Chris Pine & Alex Kurtzman Talk ‘Star Trek 2′ Story & Villain

Published 2 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 4:28 pm,

Chris Pine Alex Kurtzman Star Trek 2 Chris Pine & Alex Kurtzman Talk Star Trek 2 Story & Villain

J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek reboot was a hit on nearly every level – critically, financially, you name it. It is, in fact, Abrams’ most well-received film to date. And yet, for various reasons (Super 8 being one of them), it will have been four very long years by the time Star Trek 2 finally hits theaters.

While promoting their new film, People Like Us, Chris Pine and Alex Kurtzman – the star (Captain Kirk) and co-writer, respectively, of the upcoming Star Trek sequel – talked about returning to the Enterprise set, the “relentless” and “much better” story, how the film’s antagonist (played by Benedict Cumberbatch of Sherlock fame) will make Kirk the man he needs to be, and more.

On Benedict Cumberbatch’s yet-to-be-revealed antagonist – courtesy of MTV – Chris Pine said:

“['Star Trek 2'] is structured so that the antagonist brings out all of the qualities in Kirk that need to happen in order for Kirk to grow. As you know from Benedict, just watching him, vocally, he’s fascinating. He’s got this deep resonate voice. He has a fascinating face. He’s a lovely guy and just super smart. You want to see something firing in his brain, so he’s not just a blood-dripping-from-the-fangs bad guy. Benedict brings those kinds of smarts.”

It’s reminiscent of what Kurtzman said a few weeks ago, and unfortunately, just as vague. Benedict is brilliant, et cetera, et cetera. No revelations here, people. Move along.

Benedict Cumberbatch Star Trek 2 Chris Pine & Alex Kurtzman Talk Star Trek 2 Story & Villain

On returning to the set of the Enterprise for the first time in years – courtesy of Collider - Pine said:

“The first day going back to work we did all the bridge stuff, and that’s always… Even if you’re not a fan, and I was never a fan of the series… you cannot help but step on that bridge and feel kind of overwhelmed. It’s just the set, [but] you’re like, ‘God, I gotta fly this thing!’”

Ah, to be an actor.

On how much better Star Trek 2‘s story will be compared to the first one’s – courtesy of Ain’t It Cool – Pine said:

“['Star Trek 2'] is relentless, and for the visually inclined people who want to see major sequences, there are a couple specifically that I think… I’m not a huge 3-D fan, but I think will be incredible. But what I’m more excited about and what I think they did so well is that really the story is that much better, and the journey that these guys go on is that much more, and what they always talked about is that even though they’re a crew from what we know about the original team, the fun of getting there is following that journey to where they become that tight-knit crew. It’s no fun if they’re already a tight-knit crew. So suffice it to say, they’re still learning how to get along.”

On not wanting to re-establish the same old crew dynamic from the original series (and subsequent films), Alex Kurtzman said:

“The assumption that we did not want to make was that just because he’s in the chair and they’re on the bridge together that they’re the crew that you remember from the original series. They’re not – the crew from the original series had gone on many, many journeys, they were a well-oiled machine in terms of how they function, and these characters are still figuring out who they are and who they are to each other. And I did not want to jump so far ahead that we missed a really important emotional connection to that transition for them.”

There’s also the fact that these Star Trek adventures technically exist inside an altogether separate timeline, so there’s no rule that says the characters ever have to act exactly like the old crew from the old show.

Chris Pine as Captain Kirk Chris Pine & Alex Kurtzman Talk Star Trek 2 Story & Villain

Of course, there’s a fine line between doing fun, new things with (slightly) different versions of the old characters and utterly enraging the die-hard Trekkies who already have mixed feelings about this alternate timeline business being inflicted upon their beloved Star Trek.

What say you, Screen Ranters? Are you looking forward to the sequel to the reboot of Star Trek? Drop us a line in the comments.

Star Trek 2 (if indeed that is its real name) hits theaters May 17th, 2013. Just eleven-and-a-half more months to go!

-

Follow me on Twitter @benandrewmoore.

Sources: MTV, Collider, & Ain’t It Cool

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: star trek, star trek into darkness

67 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. I’m a fan of the old series from the first day I watched Star Trek:TOS as a kid. Besides the tribbles, one of my favorite episodes was mirror mirror and an alternate timeline. I thoroughly enjoy the what if’s that Star Trek can throw out there and would even be willing to watch TOS being remade in alternate timelines. So will be very interested in watching the new Star Trek actors, movies and even if there be, tv shows.

  2. I am a life-long Star Trek fan. I appreciate quality science-fiction, yet I do not consider myself a Trekkie or Trekker (whatever those differences may be). That said, I’ve been watching Star Trek, in one form or another, since 1966. That’s my Mom’s fault. I was but 2 years old and we sat together on Monday nights to watch the show on NBC on our little 13″ black & white set.

    While I have considerable time-honored knowledge of the Star Trek universe, I’d have to also agree that there are just some things which are “off-limits”. This, I presume, would be that Star Trek “canon” everyone speaks of and which was the center of much debate during the 2009 reboot.

    I personally was not thrilled about the death of Amanda or the destruction of Vulcan, I think mostly because it sets in motion the separate or alternate timeline that is at the center of all the controversy surrounding the reboot. The timeline variations aside, I still feel that the 2009 reboot was and still is a fantastic, entertaining and highly-watchable film. I own it on Blu-Ray and have watched it several times. I consider it and “First Contact” two of my most favorite post-original-series Star Trek movies.

    I’m excited to see what Star Trek 2 brings to the fans of the franchise. I’m less interested in seeing just another rehash of a familiar story and for that reason I care less for a retelling of the Wrath of Khan and would be perfectly happy exploring the cosmos with the characters and learning more about their lives, friendships, loves, and the futuristic universe the belong to.

    Watching any character develop is usually a great experience; the enjoyment tends to be amplified when it is a character you already know and you get to experience that development all over again.

    • Just an fyi…..

      Trekkie – Someone who watches and loves the Star Trek universe. This can run the whole gambit of people; From the people that just enjoy watching the shows to the rabid fanatics who can recite the dialog, tell you the ST facts like the most seasoned Jeopardy champion, can speak (and write) Klingon, and dress up for conventions.

      Trekker – A subset of the “Trekkie” who take themselves too seriously and believe being called a “Trekkie” is a degrading term and want to distance themselves from the other “silly” Trekkies. These people ARE, like it or not, the rabid fanatics.

      • Alternate definitions ;)

        TREKKIE: A fan of Star Trek [Like a groupie (as you said)].

        TREKKER: A participant of Star Trek (like a runner participates in running). Loosely defined, someone who runs a Trek convention could be a Trekker, also actors, directors, producers, and the rest the crew involved with making Star Trek are Trekkers.

        That being said, there ain’t a one of us a Trekker. :D

      • Human – A petaQ that is just below a denebian slime devil who has delusions of grandeur and fly in garbage skows!!

        :-D

    • Very well said and I agree completely.

  3. Really looking forward to this. (Oh, and it’s only TEN and a half months away!)

  4. I’m sorry, but this reboot is not for me. I saw it, didn’t like it, and I’m walking away. I for one do not like J.J.Abrams films. Cloverfield was hard to watch (shaky cam sucks). Super 8 was boring, and “Lost” was nuts and impossible to understand till the last episode.

    Star Trek is over for this 63 year old. I very much dislike the timeline change. Abrams wiped out 40 + years of Star Trek with one film. I will not get involved with this reboot.

    • Amen. I also thought the reboot was w-a-y overrated, the new cast does not compare to the original, and the timeline change was a smack in the face to the original actors, show, and fans, as none of that “really happened” now. That said, I am interested in seeing Cumberbatch, as he is an excellent actor who will no doubt overshadow all the main characters, so it will be a DVD view for me. And as for the show Lost, don’t get me started. I was hooked the first two years, but then, it clearly drifted and ended terribly. The show was a sham, promising to address so many questions, but answering few to none. It is not a sign of creative or ingenious writing to leave things up to the audience’s interpretation…

      • Jeff…

        I just wanted to point out one thing to consider. It won’t make you dislike the reboot any less than you do, BUT it might help you realize that it didn’t simply undo the previous chronology (it might make you feel better, in short).

        Leonard Nimoy’s Spock travelled to, and still lives in, this alternate reality. In fact, he’s helping the Vulcans establish a new homeworld and get back on track. HE is the link to the original timeline and still exists. Since he has not been wiped out, the universe with which you are familiar has not been wiped out either….

        For my part, I enjoyed the reboot film and am curious to see how this new (renewed?) story progresses.

        • I appreciate that, Archaeon. The inclusion of Leonard Nimoy, or “Spock Prime”, made that film for me. Had he not been in it, I don’t think I would have seen it…well, maybe on DVD. That probably goes for other originalists as well. As it was, it was an entertaining movie, and I did not totally dislike it, but I do believe it was very much overrated by a generation that was not perhaps as familiar with the original cast, TV show, and movies. Those of us who are older had that comparison to draw on.

          • I am a huge fan of Star Trek. My dad passed that on to me. My family would watch re-runs of the original series every week when I was young. And I’ll never forget the premiere of Star Trek: TNG. My little four year old mind was blown! Anyway, I have seen every episode of TOS at least twice (three times for most of the first two seasons), all of TNG twice, DS9 1 1/4 times (I lost interest in it when I was 9, but dang that show is the best of Trek), VOY twice, and all of Enterprise. And the movies, MP I’ve seen 3 times, 2-4 I’ve seen at least 10 times each, 5 twice, 6 15+ times, Generations 3 times, First Contact approaching 20 times, Insurrection 5 times, and Nemesis 3 times.

            Needless to say, I know and love me some Trek. I am someone who knows the “canon” of Trek, which isn’t even consistent with itself until AFTER the original show and movies. I mean, how many things can we call the Vulcan Mind Meld? Anyways, I see the reboot as a total new Mirror Universe. I can’t get my wife to watch a single episode of Star Trek. I’ve tried, but she just doesn’t like it and gets bored with it. So, I had to basically drag my wife to see this movie and… she LOVED it. In fact, we saw it a second time in the theater at her request.

            What the film accomplished was no small feat. The writers took a hard look at 40 years of Star Trek and had the guts to admit there was too much baggage. So, by making an alternate universe, they freed themselves to tell a new story while honoring the original. It did not ruin or replace what had gone before. It just added a third branch to the Star Trek Universe. And, they brilliantly chose a director who loved Star Wars and hated Star Trek. No matter how you feel about what happened to JJ Abrams shows after he moved to other projects, the stuff that he wrote and directed was always brilliant. I loved the cast (Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, especially). So, having the same writers and director who put so much love into the first one makes me excited for the second. Also, the fact that they took their time to write it and rewrite it until they had the right story comforts me greatly.

            Also, once I heard that Benedict Cumberbatch was cast, I watched Sherlock and I have to say that I will probably like anything that he’s in. The man’s acting range is brilliant. He can do funny and dark equally well.

  5. I’m sure the acting will be top notch. The effects will be jawdropping. The story will be thrilling. And everything will be ruined by psychotic lens flare usage all rendered in state of the art cgi. Really if i worked on lighting for JJ Abrams i would bolt all the lights down so that maniac cannot point them all directly in the camera. Imagine that but in 3D.

  6. I am a Star trek lover (well a SciFi/Fantasy lover in general) and didn’t like the reboot all that much. I thought Abrams did an admirable job of getting the pieces to fit together but often times those pieces felt forced or unnecessary.

    Using time travel as the general story vehicle was the first stumbling block for me. Time travel was a fairly novel concept 30 years ago but everyone and their dog is using it now (including Star Trek). I was also displeased with the flippant attitude of Kirk, the love affair Spock has for Uhura and the highly unlikely set of circumstances it took to get all the original members onto the ship and in their correct place. I understand this is an alternate timeline but certain things need to remain the same so we at least feel these characters are the ones we originally fell in love with. At the very least they should have just had Mr. Scott aboard the ship as the chief Engineer all along instead of stuck on a planet in the middle of nowhere.

    Oh and I hated the portrayal of Checkov by Anton Yelchin. The accent felt forced and unnatural and he came of as this series’ new “Wesley Crusher”.

    So am I looking forward to the next installment? Not all that much because many of the issues I had with the first one are still going to be there. I will go see it however.

  7. I know some people didn’t like the reboot but it was very well done. I usually think time travel and alternate timelines are just an example of lazy writing but really it was about the only way you could have rebooted Star Trek. If it wasn’t done in this way all you would have would be actors pretending to be shatner, nimoy, Kelley, etc and remaking old episodes. It’s not perfect, nothing is so get over it people, but it’s pretty darn good.
    Ask yourself this: Would you rather have this Trek or no Trek at all.

    • I would have rather had another Star Trek movie or television series with new characters…not a reboot of the original classic.

      • another series?? Are you serious?? Aren’t there 5 or 6 of those already – Voyager, The Next Gen, Enterprise, Deep Space 9 and others I am sure. All were ok and other than TNG, all fell short – I’m a Next Generation man due to my age – The re-boot film (IMO) was a top entertaining film and we int he UK have been watching Cumberbatch for a while and he will blow this film away. All those who dont want to watch this for he title, really? Personal preference I know but this will be even better than the 2009 re-boot.

    • None at all. Leave Star Trek alone…..let it go

      I very much fear that someone like J.J.Abrams will reboot Forbidden Planet, or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. That would be sacrilegious. Abrams needs to move on and do kids movies or more TV, and leave the classics alone. He rates up there with that Paul Vanhoven classic story killer nut. I have the uppermost respect for the people that make movies, I just wish they would do the originals justice. Many of he scripts just plain suck.

      • Agreed!!

      • Sorry Tom, but I am so glad you are not the norm in todays world. I personally love the reimaginings of the originals. I hope I live long enough to see someone else’s take on the LOTR series for example. That is the great thing about film, the originals will always exist and a person can choose whether or not they want to be part of the next evolution.
        I have watched Star Trek since the 80′s and I have to say that I absolutely loved Abrams version. One of the best movies in my Y2K library to date. The visuals were staggering and I think the story was incredibly smart. Trek2 is only behind the hobbit for me when it comes to my most anticipated movies list.

        • I am the norm. I just don’t like J.J. Abrams work. It’s very shallow. The ST reboot wasn’t bad. It was a very well done movie. I took issue with some of the set designs as not being Roddenberry. The enterprise looked like the inside of a peanut butter factory. For me it just wasn’t Star Trek, and it made me sad. I lost a good friend.

          we need to disagree I guess.

          As far as Space 1999, I’m looking forward to Space 2099. I don’t care what the do there. It’ll be good.

          I’m also looking forward to Colossus, The Forbin Project. That needs a reboot, and Total recall looks good because it’s much closer to the original book that that goofy “Mars” story. I’m really ready for Prometheus 2 as well. I like most reboots, but Star Trek was not for me.

          The LOTR just cam out a few years ago. Lets get through the Hobbit before middle earth gets remade

          It was really hard for me to watch Star Trek. Not because it was a reboot, because I HATE shaky cam, and J.J Abrams did a just OK job. I was expecting much more, and the next one better be outstanding, or it will be the last…….thank God.

        • I agree with Tom, but sadly, I also agree that he, and we, and many of us, are not the “norm”. Few seem to care these days that there is a tremendous lack of originality in Hollywood anymore. It is far easier, after all, to reboot something that is a proven commodity, and thus, make more hard, quick cash off of it. The culture of mediocrity.

          • That’s true and yet it isn’t. And it doesn’t apply to the 2009 Star Trek movie, which was made with much craft and heart and was a respectful love letter to the original series that held its spirit while moving forward. There’s tons of mediocrity sure, but there’s really, really good movies and television being made right now also, more than ever. And the bottom line is Star Trek is bigger than JJ Abrams, he’s got the right crew and the right approach to be part of the Star Trek tradition, he’s not veering off on some tangent. And after 5 (?) sequel shows to the original, how can you be a Trek fan and not want Kirk and Spock back? This is good stuff, people! Get on board…! :)

            • I agree totally. The new Star Trek was by no means a sure-fire thing. I’m really surprised at how well it has done. It opened Star Trek up to a whole new audience. I mean, if only Trek fans had gone, it would have tanked.

  8. I think we’re unintended subjects in a grand experiment where this reboot is concerned. I enjoyed the first Abrams Star Trek movie because I wasn’t expecting much and didn’t take it seriously. The more they tease the villain’s identity and try to build hype before the sequel comes out, the more likely it becomes their efforts backfire, and the short attention spans they counted on for the first one are turned to more immediate and shinier objects. It will be interesting to see if they can maintain anticipation, or if it fizzles, while we have time to consider questions like “Is B.C. playing Khan?” and “Would you rather have no Star Trek than pow-bang-flash Trek?”

    • I think the movie will be good. I mean, just the fact that they delayed shooting for 7 months to make sure they had the best possible script comforts me.

  9. Chris Pine for Hal Jordan ne1?

  10. Im a Star Wars fan. Always will be. But that 1st Star Trek reboot blew me away. I’ve probably watched it about 12 times in full. Flawless. The second film will have to do something pretty special to top the original reboot. I can’t wait!

  11. Okay so has a villain that makes Kirk grow up? Hmm who could that be… could it be..KHAN!!!!! I could be totally wrong, but I won’t be surprised either. Still looking forward to this one. And yes Eli53, I’d like to see Chris Pine of Hal, should have been him to begin with.

  12. I always thought Space 1999 could use a re-boot.

  13. I am a fan of all Trek (Less so of ‘Star Trek: Stay At The Space Station 9 And Not Go Trekking For The First Few Seasons’, but I digress.) Growing up on TOS I was very excited when the new movie was announced. Time travel is a cheat, I agree, though it was the best (maybe) way to restart the series with new actors and new stories while not dissolving TOS cannon.

    Now I’m as excited for the second film, especially with Cumberbatch as the villain.

    I feel that Abrams hit the mark dead on, and will do so again. Shedding TOS cannon allowed for new stories that couldn’t exist in the original time line, strange new civilizations to engage The Federation as friend and foe, to boldly go where no writer dared go before!

    • I didn’t like Deep Space Nine when it came out and stopped watching halfway through season 1. I was nine at the time. Having just watched all the series over again since Netflix added them, I can definitively say that it had the most well defined characters in the very first episode and had the most consistently good writing of any of the Trek shows. I would still say the TNG is my favorite of the series, though.

  14. ok, this goes to all the naysayers who say that “Abrams erased Star Trek history” (or for that matter anyone who says “so-and-so director erased francise history”… looking at you TMNT fans): Did he physically go door-to-door and destroy every copy of the original series? was there a massive recall of all dvd/blu-ray/vhs by paramount/cbs so as to ensure that you could not watch it? Have they been stopped from playing re-runs on tv? I don’t know about the rest of the world, but in my little area of town the answer is a big fat NO! i still have all my dvds and blu-rays and even have em on Netflix so to say it was “erased” is wrong. He merely re-imagined it similar to the events in “Mirror, Mirror” and the various mirror universe episodes in DS9 and Enterprise. (i suppose you hate those episodes too). As was mentioned before, Nimoy’s Spock still exists in this alternate timeline and is proactive in it’s development (not seen in movies but probably gonna pop up in various novels/comics)

    Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying your opinion is worthless, I enjoy the input and i’m sure there are several movies YOU love and i just can’t stand. but to say that history has been erased is like saying “the Abraham Lincoln in our history books has been erased because he doesn’t fit with the vampire hunter he’s portrayed to be in the movie” Has he? no. He still led the union to victory against the confederates. Shatner’s Kirk still did all the stuff he’s said to have done (yes, i know it’s fictional, just an example) I recall a TNG episode where Worf transfers from different realities (I think it was called “Parallels”) Where there are infintite realities created by our choices and events that did or did not occur. In the Prime universe, Nero did NOT distroy the Kelvin and the Abrams universe he did. both are valid.

    as for me, i enjoyed the 2009 movie and look forward to the 2013 sequal (Star Trek 2 for lack of a better name yet). I just hope that they didn’t go the Khan route. (personally, i’ve always wondered how Kirk woulda reacted to Q… the one from TNG, not the Squire of Gothos if you believe such things… don’t really expect this but think it’d be fun to explore)

    Anyway, i’m done ranting on this subject. Just had to get it off my chest.

    • Well said. I just hope that Abrams doesn’t turn ST2 into the Thing2…done ranting a well folks

    • Stopped reading at TMNT. Ironic?

    • I think a better argument could be made that they erased Star Trek by remastering all of the episodes with better effects. Not a very good one, mind you, but a better one.

      And I LOVED Parallels.

  15. Just don’t screw it up jj.

  16. Just don’t screw it up jj. Enjoyed the first one a lot.

    • The filming was delayed by 7 months so they could get the script right, so I think it will be good.

  17. A Star Trek sequel would be great! I hope it is better than the first movie.

  18. Who cares? The first movie was a piece of crap. The only way you could think it was any good is if you don’t understand the concept of visual art, which sadly seems to be most of the world’s population. Why do people continue to spend their money on crap? Look at the top 10 grossing films of all time…

    1. Avatar
    2. Titanic
    3. The Avengers
    4. Harry Potter 8 pt. 2
    5. Transformers 3
    6. Lord of the Rings 3
    7. Pirates of the Caribbean 2
    8. Toy Story 3
    9. Pirates of the Caribbean 4
    10. Star Wars Episode 1

    Does anyone else see the problem with this? I see this is the downfall of cinema as a whole. Seriously people, take your head out of the sand.

    • I find no fault with The Avengers, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Toy Story 3, or Pirates 4. Pirates 2 was decent, but suffered the same fate as the Matrix films – a great second film that had a completely unanswered cliffhanger. Avatar may have had a simple story, but that movie had amazing visuals like nothing seen before. I can give a pass to The Phantom Menace because of the pent up hype and expectations for the film (if Episode 2 or 3 were on this list, I would be sad for humanity). Scratching my head about Titanic and Transformers 3 (though I did enjoy the visuals in Transformers 3[with Michael Bay, that's what you get]).

  19. This prequel gets wayyy too much hate by loyal Star Trek fans. It does nothing but respect the original series while allowing for more entertaining stories to be made without the confines of a pre-written future. I saw 2009′s Star Trek when I was around thirteen or so, and now just a few years later I’ve gone and watched the entire original series.

    Let me tell you, all the things I’d heard about Star Trek, no way was I going to watch it before I saw that movie.

    It’s a modern interpretation on what has become a modern science fiction classic.

    Complaining about it is like complaining about Bale and Nolan’s Batman not being as campy as West’s, or complaining that The Amazing Spider-Man isn’t the exact same movie as 2002′s Spider-Man (which ironically appears to be a common complaint). I’m using comic book movies as examples because they rich histories filled with passionate fans, much like Star Trek.

    I’ve seen every episode of the original series and loved it, AND I’ve seen every Star Trek movie. And let me tell you, the best piece of Star Trek I’ve watched was the 2009 film.
    Why?
    Not because it’s better, it’s simply a modern interpretation that the a modern pop culture can relate better to. Things have to evolve in order to survive, and this pseudo reboot has allowed thousands of kids who would never know the magic of Star Trek to experience it.

    Any real trekkie should be very happy with this film.

    • It’s not hate JM, it just isn’t star trek, and I lost interest. Paramount sold off all the star trek props. The old ST is just a memory. Maybe Abrams can restart the franchise. That might be good. I’m always up for good scifi.

      • You’ll be interested to know that, among the writers of the new films and a few high profile directors, there are plans to make a new Trek. JJ Abrams has a contract that basically says that there won’t be a new show until he gives the go-ahead. Once this reboot is a trilogy, we may very well be expecting a new show.

    • Jeez thats exactly how I felt! Im a star wars fan (always will be) and my brothers dragged me (literally) to see the 2009 ST. Since then I have watch most of the films and all the series. And I agree that I love the 2009 interpretation more than the rest. The opening sequence blew me away.

  20. One other thing to consider is that Leonard Nimoy has turned down numerous requests to revisit Spock in the years since ST6 and TNG:Unification. The way I see it, if Nimoy himself thought this was a worthy endeavor, who are we to argue? Nimoy helped build “Trek Canon” for God’s sake!

    Abrams himself said that if he couldn’t get Nimoy involved, he wouldn’t have done the movie.

  21. Chris Pine is so fugly it’s not even funny. I see his accident of a face on a movie poser and I stay far, far away.

    • I’m a man and I and I can admit he’s attractive. Helps that he looks enough like me to be one of my brothers ;)

  22. it was a smart move by abrams, the alternate timeline means he can do anything out of the ordinary with the characters and he wont even piss of any longtime fans.

  23. If there’s one difference between this new Star Trek and the original series are the voices of the leads. Every one of the original characters has some a distinct and deeper voice than the new guy. In fact, their voices are among the most iconic in entertainment. I think only Karl Urban comes close. Hell, James Doohan did all the computer and guest voices as well. All of these new guys have weak, namby-pamby voices. Nichelle Nichols was a singer as well, she had a great voice.
    Also, I really don’t understand this insistence on keeping the villain’s identity a mystery. Unless it really is Khan and they are just trying to keep it under wraps. If it wasn’t Khan, what’s the point in not just saying who it is? But then again, this is kind of par for the course for a JJA film.

    • The difference in voices is mainly due to almost of all the original cast having a theatrical acting background. A strong, deep voice was needed to project to an audience. This was actually a bit of a detriment because in the theater, the actors have to exaggerate their expressions and gestures so that they can be seen in the back. Hence why Shatner always gets ribbed for his “overacting”. Then again, it was pretty common in TV of that era. Or at least more common.

    • Actually, Majel Barrett was the voice of the computer on the Enterprise in TOS and then for all the computers in the other shows.

      • To be fair, I think James Doohan did do the voice for the computer for the original animated series, I could be wrong though. And as far as their voices go, at the time the original series actors all got a lot of crap for ‘overacting’ and being campy, which I think is mostly untrue in hindsight, and yet you don’t want overacting or the new actors to do a caricature of the old actors, they have to bring their own interpretation.

        And speaking of voices, have you ever heard Benedict Cumberbatch speak?? Do yourself a favor and look him up if you haven’t, his voice range is staggering.

  24. The 2009 Star Trek film was a critical and commercial success: deal with it. Did all the haters forget that before the reboot Trek was a dead franchise ? Paramount had 0 plans for a film or tv series. We would have been desperately clinging to DVDs and a few hit and miss novels and comics. I think that by creating the alternate timeline they avoided the pitfalls of a prequel. Now they are free to tell new stories with some of our favorite characters. The fact that it has taken this long for the sequel is actually encouraging. It means they care enough to put out a quality product rather than turn a quick buck . I’ll be there opening night!!

    • Ya, I’ll deal with it. I won’t see it. Hows that for my answer to your Kobayashi maru scenario. Live long and prosper CV. When D.C Fontana and Harland Ellison start writing scripts for ST, I might go see a trek movie again. I don’t care how successful the new ST is. Until there is a reason for me to care I’ll stay away. I just DON’T CARE dude.

  25. While I thought that the first movie was entertaining, there were too many common sense flaws for me to love it. Kirk goes from being a repeat offender to a cadet on academic probation, to first officer “while being a cadet on academic probation”, to captain. Seems like the guy skipped a few steps.

    • KB, that’s the biggest stretch that Abrams makes in the new movie, and it’s the one that’s hardest to swallow. I mean, it was already mentioned so many times in the original that Kirk was the youngest Starfleet captain ever, blah blah. And that was with four years at the academy, and junior officer service. In the new one, because he had lost his father, he never got the push to go into the academy at the right time. So he’s already behind everyone else, and yet he is still able to leap frog them. I know this is a point that many have bitched about, but it’s important. I know Kirk has this innate, special talent but still he has to have real-world experience to be able to make it to captain.

      • Uh guys, HE SAVED THE FREAKING PLANET !! Also, I don’t think a field promotion to first officer in the face of Starfleets total annihilation is a stretch either. This is exactly what caused the Trek franchises demise which required a reboot in the first place, it was picked apart by “fans”.

    • I think there was some nepotism going on. Pike knew and respected Kirk’s father and assumed that he would have the same sense of heroism given the right conditions. Mainly because he knew that Kirk could not live with losing.

      Also, since we’re talking about Pike: the only reason that he is part of canon in the first place is because they used his pilot to make a two-part bottle show to save money on the production budget.

    • Yeah, that was a bit hard to swallow, but as been said, he did save the planet. There were other parts of the movie I didn’t like but overall, I enjoyed the film. Some of the things I didn’t like were:

      1. The actor that played Sarek – I know trying to get someone to replace Mark Lenard is nigh impossible but this guy didn’t even come close

      2. Delta Vega was not an ice planet and was not orbiting Vulcan (in fact, Vulcan didn’t have a moon)

      3. The orbital diving didn’t show the re-entry effect

      4. Beaming to the Enterprise while it had been in warp for minutes?! And then not materializing inside a bulkhead or something?! Sounds farfetched even for Star Trek

      5. And my biggest complaint – WHAT THE FRACK IS RED MATTER????!!!!! :-P

      • Red Matter is what you call a MacGuffin. :)

        I liked the actor who played Sarek very much and yet there seemed something off to me too, the reason I can’t put my finger on it is because I feel he was lacking warmth but you wouldn’t want that in an actor playing a Vulcan, especially Spock’s dad. What specifically did you not like and who would have been a better choice, in your opinion?

        • Sarek had a certain demeanor to him; a regal quality if you will. The actor playing him in the 2009 film just did not have that same quality to me. I’m not sure who could have played him but the actor who played young Sarek (although briefly) in Trek 5 had similar qualities.

  26. (For some reason, this showed up as a reply to another comment when it was supposed to be it’s own)

    I am a huge fan of Star Trek. My dad passed that on to me. My family would watch re-runs of the original series every week when I was young. And I’ll never forget the premiere of Star Trek: TNG. My little four year old mind was blown! Anyway, I have seen every episode of TOS at least twice (three times for most of the first two seasons), all of TNG twice, DS9 1 1/4 times (I lost interest in it when I was 9, but dang that show is the best of Trek), VOY twice, and all of Enterprise. And the movies, MP I’ve seen 3 times, 2-4 I’ve seen at least 10 times each, 5 twice, 6 15+ times, Generations 3 times, First Contact approaching 20 times, Insurrection 5 times, and Nemesis 3 times.

    Needless to say, I know and love me some Trek. I am someone who knows the “canon” of Trek, which isn’t even consistent with itself until AFTER the original show and movies. I mean, how many things can we call the Vulcan Mind Meld? Anyways, I see the reboot as a total new Mirror Universe. I can’t get my wife to watch a single episode of Star Trek. I’ve tried, but she just doesn’t like it and gets bored with it. So, I had to basically drag my wife to see this movie and… she LOVED it. In fact, we saw it a second time in the theater at her request.

    What the film accomplished was no small feat. The writers took a hard look at 40 years of Star Trek and had the guts to admit there was too much baggage. So, by making an alternate universe, they freed themselves to tell a new story while honoring the original. It did not ruin or replace what had gone before. It just added a third branch to the Star Trek Universe. And, they brilliantly chose a director who loved Star Wars and hated Star Trek. No matter how you feel about what happened to JJ Abrams shows after he moved to other projects, the stuff that he wrote and directed was always brilliant. I loved the cast (Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, especially). So, having the same writers and director who put so much love into the first one makes me excited for the second. Also, the fact that they took their time to write it and rewrite it until they had the right story comforts me greatly.

    Also, once I heard that Benedict Cumberbatch was cast, I watched Sherlock and I have to say that I will probably like anything that he’s in. The man’s acting range is brilliant. He can do funny and dark equally well.

    • Not to mention that he made the movie accessible to a whole new audience just because it wasn’t stodgy old Trek.

  27. I think it’s nice that there’s this new storyline because it gives us a chance to see different sides of these characters we know and love. Sure, they’re a bit different – for one they’re a lot younger! But the guys making the movies are still sticking to what is officially Star Trek. Maybe it didn’t happen the same way, but the major things don’t change from universe to universe.

    For example, in ST: 2009, Kirk became Captain by default when Captain Pike was taken hostage. Bearing in mind that in TOS, Kirk never served on Pike’s vessel. In TOS, after Captain Pike was critically injured and could only ‘speak’ in blinking lights, confined in a chair, Kirk was promoted by Starfleet and became the captain of the Enterprise.

    In these new movies, we can see them develop and establish the crew dynamic that the Enterprise from TOS has. Sure, it’ll be a bit different, but I’m hoping that they’ll make another series out of this. They’ll go under different experiences and will be molded out of a different material into the same person. It’s like having a marble statue and recreating the statue out of clay. It’s the exact same object, but the methods behind it are different.

    This reboot was the best thing to happen to the Star Trek franchise. Maybe in a few years, they’ll make a few movies for TNG, DS9 or Voyager!

    Live Long and Prosper.

  28. Scifi guy Alex Kurtzman i have an videogame movie idea for you starring Tom Welling.