In a new podcast interview released today by Nerdist’s Humans from Earth, Trek 3 co-writer/director Roberto Orci talked a bit about his new job of helming the next Trek sequel and offered some hints to what we might see in the 2016 release.

“[The cast] is, in a way, closer to the Original Series characters as you’ve ever seen. They’ve set off on their ‘five-year mission,’ so their adventure’s going to be in deep space.”

Orci also addressed the question of plot secrecy, a controversy generated out of the ‘John Harrison’ debacle surrounding Star Trek Into Darkness.

“I think it’s going to be a mix [of openness and secrecy]. On the one hand, you want the story to have surprises, otherwise, why even go to the movie, right? On the other hand, you want to share enough of it to let people know what they’re going to get, what they can expect, and what the experience is going to feel like.  In terms of behind-the-scenes [secrecy], audiences now are so savvy that I think it’s kind of fun to be a little more transparent and let people into the process of how you are doing things, and let them, in a way, watch you make the movie. You can see behind-the-scenes things without necessarily knowing what the context of the scene is, or what the story is — so I think somewhere in between the truth lies.”

Another topic covered is the fact that Orci is now co-writing the picture he’s set to direct — without his longtime writing partner Alex Kurtzman — and he spoke up in support of the film’s new team.

“I’m writing with a talented young couple of guys, Patrick McKay and JD Payne, so we’re each other’s safety net. Though not writing it with my partner of twenty-three years does scare me… but luckily, part of the fun of writing with someone that long is that I know what he would say on any given scene that I write.”

The hour-long conversation also touches on topics like his directorial education process, JJ Abrams’ involvement with Star Wars: Episode VII, the need for gay characters in Star Trek, and many other points of interest. Regardless of your thoughts on the previous two films, we found this interview to be very much worth a listen. tos_communicator

Listen here, via Humans from Earth


Order Star Trek:
The Compendium
on Blu-ray today!

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

  • Mrplatitude

    I think there is some promising stuff in his comments, especially about them being off in deep space. Orci is a fan for sure, and having a fan in the director’s chair is not a bad thing.

    • hypnotoad72

      Depends on what the fan does. Copping old scenes amounts to talentless fanwank. I’m no writer, but when legions of fans point out dozens or hundreds of scenes that clearly were done before, the 2009 reboot has brought nothing new to the table. It’s the identical criticism “Nemesis” got and why the TNG spinoffs kept going downhill as well.

  • Paul

    What a mistake to have this bowl cut direct

    • MJ

      Bowl cut? Huh? Sorry, but I don’t speak moron?

      • Paul

        He has a bowl cut.

        • MJ

          OK, and why is that derogatory?

          And, in looking at the photo above, I don’t see the bowl shape you are referring to?


      • danielcw

        I believe he is talking about Orci’s hair

    • Given that SPOCK has a bowl cut, that’s a pretty silly remark to make in the context of Star Trek. 🙂

  • Down Low

    I can only imagine the horrible stand-off way they’re put a gay character into a film. It’ll be obnoxious and an obvious ploy. Let’s move along.

    • hypnotoad72

      The best stories treat people as people. Not as grandstanding and playing into stereotypes. Let’s see:

      * Kirk has sex with women though the underlying “let me teach you love” shtick isn’t there

      * Spock keeps finding his humanity and screaming in emotional angst fresh and new each movie (zero character development but playing into the superficial aspect New Spock was set up as)
      * Kirk making stupid decisions (e.g. rubbish promotions of characters that shouldn’t be promoted, etc, with the writers forgetting Kirk’s MO was to bend the rules when they deserved to be, to get the job done RIGHT. Not as a cardboard macho kid jerk.)
      * in the 60s, the scantily-clad women were about women’s rights. Why is (“Carol Marcus”, really?) mostly nude in front of James Hornerius Kirk and only in generic underwear and not in some inventive creative outfit??

      Those are the only things memorable about the reboot characters. They’re all cardboard pastiches of their former selves, with no character or depth. Just the nostalgic stereotypes, branded superficially.

      And to think STID did the job better of the two so far…

    • Long-haired Sybok

      Roddenberry never felt the need to use flashing pink neon signs in that dept. He just put the dudes in a dress.

  • shanebroughton

    I’d like very much to see a fun adventure without some weak villain. We’ve had three of those in a row now.

    • One of my favorite TOS episodes is “The Devil in the Dark,” where the “villains” are miscommunication, self-centeredness, and a tendency to judge by appearances. Or if we’re talking movies, I really liked “The Voyage Home,” where the “villains” were self-centeredness, over-hunting of whales, and environmental short-sightedness.

      Some of the best Trek has only human weaknesses for villains, and that’s one of the things I love about it. Villainous people (human or alien) are not only unnecessary, but they can actually drag a story down and make it trite and derivative.

      • hypnotoad72

        True, but the last thing needed is a third movie in a row that has Star TREK focused on Earth, and an Earth that can’t tell when it’s supposed to be set in the future… or in the present. In both flicks.

      • shanebroughton

        And my favorite film is “The Voyage Home”. I feel like it’s an excellent balance of sci-fi and fun. No real baddie in that movie.

      • MJ

        But you forget, in the Devil and the Dark, some of the miners actually tried to stop Kirk and company, and attacked the Enterprise crew, all because they didn’t want to lose their mining concession and jobs.

        • No, that’s not it. The mob of miners that wanted to kill the Horta didn’t mention their jobs or the mining concession. Appel talks about “that murdering monster,” and Vanderberg says, “That thing has killed fifty of my men.”

          So they wanted to kill the Horta because the Horta had killed fifty of their friends and co-workers, and they were angry and wanted revenge. That’s not a great reason, and they did need to be stopped, but it was an understandable one, especially since this occurred before they knew about the results of the mind-meld Spock did with the Horta, so the miners didn’t know about the eggs.

          • MJ

            Ah, thanks for the reminder. I stand corrected.

    • hypnotoad72

      Or a cliche villain, or the show about exploration to the unknown always coming back because Earth is threatened, or remaking old shows’ scenes…

      True – human nature has only so many motivations. That’s why the terrorism slant in STID worked. It wasn’t ripping off any of Trek’s previous forays into discussing terrorism. Ditto for the double crosses. Half the characters becoming John MacClane ripoffs and copping “KHAAAAN!” or other scenes from all of Trek’s previous incarnations are not exactly something good sci-fi writers would be doing. Otherwise any one of us could do just as good of a job as they have, letting the shiny f/x do the “storytelling” instead. And that got boring really fast in 2009, never mind 2013 and 2016…

  • MJ

    Last summer, I wrote over at Trekmovie.com a post directed to Bob Orci providing a detailed list of improvements that I would like to see in the next ST movie, as I loved ST09, but thought that STID could have been a better film.

    With this interview, it seems as if Bob Orci is implementing nearly all of my recommendations for the next movie. Have the movie in deep space. Introduce new aliens. Explore strange new worlds again. Have a more adult and polished Kirk. No recycling of old plots. Less teenage/fratboy sex references or showing female skin. Etc.

    This is just as I was recommending to Bob…this is fantastic news.

    • hypnotoad72

      Let’s see the final product and it’s not like you’re the only one pointing out what should have been obvious before the 2009 movie’s script was written. Right now all they are doing is grandstanding to potential viewers. I’m sure if we looked up previous interviews and they talk about what they see in the show, and what the show is about being, then look at the products THEY made, and count the differences.

      • MJ

        “I’m sure if we looked up previous interviews and they talk
        about what they see in the show, and what the show is about being, then look at
        the products THEY made, and count the differences.”

        Nope. Because there was nearly zero substantive interviews in the 2 years prior to the release of Into Darkness. That is why I am so glad to see the Bob has responded to another of my recommendations to him to be more open and release more non-critical information about the plans for the movie, which seem to be starting with this interview.

        I feel bad for Bob. Leading up to STID, fan’s complained about lack of any information from JJ. Now, Bob is taking a different direction and actually talking about the next movie, and all of a sudden he’s “grandstanding.” REALLY??? Come on!!!

    • TrekRules

      Problem is they shouldn’t need us to point out improvements. Orci was very vocal about why he is a writer and fans are not – as writers, they should know how to write and not need us to point out mistakes. This seems to be their way – do something dumb in one movie, use that as a plot point in the next. Watch, this movie will have Kirk go mad from Khan’s superblood.

      • MJ

        It you want to be bitter and claim that he should not listen to us, that is your prerogative.

        Star Trek 2009 was brilliant, while Into Darknesss was lacking. Historically, about 50% of Trek movies are good the rest not so good. JJ batted the historical .500 on his two movies, but we have the internet today, so people like yourself can have a platform for bitching and fostering a atmosphere of malaise among the much larger silent group of Star Trek fans who are really exited about the next movie.

  • James

    I’m excited about the new movie!

    • hypnotoad72

      Why? What’s your reasoning behind your anticipation? “More of the same”?

      • James

        Short answer – I love Star Trek.

        Long answer – read on my friend…

        Well, I loved the first two movies, which I thought captured the spirit of the original characters. But I know other didn’t feel the same – so fair enough.

        If you read what Orci’s saying, there’s every reason to be excited – because as MJ says, he’s listening to the fans, he’s saying that the story will be set in deep space and that’s great. I hope we get a story about boldly going where no man has gone before, replete with strange, new aliens and new civilisations.

        Plus, I want the requisite amount of banter between the characters that’s been done so well in the last two films. And – I’m happy for the creators to pander to the fans by having a Shatner or Nimoy cameo.

        I do hope they don’t go for a giant bad starship again though – as we’ve been there and done that for the last three flicks.

        • MJ

          James, good post. Yes, I share your optimism. And I hope their is no big bad ship again either. 🙂

  • hypnotoad72

    A 5 year mission of regurgitating and ripping off more scenes from the old shows and movies?

    • MJ

      Seriously, dude, how many more posts do you need to tell us that you can’t stand these JJ/Orci movies, and that JJ and Bob have ruined Star Trek for you?

      We get it now, OK? Message received!

  • CoolGeek

    Im pretty sure Orci is well aware that all the negativity from the miserable haters represent less than 1% of the total audience for these films.The Star Trek franchise would be dead and buried now if it wasnt for him and the rest of the talented team who brought us Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness.Both were terrific and highly entertaining films and i cant wait for the next instalment.

    • Jon

      Name-calling again…sigh…I did not like STID, but if I give my honest opinion of the film, I’m just a “miserable hater”? Such an unfortunate generalization is not very constructive, wouldn’t you agree? 🙂

      And not to rain on your parade, but how do you back up your <1% claim? Based on what I have seen with my own eyes, whether on the internet, at the movie itself when I saw it, and at conventions I have attended since, the % of folk who either didn't care for this past movie or at least had significant problems with it is much higher.

      Saying it is <1% doesn't make it so…

      With that said, I am cautiously optimistic for the next movie. It does seem as though Orci has taken much of the criticism of STID to heart which is encouraging at least.

      • CoolGeek

        I have no problem with people who genuinely dislike the film but all i seem to read is the usual ” That is NOT Star trek because i didnt grow up with it! ” or ” That is NOT Star trek because its action packed and full of good looking people! ” or ” That is NOT Star Trek because it doesnt look and sound exactly how i pictured it in my head before i saw it! ” or ” That is NOT Star trek because it is not set on a boring space station where they blather on about Bajoran independance or Captain Siskos baseball! ”

        The other common ” criticism ” is the supposed plot holes and lack of beleivable science.Heres a newsflash haters….EVERY SINGLE STAR TREK EPISODE AND MOVIE HAS PLOT HOLES AND SILLY SCIENCE.Did you know that transporters and warp drive dont actually exist? Really they dont.

        Orci is smart enough to not do what some haters on the internet want.Just as the creators of Trek in the past were smart enough to do their own thing despite what fan backlash there would be.If they had we would have had no death of Spock in Star Trek 2.No destruction of the Enterprise in Star Trek 3, no comedy in Star trek 4 and certainly there would have been no TNG in 1987.

        • Jon

          Well you see now then…once you explain it without the generalizations, the comment comes across much better, yes? 🙂

          I would argue that any given genre will always have a basic “core” that ultimately defines the overall aspects of the storytelling. And for me, STID abandoned what I consider to be the basic cores of ST that involves such plot essentials as exploration, statements on the human condition, and/or moral conundrums (as stated in innumerable interviews by folks like Roddenberry, Gerrold, Trimble, Fontana, and more contemporarily by Moore, and even Berman and Braga) by too far of an extent to qualify as “Star Trek.”

          None of the previous Trek incarnations, even DS9 with its very different precedent of being set on a non-moving space station, ever fully abandoned these core tenants as STID has done, IMHO. Of course you may disagree…

          Or let’s put it another way. What is the next Star Wars movie all of a sudden had the aforementioned “Star Trek” tenants as the primary/integral part of the main plot? Say the outright action was lessened and instead we had the main characters foisted into a situation that involved a major, morally diffuse decision that had to be made with said characters subsequently reflecting on the potentially unpleasant results of their decision? Would such a movie still be “Star Wars” in nature?

          Such a movie would probably still do well enough at the box office due to the “Star Wars” name attached, but I guarantee ‘ya that the SW-fan base would not be happy overall, and most likely such a movie would likely be shunted into the proverbial “dog house” that almost everyone now assigns to the last 3 SW films.

          Or maybe to put it even more starkly: What if a movie that was supposed to be about exploring the oceans (and was called “Exploring the Oceans”) instead focused on exploring space?

          Anyway, hopefully you see my point. But I think we will have to agree to disagree…:)

          • MJ

            “None of the previous Trek incarnations, even DS9 with its
            very different precedent of being set on a non-moving space station, ever fully
            abandoned these core tenants as STID has done, IMHO. Of course you may

            Well I completely disagree with that. As weak as Enterprise was, when they started showing Vulcan’s as racists, that is when I finally “turned off” that series once on for all. Nothing in STID came close to that abandonment of ST’s core principles. GR would never have allowed that to happen — and I knew the guy!

          • Jon

            No problem if you disagree :), but how is showing Vulcans as racists an example of abandoning ST core principles any different than portraying Spock in nuTrek as a very emotional person to the point where he cries/shows strong and open emotions and is even openly affectionate with his girlfriend?

            And besides, even if nuTrek wanted to change the Vulcans into something very different than in original Trek, the changing of how a particular race behaves does not relate to abandoning the core principles I mentioned in my previous post.

            I am curious, though, how others see this film that I so thoroughly disliked. Please give specific examples of how STID maintained each of the core principles I listed:

            1. Exploration
            2. Statements on the “human” condition (i.e. our place in this vast universe and where we are going)
            3. Moral conundrum(s)

            For #3, I grant that the movie at least tried to make me feel some moral trepidation regarding the use of the human torpedoes, but it’s just so glossed over between all of the excessive explosions, lens flares, fight scenes, and just general running around that the connection to the viewer (as in me 🙂 ) is lost in the mire.

            And I assume you’re pulling a funny with the GR comment as, irrespective of whether or not your really knew him, he has no power anymore to directly affect Trek having left the bounds of this Earth some 20 years ago now. And based on what I have read and/or seen of the man while he was with us (I did meet him in person once at a Convention in the late 1980s), I firmly believe that he is spinning in his grave over STID.

          • MJ

            Nice try, but Spock is half human, and that battle between his two sides has ALWAYS been a major point of Trek. I am talking about Vulcans in general as portrayed in Enterprise. Apples and Oranges, my friend.

            I agree with a lot of your critiques of STID (see my other posts). It’s a flawed movie. Trek 2009 was brilliant though. As I said earlier, JJ “batted .500”, which is consistent with about 50% of the Trek movies being good ones.

            FYI — I spent a weekend with Gene and group of his associates in the late 70’s. Great guy! Yes, he would not like STID, but I think he would love ST 2009. But consider this — I remember hearing in the 80’s that he disliked WOK a lot…so what do you say to that?

          • CoolGeek

            The Star Trek movies are essentially action movies ( except the ’79 version obviously ).Exploration is best left to the tv series where they have the time to do that kind of thing.

            GR did not like the direction WOK went in ( probably not enough god like beings for him ) and thankfully he was ignored.Whats good and popular with the movie going audience is more important to a studio rather than the vision of a deluded and far from perfect man who died over 20 years ago.

          • kadajawi

            Spock is only half Vulcan, and Vulcans are very emotional beings. They have only learned to deal with it, to control their emotions. But have your whole planet destroyed. A mental breakdown is not that unexpected. He is young (thus perhaps more emotional, and not as trained in controlling his emotions), he had a big catastrophe happen in his recent past, … give that guy a break.
            1. Exploration is difficult to do in a movie, especially one which focuses on putting the characters through a test, and which is meant to grow them. It’s something for the next movie, or the one after that.
            2. It explores humans who want war, and the struggle between people
            3. It also explores the idea of starting a war to avoid being overrun in a surprise attack, it explores superiors doing immoral things, it explores/introduces the Prime Directive AND shows the negative consequences that ignoring it has (while showing that it has saved the people on that planet!).
            I for one am glad that GR doesn’t have any influence over Star Trek. TNG got good once he lost his power over it! His rules and believes very much limited the stories they could tell, and made it all a bit ridiculous. He must be spinning in his grave over much of TNG and all of DS9, many of the movies (Picard WANTING to kill?!), and probably ENT and VOY too.

          • kadajawi

            I thought it was very understandable that the Vulcans were “racist”. Of course the Vulcans would see themselves as superior, because really, they were. Especially when looking at a young race that has just had a couple of major wars internally, that lacks self control, intelligence, physical strength, and that is emotional. To them, hewmans were more like dogs or cats.
            The human race first had to prove to the Vulcans that they are worth it, that they can exceed their apparent potential. That’s one of the key themes of Enterprise, and it leads to the Vulcans we got to know in TOS and especially TNG/DS9/VOY.

          • kadajawi

            Erm. Into Darkness did have plenty of what is Star Trek to me. Statements on the human condition. An understandable villain (you could easily have done a movie from the perspective of Khan, where he is the hero). Moral conundrums. Social commentary. It’s all there. Yes, it might not be as visible with all the flashy graphics, but it’s there.
            It’s not flawless, there were some very poor decisions. To me that was mostly naming Cumberbatch Khan, he could have easily been one of the others on Botany Bay. They were all genetically enhanced. Show a short flashback where Admiral Marcus is walking in the Botany Bay, past the frozen people on it, and one of the name tags says Khan, he is walking past it and stops at Harrison, orders to wake him up. Nothing would have been lost, we’d still get a nice reference, and it made more sense.

        • kadajawi

          Erm. There’s no reason to talk about DS9.
          And yes, all movies etc. have plot holes, or they tech tech their way out of or into a problem (oh, there are interferences, we can’t beam up from the planet). And yes, the tech in Star Trek is not real. I get that. But what happens has to work in the fictional universe, and it has to be consistence. If it is established that you can transport (for good reason) only a certain distance, then stick with it. You know, Voyager had an episode where they had a transporter that can beam much further. But they made sure that this tech actually only works on a certain planet, so that later on it doesn’t f*** with the whole story. ST2009 introduced a transporter that made warp drive unnecessary, and they didn’t limit it so that it doesn’t spoil the whole show. And they did it for really not much reason apart from making Scotty look cool.
          Oh, and didn’t Spock die in ST2 because Nimoy didn’t want to be Spock anymore? He demanded it to be written into ST2, otherwise he wouldn’t do it at all. That ST3 was hinted at was IIRC because Nimoy actually liked doing ST2.

    • MJ

      Well said!

      I AGREE 100%

    • mjdavid

      There is no need to call people who disagree with you “miserable haters.” Show some maturity.

  • Mike C.

    As long as he doesn’t lie to fans I’m good.

  • mjdavid

    Wow … a lot of passionate comments here, so rather than respond to anyone’s comments I’m just going to make my own. I turned 18 in 1996, so I grew up on TNG, VOY, and DS9. Those series are to me, what Trek is supposed to be, not because I’m “stuck in the past” but because I feel the CONCEPT of Star Trek works best on television. Some of the finest examples of Star Trek – “Measure of a Man,” “Best of Both Worlds,” “In the Pale Moonlight,” “The Outcast,” “Chain of Command,” “Attached,” “Little Green Men,” and “Sacrifice of Angels” just to name a few off the top of my head – have writing, acting, directing, and production that far out-class ANY of the Trek films.

    I’ll be honest, from a creative standpoint I do not care for what JJ and Co. did to the Trek universe; I do, however, appreciate that they did it in an alternate universe. Star Trek XI (or nuTrek as some people seem to call it) was highly entertaining, so was Into Darkness. I don’t understand why Abrams had to go and change what Romulans and Klingons look like, I mean realistically if the villain in Star Trek XI was a Romulan from Spock Prime’s universe shouldn’t he look like other Romulans from the Roddenberry universe? But whatever, I digress. Abrams and Co. made these changes within an alternate universe, and while I find fault with a lot of what they’ve done I’m also going to stand up and give them respect. I could sit here and poke holes in the two Abrams’ films, but as a diehard fan of the Roddenberry/Berman/Behr/Braga universe I can also poke serious holes in the other films. ‘Nemesis’ had so much potential to be an incredible film, but the director squandered that opportunity and really shafted not only TNG fans but most of the TNG cast. ‘Insurrection’ was a great story that actually gave all of the characters something to do, but it just felt like a two or three-part episode, not a movie. ‘First Contact’ is the only TNG film that really fired on all cylinders, and I say this as a die-hard TNG fan. The first six films were also fraught with issues; in my opinion ‘The Undiscovered Country’ and ‘The Wrath of Khan’ are the only two films that really “bring it home.” ‘The Voyage Home’ is a fun film, but I always felt like it tried too hard to pander to non-Trek fans. Again, these are my humble opinions. With regards to the two Abrams’ flicks … despite my gripes they are fantastic action pieces. Do they misfire on several points? I think so, and those of us who do not prefer Abrams-Trek should keep a few things in mind.

    First, Abrams’ revived the franchise and he did so in an alternate universe in a way that does not disturb established Trek cannon. If you think about TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT and the hundreds of novels (yes, I know, they’re not technically cannon) written about those characters that universe is pretty much fleshed out. I still enjoy it, and there are some pretty creative novelists out there, but when it comes to film and television what can realistically be done there?

    Second, if Star Trek is ever going to get back on television the franchise needs a few new, action-packed, sexy films to really reintroduce today’s audience to Star Trek. Young people today in their teens and early twenties did not grow up in the Roddenberry Universe; yes there are many who stumble onto it and fall in love, but think of all the young people who discovered the previous Treks thanks to the Abrams’ films. Think of the Star Trek: TNG and ENT Blu-rays … there’s no way to know for certain but think of all the young people who probably stumbled onto those series because of the Abrams’ films and ended up purchasing those Blu-rays as a result. Also, because CBS-D has no current plans to produce DS9 and VOY in HD (again, please CBS-D get it together), the more interest in NEW Star Trek could mean more potential to bring those last two series into the HD world.

    Third, Star Trek is about inclusion, it’s about diversity. This has been true from the get-go. That being said, despite our passions as fans we should be open to all ideas about Star Trek. Just because I don’t care for what JJ did to Trek creatively doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy the films or respect his vision. I can still recognize the value of his contribution and see what it brings. As human beings each of us should welcome disagreement and conversation, but we should also recognize our own opinions are no more valid than the next person’s.

    Star Trek is alive today because of people like JJ Abrams and Roberto Orci. I can get just as passionate as the next hardcore Trek fan, but I’m not going to sit here and disrespect others’ opinions. I do want to address the comment about Rick Berman killing Trek; if you watch the documentaries on the ENT Blu-rays you will see that Paramount was going to do another Trek series with or without Berman/Braga being involved. Both men knew as VOY was ending that Star Trek needed a break, but also recognized that the studio was going to do it with or without their involvement.

    Finally, I want to say something about bringing gay characters to Star Trek; this has already been done in the novels. Again, I realize the novels aren’t cannon, I don’t care. People read them. With regards to the films and television series, while I do feel Star Trek has always been inclusive, there have been no prominent gay characters. TNG most notably addressed homosexuality in two episodes – the fourth season episode “The Host” and the fifth season episode “The Outcast.” Both episodes were brilliant, but missed key opportunities. That being said, both were produced and aired in 1991 and 1992; nothing more than what was shown was getting on the air despite the advantage of syndication. The ending of “The Host” really soured the whole episode because the audience did not see any affection between Beverly Crusher and Odan’s new female host as they said goodbye; I’m not saying they needed to make out but a hug and/or a bittersweet goodbye kiss would have been appropriate. DS9 presented “Rejoined” in 1995. As a gay man, I would love to see a prominent gay character in new Star Trek, but I don’t want to see a gay character who is present simply because of his or her sexual orientation. If we had a prominent character who played a key role in the story who HAPPENED to be gay and we met his or her partner on the side that would be really freaking cool. That would show the audience, oh hey this character is gay but it’s no big deal he’s just like everyone else.

    • kadajawi

      Amen. Great comment.
      A gay character has to be “oh btw., he’s gay, so what”, no one should give a f***. It has to look like in that society it is no big deal at all, it’s perfectly normal.
      But… a cameo of George Takei with his partner, saying Oh myyyyy? I kid, I kid.
      Your problems with Insurrection is exactly the problem that faces the writers. It was a great episode, but it always felt like an episode with a big budget, but like an episode nevertheless. Maybe had JJ Abrams directed it it would not have been that bad, I don’t know. Most of the great episodes are exactly that, great episodes. Not great standalone movies. They couldn’t be. I could imagine a story from the Dominion War being picked and turned into a movie (there are several). We could have Saving Private Ryan set in the Star Trek universe. There is some backstory to be delivered, but it could be done. Or a mission behind enemy lines within the war. But those would be DS9 movies.

      • mjdavid

        Well the Arc (the final ten DS9 episodes) really plays like one giant mini-series.

  • archer9234

    I’m glad that he’s going to be less secretive. This was one major thing I never liked about JJ Abrams. He tries to cover up everything. Actors in cloaks, set photos all illegal, the horrible cover up with Khan. Yes, keep surprises. Like the story and goals etc. We don’t need another Superman III trailer fail. But trying to block EVERYTHING was so ridicules. All that did was make me think: “They must think what they came up with is shit, and they will lose ticket sales before it comes out. Sucker me in, by denying.”

    I personally didn’t like STID. It went too much into copy/rip off area. They need to just go back to the more original material. Use the alternate universe for that. Not, we change race of characters, how fast someone can rank up, ages of people. Action is good. Sexy is good. But action and sexy, with no purpose isn’t.