as soon as they went to warp one. The engineering section looked like something out of a bad steampunk movie. And, what the heck are all those transparent pipes for.....? The Villian was pathetic. The enemy ship was a joke as well. I mean if I were designing a mining vessel, it would definitely NOT have all of those teared decks inside. Even Romulans don't design ships that badly. Alternate Universe or not, the movie just plain sucked. And now they want to do a sequel... I guess they want to see if they can make it suck even more...

PS

Sorry, like the folks that I was complaining about I managed to miss the actual conversation topic. My apologies. What would I like to see in the next film? I did enjoy every reference to classic Trek... I was thrilled to hear Admiral Archer's name, see a tribble, etc. Easter eggs like those would be a hoot. I'm not opposed to something or someone major from the original series coming along again, though I do ask that it please be from the original series timeline. It may be an alternate one but if Kirk and Co. do come across Khan, Khan should not appear old as he did in the 2nd film. While action needs to play a nice part in the mix to generate ticket sales I would like to see more personal, buddy moments. now that kirk, spock and mccoy are in place i want to see them get along and gel as the trinity we have come to know and love. i really will follow characters through any plot if i like the people. we've seen some time travel so let's avoid that. not averse to seeing a tholian web... though I would like a lot less screen time for the little annoying creature who followed Scotty onto the ship. I really did enjoy the visual style of the first film and hope they can keep that... I liked the lens flares! i would like some kilngons and andorians... aliens from the original series. maybe a status update on the new vulcan homeworld. exploring would be a plus. no more 'big bad danger to earth' stuff this time around. let's go somewhere and explore space. these are my requests.

I heard on Mancow when Zoe new Uhura was on they would start filming or production in the fall.

All of you who liked this movie and thought it was "AAAHWSOME!" well, more power to you. You'll just have to eccept the fact that there are those of us who don't like it for various reasons which HAVE been explained here quite extensively. AND we have are not going to STFU, or go away and leave the rest of the world alone. If you don't want to read our posts, stay out of the Trek threads.

I have personally heard people who HATE Star Trek say that they liked this movie. What does that say about it? That there ain't much Trek in there.

TYou know what I think the problem is. there are alot of people who like Star Trek but are so afraid they are going to be labled as geeks but now they have this movie which is KOOWEL!" and 'AAHWSOOME!" that now they have a Trek they can like without the fear of being labeled. Why? because it bears very little resemblence tio Star Tek. Well I'd rather be labeled a geek.

Spiff: No one is insisting that everyone get onboard with the new direction. I only object to the (frequent) implication that no TRUE Star Trek fan can accept the new version and that anybody who does is some shallow, newbie who only likes 'splosions and stuff. Some of us old-time, card-carrying, convention-going, novel-reading geeks also thought the new film was breath of fresh air.

And, speaking for myself, it has nothing to do with wanting to be trendy or cool. I've been out and proud as a Trekkie my entire life.

A

I LOVED the movie and my teen daughters love it as well. Its one of the few things we can watch together.

Id love to see Nurse Chapel come on board in the next one and see her and Uhura vie for Spock's attentions. I'm stumped as to who she'd be played by. Will old Spock somehow bring his mother Amanda back or will Scotty find her in the transporter's pattern buffer? I don't think a TOS villian would be so bad. It has to be the right one. Khan is too much of an icon. Maybe theyll get the kid who plays Jacob in Twilight to play "Charlie X"
Christopher Walken or the guy from House or someone as Commodore Decker maybe.

Well, now that they've successfully reintroduced the original crew, it probably wouldn't hurt to add another female character to the mix. As long as Uhura doesn't end up getting sidelined like back in the old days . . .

Have I mentioned how much I love Twilight hunks?

This whole reboot thing kind of sucks for people that didn't care about the original crew.

I was raised on TNG and DS9 and they had continuity flowing into Voyager and Enterprise. That was practically a separate universe from TOS and it made up the bulk of the Star Trek property for 18 years.

Now it's gone and we're back to the part of Star Trek that I never cared about. Bit of a kick in the side, that.

@Son of a Gay Maui Portagee

New Moon was terrible. I'm really hoping that David Slade can do something better with the next one, but so far he's been 50/50 with me (loved Hard Candy, hated 30 Days of Night).

I think the days of Katherine Hardwicke are gone forever. She directed Twilight standing above the source material and gently mocking it, while bringing out all of the desirable elements, all of the little emotional and hormonal hooks, in a way that Meyers never dreamed of. I had a strange time watching that film, sort of like watching Rocky Horror for the first time years ago.

I hate to sound like a snob but I really think that she elevated the film.

Rob: "AngryJonny, if you have to ask, then you will never know what Star Trek is. Take an orange, peel it, throw the inside away & fill the peel with applesause. You can call it an orange, but it isn't an orange anymore. What don't you get about that? Also anyone who asks 'who cares it's only a movie' has no business being here."

Actually, I've been a proud Trekkie since I was a boy watching reruns in the '70s. I, like many Trekkies, am open-minded enough to be able to enjoy the new Star Trek movie for all its glory (and glorious it was) without giving birth to a tribble over seeing pipes in the Enterprise's engine room.

I guess I meant, which of the previous Trek films, if any, would you consider a "real Star Trek film"? Wrath of Kahn (which, undoubtedly, is a terrific Trek movie)? The Voyage Home? Generations? And what elements of previous Trek (TV shows included) should go into the sequel in order for it to meet your definition of a "real Star Trek film" -- the exact same stuff they've been doing for the last fifteen years or so? Because that wasn't working anymore. I think the new Star Trek film was a necessary update to the Trek franchise and one that allowed an entirely new group of people to enjoy what we've loved for decades and now can continue to love.

Sparrowlord01: "McCoy was the Only one who was even remotely believable."

Karl Urban's performance was so brilliant because he so carefully danced the line between paying homage and mimicking DeForest Kelley's McCoy, which I thought was a terrific directorial choice by Abrams, but the others put their own stamps on their characters. So, when you say "remotely believable," I'm led to think you would've liked to see Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Simon Pegg, et al just imitate the performances of the older actors from whom they inherited their roles, no?

Sparrowlord01: "The ship's design was both impractical and out of place. The Nacelles should have torn off the pylons as soon as they went to warp one."

Um, it's a spacecraft capable of FTL travel. All of which is, you know, science fiction.

Spaceman Spiff: "I have personally heard people who HATE Star Trek say that they liked this movie. What does that say about it? That there ain't much Trek in there."

I personally heard the same thing when First Contact came out in 1996. Just curious, do you think there wasn't much Trek in there, too?

I'd like to see the movie begin with Shatner waking from his sleep and saying, "Wow. I just had a nightmare that someone who's never seen star trek in his life made a horrible movie and called it Star Trek!" And then someone proceeds to make a movie about something around te time of the Menagerie.

@iknowtrek Considering it as rated as the 40th best movie of the past decade and was a major money maker you don't really seem to know what your are talking about. You should maybe check out the stats and read a few reviews before you make yourself look stupid next time.

Space Hippies!!!

Bring on the BORG!!!

I would like to see it done in 3-D, like the movie Avatar. It doesn't have to have the same stuff as Avatar of course, but the 3-D technology should be fully implemented on the screen. There has NEVER been a Star Trek in 3-D - but the experience would be well worthwhile.

I've got just 4 words for you, BEE...OH...ARE...GEE...! Yeah, that's right...and they're PISSED! Yep, all this Romulan time screw-up stuff has royally pissed them off and JUST when they were getting ready to set up shop on Vulcan. Now that the inventory on Vulcan has significantly dropped (in a BIG way), they want blood. RED blood.

motorbandit, because of the alteration of time and the subsequent destruction of the Kelvin, Starfleet made some drastic changes in its R&D, This is the reason why the Enterprise is Larger and looks different. accelerated advances in tech.

well, that is the explanation that was given by J.J.Abrams

Star Trek 3D. My head hurts.

i love this movie..

What i'd like to see:

A restauration of the original Trek timeline!

The new timeline and the new characters have nothing to do with the original series. I they are allowed to continue the next one will be the last Trek movie that will ever be done.

What I'd like to see:

Spelling lessons for "Star Trek Fan". It's spelled "restoration".

It never fails that whenever a story is posted here about the new "Star Trek," the haters come out and start hating away, as if they speak for everyone here.

Fact is, scifi, and showbiz as a whole is a BUSINESS. And businesses are about making money. And "Star Trek" made money. A lot of it. When something makes money, you get a sequel. The Next Gen movies and ST series were tanking. The whole franchise was in the dumper. JJ and Co took what was essentially a dead property and brought it back to life ... with humor, action, pacing, great casting, etc. A fun movie. An entertaining movie. A movie that millions enjoyed and embraced. If it had tanked, there would be no sequel. But it didn't. It was a big hit.

So this is what Star Trek is now. This is what you're going to get. Pine and Quinto are Kirk and Spock. Love the old shows and movies? They're all still out there, now on Blu-Ray! Enjoy 'em anytime you like.

But your suggestions that they do another reboot and make it GOOD this time (aka like the old stuff) will fall on deaf ears. So you might as well get used to the new Trek. Or get over it.

I think they could do a really interesting Khan story. Remeber at this point in the time line Khan and his crew should be floating frozen aboard the Botany Bay. I like the idea of Nero's actions starting a war between the Romulans and the Klingons. You could have the Botany bay get caught in the middle and have Khan's crew awaken and take over either a Kilngon warbird at the same time that the Federation is trying to intervene and stop the war between the Romulans and Klingons. You could have Khan's stolen ship fight along side the Enterprise to end the hostilities of the warring factions only then to be handed over by Kirk to the Klingons to be sent to Rura Penthe for the theft of the ship. setting in motion Khans belief that he was betrayed by Kirk and his bloodlust for a later sequel. it would be interesting to see how the timeline change changes the other characters.

woot woot! how bout a little amok time on Uhura's fine ass

Star Trek has been done to death for many years now. How about let die a peaceful death and just be part of our cultural heritage? How much more juice can you get out of this 50 year old orange? I'm old enough to remember the original series as a young man. It ran 2 or 3 seasons for a reason. It wasn't that good. Like Batman, Green Hornet, Superman, and all the cartoons that became live action flicks. Is there an original idea left, or are you going to accept the same crap decade after decade with a new cast of characters and canon. Let me guess, the next one will return the Enterprise to the correct time line and they can reheat all the canned episodes all the way through an "Enterprise" prequel, and then do it all over again. "Lost in Space" was far better in black and white than color. The only thing I see coming out of Hollywood these days is CGI remakes of my generation and CGI Vampire and Werewolf remakes for yours, with the occasional thought provoking indie that gets ruined when it's serialized, like "Crash". Is this what the future holds, remakes of remakes at the theaters and "reality shows" on network? Don't even get me started on the "what if the Honeymooners were Black, Indian, or Hispanic" era.

Thank god I don't pay for cable, never go to theaters, and kept my library card. Sheesh!

Why all the remakes? I think most of us are ready for some nostalgia and some of the fun and hope of the past. I personally am sick of going to films that you have to struggle through, be beat over the head with some one's personal agenda, and then leave more depressed or tired than when you walked in. Why did the Lord of the Rings so so well? the values of heroism, friendship and loyalty as well as personal sacrific for the good of others still resonate with us today. Star Trek was FUN, it had those values, it made you feel good and laugh a little. After all, it is the ENTERTAINMENT Industry, not an indoctrination school or arm of some one's dogma. Bring on more!

Again with the Klingons…
LET IT GO!
Anytime an article on star trek comes out, it seems like a great chunk of purist/cannonites beg to see Klingons in action again, and at the same time make a demand for originality! Seriously how many times does this so called peace fairing society have to whip these warriors for life, to get the point across.
Don’t get me wrong, I loved every episode and movie with the Klingons, however, reading these comments, reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons where they spoof star trek. An old Sulu announces Klingons off the starboard bow, to which an aged Kirk rubs his forehead and says “AGAIN, WITH THE KLINGONS!!!”
In my humble opinion they should make a movie with a favourite adversary that has yet to be used in a movie… Q
Albeit ANY movie that involves Q would be full of plot holes, that it will fit right in with the rest of the franchise. And unless there aren’t any battles, bloodthirsty Star Trek fans will rant and rave at the lack of action… (ie: Voyage Home).
Or what about that race (forget the name) that hijack the Enterprise (Original Series) and proceeded to turn everyone but necessary crew to carbon based cubes, and attempted to travel to their home world in a different galaxy to usher in an invasion. Didn’t Kirk settle them on a planet in our own Galaxy?
Cmon, lets be realistic, if the Trek antagonist is not bent on “Galaxy” wide domination, it aint a Trek movie! (Dripping sarcasm)…
So wether it is a villain we have seen before or a new one…
As long as there are great starship battles, the semblance of a plot, and sexy half dressed love interests that are not quite human… it will be another blockbuster. But for the love of Romulus, let it be something OTHER than Klingons!!!!

Haters, one and all. So what? YOU didn't like it. I, and a LOT of other people did. And before you get on your high horse, yes - I was there at my tv the day the first episode ever aired. I've seen all of them, read every novel, probably attended more conventions, etc. I'm every bit a fan as you. Only difference is I don't think my opinion about what is and what is not Star Trek is the only one that should count. If you don't like the new version, then don't watch it.

I like when someone who calls themselves "couldnotcareless" writes on a topic for an hour...I don't know - I think you probably could care less...

Please, no more time travel. It's the crutch of a lazy and unimaginative writer.

Since jj is stuck on time travel ,how about going back even further and actually dealing with the federation romulan war.It would be more suspensful like kahn was (considerd the best of the movies) and it would return trek to the "Submarine warfare"type of story that was always the best.

how about the end of the universe!!! lol

Gotta love these liars who claim to have been Trek fans from day one, but say they love the piece-of-crap movie that isn't Star Trek.

“Gotta love these liars who claim to have been Trek fans from day one, but say they love the piece-of-crap movie that isn't Star Trek.”

if I understand you correctly, you believe those of us who have been fans of star trek since the 60s (or 70s in my case) and have proclaimed our admiration of the new star trek movie are liars? how are we liars?

Mmarus,

Just to give it some perspective, the way you feel about Trek revisiting Klingons is how I'd feel about Trek revisiting Q.

And the Borg (whom I love, but would not want to see in the Trek sequel).

I'd like to see a brand-new threat.

Klingons are a must. And some actual space exploration, yes.

As far as Khan, I don't think it would make a good plot for a new movie. It's been done. But he's probably out there, hibernating on the Botany Bay, so some reference or subplot in a future sequel to address that would be acceptable. (Maybe he stays hibernating in this timeline, though.)

Oh yeah, another suggestion: each sequel should have at least one scene where a main character is shown wearing very little.

@Howard's Turn

For it to make money it has to turn a profit and there's absolutely no evidence that it made any more profit than G.I. JOE for Paramount.

What is impressive about the new Paramount versus the Paramount of old, CBS which owns it, is that they seem to have managed to cut costs internally so as to have not hemorrhaged any money on both pictures' extravagant cost overruns and where the old P would have cut and run, the new P seems intent on building on both. And they've built up a hype machine the likes of which Trek has never seen employed in its service.

But it's time for the fans of 2009's STAR TREK to take off the Viacom rose colored glasses and face some reality. In 2009, a STAR TREK movie did not take the world by storm, but a James Cameron movie, AVATAR, and several other films before it did. STAR TREK didn't even make 2009's top ten. Not only that but AVATAR did it in far fewer days while staying number one at the B.O. for more weeks than 2009's replay of the STAR TREK franchise's old hat one.

Paramount's PR machine ingeniously played up all kinds of convoluted metrics in the press to make their movie shine in buzz. Unfortunately each and every one of those constructs when applied to AVATAR reduces that ST 2009 buzz to a mere pin drop.

You don't have to hate a movie to see that clearly it isn't the best picture of 2009 based on any of those Paramount floated metrics.

And for the record I found the movie to be put oddly together like a budget movie. And as in a good budget movie its director effectively uses editing, pacing and good characterizations to gloss over the many weak spots that having a limited budget forces him to have to navigate. I'm not sure why that came to be other than the writers' strike possibly prevented him from fixing things in a conventional matter?

For me, it was an entertaining B-Movie popcorn eater. But it's narrative was far from the most compelling STAR TREK story ever told.

Being a stubborn old cuss with Trek for over 40 years, I've have always wanted the writing to excel or at least evolve incrementally better with each new story. In that regard, I find it hard to recognize this movie as something Trek as I have come to demand more than merely great characterizations. However, I have seen a portion of the script that was excised for unknown reasons by someone with higher say than the writer and I do see where this narrative could have been what I call "recognizable" Trek for lack of a better word.

We have seen the Enterprise save earth, been destroyed, characters killed only to be brought back to life, cloning, the borg and so on. There is almost a thousand hours of Star Trek out there. What could they possibly come up with next? We've even saved the whales! MAYBE... we need a Tribble movie? Giant Tribble attacks Mars... film at 11.

As a teenager, I watched the original series and loved it to the point of obsession -- it was the first sci-fi series directed at adults that took sci-fi as seriously as sci-fi books did. (All we had before that was the silly children's series "Lost in Space.")

However, in recent years, I have found the original series to be unwatchable. The interior ship sets look almost as bad as painted cardboard, and the exterior planet-side shots are obviously sound stages with a bit of decoration. And this is not to mention that seeing what Shatner has aged into in real life has made Kirk unwatchable to me as well.

Over the years, I watched all of the tv series, at least mostly, although Voyager lost me when the terribly oversexed, fanboy idol Seven of Nine was blown out of proportion and got the main romance of the series that should have belonged to Janeway.

But in recent years, there seemed to be nowhere for the franchise to go. Each new tv series was just more of the same, and as much as I wanted to like Enterprise, I just couldn't -- the crew behaved with such stupidity toward any potential alien contact that NASA would disown them.

I figured that the only way they could re-energize the franchise was to go back to the beginning with a new cast -- but there would be no way to do that effectively because of continuity issues with everything that came after. The only way to handle that would be with an alternate timeline, but of course that would be too perfect for them to think of.

But wait! They *did* think of that! And in the process solved the major roadblock to rebooting the series -- they found a way to start fresh but still preserve the old. And so this, along with the fact that this was the best movie to come along since Titanic -- did for me today, in the present, what the original series did for a starry eyed kid of sixteen. I fell head over heels in love with Star Trek all over again! And I am betting that it is setting the stage for a whole new generation of Trek fans who loved it just as much as I did! So now it gets (hopefully) another fifty years of energy from the reboot and new timeline, and everything old is new and fresh again.

Here's to the next Fifty! (And I can't *wait* to see the new movie when it comes out!)

@MaryAnnMc

Your treatise is marked with inconsistencies. You can't watch the young Shatner because of your now old Shatner image, and yet we didn't lose you as a fan when the series aged all the principle characters except for Chekov for one episode in its original 60s run? Also in the 2009 movie we had creaky old Spock (Which, BTW, this production made look creakier than Nimoy himself.) next to a young Spock and magically your Spock age revulsion factor doesn't kick-in preventing you from seeing the sequel? Surely you realize that all humans, even Chris Pine, age. When next you see him in a ST he will have aged 3-4 years depending on the film's release - a rate far faster than any aging the Shat did 'tween episodes in the 1960's run.

If mediocre sets can keep one from enjoying a compelling story, all I can say I feel sadness for a life so devoid of life experience that stage plays and independent motion pictures aren't even a tiny part of it.

I have shared your frustrations over the years insisting to my fellow fans that ST episodes were constructed as plays and that any cast of competent actors could reperform them as Shakespeare's works often are.

Where we part is you somehow see drinking from the old creaky parallel universe and time travel wells as somehow new and shiny whereas I see it all as little more than another "Mirror" universe. I definitely understand Roger Ebert's view of it.

And you know what? This whole notion that somehow a single film or a "franchise" of them can usurp a body of work of prior art and be its sole guiding beacon is nonsense. STAR TREK was kept alive through 3 or 4 death throes over the years because of ancillary markets which have never died. Markets which CBS owns and controls and NOT this nuParamount.

There is absolutely no correlation twixt the recent Sony announced SPIDERMAN reboot and drawing from it the conclusion that the comics were "dying."

Declaring this one film as the savior of all things STAR TREK is just excessive studio hype.

Look, I understand falling in love. I really do. But at some point you have to see the object of your affection as it really is, warts and all, or you do the both of you and that love a great disservice.

2009's STAR TREK is not in any way by any metric that Paramount itself floated comparable to Cameron's TITANIC - his own AVATAR however is.

Being a TOS fan I though the movie was pretty damn cool. The iconic quotes said by each 'of the characters, the resemblance they made between them and their older counterparts, and of course bringing back Nimoy which was epic beyond all belief. But this new movie brought a lot of new fans to the world of Star Trek and if they're taking that long to make a sequel, I believe they're definitely putting a lot of heart and sole into making this movie true to it's original form.

@IDIC

Clearly, you do not understand how things go in Hollywood. This is not like the days of yore where a member of the aristocracy takes a young artist under his wing and provides food and shelter while the artist takes whatever time it takes to finish a major opus.

Time for these scriptwriters is like space on a disk drive: it gets used up by various and sundry other projects just about as fast as it becomes available. The length of extra time between sequel productions is absolutely not any kind of indicator of improved quality whatsoever. Neither commissioned scripts nor their authors under contract age like fine wine in Hollywood.

The lack of a script at this stage of the game is most likely an indication that the writers are shooting blanks. The studio setting a release date is likely an attempt to give the writers focus and motivation, i.e. to get things moving, more than anything else.

As for the constant claim that a significant number of new fans has been added to Trek fandom. Please show me the numbers.

Trekanista after Trekanista made claim after claim that 2009 STAR TREK ruled at the Rotten Tomatoes but when the Golden Tomato Award was given this year ST came UP zip. The SCI FI Wire Staff of this very site dug around over there because they thought there had to be more to the story and know what they found? The Best User Reviewed Film over there was not ST, as the choruses had been singing, but ZOMBIELAND. And be clear this Staff have been staunch supporters of the 2009 STAR TREK movie's hyped numbers.

Again, at the People's Choice Awards, STAR TREK got zilch. Where are these multitudes of fresh new ST fans that I keep hearing about? I hope to God that your next Trek never gets threatened by a boneheaded Paramount executive's action because if your multitudes truly do exist they don't appear to have the organizational skills to organize themselves out of a wet paper bag. And quite frankly, I don't believe they do exist for I have seen this generation's mastery of devices technical in organizing themselves. If they were there your Trek would have owned those awards for it isn't as if those polls are mathematically sound to begin with. All it would have taken is some youthful organized effort, but the bodies have to actually be there for the effort to coalesce in reality.

I think they almost inherently have to continue the alternate history's unique storyline to some degree. The state of Romulan and Vulcan affairs is element to this new series's continuity. Perhaps more time-travel? Abrams likes to raise the bar when it comes to this content. I don't think he has it in him to simply use these characters in a classic adventure conflict.

So, if not more time-travel or some sort of dark matter weapon that wouldn't've existed had Spock not sent Nero back... there's gotta be something huge. You've gotta turn a hero into a villain, introduce a God character, blow up Earth, or have a Starfleet Civil War. Something that could not have happened in the alpha timeline.

The total geek in me is praying that they continue to mess with the timeline and introduce further rifts.

@Jethelred,

Why would they "have" to do anything? Hollywood, if anything, right now, is all about the reboot. They could just as easily turn Trek into a continuing anthology series of reboots on various origins in alternate universes.

If the publishing industry hadn't kept actively lobbying to extend the length of copyrights, Trek would have entered into the public domain in 1980 and there would have been a STAR TREK for every faction imaginable by now.

As Saldana's star rises on the AVATAR wave, one has to imagine that unless the next Paramount Trek increases its budget by giving her more money or make the next script STAR TREK:UHURA, they are going to have a challenging time keeping the 2009 cast intact.

Because once one domino falls...

I think the "re-boot" was brilliant. It scrubbed the slate for a new alternate reality, a new storyline that does not have to strictly adhere to the story told since the 60's. Up to now, every Star Trek story (tv, movie, otherwise) has tried to remain true to the events of the star trek timeline, and past stories.

I think it's a perfect way to launch a new tv series in the veign of the original, but with no ties to the original blueprint, aside from the characters.

The Cast of the New Movie worked quite well, and frankly, to me it seems an onvious next step.....before even a sequel, it seems the "new timeline" should unfold on a weekly basis, on television, with the same new cast.

That way we fans can enjoy fresh Star Trek in our lives, to comfort us as we draw closer to D-Day in 2012.

IJust seen the new movie. WOW ! Didn't like the bridge, but one of the best sci-fi films in years. Even my wife (who prefers a good episode of Morse to this stuff) liked it. Thought Karl Urban(McCoy) was bang on the money, Bring on the next one!!!

I've been a Star Trek fan since the series. I didn't know what to think when I heard about the new movie. I thought it was absolutely AWESOME. Seeing Kirk and Spock, and the rest of the original characters when they were young was absolutely incredible. I was specially impressed with Dr.McCoy. It was Star Trek all over again. I'm looking so forward to the sequel. There is a God.

How about EWOKS vs. Tribbles?