Damon Lindelof Hints at ‘Star Trek 3′ Villains and Story

Published 2 years ago by , Updated May 10th, 2013 at 6:01 pm,

star trek 3 villains Damon Lindelof Hints at Star Trek 3 Villains and Story

Every geek worth his or her salt has their attention (at last, partly) focused on Iron Man 3 right now (read our review), which has just begun its U.S. theatrical run; however, it won’t be long – less than two weeks in fact – before their conversation shifts to Star Trek Into Darkness instead.

Director J.J. Abrams’ followup to his popular reboot of the sci-fi franchise (released in 2009) has already been screened for a number of critics; judging by the initial wave of reviews, there will be plenty of material for Trekkies to chew on, debate and discuss after seeing the movie – including, those inevitable questions about where the story (and the U.S.S. Enterprise) will go in the next installment – not to mention, who the villains will be in Star Trek 3, as we’ll call it for the time being.

HeyUGuys! caught up with Star Trek Into Darkness co-screenwriter and producer Damon Lindelof after the film’s premiere; there, he spoke about when, exactly, he and co-writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci knew what Into Darkness would be about:

“Very early on, I think the fundamental ‘this is what the plot is going to be’, ‘this is who the bad guy is’, ‘this is what they’re up against’, that came very, very early. Even while we were working on the first movie, I think we had plans for the second one… You should always know where you’ve been, you should always know where you are, but most importantly, and I learned this from Lost, you should know where you’re going.”

There’s not much need for us to rehash complaints about the divisive ending to Lost, or the highly-debated payoff to Lindelof’s script draft for Prometheus, right? Besides, everyone will soon be talking about/deciding for themselves whether or not the surprises and conclusions for Into Darkness lives up to expectations – built up by the story and character developments that preceded them – so we’ll side-step that discussion and move on (for now).

Star Trek Into Darkness Kirk Uhura Damon Lindelof Hints at Star Trek 3 Villains and Story

Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana in ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’

It’s best to keep in mind that, despite Lindelof indicating a rough plan is in place for Star Trek 3, it took him and Kurtzman/Orci a fair amount of time to “crack” the story for Into Darkness (and even longer for Abrams to commit as director, while he was putting the finishing touches on a very different sci-fi project, Super 8).

Plus, when you combine that fact with the general air of uncertainty surrounding the matter of whether or not Abrams will direct the next Star Trek installment after he makes Star Wars: Episode VII – which is a slim possibly that both the filmmaker and Paramount executives refuse to rule out – it doesn’t guarantee that the, overall, thirteenth Star Trek feature-length movie will arrive in theaters in time for the franchise’s 50th anniversary in 2016.

However, when Star Trek 3 DOES arrive, there’s a good chance the antagonists will be an oldie, but goodie, for Trekkies of all ages:

“You can never see enough Klingons, and I think in this film we’ve given the audience a little taste, but there’s also a promise that there’s a larger conflict on the horizon, and that would be fun to see.”

We’ve known for quite a while that the Klingons play an important role in the plot mechanics of Into Darkness, and earlier this week a featurette revealed what the aliens now look like (spoiler: it’s familiar, but not at all the same as the previous versions). No disagreement here, their presence has made for some of the best storylines in past Star Trek movies – Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is a personal favorite – so having them around doesn’t sound like a bad idea (so long as they’re not overused, of course).

USS Enterprise Falling Star Trek Into Darkness Damon Lindelof Hints at Star Trek 3 Villains and Story

Moreover, the Klingons aren’t the only iconic Trek baddies that Lindelof teased (taunted?) the HeyUGuys! staff about, with regard to them, eventually, showing up in future movie installments:

“You can’t talk about Trek and not talk about the Borg, and certainly about Q. Very iconic adversaries from The Next Generation which is, outside of the original cast films, was my entry way into Star Trek, so I wouldn’t mind getting – towards the end of our run on Star Trek, maybe baby Picard could be born. There has to be some sort of crossover we’re not thinking of.”

Lindelof’s comment is probably best taken as half-joke, half-wishful thinking, but it would be interesting to see how (and if) the rebooted Star Trek movie continuity eventually incorporates villains more closely associated with The Next Generation, as well as later TV spinoffs like VoyagerDeep Space Nine and even Enterprise.

One complaint that’s been raised by a number of critics about Into Darkness is that it doesn’t move the series far enough in a new direction; hence, a decision to bring in famous adversaries not associated with TOS could be an effective way to correct that, down the line.

Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison in Star Trek Into Darkness Damon Lindelof Hints at Star Trek 3 Villains and Story

Benedict Cumberbatch as the ‘villain’ in ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’

We’ll be able to give more thought to this discussion about balancing innovation with honoring canon later, once spoilers for Into Darkness are fair game – which, according to Lindelof, is “two weeks [after the movie hits theaters, to] let everybody who really wants to see the movie, see the movie, before I personally started assuming everyone had seen it.”

Lastly, as for the possibility that John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) will return in a future Star Trek movie, Lindelof said:

“To answer that question would be to determine whether or not he actually survives this movie, but if he survives this movie, I think that we would be incredibly stupid to not use him again.”


Star Trek Into Darkness opens in select 3D/IMAX theaters on May 15th, 2013, before it starts a regular theatrical release two days later.

We’ll keep you posted on Star Trek 3 as more information is made available.

Source: HeyUGuys!

Follow Sandy Schaefer on Twitter @feynmanguy
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


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. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. If Star Trek Into Darkness sucks, I’m blaming Lindelof’s writing. He screwed up Lost, Prometheus, and Cowboys & Aliens. Thank god he didn’t write Star Trek 2009.

    • Matter of opinion. Lost was brilliant. I’ll never understand the criticism. It made you think and fill in some of the blanks on your own. Brilliant.

      • Whatever Lost was, it was not brilliant. The adjective goes to every viewer who filled in the blanks to their satisfaction. While it initially worked for a tv series, leaving so many blanks is irritating at best and frankly lazy way to script a film.

        I would rather Lindelof hint at his retirement from writing at the ripe age of .. whatever!

      • yeah but was it brilliant?

        • I purposefully chose to not watch Lost because of the time commitment involved (so take this with a grain of salt because I don’t know the ending) but I think Abram’s philosophy of the ‘Mystery Box’ works, but only up to a point. You should definitely let the viewers come to some of their own conclusions, and you don’t have to reveal every mystery, that’s totally valid. But when a tv show builds and builds and builds a mystery, it only works up to the point where you reveal whether the writers of the tv show actually know the answer to the mystery themselves. X-Files is a brilliant example. Awesome… up to the point of the first feature film and we all realized that Chris Carter had no idea where this thing was going either. The show never recovered, which was a crazy shame…

      • Nope. That’s smoke and mirrors BS. That’s fine when we are discussing moral or ethical or spiritual questions, but just throwing a bunch of mud at the wall to see what sticks, then never following up on half of it just because…that’s NOT brilliance. That is NOT genius. Especially when it is about plot logistics and specific concrete events. That is poor, lazy writing. Made worse by the fact they kept saying that they WOULD answer those questions and always knew where they were going when clearly they did not (and even admitted later they did not).

        Lindelof has somehow convinced some segment of the public that the less actual writing he does to answer questions, the smarter the writing is, which is simply not the case. Never has been. Never will be. He’s a hack who’s pulled the wool over your eyes.

    • In Lost might have been guilty being obsessed with plot lines
      early on in the series then later on I thought too many threads
      were woven to ever create a smooth fabric to wrap everything up.

      Not answering the unanswerable was expected for me.
      What I did not expect was the unusually moving finale.

      The finale demonstrated that what was essential has to do
      with the human heart, with the meaning and value of life,
      forgiveness, and the capacity to transcend this world.

      The details of the island mysteries seemed unimportant and
      unnecessary in comparison to the mystery of life and death.

      • George RR Martin likes to mention this quote a lot:

        “the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat”

        ― William Faulkner

        • Faulkner is right, of course. That is where all good writing begins and ends.

    • promethius rocked just because they didnt answer everything dosnt make it bad

      • I think it was more the utter stupidity of the entire crew, the pointlessness of Charlize being there, the missing chemistry between the male and female star (I think the geologist and biologist had more on screen chemistry). Like, why did the male archeologist turn into a drunk when he discovered a unique alien archeological site (because all the engineers were dead – really?), the biologist freaking out at finding a dead alien, getting lost with the mapping geologist, then going all gooey at the dodgy looking v snake. Google Prometheus stupidity for many more examples.
        Disclaimer: I actually really liked Prometheus, would love it to be re-edited, and am glad a new writer is going to takeover the reigns. At least it’s the best (almost) original scifi film to come out of Hollywood in years.

  2. Star Trek 3 and next : timeskip to Next Generation reboot ^^

  3. Star Trek: the reboot – refilming old trek with better looking actors, bigger explosions and lens flare. Crap dammit! – still going to pay the IMAX tax to watch it.

    • But that’s not all Abrams and company bring to the table. Don’t forget the juvenile humor. Captain Kirk doing slapstick with swollen hands and mouth anyone?

      • By far the worst scene, except for the awful intro to young Kirk the putz. Also som deleted scenes left my cold, but mostly I like the movie a lot.

  4. KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN’t wait to see the complaints about how “the Borg were never around when Kirk was captain, this is all wrong, this series has gone to hell”.

    • The article states the Borg are TNG. Read.

      • I believe in one of the episode of star trek enterprise which is before kirk they encountered the borg. It was the borg drones that crashed on earth after the sphere was destroyed by captain picard in the movie star trek first contact..

        I hope to see a new borg themed movie in the coming decade :)

        • I thought they made a cameo on Enterprise (The Series) as well. I have to be honest, I didn’t religiously watch Enterprise like I did TNG, but it was a decent series.

    • this is an alternate timeline because nero came through the black hole.

  5. Think all the original series episodes, except they all interact, happening at once. Romulans, Horta, Gorn, Klingons, Harry Mudd and the Borg and V’Ger show up, plus something new, who knows? Redoing Trelane as a part of the Q story could be really incredible done right. It could be the way to get Shatner to make a credible appearance one more time.

    I actually really do want to see Space Lincoln return, no joke!!! Bring it all back and then some…! :)

    • oh one of my favorite ToS episodes, “The Savage Curtain” with the Excalibans.

      And don’t forget the Tholians! Seeing them done with today’s CGI would be awesome.

      • The Savage Curtain really is such a great, great episode, despite how seemingly hilarious it is to have Abraham Lincoln out floating in space at the beginning. They could pretty easily have William Shatner show up in a story like that as the future/original Kirk, to see him and new Spock have a conversation similar to the one new Kirk and Spock Prime had in ST09 could be priceless. In fact, all the surviving crew needs to make at least a last cameo, the possibilities really are endless, oh myyyy…! :)

    • In case you didnt know, Peter David’s book “Q Squared” connected Trelane and the Q, and also had some of the best trek twists, parallel universe complexity and fan service “what if” ideas I ever read. Possibly the most fun trek book I have read, but most of the books that were supposedly written by Shatner were really solid too, thanks to the duo that wrote for him, and they went on to write some great episodes, finally, in the final season of ENT. They are Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, and they KNOW star trek.

    • why not? go for broke and bring in tribbles why you’re at it.

  6. “To answer that question would be to determine whether or not he actually survives this movie, but if he survives this movie, I think that we would be incredibly stupid to not use him again.”

    I sense in Damon’s answer here he is saying without saying that John Harrison
    does survive and with that too reveals just who John Harrison is after all.

    • Huh. Not sure how he’s giving away who John Harrison is with those comments, but he definitely seems to imply that he’d like the character to return and plans on it given the choice. I’m sure Christopher Nolan wished he had the same opportunity with Heath Ledger… :(

      • Just my sense when I first read it. That’s all.
        I thought he was a bit set up with the question
        and was a little to careful in trying to say nothing.

        • “too”

        • I have always expected a meaningful link between this movie and the next, and building on the idea that they may have Khan but they don’t have any HISTORY with Khan, (which is what made him fascinating and relevant in the original movie sequel), it seems like a natural fit to try and evolve some elements over the course of the films. The comment may have been simply to say that the actor is great and they are thrilled with his work, but I wouldn’t be shocked to find some loose ends left, or a decimated Enterprise at the end of this movie. Threads to ponder for a few years might be a good idea.

    • John Harrison’s actual name was already revealed online. Someone told everyone in a spoiler styles review.

  7. 50th Star Trek birthday should be Khan or….

    come on guys suggestions here.

    • No,go back to the 60′s ;-)

  8. The only story about Khan I want to see is where the Botany Bay is shown being blown up as the Enterprise sails by; end of story…

    • Spock: Captain, sensors have detected a small vessel
      Kirk: Any life signs?
      Spock: Very faint, but I can make out the registry; SS Botany Bay
      Kirk: Didn’t your better half say something about that ship?
      Spock: Better half, sir?
      Kirk: Never mind.
      Spock: To answer your query, yes. His suggestion was to destroy it.
      Kirk: Good enough for me. Sulu, fire phasers

      Bye bye Khan. :-D

      • hahahahahaahahahah awesome

  9. It would only be fair to bring back Tom Hardy as Picard since he is a clone of Picard… Lol

    • Awesome! Burly as hell alternate Picard the badass!? That could be good… Not a Shinzon villain, or a Captain Picard duplicate, but something else.

  10. Ok I’ll throw one out there that I’ve done before only weirder. The Enterprise journey’s to a planet where a new ship is being constructed to take a Federation crew to the Andromeda Galaxy not an intergalactic space ship but an actual galactic spanning ship designed to span galaxies. Now either on the day of it’s launch or leading up to it a galactic ship from Andromeda shows up! To me that’s an outline for a story and by the way it ain’t VGER!

    • The Kelvins?

  11. Do you know what? “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” should take a long hiatus. Regardless about what they do now, I think both franchises are heading for extreme fatigue. When I think about this a little more, I think it might be time for an entirely new space based science-fiction franchise. Its time to turn the page.

    “Star Trek’s” biggest problem is with recycled and repackaged content. Even though they may change the order of things, the underlying issue is that its been done a countless number of times. JJ’s version of “Star Trek” is making the same mistakes, which Paramount did with the series “Star Trek: Enterprise”. While they may have moved things around the board, JJ and Parmount are just repeating the same old stories and concepts. All JJ did was turn up the speed.

    “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” will have their place in science-fiction history; however, I think its time for something new.

    • Even though I have been a fan of “Star Trek” for thirty years, I am going to find something totally new to watch or read. Its time to move on.

      • I understand your frustration. Why is it that the first thing Lindelof talks about is mining old story material we’ve seen before…once again?

        Why can’t they do a movie where they introduce some fresh, new ideas into the mix. Star TREK is about exploration, after all, about seeking out “…new life and new civilizations … to boldly go where no one has gone before.”

        These hacks seem to be going where everyone’s gone before.

        • I think they did introduce fresh new ideas and explorations starting with the Next Generation on, which was a brave excellent show that stood on its own merits without trying to cheat by retreading old material and characters, but now it’s time to go back to Kirk and Spock. I think they’re going new places emotionally and story-wise, and for that matter a lot of new places the original couldn’t because of budget and FX limitations.

          Remember all the Star Trek toys, lunch boxes and coloring books et. al. that had these pictures of the crew fighting giant weird alien monsters and vast alien civilizations and you couldn’t help but wish some of that turned up on the tv show? Well, I think we’re gonna finally get our wish!

          • @ L4YERCAKE, “but now it’s time to go back to Kirk and Spock.”


            Nah. Been there and done that. Its time to put the franchise to rest, or its time to move to the third generation. Going back and fleshing out holes is bull.

            • Destroying Vulcan, killing off Spock’s mother as well as Kirk’s father, and Spock and Uhura in a romantic relationship is hardly fleshing out holes. Returning Trek to its emotional roots in Kirk and Spock is the right move, in fact it’s been long overdue.

        • @ Mardock,

          I 100% agree.

          Regardless about how successful or unsuccessful this movie will be, the original reason why “Star Trek” went into hiatus remains. “Star Trek: Enterprise” is a very nice tv-series; however, the main problem is that the writers ran out of ideas. As a result of not having a single clue, the writers fell back upon Klingons, Romulans, Tholians, Time Travel, and the Mirror Universe.


          It sucks.

          • Fixed: It sucks that they ran out of ideas.

          • Trek got overly mined, but the real trouble with Enterprise was simply a lack of new purpose and new ambition AT THE START. It had many great pieces for building a great show, but thanks to the complacency of Berman and Braga, fresh off the dwindling debacle of their Voyager show, we quickly reached a status quo feeling. Although the shows were pretty good in their own right, by the time the second season began and continued to show no ambitiously bold relevance to Trek or fiction, I was very disheartened. I knew that they were effectively earning a cancellation and killing the last hope we had of any new trek for a long long time.

            The irony is that they got the cancellation that was essentially deserved, but only after the show had shed its tainted pedigree, gained footing under new guidance and writers, and finally become the show it should have been all along. The third season had real balls, and finally told a season long story for the first time in trek. They took chances and made the weekly developments matter and resonate. No other season of trek is like that one, and I applaud their creative courage. Still, it was the fourth season that solidified the show into a great series. It did all the things you said are bad by revisiting species we have seen before, but in the era where that is exactly what is relevant to see, that was what was appropriate. More importantly, the stories mattered a lot, and were a fascinating look into history we barely know. The years leading up to the birth of the federation have plenty of excitement and relevance, and if they had been able to do a fifth season it would’ve covered the legendary nuke wars with the Romulans. Trek lore was pertinent and compelling, and seeing the pieces coming together was a worthy ride. If you missed the third season, or especially the fourth, I can’t blame you, but I will inform you that you should check some of it out. Most of 4 (minus the first few and last few) comprise one of the best trek seasons ever, BY FAR, so I hope some people will yet discover that it was worthy before it got cancelled, even though it was too late.

            • ” The third season had real balls, and finally told a season long story for the first time in trek.” ~ Josh Calkins


              “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” carried a continuous story for seven seasons.

              • Spot on! if you want continuous trek story then DS9 is the best esp season 6 and 7, though i think it really starts from season 2 finale.

      • I have a tendency to agree. I wish they would adapt more SciFi novels by top authors like Baxter and Bear or perhaps get one of them to take up screenwriting…

        • Well said. Where are the Ted Sturgeons, the Robert Blochs and the Harlan Ellisons of today?

          That’s what Trek needs. Not hack writers like Kurtzman, Orci and Lindelof who are retreading old material and gussying it up with pretty VFX (that ANYONE can do today with enough money).

          Have you SEEN the Hawaii Five-0 reboot (more of Orci and Kurtzman’s handiwork)? It’s a fraking embarrassment — my friend’s 14 year-old daughter won’t even watch it cause it’s so “cheesy.”

          I have no problem revisiting Kirk and Spock, and I quickly accepted what they did with the casting. And a big budget for VFX is great to see finally, too.

          But how ’bout some big story ideas to go with it?

          • @ Mardock , Well said. Where are the Ted Sturgeons, the Robert Blochs and the Harlan Ellisons of today?

            I humbly agree. Where are the core science-fiction writers that have a bold new vision of the future? Something is seriously wrong.

          • Have any if you thought for half a minute these films may be meant for new audiences? The producers just get lucky when old fans like me like the new cast. It’s weird to me how so many people think movies are meant to be made for them and them alone. Star Trek made a good profit and had positive reviews from fans and non fans alike. Anyone with half a brain knows that spells sequel.

  12. “You can never see enough Klingons, and I think in this film we’ve given the audience a little taste, but there’s also a promise that there’s a larger conflict on the horizon, and that would be fun to see.” ~ Damon Lindelof


    If this is the mentality that these writers have, the “Star Trek” franchise has overstayed its welcome. After reading some major “Star Trek: Into Darkness” spoilers, I knew in my heart that this franchise has been overcooked. “Stargate” fell into a similar trap. I have seen it a million times.

    “Star Trek”, “Star Wars”, and “Stargate” are fantastic franchises; however, the one thing they have in common is franchise fatigue. Its time to put these franchises to rest, so that we can appreciate them as they age.

    • Have you seen the new Klingons in Abram’s Star Trek, with the hoods and the big leather coats? They look great! I say go see the movie before issuing judgment, and we should try to refer the films more as stories and think of them less as franchises, it’s not Kentucky Fried Chicken… :)

    • so true!!

  13. Reading the comments here, it’s like listening to the gaggle of toothless old women. Whining and complaining. You don’t like Abrams’ Star Trek? Then don’t watch it. Like it or not, Abrams’ Star Trek is now canon. You want to see more of the same old navel gazing, issues debating stuff that the old shows have shown? Then go and re-watch them, there are enough episodes available to keep you happy. Before Abrams took over, Star Trek as a visual medium was dead. The last two movies flopped terribly. The last show flopped terribly. And you want to return to that? Wow.

    • Actually what happened in the last film is not cannon, nor will anything hereafter be. They lost that privilege when they created a supposed alternated timeline. Which lends itself toward another alternate timeline, and another, and another….. It was just another excuse to capitalize on a once successful franchise because of a lack of creativity. Now anything goes, so it can no longer be considered seriously or treated as cannon. There is no continuity. If you want to impress me, create something totally new and good on their own, don’t stand on someone else’s shoulders, hack at it and call it creative.

  14. So we now know Cumberbach survives. We also don’t know who exactly he is in relation to an “iconic villain” website shills have been promising us, and now they are telling us (already) who the NEXT ones will be? YEP. I’m stupid enough to believe it.

    HEY though….BUY A BUICK….. click click click….(next website hit) click click click

    • “We also don’t know who exactly he is in relation to an “iconic villain”” – spongetod


      We already know. Someone has already released the spoiler. Without giving it away here, you can find it by using Bing.

  15. With the 50th anniversary arriving and the comments so far, I think the liklihood of an “event” in the form of the story and/or cast of the next film being important to the whole of Trek beyond the new cast. Using some next gen people before they get older makes potential sense, and is more marketable than most stunt casting would be. Sure, Shatner may be the entirety of the surprise if they come up with an idea and a pile of money, but I hope it’s more and better than that. The biggest issue is that in most any crossover storyline you are dealing with yet another time/space/reality bending story. These have been overused in scifi, trek, and trek movies in particular. The excuse in my mind is that if the idea is fun enough and the story is cool enough I am still down with a time travel story or what have you.

    I don’t know why the writer above said that “even Enterprise” could be mined for material. Perhaps the point was to say that even the least popular and most recently cancelled trek applies, but considering that the show was not only respectable in its fourth season, but really good, I think it’s a fine place to mine. More relevant to the idea may be the fact that in this new reality, every trek show has been negated EXCEPT for Enterprise, which is still the history of BOTH Kirks.

    Also, Khan is connected to the Klingons, and the explanation of their foreheads (that the new movies have hidden from us so far). In a surprisingly cohesive move to make sense of this forehead problem, and explain why the prequel Klingons had ridges other than the fact that the budget is better than in the 60′s, they made it work. Augments like Khan attacked Klingons with superior strength and successfully shamed the warrior race, who then stole the super human DNA and sought to fuse it with adult Klingons. The experiment scarred many, and may have taken generations to rectify, but didn’t improve Klingon physiology or anything else. Therefor we have explanations for all the discrepancies, from Kirk era Klingons showing up on DS9 WITH ridges, to Worf saying that the matter is private Kilngon business and they don’t discuss it. It is a shameful hiccup that tainted their blood with the human genome. How to gloss over this or explain it briefly and satisfyingly in a modern script is delicate, but fully possible. I don’t think they have the guts to open that can of worms, and would be more likely to try ignoring it than explaining it, but that is a lousy cop out. A few lines would be enough to cover it legitimately, and it makes what was a silly inconsistency and point of contention into an intriguing concept.

    The only thing left hanging was a question created by the ENT story… since the leader of the Augments was a forefather of Dr. noonian Soong, and his “children” were descendants of a sort of Khan Noonian Siing (sp?), we are left wondering how they may be related. This mystery is sidestepped and never brought up, and yet now it exists. The real life reason the names are similar is simple: Roddenberry had a friend with a similar name who flew bombing runs with him in the army I believe. He lost touch with the guy and hoped, when naming both those characters, that the man would become aware of them and establish contact. Never happened, to my knowledge, and nobody ever suggested directly that the two characters had any connection whatsoever. Still…

  16. I am excited for this sequel. Hope it’s as good as the first.

  17. Can we actually move on to something new. Klingons have been over done

    So has Khan in the added form of Shinzon, Nero and now most likely John Harrison.

    Prometheus did not show any great story telling but more a method of throwing in story elements throughout the script.

    I am kind of hoping Into Darkness is not going to be that. Great moments from other films tossed in through the story in the hope they will evoke the same emotional resonance they have done when used before.

    Maybe it won’t be. Lets hope this paint by numbers approach to story telling will not find it’s way into Star Trek.

    As for two weeks away I will be going to see it this Wednesday night just before midnight. Given we in Australia are a day ahead that will be Tuesday night for my American friends.

  18. If there is a trek 3, Abrams won’t direct it. TPTB will want a third film by 2016, which will be Treks 50th anniversary. The next SW is supposed to be out by 2015…I can not see how JJ can be filming a trek film as a director while at the same time putting the finishing touches on ep 7. It’s impossible.
    BTW…if Abrams thinks he’s going to get the same freedom on star wars that he got on star trek, he’s in for a real surprise. No way the evil empire will let their billion dollar investment out of their control.

  19. the next 4 films should be like this
    Star Trek 3 Villains Klingon
    Star Trek The Next Generation Villains The Pah Wraiths
    Star Trek The Next Generation 2 Villain Q
    Star Trek The Next Generation 3 Villains Borg

  20. Loved Star Trek Into Darkness, I would like to see acouple of things happen in the third mission. First off I would like to see the doomsday machine as a possible enemy. Second I want to see the Enterprise in her refit version. Third the excelsior possibly being built at the end of the movie (favorite starship).

  21. Just like the plot to the first Star Trek 3! I’m so glad they spun off a whole new universe to refilm the original movies, in order.

  22. Well, what does everyone have to say now that we realize Lindelof has yet again helped to screw up what could have been an awesome franchise. This movie was ridiculous. There was no need to make Spock cry even in an alternate timeline; there was no need to make Khan Noonien Singh Khan and not make him a Sikh (instead a pasty though impressive white guy). Kirk’s death was contrived just to get Spock to say “Khan.” In the original one, Kirk gets pissed off because he has lost a genuine friend. In this one, they have to try to make it seem that Kirk and Spock had some type of friendship; which apparently Spock is in denial over. So Spock’s Vulcan ways are not respected by Abrams and team — and many Star Trek fans love the good aspects of Vulcan culture (not their arrogance or criticism of lower intelligence) — instead the rigid mental discipline of the Vulcans is seen as oppressive and not as impressive as it was throughout the original franchise. I mean yeah the Vulcans’ peculiar manners were always something that could be smiled at to an extent, but suggesting that it has plagued Spock with neuroses that makes him incapable of getting along with others on his ship is infuriating. In many ways Vulcans is what humanity aspires to.

    What about those Vulcans in Enterprise who decided to live completely to not live by logic at all? What happened to them in the end?

    Then it was crisis crisis crisis crisis crisis crisis crisis crisis. C’mon. Another crisis?

    And will Nimoy ever return to the original timeline before he dies? Or is the original timeline now negated because of JJ Abrams and Lindelof.

    Lindelof needs to go away.

  23. Tom Hiddleston as Q!!

  24. Maybe, the Klingon war could be triggered by an attack on one of their outposts, and the Federation is blamed, meanwhile the Enterprise is on its mission, maybe encounters a Klingon or two, let the main story play out, then at the end, Q, (played by Tom Hiddleson) comes and warns Kirk that he is digging to far in the Galaxy (Khan was discovered early, so the Federation is further than they started in the original) Kirk, being himself shrugs it off, and Q decides to teach them a lesson, and sends them to the Delta Quadrant, they encounter the Borg, learn that they were responsible for the outpost attack, then they barely escape.

    Maybe part 4 or 5 could involve the Federation-Klingon alliance being formed to fight the inevitable Borg invasion.

  25. No offense but doesn’t anyone in this thread have a job?

  26. They might as well include “Q” in the next movie

  27. In my opinion startrek 3 villian should be the mirror universe or the romulans with the cloaking device bird of prey.

  28. I really want to see Q again. I don’t really care if it is in the TOS universe either. Maybe it could be Q vs Spock in a way. Q could say that future Spock is giving the humans an unfair advantage and decide to accelerate humanity’s first contact with the Borg. John de Lancie will always be Q to me, but I could definitely imagine someone else doing it. David Tennant as Q would probably be fun to watch, I’m not so sure about Tom Hiddleston though. I don’t think he has enough Q-ness. Get on it, Abrams!

  29. would have to go the klingon route