J.J. Abrams Talks Star Trek Sequel!

God i hope they make a sequel. But hopefully it doesn't fall into the lame shit that most of the franchise suffered.

star trek chief, STAR. haha its all good, great find man

Less Zoe Saldana? Hell nah. But yeah more McCoy would be cool. I'm not familiar at all with the older versions of Star Trek, but the character in the reboot was great.

I want to see the rock monster Yarnek for this film.

I can wait.....

never liked star trek but the new movie got me into it and now i love the old series

There should be a show with these actors!

@johnshadow

yes Uhura had the qualities of basically keeping both Kirk and Spock grounded, but now that their personalities have been shown, there really is no more need for her to be an integral character, especially when you consider that McCoy in all previous incarnations was the one keeping both Spock and Kirk grounded.

i would much rather bring more McCoy into the fold and give the old dynamic that he Kirk and Spock had together. that was one thing missing from the movie, but considering the evolving relationship from dislike to friends of Kirk and Spock it made a little sense that someone else would need to be the bridge between the 2. but now that it is made i think it needs to go back to the original setup of Kirk, Bones and Spock as opposed to Kirk Spock and Uhura

I would really enjoy seeing more of JJ's version of Star Trek. I thought the movie was slick, sexy, funny and entertaining as Hell. It was new but respectful to the source material in all the right ways. I could see a second movie coming out by Christmas 2012 or early summer 2013.

Abrams needs to realize what Roddenberry's reason for creating Star Trek was in the first place. I was less than impressed with the reboot movie. It had it's moments but it was too much a Star Wars rip-off and the whole Spock/Uhura romance was a slap in the face to real ST fans. Don't get me wrong, I liked seeing Uhura as a no-nonsense officer who can take care of herself, but Spock in love? GTFO!! Spock wasn't in love with anyone (he already had a pre-arranged marriage waiting for him on Vulcan). Besides it was Nurse Chapel who carried the torch for Spock all of those years.

Also I think the whole dynamic between Spock and McCoy should be explored. Those two fought all of the time over basic philosophical ideals. Spock was logic, McCoy was emotion, and Kirk balanced both of those traits. That's why those three were the Epic Triad.

Saw the first one on DVD, won't make that mistake again. It was definitely worth the 9.25 + popcorn and drink. Opening weekend, I'll be there. BRING IT ON. :-D

I haven't not yet never seen a bad JJ Abrams movie... Now there's a Jew I'd pull from the oven.... Bada bing!!

@Knightstalker- Yeah I agree with you about Spock having feelings...even rampaging against Kirk on the bridge. I don't think Abrams planned much for it to garner a sequel which may be the reason WHY he decided to explore all these unique ideas.

Yeah i remember that episode of Spock's arranged marriage...he fought Kirk on planet Vulcan right?

Good old show...for the sequel i was actually hoping for the Mirror Universe to be used. That or Talosians were always my preference for the sequel.

But the reboot overall was a good way to rehabilitate the franchise. It's been stale for a long time...something needed to be done to revitalize it.

Believe me dude...I like 'Trek' hell back when i was in high school 6 years ago most of my friends didn't even care about Star Trek while I still liked it and watched the shows. I was raised by a father who loved watching old shows/movies- Star Trek the Original Series, Logan's Run and some t.v show about a guy who i think was former CIA or something and was drugged and left on an island...each time he tried to escape by water, bubbles would capture him and bring him back, he was constantly drugged unconscious by different means. Great old shows i grew up with. Especially the Logan's Run film. I've waited YEARS for them to make a new film based on that.

With all the bad reviews for GL and regardless I'm still gonna see it. But in hindsight J.J. was initially my favourite director for GL. I definitely think he would have knocked it out of the park. Not disrespecting Martin Campbell here, the guy has made some great movies and one of my all time favourites Casino Royale. But it looks like the studio got him under there belt and forced it to be nothing more than glitter and lights. I sure don't hope soo.

I guess I'm just saying that without a doubt IMHO Abrams would never have accepted a story where the main thing was superficiality, and that's probably why he didn't get the job anyway, plus he was directing Super 8 off course :P

Several Star Trek writers agree that Star Trek is just a stage in which any story can be told, ranging from the serious to the silly.

Many good and bad sci-fi writers could expose their ideas in the several TV-shows.

It wasn´t only Roddenberry and his peaceful vision, Gene Coon and Harvey Bennett brought militarism into it, D. C. Fontana brought humanity on it, Michael Piller brought character arcs, etc, everyone had an input into this big soup.

Now it´s up to Bob Orci´s writing to keep Star Trek integrity as much as he can, as this reboot was much more respectful than it seems.

@VictorHugo

And Brennon Brago bought Threshold into it.

Like i said, Abrams took certain liberties with TOS universe but some changes were necessary in order to make the film more appealing to the modern audience. Blowing up Vulcan was a way to get the audience- especially youngsters to really get engaged with the story, when a hero loses his people and home the way Spock did in the film, it makes for a greater hero. Greater heroes spawn from even GREATER losses...

This wasn't the Trek film everyone wanted...I too had my issues with it, minor nitpicks of course. But overall it was a good and fresh revitalization of a dying/stale franchise. Before the reboot, ST was degraded to being just a prequel t.v series starring Scott Bakula. Look I like Bakula a lot- he kicked ass in Quantum Leap and was a great Captain Archer for the "Enterprise" series of Trek. But overall come on people...ST wasn't going anywhere for a long time. Abrams stepped up and took the challenge. The film overall had great action, eye-popping visuals and a great overall cast. I said it before- Urban as McCoy was THE BEST CASTING IN THE FILM. I thought visually Zachary Quinto really did look a lot like a younger Leonard Nimoy. And Simon Pegg was great as Scotty.

I too have always been a Trek-fan. But I'm not going to hate on a movie that was good, just because of certain liberties it took. Hell, I wouldn't even mind if Snyder took liberties with Superman, just so long as the action-beats are good, the story is engaging and the acting is spot-on. Liberties will always be taken in order to make a more engaging film to a modern-audience.

This is something i was thinking about. It touches on the fact that these are not the origins of the Star Trek we all know. AND im sure some of you know this. BUt for those of you who say... well taht didnt happen... and question the changes in this film... You have to somewhat understand quantum physics and string theory...


Watching Star Trek (2009) I realize that the origins depicted are of an alternate universe. I am not watching the development of the original Kirk, Spock, Sulu and McCoy, Im watching a whole new reality in the Star Trek timeline. A reality that has no known future of events from past tv series. A little insight... The Spook that travels through the black hole is implied to be the Spock we all know as Leonard Nemoy! The Spock of old. This could open up a whole new sequel where the main characters we know have future encounters and adventures (in a timeline where Nemoy Spock came from)... die and thus create a new infinite in the 5th dimension.

@SoftNumNums- Dude it's spelled- SPOCK. NOT SPOOK.

[frick] people come on.