In a new interview with IGN released tonight, Star Trek Kelvin Timeline actress Zoe Saldana expressed her hopes that the crew of Chris Pine’s Enterprise will be back for another film, despite the less-than-stellar box office returns of 2016’s Star Trek Beyond.

I really hope there is [going to be another film]. It’d be crazy to limit the longevity of a show that has had a fifty year life – and on – to stop just because they had a bad box office turnout.

Especially when people were talking about how amazing [Beyond] was. I would love… I would always come back, to get an opportunity to be with all my friends until we’re fifty, sixty? I would be so happy.

Back in October, Pine expressed his desire to reunite with Hemsworth again – but for those of you wondering about the fate of the late Anton Yelchin’s Chekov, producer J.J. Abrams confirmed that the character will not be recast after the actor’s death last summer for any follow-up film.

First announced by Paramount Pictures back in July (ahead of the Star Trek Beyond release), the next sequel film is expected to see the return of Chris Hemsworth’s George Kirk, killed in the 2009 Trek debut – but as of yet the fourth Kelvin Timeline film has yet to be placed onto Paramount’s release schedule.

  • Fctiger

    I’m not holding my breath but yes I like to at least see one more. I’m on the fence if we will see another one from these guys or not since Paramount is really quiet and its clear she has no idea if there will even be another one. Pegg did send out a pic that they were at least writing another one so SOMETHING is happening but my guess is nothing will be guaranteed until they are sure the next idea will be exciting enough to warrant it….and cheaper. 😉

    But she’s kind of wrong though in the sense just because they don’t make anymore movies with them that Star Trek is done. I mean Discovery just about to start filming and my guess they will just find another idea for a movie in time. There will always be another Star Trek the question is just what form it will be in? But it may take awhile for another to happen though but if Discovery is really good I think most fans will be fine if one doesn’t happen for awhile.

    • DIGINON

      Zoe Zaldana may not be aware that a new Star Trek show is coming. It’s not like CBS and Paramount are working together to create a coherent cinematic universe like Marvel is doing.
      As for another movie in the Kelvin timeline, I’m not sure. While Beyond made less than the previous 2 movies I have also read somewhere that it was still one of Paramount’s most successful movies of 2016. Star Trek is one of the few franchises that Paramount has. They may try to tool around with it, maybe also try a lower budget. But if they were to abandon it completely what else would they put in its place? Let’s see.

      • Fctiger

        I have a super hard time believing that. She reads the internet and watch the news like everyone else. More so because she’s in the industry. This was announced over a year ago already. She was at comic conn the same weekend to promote Beyond as Brian Fuller was to promote Discovery. I can only imagine all the Trek geeks on her twitter page asking her if she wants to be on the new show or if she will watch it?

        Its no way in today’s age she wouldn’t know about it. My guess is they get asked about it all the time and their thoughts on it even if not officially on record.

        As for Beyond yes it actually is their most successful film of 2016 which is actually pretty sad because its their most successful film that still flopped. And Beyond was the 23rd most successful of 2016 which means Paramount didn’t have a single film higher than that. A movie that made a whopping $340 million. Meanwhile I think Disney had the top 5 films in a row last year. Most of those in the billion dollar region and that doesn’t include TFA which came out in 2015.

        So yeah Paramount is in miserable shape. I don’t think they will EVER abandon Star Trek though. They didn’t after The Final Frontier, they didn’t Nemesis and they won’t after Beyond. I only took issue with her line like this will somehow be the end of the franchise or something. No it will just be the end of these movies, they will simply reboot it or do something else later with it like every single franchise out there today. What that is would be the question but Star Trek will out live for sure. It already has out lived a few people now.

        But hopefully they do get one more film. Oddly Chris Hemsworth mentioned it at the Golden Globes this site put up the same day as this and he sounds like its still happening. Honestly we won’t really know until Paramount just come out and say another one is coming and a premeire date of some kind. I DO think they will get another one made, even if cheaper, but my feeling is these films will be done after this if the next one doesn’t crack $400 million. Paramount wants the BIG franchise these days like the others. Its the reason why GI Joe has gone dark. Those films never bombed but they never made the money they were hoping to make. And the last Terminator movie actually made MORE money than Beyond did by $100 million and those sequels were cancelled anyway so my guess is these films are on burrowed time at this point .

        • Michael

          TrekCore gets advance info from their sources to post online at the correct time

  • pittrek

    The sad thing is that the best movie of the reboot series earned the smallest profit

    • Michael

      Because it nudged a tiny bit closer to the spirit of the actual show. That obviously confused audiences and they did not turn out.

      • pittrek

        That’s pretty sad. I really like this movie, unlike the previous 2. It will be a tragedy if they “dumb down” the next movie to please the “average Joe” audience members

        • daGiez

          It was a tough date slot, Bourne came out the next weekend, and there were a few others. Still it was an enjoyable movie.

          • Also, the marketing is terrible for the franchise compared to other big budget sci-fi or comicbook movies.

          • Michael

            This is a fact, the marketing was horrible.

          • Brian Thorn

            That I agree with. Beyond was not a bad movie, but its promotion and marketing was almost incompetent.

          • Michael

            I blame the Chinese

        • Michael

          I guarantee that the “villains” motivations and how it ties into Vietnam was lost on 99% of the audience. They simply want absent minded action. That should be saved for the brainless Star Wars franchise. Star Trek was never about war. Gene would be disgusted by these movies.

          • Bifash

            “Star Trek was never about war.”

            You’re aware that every iteration of STAR TREK has dealt with war?

          • Michael

            Genes vision was about peace and cooperation.

          • Section 9

            Bollocks. Star Trek TOS was an allegory for the Cold War.

          • Michael

            Partly, only partly.

          • Rass

            It’s becoming clear that Michael is not well-versed in Star Trek’s history.

          • Burn in Hell Gene Roddenberry

            Burn in Hell Gene Roddenberry.

          • Rass

            “Star Trek was never about war.”

            Ah, you’re one of those fans, eh? The type who constantly make that statement, despite there being no truth to it whatsoever?

          • Michael

            Yes, gene’s vision was about peace and cooperation. The term you are looking for is “real fans”

          • Rass

            The phrase I’m looking for is NEVER “real fans.” That’s elitist bull. His vision was peace and cooperation, yes–and, yet, many episodes featured the Enterprise in battle with the Federation’s enemies. The idea that Star Trek was never about war is simply untrue.

          • Bifash

            He thinks he’s a “REAL FAN”.

          • Burn in Hell Gene Roddenberry

            Damn right Modern Audiences Today want Action, Today Modern Audiences or Millennials want Action and Adventure that is why Star Wars has A large mainstream audience and Star Trek is a Small Niche Audience. The Majority of people out there don’t want Cerebral they want Action Adventure, Star Trek has 13 movies and 7 TV series and the Franchise is only worth 2 billion Dollars while Star Wars has 7 movies and 2 TV series and is worth 6 Billion and makes 2 Billion dollars a movie, Star Trek has never done that.

          • michael3959

            STAR WARS popularity is based more on fantasy and not on action. If you take a look at the top grossing movies of all time, they are fantasy movies, not action films.

            As for STAR WARS being more popular than STAR TREK, that’s fine with me. I love thinking man films with substance over ones that are more about marketing, corporate manipulation, and that are intentionally engineered to appeal to every demographic in the audience. The latter just don’t resonate deeply with me.

            As far as I’m concerned, in the end, it’s more about the body of work than who makes the most money. If you took the five best episodes from every live action STAR TREK television series, they alone would blow away anything STAR WARS has ever done. All the STAR WARS movies are just the same film, played over and over again. If I see one more SW movie about somebody trying to destroy a Death Star, I’ll throw up!

    • Kevin Vance

      Because ST Into Darkness, killed the enthusiasm. Horrible, horrible movie. The whole “Kelvin Timeline” is a HUGE mistake.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      I agree.

  • James

    Loved ST09 and STID, the latest film lacked ambition and the story was weak. Absolutely love this cast though. Get Abrams back and knock it out of the park.

    • Michael

      Are you serious? Beyond had more depth to the story than 09 and ID combined. Perhaps you did not fully understand the plight of the Captain of the warp 4 ship?

      • James

        Perhaps you’re right Michael. I thought that the Captain of the warp 4 ship was sucking the life out of people and wanted a Federation for humans. He rejected its principles of unity and cooperation with former enemies. If there’s a deeper meaning, please enlighten me.

        With regards to ST09, it’s a thrill ride – little more. Star Trek Into Darkness though is a whole different matter. The film is actually very political for a mainstream summer blockbuster.

        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.

        The film concludes with Kirk 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.

        Star Trek Into Darkness opens with Kirk debating on whether to violate the prime directive in order to rescue Spock whose life hangs in the balance as he tries to save an entire civilisation from an erupting volcano. Roddenberry would be proud of these aspects of the film.

        • Michael

          I posted the deeper meaning on another story, check my post history for it

    • Michael

      Wrath of Khan had talented people working on it, unlike nUTrek.

      • Brian Thorn

        It took a while to get there though, and it was somewhat by dumb luck (not master planning). Harve Bennett found himself with a bunch of mediocre plots (i.e., Khan have telepathic powers) and was getting nowhere with them until someone told him to talk to Nicholas Meyer (who knew almost nothing about Star Trek.) Meyer essentially did all the picking and choosing from the various story treatments and made them into one movie in only about two weeks right before filming started. There was no time to for Bennett or Paramount to make any more changes, because they’d already promised the movie to theaters for June and ILM needed to start work immediately to make that date. And that’s how we got TWOK.

  • Visitor1982

    50 years of Star Trek is because of the TV series, not the movies. I’m glad for Star Trek Discovery. Couldn’t care less about another Abrahms-timeline movie. They’re empty.

    • Brian Thorn

      Well, I think if Wrath of Khan had been a flop, that would have been the end of Star Trek. We never would have gotten TNG or any of its successors.

      • Fctiger

        Yeah thats true. And my bet is we are only getting Discovery because STID did so well. It didn’t make a billion dollars or anything but successful enough to get a sequel and my guess this show. I mean imagine if that flopped too? We may not got a new show for several more years. These things are all connected, I always tell Star Trek fans who want something to fail because they don’t like it that they are not looking at the big picture at all. If this fails then that mean something you might actually like may not see the light of day over it. You can still hate these movies but hope they succeed because only successful products usually create more successful products. I mean if TNG failed its no way would’ve got DS9 and so on.

  • Michael

    TRANSLATION: I want another big paycheque.

  • Michael

    Please, no more nUtrek crap. The ONLY way they should have another one is if the movie centers around fixing the broken timeline and Shatner is involved to help Pine fix the timeline.

    But instead, they will probably bring in the Borg and ruin them the way they ruined the Kingons to try to pop a big box office payday.

    • Fctiger

      They don’t need to ‘fix’ the timeline. Its another universe altogether so it doesn’t matter. This is simply a different reality from the prime universe. You obviously know that.

      • Michael

        I know it, and I want it fixed. The timeline must end as it was created by a mistake. It would make an epic final film.

        • Fctiger

          But WHY? What difference does it make? Do you wan the Mirror Universe timeline fixed as well? Thats just another parallel universe like this one. That was also created by a mistake, remember? I mean when Kirk from Prime universe went to their universe and convinced MU Spock to change which collapsed the Federation. Thats why having parallel universes are fun, you can just do whatever you want and not worry about it.

          And if you ‘fix’ the timeline then it would make all those other stories we have null and void which would be pretty ironic because they created another universe JUST so the old shows and films we have wouldn’t be considered null and void if they rebooted it with these movies…and yet thats STILL not good enough for people. This is why Trek fans can’t have nice things.

        • BURN IN HELL GENE RODDENBERRY!

          BURN IN HELL GENE RODDENBERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Bifash

      If you dislike it so much, you could try maybe not to watch it?

  • Bifash

    Really looking forward to the next Trek movie.

    It’s clear that no matter what iteration of Trek comes to fruition on Film or TV, there’s no shortage of trolls who will find nothing better than to poo-poo every aspect of the material – I’ve even seen it in the articles relating to Doug Jones ( on some other sites ) lambasting him because he is not a “true fan” ( as if that was ever some kind of qualification needed for a Star Trek role ).

    • Michael

      We believe that actors who have a passion and understanding of the core message of Star Trek deliver higher quality material than those like Jones who are in it for the paycheque only.

      • Bifash

        You have NO knowledge that Jones is in it for the pay check only.

        And who’s this “WE”?

      • Graham Ferguson

        No, the best quality actors deliver the best acting.

        It’s called acting.

        The writers create the message.

        • Michael

          So far the “quality” of actors they have picked are mediocre at best. The lead better be incredible. Will be hard to top Scott Bakula’s talents.

    • Michael

      So, if someone disagrees with you, they are a troll? Let me guess? You voted Hillary.

  • Mo Ped Jones

    I’d like to see a Star Trek “4”, but please, no more time travel! End the Kelvin timeline storyline with something original, not Kirk facing his dad.

  • Robert Anthony

    So a worldwide gross of 343-million dollars is now a flop. What a world.

    • Michael

      Gotta pay those “big stars” insane wages. Blame the greedy actors who have inflated egos

      • Bifash

        “inflated egos”.

        Yeah.

        • Michael

          It’s well known around Hollywood that Saldana and Pine are developing quite the egos.

          • madmadia85

            well know by who? you? lol

            Zoe and Chris are the only ones in this cast who have a bit of star power (and the only ones, I might add, who get awards nominations by popularity or are asked to be presenters at the Oscars, Golden globes and others ) so maybe they’d be entlitled to a bit of ‘ego’ if paramount is being too cheap (marvel would love to pay their main actors less than 3 millions for a movie!)
            but if that was true, Zoe would still be third top billed cast member (as she was in the first movies) for beyond instead of being replaced by Urban whose face apparently isn’t that useful for promotional posters since marketing people tend to ignore him. She got payed less than him.

            and you are commenting an article where Zoe is saying she’d love to come back for more movies and is grateful to just be in trek. If there is anyone with ‘ego’ here it’s Urban (and Pegg) who said he was unsure about coming back for trek 3 unless they gave him a bigger role (and he got payed more)
            Maybe you should worry about the money they have to give to him and other dudes rather than Saldana who got payed less than she maybe would be entlitled to ask, in spite of her being the third lead of the first movies, their leading lady and the actor with biggest star power with her other franchises.

    • Fctiger

      When you spent $305 million in production and marketing to make that $343 million, yeah it is. People act like the films are made on the cheap. Beyond is one of the most expensive films in 2016. Its Paramounts fourth most expensive film ever. So when you spend that kind of money you expect to get a much bigger return. Or at least one that breaks even.

      That ‘world’ you are talking about is capitalism and yes profit is keen in capitalism. How most of us have jobs today.

  • SFSeries&Movies

    Worldwide it did gross $343,471,816. It’s nowhere near ITD and less than 2009 but to say it bombed. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek2016.htm

    • Michael

      The trend is going downward. It’s obvious everyone is rejecting this bastardized version of Star Trek. If they make 4, they will lose money.

      • Brian Thorn

        We heard that about Mission: Impossible also. Untrue then, untrue now.

        • Michael

          People like Tom Cruise. These movies do not have Tom Cruise.

          • Brian Thorn

            No, a lot of people hate Tom Cruise. And note that Jack Reacher 2 flopped harder than Star Trek Beyond this year.

          • Michael

            Why is Tom hated? He used to be loved in the 1980’s

          • Brian Thorn

            Scientology, Katie Holmes, and his media meltdown ten-ish years ago.

        • Fctiger

          To be fair though Mission Impossible 3 had problems because of Cruise PR meltdown around that time and everyone was hating the guy after that. MI 3 is one of the best in the series even now but it couldn’t get past the hatred over the actor because let’s face it these movies are basically Tom Cruise. He is the sole face of this franchise. Its not like Transformers or even James Bond where you can switch the stars and they will make money. I mean its possible but no one really knows.

          And yes there was a lot of talk about replacing him the issue was as i said, could they do worse even if people didn’t love him and Paramount didn’t want to risk it. Now oddly they are some of their most successful films to date. And MI 3 didn’t bomb, it still made money, it was just a disappointment in terms of expectations after MI 2 did so well.

          Its not the same with these films though. Star Trek was popular before them and will be popular after. The franchise never relied on one actor or even crew to be successful. Its really up to the fandom what they deem good to be successful, not really who stars in them.

      • Cabo 5150

        Well, the “trend” is downward with reference to the last two movies.

        Traditionally, however, with long running franchises such as Trek, Bond, Star Wars etc, “trends” are variable – moving up and down. The “trend” between 2009 and STID was up for example.

        Why is it “obvious” everyone is “rejecting bastardized Star Trek”? How have you arrived at your conclusion ST4 will lose money?

        Based on the fluctuating box office performances of the franchises I’ve listed above, your assertions would seem to be nothing more than guesswork – especially as you appear to have based them on a sampling of only three movies.

        • Michael

          I am basing it on 33 years of following the franchise, the actors, and the writers. I have contacts at both Paramount and CBS.

          • Cabo 5150

            So, pure guesswork then.

            Respectfully, your number of years “following the franchise” has no objective bearing on your predictions whatsoever – nor do your claimed “contacts” at Paramount and/or CBS.

            If Paramount go ahead with a fourth Kelvin Timeline movie, it would seem to be irrational and extremely poor business practice to do so in the knowledge it will lose money.

            If this is the kind of “inside info” your “contacts” are feeding you, I would take a moment to examine their credibility.

          • Fctiger

            “If Paramount go ahead with a fourth Kelvin Timeline movie, it would seem to be irrational and extremely poor business practice to do so in the knowledge it will lose money.”

            But thats the issue isn’t it? There is a reason why there is basically silence on the next one 6 months after the last one came out. I dont think they really know what they are going to do because there is that fear the next one could do as bad. The reality is every film since 2009 HAS fallen domestically and its really America where Star Trek is the most popular. So it must be alarming to see it keep falling by 10s of millions by every film. Between the 09 and STID it lost $30 million domestically between them. And between STID and Beyond was a $70 million difference. That’s $100 million loss in just three films. So yes there is definitely a ‘trend’ happening and a worrying one.

            If Trek was stronger abroad like a lot of these big franchises it may not be such a big deal to keep falling in America, but as we clearly know its not. Thats why people who think these movies will just keep getting made because they manage to make a slight profit are pretty naive. STID may have been the peak and if so that has to be worrying for this studio and they probably have resign to the fact if they make a fourth one will probably make even less money than Beyond did in America. This isn’t how these big franchises are suppose to operate. Sure some make less than others but they still have to have the potential to do better than the last one or why keep making them? Especially when they were never big hits to begin with but yet cost the same amount of money as Transformers, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Marvel etc. These movies are just not pulling their weight. They can only go on for so long before someone realize they could make more money making a Transformer spin off instead one of these films.

            So regardless unless the fourth surprise them and at least make more money domestically than Beyond its probably done.

          • Cabo 5150

            It’s certainly not merely the domestic box office and that counts, but sure, the trend has been down domestically over the last three movies – I think most of us were already aware of that.

            Point of interest, the domestic “trend” for TMP>TWOK>TSFS was incrementally down, then, somwewhat unexpectedly, TVH came along. The Trek movies have fluctuated at the box office ever since.

            Films and there financial success thereof comprise an extremely complex set of factors and variables, and with Beyond, I do believe it’s fair to attribute some loss of business to weak marketing and the ill conceived/poorly received first teaser etc.

            Yes, the fourth Kelvin Timeline film may end up doing less business than Beyond and bring the current run to a end, or, alternatively, it may do the approximately the same when everything’s totted up – or, it may be a surprise hit and bump up the numbers to any degree.

            None of us can be sure, and given Trek’s up and down record, I don’t believe any outcome can confidently be proclaimed as “probable” at this point.

          • Fctiger

            No its not just the domestic BO that counts but as I made clear the problem for Star Trek is thats where it makes most of its money. For the average big block buster out there the domestic money is only 20-30% these days, the rest is overseas. For Star Trek, at least these films, 50+% is relied on from America alone. Beyond was the first it fell under 50%. Not because the foreign BO got better, it didn’t, just that it slipped so much compared to the last two and thats alarming when your biggest most reliable market keeps dropping.

            And sure maybe the TOS films made less money but they were all big hits regardless because their budgets were so small. These films are HUGE, the marketing alone cost over $100 million so they have to sell bigger.

            But as I said my guess is they will probably make a fourth film. It will probably depend on how well Discovery does and if this film makes a lot of money with DVD/Blu Ray sales. Its harder to see the latter because those figures aren’t as public but my guess is once Beyond makes a profit at SOME point they will take a chance on another one. They are at least considering it still which is a good sign but I can’t remotely blame them for not wanting to do it either if they dont.

            And if they do, they have to come up with something big. Something that will get the fans excited. A war movie, the Borg, Q, all of the above, something! Something to get fans saying they have to see it in the theater. Beyond just did NOT have that kind of pull and why it failed among the other issues you cited and you’re talking to someone who not only liked it but saw it twice on IMAX. But believe me, even watching it opening day at the Mann Chinese theater and the seats were still a third empty told me all I needed to know, the hype just wasn’t there and I don’t think they are there for these films in general anymore which Paramount should be worried about long term.

          • Cabo 5150

            So, yes, they will or they won’t, it’ll make money or it won’t, it depnds on variable factors X,Y or Z – and it’s all just guesswork anyway.

            Didn’t I just say that! 🙂

          • Fctiger

            I was only saying is there IS an actual downward trend and a worrying one for the studio and why I suspect there may be issues making another one.

            The issue is Beyond delivered NO good news, none. It was done from STID in literally every country except China and thats only because Paramount lined up with Alibaba which is a Chinese company and paid for some of the film and then did a heavy PR marketing campaign through out the country. And it still only made $65 million there, about $8 million more than the last one did. Put that into perspective Terminator Genisys did $115 million in China and $100 million more overall than Beyond and those sequels still got cancelled.

            So yes its a BIG worry and people shouldn’t kid themselves but because its Star Trek they will probably figure something out.

          • Michael

            The movies are losing money faster than Starfleet loses ships in the alternate timeline. Lol.

            Also take into account the Chinese helped fund this movie and expected a generous return. The movie was not nearly as popular as they expected it to be in China.

          • Rass

            How is it you could follow a franchise for 33 years and yet have so little demonstrated knowledge of it? As for your “contacts at both Paramount and CBS,” parking-lot attendants don’t count.

          • Michael

            Really? Want to trivia battle me? I would destroy you my friend. I have memorized every episode to the point if you played me a random audio clip from any of the shows I would be able to tell you exactly what show, what episode, and what time stamp range the dialogue is in the episode.

            Amusing insult regarding parking lot attendants, but inaccurate.

    • Michael

      What telling is that After Star Trek 09 people went big for into darkness and were obviously very disappointed. That is why they did not come out for Beyond. Throw in the fact that they could not have made Beyond without Chinese funding and that’s what happens. They wasted money on hiring Rihanna for a throwaway music track for some reason. It’s bizzare.

      • Cabo 5150

        Again, you’re making more sweeping statements which you claim to be “obvious” – this time reference “peoples disappointment” with STID.

        Unfortunately, this is not borne out by any available data, indeed, the antithetical would, in fact, appear to be the case.

        STID currently holds a rating of 86% critics / 90% audience on Rotten Tomatoes, with similar scores appearing on the other aggregate review sites. Only a relatively low percentage of movies get close to figures like that.

        [SIGH] I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, those who claim STID is somehow universally hated and reviled is a ridiculous myth peddled by a tiny percentage of extremely vocal fans in total contradiction to the facts.

        • Fctiger

          I think this is a situation of old vs new. I think most of the new casual fans certainly liked the film if not loved it because the issues the old fans had with it they simply didn’t know enough tot care about them…or had to.

          I think you’re right its a smaller minority but I don’t think its ‘tiny’ either as you suggest because the reality is Beyond didn’t gain any traction from STID at all IF people loved it as much as they claim.

          Now I’ll make it clear I do think STID was more liked than not and its the most successful film out of any Star Trek feature but there was certainly backlash against it and I think enough to keep a lot of people from watching the next one. Now Beyond had problems beyond STID in general thats definitely a fact but even the makers of this film knew STID had a backlash because if you notice they completely skipped over that film as if it never existed. Not one single plot element was referenced in Beyond, not one. You would think they would be busting at the seems to mention Khan again, what happened to Kirk since the magic blood or the fact that Earth went through a devasting attack when downtown San Francisco was taken out. Instead, its back to Kirk and his dad and the same Spock and Uhura drama.

          What’s crazy about STID is its now a film you can wipe from canon and it wouldn’t affect anything because they basically just ignored it completely.

          • Cabo 5150

            I’m an “old school” fanboy of many decades standing – most certainty in the “super fan” category that cares very much about Star Trek. I love STID, and have no major issues with it – and am personally aquatinted with other fans of a similar profile that share my opinion.

            I don’t agree it’s “old vs new” – but more a case of those who have a very myopic opinion on what Star Trek should be and see themselves as “defenders of the faith”. Much like a certain element of intransigent and narrow minded TOS fans were in run up to September 1987.

            IDIC – what’s that.

            Oh, I believe Star Trek’s for everyone to take or leave at their leisure – superfan, “casual” fan, or just plain old Joe Public. It is not the preserve of the self appointed elitist “real fans”.

            I guess it depends on your perception and definition “small” and/or “tiny”, but I’m pretty certain the great majority of those who consider themselves to Star Trek fans in any meaningful sense don’t post on internet forums and boards.

            I think it’s easy to become convinced of the STID “backlash” if you frequent places like this, but again, that viewpoint is not supported by any of available metrics we have.

            You could wipe any number of episodes and/or movies from canon and it wouldn’t affect anything – so what? Are you suggesting each successive movie must reference an element from the antecedent in order to validate it? That seems a little silly to me in all honesty.

          • Fctiger

            Look you could be completely right but there WAS a backlash against the film. Was a major backlash, no, but certainly enough to ruffle feathers. I mean nearly everyone who wrote or produced STID didn’t come back for Beyond.

            This is the reality, the filmmakers thought bringing back Khan would be a home run of an idea. It wasn’t. The reason why they did it was because they thought they would impress the old fans right? They didn’t. But they thought it was so much of a home run they kept him alive at the end of the movie probably with the intent they will bring him back for a sequel, maybe even the next one. But there was a lot written about white washing the character I don’t think anyone who wrote it saw coming. But there was. And I don’t think it was just hardcore fan circles either.

            So no its not just ‘places like this’ there really was people put off by it and it made it in the mainstream. I’ll repeat again, I don’t the majority felt this way at all BUT enough to the point they actually wrote a comic combining the original Khan’s background with the new Khan just so people would shut up about it.

            You may think it was about noting, if that was the case then they wouldn’t have completely avoided that film in Beyond. Take my word for it, if we do get any more films from this cast which is on the fence you will never hear the name Khan again and for those reasons.

          • Michael

            If people loved STID, why did they not turn out for Beyond? If it is so loved and has “high ratings” on tell me what to do tomato website, logic dictates those same people would have all gone to see Beyond having remembered the fun they had with Darkness.

            Perhaps the tomato ratings were done by the same people who predicted a 98% chance Hillary was going to win on the very morning of the day she managed to destroy the Democratic Party? Lol.

          • Cabo 5150

            Logic dictates nothing of the sort.

            There are numerous factors that determine a given films success – or lack thereof. Your argument falls apart when you consider there have been countless critically and financially successful movies which were followed up by significantly less successful sequels.

            Just off the top of my head: Speed/Speed 2, Grease/Grease 2, Donnie Darko/S. Darko, The Matrix/The Matrix Reloaded etc, etc.

            Your final paragraph is a total non-sequitur, as you’re confusing conjectural/predictive polling with factually based data I’m afraid. Let me explain it for you.

            The RT critics score is an aggregate of actual, published reviews, while the audience score is derived from users voting with the traditional five star system.

            I do hope I’ve been of some assistance in helping you understand why your comparison is totally meaningless and illogical.

          • Rass

            You really have no idea what you’re talking about. The Tomato ratings aren’t “done” by anyone. They’re a conglomeration of ratings from fans and critics. Take your head out of your ass and try reading something.

        • Michael

          You failed to factor in the fact that the audience has become stupider over time compared to fans who started with TOS or even TNG.

          • Cabo 5150

            Your post here is unbelievably feeble, insulting to those who fall outside your specified criteria, and, spectacularly self contradictory in its astounding, self contradictory declaration of “factual” status.

          • Michael

            Do you really think millennials would have the attention span to sit down and enjoy TMP and Voyage home? They need to constantly check their adult pacifier, their smartphones.

            Lin knew he needed big explosions and lots of fast cuts and violence to hold their attention.

          • Cabo 5150

            It’s just awesome you’ve elected to avoid stereotyping entire generations with sweeping, ill informed profiling here.

            You come over as a really open minded commentator.

          • Michael

            We are in the President Trump era. Get used to straightforward talk.

          • Cabo 5150

            I’ll take your unwillingnes and apparent inability to enage in the actual subject matter at hand as your concession of defeat in this debate. Thank you.

            I genuinely have no idea why you keep blathering on at me about Donald Trump? This is a Star Trek web site, and frankly, as a UK citizen/resident, I really don’t care.

            Maybe you should find a US politics board where you can express your sociopolitical worldview in a more appropriate forum.

          • Rass

            Cabo, you’re not dealing with an intelligent or informed person. Michael has no idea what he’s talking about.

      • madmadia85

        stid was more successful than Beyond both critically and money-wise. That movie got backlash for the tos nods (but, ironically, Beyond is praised by the same people as the best movie out of the 3 for doing pretty much that and being a big fat tos nod), but evidently it was a minority of people and it was the new creative team’s big mistake to tailor Beyond over what a minority of the audience wanted versus the whole audience of these movies. I don’t think that pretending stid never happened was a good idea, I think it backfired and that, along with the fact that Beyond went backwards with the few new stuff JJ&co did (such as the dynamics and elevating Uhura at the original trio level) in favor of tos nods and more conservative and pandering to a niche of old fans by bringing back the same old dynamic, contributed, in my opinion, to alienate and drive away the very fans of this reboot who had made the first two movies successful.
        No one but this creative team and their promotion is to blame because they made it pretty clear that the last movie would be disconnected from the other two (while people were, understandbly so, waiting for a continuation and decent possible ending of a trilogy) and it was only made to placate conservative ecogentric selfish tos fans who don’t like change and want everything to say the same 50 years later, and try to please and win over the reboot haters that will never ever like this trek regardless what they do anyway.

        Truth is the people who liked this trek and were fans of it got the short end of the stick and weren’t encouraged to give a damn about Beyond.

      • madmadia85

        Into Darkness was successful, more successful than Beyond, both critically and money-wise, and this means that it was everything but a flop.

        It makes little sense for me to believe that if Beyond wasn’t too successful, it must be the fault of previous movies whose success and following/fans actually is the main reason why Beyond even happened, in the first place.
        Perhaps, that’s the issue with Beyond: by being too different compared to the first two movies that were successful, it possibly drove away the part of the audience that actually liked them and felt that this one wasn’t really a sequel.
        So, if anything, probably it’s more correct to say that Beyond failed to live up the expectations created by the other movies, hence those who liked the other two and made those successful, didn’t make Beyond as successful.

        Honestly, I think that pretending that Into Darkness never happened actually backfired big time and that, along with the fact that beyond went backwards with the few new and more modern stuff JJ&co did (such as the dynamics, a new trio with a woman, the whole alternate reality concept etc etc ) just to pander to a more conservative niche of old fans (e.g,. by bringing back the same old dynamic), contributed to discourage the fans of this trek who had made the first two movies successful.
        A lot of people liked this reboot precisely because it was different and introduced both old and new fans to new things and a different trek iteration. In that sense, both sequels wasted the potential of a new trek that the first movie had created, but Beyond actually did it worse than Into Darkness.
        Into darkness got some backlash for the tos nods, but, ironically, Beyond is praised by the same people as the best movie out of the 3 for being a big fat tos nod that went backwards in the name of nostalgia for the old stuff.
        This is the kind of self-contradictory, wanting to have the cake and eat it too arguments that trek fans who dislike the reboot for not being ‘their trek’ are well known for.

        It was the new creative team’s big mistake (and not just theirs, as comments here confirm) to think that a minority of fans on the internet spoke for the whole audience of these movies. Maybe they are really that clueless, or blinded by their own nostalgia, but I honestly don’t know how they could even expect more.
        This creative team and their promotion made it pretty clear that the last movie wouldn’t really be a sequel of the other two, but the thing is those other movies were successful and people were, understandbly so, waiting for a continuation and decent – possible – ending of what still was a trilogy. They should have at least attempted to actually bring back the audience of these movies. Instead of making a movie for the fans that made the first two successful, they made it only to placate haters and conservative tos fans who don’t like change and want everything to stay the same 50 years later (and they will forever shit on any trek that doesn’t fit with their own idea of ‘real trek’ that in many cases is fanon even for tos).

        tl dr: people who liked this trek and were fans of it, who essentially are the ones who made the first two movies successful, weren’t encouraged to give a damn about Beyond because the last movie simply wasn’t made for them.

      • Rass

        Michael, you have no idea what you’re talking about. People weren’t “obviously very disappointed.” The film has a very high Rotten Tomatoes score. Yes, some rabid Trek fans trashed it, but it was very well-received.

  • Rass

    I wish you guys would call it Star Trek 14. It’s not the fourth film.

    • Michael

      It’s the 4th film in the bastardized universe.

      • Brian Thorn

        Oh Lord, spare us from another self-proclaimed “Real Fan”. Get over yourself, Michael.

        • Michael

          Sorry, experience counts. Real fans have the passion to defend the core meaning of Star Trek. Casual fans do not.

          • Brian Thorn

            Unfortunately for your spectacularly inflated sense of importance, you are not the final authority on who is a Real Fan and who is not.

          • Michael

            Not yet.

          • Star Fox

            And you never Will.

  • Brian Thorn

    I still see no reason to not recast Chekov. It is silly that because Anton Yelchin tragically passed away that the character has to come to an end, too.

    • Michael

      I find it absurd as well. Fine, don’t recast him. Introduce his brother or something. My guess is the cast pushed for not recasting him so they get more screen time.

  • Fiery Little One

    As Zoe says, just because Beyond didn’t get quite what they were expecting, that doesn’t mean they should stop making these movies. I’m also pleased to see that they get along enough that she’d be happy to keep coming back to work with the others when she’s closer to Nichel’s age.

  • Michael

    How large of a chunk of the budget will they give to Thor? He’s really not worth it. They have to do Star Trek 4 with a very modest budget if they expect any return as the public has soured on these mediocre movies.

    • Fctiger

      I have to agree. Chris Hemsworth has only proven he’s ‘worth’ it (sorry lol) when he’s making Marvel films. Like it or not he’s kind of BO poison outside those films. Every movie I can think of with him in it has flopped outside of one (the Snow White film but then the sequel bombed) including his latest, Ghostbusters.

      I guess what I’m saying is bringing him back is fine in terms of story (although I would like something different personally) but if they think adding him will suddenly make a dent in BO I just don’t see how? He’s going to attract the same Trek fans (ie us) whose been seeing these films since day one but no one else. There is not this big Chris Hemsworth fanbase out there his PR seems to suggest or the guy could open a film without Marvel in the title.

      • Michael

        Only way I see if he somehow did not die in the first movie and was abducted before death by Borg hidden away on the Narada, who then escaped as chaos was taking place after the Kelvin crashed into the Narada. They took him and admired his sacrifice and decided to make him the “king” of the Borg ( no queens in the alternate universe!) so he could retain his ability to act without being a mindless drone.

        The only other way I see is if they bring him in from the mirror universe or send his kid into the mirror universe where George did not die and is evil. They have to fight and James had to kill his father, finally ending the ongoing storyline in the three movies about his father.

  • madmadia85

    I appreciate her positiveness and openess about being in other movies, and how grateful she sounds to be just for being in trek, especially in consideration of how she got treated by the new creative team in the last movie where she lost her third lead/third top billed status from the first two and got sidelined (in favor of secondary male characters and male dynamics), in part as a result of them placating Karl Urban who apparently threw a tantrum and threatened to not come back for more movies unless he got a bigger role.
    While other franchises might move forward and offer more contemporary products to nowadays audiences, trek – for all its preaching about progressiveness – is still stuck in the 60s and nostalgia.

    Ironically, the only two actors of this cast that are a bit ‘big’ are Zoe and Chris, a fact that not only the marketing people seem to be aware of (since their faces generally are the most used in posters, especially outside of the US) but in Zoe’s case is often a ‘concern’ of those who think she has became too expensive, and might thus not come back for more movies. To these people I want to say: you should maybe worry more about your favored secondary male characters and their actors because chances are that they are the ones who might give some trouble in that regard, in spite of most of them not even being B list in hollywood.

    • Michael

      What is wrong with “male dynamics?” “Male dynamics”‘is what made TOS and the TOS movies great. The play off between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.

      Sorry if that offends the SJW in you. But without “male dynamics” Star Trek would not be here right now in any form.

      • Toolazytologin

        Are you one of those guys who comment articles denouncing examples of racism or sexism by whining ‘but what about the white men? why you hate us so much?’ . I bet you are.

        no, there is clearly nothing wrong about male dynamics and characters but to some people it doesn’t hurt to have female characters who are more than eye candy, and allow the main guys to have dynamics with women too, for a change. It’s called reboot for a reason.
        Also, sorry to burst your bubble but get real here: if you couldn’t get anything different from a male trio in tos that’s because the old thing was made in the 60s. Idk if you know that but we are in 2017 now, and judging by how Beyond was the least successful of the 3 when it’s the more ‘old trek’ of the bunch, I guess the old male dynamics aren’t enough anymore (been there done that?).

        If people want to watch the old thing they don’t need Abrams’ trek. In fact, I don’t get the haters and their gripe and obsession with this trek having to be a copy of the old thing at any cost when you all still have your old dvds to watch to your heart’s content.

        • Michael

          The problem is the nUtrek Kirk Spock McCoy have not had a TV series and 6 movies for people to get to know them. They forced the relationship and expected the audience to care.
          The male dynamic also failed because the current actors lack the talent and charisma Shatner, Nimoy, and DeForest had. The audience sees the current crop as a cheap copy.

          Uhura has always been a background player and while their attempts to showcase her more were noble, they failed.

          • madmadia85

            “Uhura has always been a background player and while their attempts to showcase her more were noble, they failed”

            a lot of critics and fans of this trek disagree with you. The trio of this trek is Kirk/Uhura/Spock and that’s was widely accepted as the face of this trek, and still how many refer to this reboot in spite of beyond trying to bring back the old dynamic. In fact, one of the things that was criticized in beyond was sidelining her character. For both sequels, people who aren’t tos purists lamented they wanted to see more of her and Spock/Uhura (the new stuff more unique to this trek) and that the focus on bromance is myopic.

            again, of this cast Zoe is the least one who needs trek but she seems to be humble and willing to be in more movies even after she was treated not so good in the last one. On the other hand, the ego of the dudes is so big that Urban made it clear that he wants to be at the same level of Kirk and Spock (when not even original McCoy ever was, let’s be real here) and he won’t make other movies unless they give him a bigger role. and he isn’t even B list.

            as for the original trio dynamic, the issue is not that this is not a TV show and their dynamics are not well developed, even if bromance in this trek is indeed forced at times. the issue is that those dynamics are old and been there done that. They are redundant and don’t fit with this trek where Kirk and Spock are different and Spock himself was elevated at protagonist level, rather than just being Kirk’s friend.

            and frankly, you can’t expect people of this time to only care about bromance when those dynamics are in every big franchise. It might have worked in the 60s when people had no choice since those dynamics were the only ones allowed, but in 2017 to simply have women and poc in the cast in the ‘background’ isn’t going to be enough anymore, especially for a franchise like trek that preaches so much about its progressiveness and yet, it’s still the most conservative compared to what Hollywood has to offer nowadays to people.

  • Admiral SnackBar

    I know it’s been said before, but I feel like a Trek movie would do really well upon release in early or mid October or November—well ahead of any Star Wars movie, of course. I’m hoping they’ll stop pushing these in the summer movie madness.

  • Joe Webb

    It’d be crazy not to have a fourth film

  • Mike Macanga

    I have been a fan since the original series first aired. I have to say, I have enjoyed the new cast and look forward to more from this very talented cast !

  • spooky

    Then she should expect a pay cut… a pittance for salary for the next one. It will be a bottle movie, one room set with an orgy and explosions galore. 50 Shades of Trek! 😀