Trek Film Writer Roberto Orci Hints at ‘Star Trek 3′

In a new interview with CraveOnline, Trek writer Roberto Orci offered up a hint towards the direction Star Trek 3 might take when it hits theaters in 2016.

orci

When asked if the film will rely on classic Trek stories or stand on its own in the canon:

“Little bit of both,” Orci said. “Part of the fun of the freedom that we bought ourselves is that you can harmonize with canon and you can echo what’s come before, so you can do it in a new way.”

Orci worked with co-writers Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof for the first two films produced by Bad Robot; he will instead be joined by newcomers J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay for the third installment of the reboot film series.

Sources: CraveOnline; The Hollywood Reporter

div_spacer

Order Star Trek Into Darkness on Blu-ray today!



Order Star Trek Into Darkness on 3D Blu-ray today!



  • archer9234

    So harmonizing with cannon is to 90% copy it and just flip roles?

  • DangerousDac

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – The whole point of this movie universe was so that you could do things with no regard for canon – anything and everything was open. Why go back and ardently stick to established canon when it makes no sense (as seen in Into Darkness) when they could have just done without the whole Wrath of Khan re-enactment and have it be a somewhat decent movie.

    • kadajawi

      It is not that open, is it? The Federation has changed, Vulcan has changed. But that’s pretty much it. The threats remain the same, Kirks mission remains the same. That we are going to meet the same races seems to be quite logical, I mean, why would the Romulans, the Klingons or the Dominion cease existence just because some mad Romulan went back in time and destroyed a Federation vessel. Unless the whole planet Earth and Starfleet had been sent back/forward in time (like many thousands of years…) you can’t fully start all over.

      • jstimson

        True, but that doesn’t mean the Enterprise crew has to redo all those things. They were not the only ship in the fleet. Let other ship captains take care of the stories that would rehappen, give our crew some new things to do. Although I’m not sure what’s worse. A badly written new story or a badly mangled old one.

        • kadajawi

          But… in TOS Kirk put him and his people onto a planet so they could live free, but unfortunately the planet turned into a desert and Khan got angry. On the other hand, in Into Darkness that Admiral found Khan, didn’t wake up the others, and used them to make Khan do things for Section 31 instead. On Earth. In captivity. Not on a far away planet in freedom and alone, free to do whatever he wants to. Exactly where is it the same movie? It’s not even a remake. Yes, it copies a scene or two, which was silly and stupid and unnecessary, but it was a pretty original movie. And the first hour or so works really well.
          And yes, this is coming from someone who before Into Darkness thought Orci and Kurtzman are stupid hacks that don’t have any clue what they are doing, from someone who didn’t like any of their movies (except for Mission Impossible 3 (?), though that was probably saved by JJ who also wrote it). I wanted to hate Into Darkness, but I just can’t.

          • archer9234

            Again, it changed things. But doesn’t promise new stories. This is is still something that was already done with in TOS and ST2. That is the problem. 09 had nothing copied. And continued a thread from TNG. Blowing up a key member of the federation should have huge history problems. What if Earth has to give a huge amount of aid.

            Resulting in missing new races and or other problems later on. Maybe the people who got slaughtered in Arena never died. And the Federation never met the Metrons. Things like this could be altered. Or they colonized planets faster and the Gorn attacked Earth. That would be a original story based on TOS elements. But doesn’t copy scenes. And would expand on a race we only saw one time. VS Khan who was fully established, got a movie and an episode for. And them ripping off scenes from ST2, for no reason. Except to forcibly say “WE ARE STILL FOLLOWING CONTINUITY”.

          • kadajawi

            A thread from TNG? Did I miss something? Now I’m curious.
            ST2 continued ST1, it showed how much darker Starfleet became after the events in ST1. And it “continued” Section 31 from DS9. The terrorism plot seems relatively new to me… yes, there was something like that in DS9 probably. Earth being attacked… yeah, seen that in DS9 and TNG. But it is new enough for me.
            I agree, blowing up Vulcan should be more visible, and perhaps it will be in ST3. They do remember it, and Spocks character is deeply influenced by it. That’s much more than what would have happened were ST1 a Voyager episode. Anyway, they mentioned New Vulcan, which probably means that the survivors found an uninhabited planet and settled there. They’re Vulcans, they’ll be fine.
            Khan wasn’t necessary, I agree. Lindelof insisted on it, and thankfully he is not involved anymore. (Didn’t Orci try to do the movie without Khan? I wouldn’t be surprised if his version had John Harrison be John Harrison…). Copying the scene was idiotic, but it was only one scene that was copied in an otherwise fairly original movie.
            I can’t argue against that proposed sex scene (well, any, I guess. How on Earth does sex with Vulcans look like? Explore that, Mr. Orci.)
            Anyway, I’m still hopeful. Only one (perhaps the best?) writer of the original team remains. New blood joined the team (no clue who they are or how good they are…). It can be good. The comment from Roberto Orci is way to vague to say ST3 is doomed.

          • archer9234

            They at least remembered Spock was on Romulus and was dealing with them. That was the small thread left on the table from TNG. They at least used the elements. Unlike TNG, with no follow up from Unification.

            I’m not saying ST3 is forever doomed. But now I will no longer go to see the movies without any reviews first. They lost my faith in the series with Darkness. Not to mention Paramount’s abuse of Bonus features.

          • Mike C.

            Thanks – I agree with your statements other than waiting for a review. As much as I too distrust JJ, I distrust movie critics too – even online ‘fanboy’ critics.
            For me, Into Darkness was still easily the best movie of 2013 with the exception of Iron Man 3 (haven’t seen it).

          • jstimson

            That’s funny, because I wanted to love Into Darkness, but just can’t. I thought the 2009 film was OK and laid the groundwork for something that would allow for a refresh of the franchise. But the sequel didn’t live up to that promise.
            Into Darkness would have worked better, I think, if John Harrison was really just a disgruntled weapon researcher, perhaps a genius that felt his work was being corrupted by Section 31. But by making him Khan they pulled in so much baggage and expectations that the writers did not have the talent to fulfill. There’s an entire universe to explore, and they chose to go the nudge-nudge-wink-wink route instead.
            But such is the business of movies, they have to be big and get seats filled. We’re not going to get the substance that Trek thrived on by making every story an attempt to set new box-office records. Star Trek is not just big and flashy, it is also small and intimate. It’s that later part which seems to be missing and I’m not feeling confident we’ll see it anytime soon.

          • kadajawi

            Mh. To be honest I have never been a huge fan of Wrath of Khan. I thought it was good, but nothing great. Space Seed I watched after I’ve seen WoK. I know the character, but I’m not very attached to him. So… for me it worked. But yes, if I think Khan I see Ricardo Montalban, not Benedict Cumberbatch. Doesn’t matter to me.
            Also, I would have kept the Bottany Bay stuff, just make it a different guy they woke up. John Harrison was on the Bottany Bay too. And one of those in the torpedoes is Khan.
            Nudge nudge wink wink route… true, but they did that in ENT as well, and though I’m only through season 2 now I must say I enjoy it, for the most part. As for substance… Trek movies with substance? Mhh… Insurrection, I guess? And Voyage Home? The Motion Picture? And that’s it, really. First Contact was an action movie first and foremost, Wrath of Khan too, Nemesis was a Wrath of Khan remake that completely fell on its nose.
            Star Trek being small and intimate… on the small screen, yes. But the movie needs to make its money back, it has to make some profit. Small and intimate? Look where those small and intimate movies end up, and what budgets they have. Good luck making a Star Trek movie with a 2 million dollar budget… all Star Trek movies tried to be as big as possible. Except for Insurrection perhaps, and look how it – sort of – failed.

      • DangerousDac

        I never said that. Of course all those THINGS are still out there, but the WAY they should be encountered should be different. Thats why I said I could have done without that whole Wrath of Khan re-enactment in Into Darkness – if they had resolved that ANY OTHER WAY the film would have been far better in my eyes. Having a modicum of originality in that respect would have gone far when it comes to making that film better, at least in my eyes.

        • kadajawi

          I agree, but I just don’t see that Wrath of Khan re-enactment except for in one scene. They met him in a different way, the whole plot is different (IMHO) and then there is one idiotic scene that was not needed… at least it could have been done differently.

          • DangerousDac

            And that idiotic scene really ruined the whole film for me. But, tbh I wasn’t a big fan of a lot of things before that, but the whole “Khaaan!” bit just felt like a massive insult to me.

  • Platitude

    Lets see something totally new, but with some familiar Trek things in there (like having some recognizable Trek aliens in background or in main plot)

    • James

      recognizable aliens?

      Like:
      Romulans (ST09) integral to Main Plot
      Vulcans (ST09) integral to Main Plot
      Klingons (STID) integral to Main Plot
      Catians (STID)
      Tribbles (STID)integral to Main Plot!

      • Platitude

        Not saying there haven’t been, just want to see more :)

        • James

          I really liked the ‘Arex’ style alien on the bridge of the Kelvin. I’d like to see more alien aliens on the bridge. Maybe a horta navigator or something :)

          • Platitude

            Not totally sure how that would work haha.

            I would enjoy seeing maybe a Bjorin, Andorian, or maybe even a Xindi!

  • FedUp

    Nobody wants another remake of a classic story which is done better.

    Here’s an idea….how about an original tale?

  • Joe

    This guy is a joke. The movie BLEW! What a sad RIP OFF of Wrath Of Khan. I love how they NEVER explained how this British guy was suppose to be Indian.

    They need to DUMP these guys. They are NOT fans of Trek. They are just hack writers ripping off other peoples work.

    Original IDEA Roberto???? If not….then go away!

    • Josh Metcalfe

      At least Ricardo Montalban pretended to be Indian.

    • kadajawi

      Does it matter what skin color Khan had? The other actors have changed. Do you complain that Kirk isn’t portrayed by William Shatner? Khan can also be an idea… the one who is awake, if all others are not, will be the leader… the Khan (just speculating). They are after all genetically enhanced, they are all superior. Besides, having an Indian actor (or someone playing an Indian character) portray a terrorist can be quite charged in these times, having a white British dude be terrorist works much better. And finally, Cumberbatch is a very fine actor, and he did a really good job.
      Personally I would have preferred to see someone else from the Botany Bay being woken up… but I can live with them using the name Khan. That was the least of the problems of the movie.

      • Chris915

        The difference is, Chris Pine is of the same race as William Shatner… they’re both Caucasian…

        Of course, they made a point that it wasn’t necessary to maintain accuracy, because Benedict was such a great actor for the role…

        • Darkthunder

          Perry White was Black in the latest Superman (Man of Steel). I did not see the same outcry over his “race change”, compared to the haters on the whole Cumberbatch-Khan vs Montalban-Khan.

          • Mike C.

            But Man of Steel was a new version, Star Trek is supposed to be the same pre-Kelvin. I agree that Cumberbatch was great, he’s just unfortunately the white elephant in the bridge.

          • Chris915

            I don’t watch Superman… so…

            However, in the regard to Trek, the timeline was affected long after Khan existed, so he shouldn’t have been affected by anything related to the first movie…

          • mbmarquis69

            This is an oversimplification of the problem people have with making Khan a white British guy. Abrams Star Trek is supposed to take place in the same continuity as Roddenberry’s universe. The only difference is a Romulan from the future went back to the 23rd century and changed the timeline. That change to the timeline should not have altered the fact that Khan Noonian Singh was an East Indian Sikh from the late 20th century. Those were the rules established by Orci, Kurtzman, and Abrams for the reboot. They are the ones who laid that groundwork and then ignored it. It’s not about an actor’s skin color being different, it’s about writers and creators being true to the vision they created for their new franchise. Which they haven’t.

          • Darkthunder

            The comics kinda address this thou… Basically, Nero’s destruction of “47 Klingon ships”, the Federation taskforce, the USS Kelvin and the (near) destruction of the Enterprise, scared the c–p out of a certain Admiral. Enough so, that he would send various ships out into space, for the singular purpose of locating Khan’s sleeper ship (Botany Bay), to help design and build more aggressive/powerful starships.

            Granted, I realize this is kind of a lame reason. Wouldn’t Starfleets engineers that are 250 years more advanced than Khan, know better how to make more powerful ships?

            But anyways, after locating Khan, the Admiral ordered a wipe of his memories, and to undergo major reconstructive surgery (which is why he’s listed as John Harrison, and not Khan Noonien Singh).

            In closing, while I enjoyed the movie(s), they haven’t been very good “Trek” movies. Trek belongs on television, to properly flesh out the stories. A movie setting inevitably ends up focusing on action and the quick buck, and not so much on character progression.

            (end rant) :P

          • mbmarquis69

            Ok, didn’t know that was explained in the comics. The altering of his genetic appearance and memory would make more sense in that context. They didn’t want anyone in the 23rd century to know they had awakened Space Hitler. So they disguised him.

            At least that’s an attempt to explain the discrepancy. It’s not a satisfying one (in my opinion) because Kirk and Spock didn’t seem to understand the historical significance of having such an infamous person from Earth’s history in their brig. At least some acknowledgment of that would have helped.

            I could not agree more with your final statement. I became a fan of Star Trek through shows like TNG and DS9. I couldn’t wait for TNG to move to the big screen because I was convinced their movies would be epic (Best of Both Worlds on a film budget, for instance). What we got was not like that at all. TNG movies ran the gamut of pretty good to abysmal. And even when they were good, the limitations of a smaller budget still made them feel like glorified Made-for-TV movies.

            So, I was thrilled when they announced that Star Trek was finally going to get a big budget treatment with Abrams. And I enjoyed the first movie on those terms. But after Into Darkness I realized that just having huge action pieces in a Star Trek movie isn’t enough. Like you said, it’s not really Star Trek.

            Star Trek deserves to be on TV. I’ve had my big spectacular-looking Star Trek movies. Now I want something I can sink my teeth into and really care about again.

          • Darkthunder

            Star Trek belongs on TV, simple as that. Plus we need a good sci-fi drama :)

    • Platitude

      Blew? It was the highest reviewed and best box office performance of any Trek movie, had beautiful (Oscar-nominated) special effects and a phenomenal actor playing the villain. It was moving, intense, funny, and entertaining. With these two films JJ, Kurtzman and Orci have brought Trek back from the hole that Nemesis and over saturation on television had driven it into. They have made Trek exciting, relevant, and popular again. What would be able to satisfy your expectations, exactly?

    • Albert8184

      Kahn was from India?

      • mbmarquis69

        You haven’t watched much Star Trek have you?

        • Albert8184

          I’ve watched enough. There was no mention of Kahn being from India in the original show or in ST 2. And the guy who played Kahn in the last movie sure didn’t look Indian.

          Is this from one of the old books?

  • kadajawi

    No more Lindelof? No more Kurtzman? YES! STRIKE! Orci at least is a trekkie and cares.

  • Rob

    here’s hoping this guy’s ongoing creative self-immolation hastens the demise of this horrible idea gone horribly wrong. can we please return to the real timeline and real star trek? this garbage is getting really, really tired.

    • pittrek

      Well an Enterprise movie sequel would be great. Didn’t they plan to film the Romulan war as a movie at one point?

      • Rob

        agreed there. i would love to see an ENT sequel movie. i was really pumped for the tiberius chase trilogy, i though that was a GREAT idea. instead the studio opts for this lame do-over action-movie crap. good one, CBS!

        • SpaceCadet

          CBS has nothing to do with the movies. Paramount has the movie rights. I believe CBS out of respect won’t produce a new Trek series that would somehow interfere with the current film franchise.

          • Mike C.

            They’re making $$$ with the blu-rays right now, and that will hold them for the next 3-5 years as DS9 and VOY are converted. But after that I suspect a TV show will begin developing.

        • James

          Sad to say, that just isn’t on the cards. Enterprise was getting less
          than 2.5 million viewers per episode. No one will go near that timeline
          again.

          • Rob

            i doubt that. yeah, ENT’s ratings tanked throughout the run of the series. that was also almost ten years ago. i think that the average long-time fan, at this point, would rather see *anything* set in the real ST timeline than another car-crash action movie like that last film. the average moviegoer couldn’t care less. at some point, the studio is going to realize that the long-term money is in keeping the fan-base satisfied, not in trying to lure in the general moviegoer. the audience for these abrams crapfests is diminishing exponentially with each film. the long-term money for the studio is in keeping the fan-base happy. i think the majority of fans are tired of this do-over junk, and their hunger for genuine ST (ie in the primary, non-do-over timeline) is increasing all the time. 2005 was a completely different set of circumstances.

          • James

            Hmm, with a huge $467million gross, STID is the highest attended Star Trek movie ever! followed by TMP and ST09. According to Home Media Magazine STID was the 7th best selling Blu-Ray in 2013 selling more copies than F&F6 and Iron Man 3. So the new movies are making big money. You’re surely correct when you say that there are a number of fans who prefer the prime-timeline Treks though.

            Personally speaking, I still think there are stories to be told in either the prime timeline or the nu-trek timeline. One off TV movies for example would surely be big ratings winners. Back in the day, ST:VOY was getting huge numbers for it’s 2-parters.

            Maybe if one of the TV movies were popular enough, then we’d get a new series. Imagine if Broken Bow had been a one-off TV movie. There would be a clamour for a series.

            How about a one-off DS9 movie, or a TV movie set on Andoria? Where would you set one?

          • kadajawi

            Yeah but doing a one-off TV movie may not be economically viable. You’d have to build all the sets (well, some of them), you’d have to create new 3D models, … it’s just a lot of money for a TV movie. In a TV show that’s fine, cause you’re creating many episodes on those sets (hopefully). For a cinema movie that’s also fine, cause you have a huge budget. But TV…

  • Jamie

    It will be Star Trek III The Search for Lens Flares.
    I was burned by the 2009 film, I haven’t and won’t watch Star Trek The Wrath of Cumberbatch.

    All this remake crap needs to stop.
    For all the talk from the people making the films, and some fans that they needed something fresh and new, all they have ever done is rehash classic characters and reuse the plots from previous films.

    • pittrek

      While I absolutely hated JJTrek 2009, I must admit I enjoyed The Wrath of Sherlock. Not as a Star Trek movie, but as a very good action movie

    • kadajawi

      I agree with pittrek, but I would go one step further: Into Darkness (The Wrath of Sherlock, that’s a good one) was a good Star Trek movie! JJ Trek 09 wasn’t good. It lacked a proper villain (actually he was probably a decent one, but they didn’t show so that they could focus more on the Enterprise crew). It had plenty of cringeworthy scenes. But Into Darkness? I went in expecting to hate it, but now, after 3 viewings I’d say it was one of the better Trek movies. Visually it is of course stunning. But the plot makes sense (and there were no more goof ups than in other Trek movies), the villain is a good one, there is social/political commentary just as there should be in Star Trek, it picks up where the last one ended and is a logical continuation of it, … and they even reduced the lens flare. It’s not even a remake! If you want to watch a Wrath remake watch Nemesis. This is different. They could have renamed Khan and it wouldn’t have made a difference.

  • pittrek

    Star Trek 11 – a Star Wars rip-off
    Star Trek 12 – The Wrath of Khan rip-off
    Star Trek 13 – should be something original? Let’s see … maybe they find out they live in a virtual reality and their real bodies are connected to a giant computer? Or something with cloned dinosaurs in a sort of a space park? Or maybe a killer robot from the future trying to kill Kirk’s mother before she gives birth?

  • Real Film please

    This man bought “freedom” by destroying a carefully built and revered franchise on purpose. He should be replaced. The fans hated this film and the non fans went to see it ONCE. That is the real benchmark of the success of this film. The keys were handed to him by long-time friends and he drove it right into an embankment. Giant plot holes litter his films and he doesn’t care because he still gets the job and makes millions. In his own words, from the fans they planned from day one to disenfranchise, he can “F*ck Off.”

  • Matt Littledyke

    I think Abrams and his team have breathed new life into a franchise that was suffering after enterprise finished without them we may have not seen Star Trek reemerge for years maybe never and I am a life long Trekkie that is pleased this happened. As for Khans ethnicity I don’t care I loved into darkness and think Cumberbatch did a great job at the role.

    • Wes

      I agree. Someone, finally agrees with the fact that Abrams and his team have breathed new life into this beloved franchise.

      • Jamie

        I don’t think there would have been as much exposure if it had been anyone other than JJ behind the remake, he was very hot property going out of the 2000s as a result of Alias and more prominently Lost.
        But the fact is for all the talk of going in fresh and being new, all that has been done is taking classic characters and re-casting them with younger actors and jazzing up the special effects.

        They could have done so much, taken Star Trek in new directions, the film could have been about a new crew which I think would have helped, set on a different ship, but they just played it safe and remade a classic series.
        I agree if you don’t like it don’t watch it and I won’t, but for everyone that says Star Trek is getting a much needed shot in the arm have to take a step back and honestly look at how little originality is in these new films.

      • James

        You’re not the only ones! Honestly, these movies are far superior to the dull TNG ones.

  • Wes

    I still see a lot of haters for the rebooted Star Treks. What is wrong with you people?? Star Trek is just now starting to get the kind of attention it should have had since the 60′s and you want to find something wrong with that? If Roddenberry was still with us even HE would be proud. He has been quoted as saying that he hoped somebody would get a hold of it in the future and do what he never could. The new cast is spot on and the alternate time line shows that even time itself could not keep these peoples paths from crossing. The people are changed, but their destinies were to come together in new ways. Even in the case with Kahn. So get over yourselves. I’ve been a ST fan through every series and every movie. It’s about time ST gets some love from Hollywood and the general public.

    That is what a fan wrote on Facebook a few days ago, and I happen to agree. I’m sorry, but if you consider Star Trek “dead” because of what they did with Into Darkness, you are sorely mistaken. They tried their best, and even though most people who hate Into Darkness have to bring up the fact that they used Khan Noonien Singh, they however neglect to mention the fact that this is an alternate universe. Did you really think that he simply did not exist? People also seem to neglect the fact that all of the post-9/11 messages in the film were spot on. So, I am sickened to find out that people hate the fill just because of Khan. It makes me angry, because I thought we Star Trek fans were smarter than this petty crusade of getting Abrams and his team fired from the Star Trek franchise. This is ridiculous. The film is almost a year old, and yet you’re still complaining?! You make me sick!

    You know what? Don’t even watch Star Trek anymore if you consider it dead or hate Abrams and his collaborators. Star Trek is alive and well, and being a bunch of babies because of the simple fact they ruined Wrath of Khan (go watch that movie and then watch STID, you will FIND THEY ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT) for you is just plain stupid and petty.

  • http://corylea.com/ Corylea

    I have a love/hate relationship with the reboot movies. I love it that the reboots have brought attention back to Star Trek and garnered a whole new generation of fans, and I love it that there’s new Trek being made now. I hate, though, what’s been done to the characters. I hate how they’ve reduced Kirk from hero to petulant child and Spock from coolly logical alien to moody, pointy-eared human. I also think destroying Vulcan was a big mistake.

    I’d love to see the third reboot movie give us a good story where the characters are true to themselves and not used as Generic Action Heroes. My favorite TOS episodes were character-building episodes like “Amok Time” and “Journey to Babel;” if Orci wants to mine old TOS episodes for inspiration, I’d love to see him start there.

  • Vincent Perkins

    I have to say I’ve enjoyed the remakes, dont get me wrong there is things in there that annoyed me. I just wish it had a bit more trek injected into rather than Star Wars just to try and make it cool. I kinda wish we got a serious take on trek like the batman series got, not just a fun action adventure flick, which again is ok, but to me that not really what trek is meant to be.

  • James

    I think that some Trek fans that post here are unduly negative about the recent movies, so here are some facts
    that should help to change peoples minds:

    STID’s worldwide gross was $467 million dollars and the movie has an 87% fresh with critics and 90% fresh rate with audiences, so it was well received by the vast majority.

    STID is the highest attended Star Trek movie ever!

    According to Home Media Magazine STID was the 7th best selling Blu-Ray in 2013 selling more copies than F&F6 and Iron Man 3.

    JJ Abrams, Bob Orci and his team have made Trek relevant again.

    • archer9234

      Yes. They did their jobs. By making Trek be viewable by the general public. Who doesn’t care about the universe as a whole. They care about the action. While everyone who watched all the past shows cared about both stories and action. Plus the logic. Two of those things are missing in ID.

      • Wes

        And people complain to no freaking end about the use of Khan. Whether he was English or Indian, white or dark, it really doesn’t matter. All what matters is Benedict Cumberbatch did a FANTASTIC job as a villain compared to Eric Bana for Nero. In Into Darkness, you didn’t need a lengthy comic prequel to explain who the villain was as opposed to Nero. With Nero, you kind of needed to read “Star Trek Countdown” to understand who he really was.

        • Ignis

          There’s not much to the character of Nero; everything that you needed to know about the man is in the film. I certainly didn’t read the comic book, nor was there a need to do so.

          I like Cumberbatch the actor. But, what did he do to make his portrayal better than the original? The way Khan was used in the film, he was nothing more than a one note villain. Same with Nero.

        • archer9234

          Yeah. I’m sorry when you’re following things that are established. Changing race just because they’re good isn’t right. You can make that argument for any of them. People would go ape shit if Uhurua was made white. Because they found a better actress. If the character has been setup before, don’t deviate by race. Fox just failed the Fantastic Four Reboot movie this way. Now they’re doomed from the hate of making Johnny and Sue Storm black. Unless Johnny is adopted and they keep Sue white after all the backlash.

      • James

        I remember people having the same feelings about Star Trek: First Contact!
        For me, the best of the movies is ‘The Undiscovered Country’, I hope that the next movie is a little less frenetic, because I enjoyed some of the character moments in ‘Into Darkness’. Specifically the scene where Kirk expresses his lack of confidence to Spock where he says that he doesn’t know what to do. It reminded me of the season 1 TOS Kirk, who would confide in Spock and McCoy and talk about the burdens of command.

    • Ignis

      LOL, those facts and figures won’t change anyone’s mind about the film.

      You mention the money and accolades as a peer pressure tactic. Hogwash. What matters is what you think of the film.

      I know what I like. JJ Abrams knows how to do spectacle right, and it is enjoyable from that standpoint. As a Trek film, however? It blows.

      • James

        With the greatest of respect, I’m not trying to exert any sort of peer pressure. I did like the film as a Star Trek movie. Here are two brief points as to why:

        1. It returned Star Trek to it’s roots as a means to tell allegorical and relevant stories. The movie acts as a metaphor for America’s descent into moral ambiguity following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The hunt for John Harrison is analagous to the search for Bin Laden and the debate about whether to launch photon torpedoes at the Klingon home world is relevant to current debates regarding the morality of drone strikes.

        2. It presents an optomistic view of the future, with the film concluding with Kirk’s realising that he lost perspective following the terrorist attack on Starfleet. He then rededicates himself to science and peaceful exploration and begins the famous five year mission, to explore strange new worlds and to seek out new life. The title “Into Darkness” refers to the moral state of American foreign policy following 9/11 (fear, vengeance, anger, and violence) and the final scenes state that it’s time row back from this.

        I did think that the film had some problems and wasn’t perfect, but I could pick holes in all the Trek movies – especially ‘Generations’.

    • Kaine Morrison

      The ONLY reason that Blu-Ray sold so well was because of Completionists!
      Buying it multiple times was the only way to get the majority of the Supplemental Features.

  • Albert8184

    This latest show was a good fresh start for Star Trek. I felt it went in directions that Star Trek always needed to go in, but did not. Instead, that first original crew franchise veered off into stuff that was way too cerebral and didn’t nearly stretch the boundaries of the ORIGINAL PREMISE OF RODDENBERRY’S UNIVERSE – EXPLORATION.

    Oh, and quit changing the dang uniforms every time. It’s stupid and it RUINS the realism.

    But anyway, the new ST seems to be going places they never went before…. even to something as basic and simple as hand to hand combat and gun battles.

  • alan haley

    Klingons war machine is defeated by a Golden Woman. Who is looking for Kicks?

  • alan haley

    Sorry spelling Kirks.

  • Chris915

    Personally, I’d love to see the book I’m currently reading made into a movie…

    Star Trek: The Next Generation: Crossover by Michael Jan Friedman

    Great book so far.

  • Movieconnoisseur

    Have whatever unfolds during this movie somehow end up back in the original timeline.

  • http://movie-memorabilia-emporium.blogspot.co.uk/ Pineapples101

    Why was Khan a caucasian with a British accent Orci?!?! Why?!?!
    Tell me that!

    The destruction of the Kelvin, should in no way affect Kahn.