http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=118098

It was revealed a few weeks ago that writer/producer Roberto Orci was lobbying for the director's chair for the upcoming Star Trek 3. Now, Deadline reports that he has entered negotiations with Skydance Productions and Paramount to helm the film and is the clear frontrunner for the position.

Having previously written both "Star Trek" films and the tie-in video game, Orci is joined by screenwriters Patrick McKay and J.D. Payne, who will help him pen the third adventure of the Enterprise crew.

There's no announced timeframe for the next Star Trek film as of yet, but the franchise will be celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2016. If the plan is to have a film in theaters to tie into the occasion, expect official announcements on the film in the very near future.

https://twitter.com/russellhfilm/status/458679213130665984

that aint half bad

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/birthday-surprise.gif

but if he wrote the other two, wouldn't think it would be much of an issue unless he is just terrible behind the camera


I guess Im not sure who would be great with Abrams out, go with a previous star trek director, could get Nimoy or Frakes since they did previous ones I suppose. Just as long as they don't hand the franchise to Michael Bay or someone like that I'd probably be okay with it.

So yea...I'm gonna pass...
Nigga hasn't even done a music video or commercial nothing.

This nigga only co-wote one movie I truly love and that's the 2009 Star Trek movie.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/roberto-orci-to-direct-star-trek-3-1201180140/

After weeks of rumblings that Roberto Orci was the frontrunner, sources have told Variety that Skydance and Paramount have indeed tapped Orci to direct Paramount and Skydance’s “Star Trek 3.”

Orci is currently writing the story with J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay and had been campaigning to replace J.J. Abrams as director for some time. Abrams is busy with directing the next installment of the “Star Wars” franchise and will only be producing this pic.

Par, Skydance and his reps had no comment.

Plot details are unknown, but cast members including Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are expected to return. Abrams will produce along with his producing partner Bryan Burke and Skydance’s David Ellison.

The news comes after Orci and longtime writing partner Alex Kurtzman decided to go their separate ways on future filmmaking endeavors (although their TV production company is staying intact). Sources had told Variety that both were looking to direct more pics and that going solo would be in the best interest of both parties.

Orci is repped by CAA.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
Only losers and herbs believe that OKP = Fun with Words + People's Emotions

but now that he's directing the third one, people are gonna jump off the bandwagon? If you hated the writing in the first one, why would you watch the second? All I'm saying is, he's been involved with this reboot from the jump. If you were down after ST:1 knowing he wrote it, it shouldn't matter that he's directing ST:3. Or am I missing something?

EDIT: This isn't directed at the OP. I've just seen similar comments all over the internet about this news and trying to understand why. I'm not saying he's a good writer, but considering he was intimately involved in the first two films, his directing the third film shouldn't have any bearing on your feelings on ST3.

People cite his lack of directorial experience, but dude has spent like two decades on sets, I don't doubt that he could figure it out.

He's such an asshole on Twitter and in life that folks are looking for reasons to hate him.

I also think many of his scripts have not been good, that the last Star Trek's script was pretty notably ungood, and folks are just scared they're losing Abrams. So those are reasons too.

I'm obviously seeing it-- but I understand why people are scared.

>I also think many of his scripts have not been good, that the
>last Star Trek's script was pretty notably ungood, and folks
>are just scared they're losing Abrams. So those are reasons
>too.

But everybody complained about Abrams' direction as well. "Lens Flare". I'm a Trek fan and would likely see this one too.

It takes a lot to be a good director and a lot goes into making a movie come together as a director. I personally think this is a bad idea, seeing as homie has no experience. Homeboy hasn't ADed, DPed, shit even griped anything before.

David Goyer has written stuff I love and stuff I hate, but can't direct worth a shit as evident by his directorial debut Blade: Trinity, which effectively kilt the Blade series after he wrote the previous 2.

But so many people seemed to "hate" the first two movies, I don't see how him directing the third one can make it any worse. Either way, I'm likely to still see it.

Outside of the first Star Trek movie, homie has written nothing but shit. The second film was a lazy mash up of of the first film and Wrath of Khan. Still enjoyable, but still...

and i loved the first.

there's 75% of a good movie in it but they missed their opportunities by getting too cute with the marcus and khan plot points.

and the one visible klingon's makeup was horrible but i can't put that on the writing.

of course i'm gonna watch 3 but they fucked up an opportunity for a great movie with a great cast, great characters, and boatloads of subtext to play with....it's really disappointing. it should have been as much better than the first reboot as wrath of khan was to the motion picture.

none of this has much to do with a new director (i'm gonna pretend its all abrams fault and hope for the best) but the post keeps reminding me.

edit: though both reboots continued to do spock well. he was a g. if quinto can get some post-death-level spock smirks in eventually i'll he happy.

Imagine the internet in 1979: Irvin Kershner to direct Star Wars 2 WTF? I ain't seeing this shit! Lol

The second one was a complete train wreck, especially with regard to the writing.

I'll admit it, I want this whole reboot team out of star trek, not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

I'm a huge fan of the current franchise, but the writing on the second is a grievance I have.

He's a writer with good ideas and iffy execution of those ideas, so it makes sense that even fans of the first two would be uneasy about him taking over behind the camera too.

I wasn't among those who complained about lens flairs or Abrams in general. I think this has been a solid reboot with some serious strengths that outweigh annoying story issues.

YYYYEEEEEESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://collider.com/star-trek-3-director-edgar-wright/

Big Star Trek 3 news, folks. While it was clear that J.J. Abrams was not going to be able to return to direct Trek 3 due to his duties on Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Paramount Pictures opted to keep things familiar by tapping Star Trek producer/writer Roberto Orci to make his feature directing debut on the project. This was a big coup for Orci, who has zero directing credits to his name and is a massive Trek fan, but was cause for concern for some who thought his previous filmography as a writer and producer wasn’t exactly encouraging. Well now those fans can rest easy, as word comes that Orci has vacated the director’s chair for Star Trek 3.

With Paramount wanting to have the film finished in time for the Star Trek 50th Anniversary in 2016, they’ll need to work quickly to find a replacement. One name that’s apparently on the shortlist: Edgar Wright.

Per Deadline, Orci will no longer be directing Star Trek 3, but he will apparently remain on board the project as a producer. The film was shaping up to be Orci’s baby, as he shepherded the screenplay with two writers he personally chose, John D. Payne and Patrick McKay. The project seemed to be moving forward rather smoothly, with Oscar-winning Life of Pi cinematographer Claudio Miranda coming aboard as director of photography and filming scheduled for Vancouver and Seoul. Abrams, who remains involved as a producer, even reached out and got Wililam Shatner to commit to a role in the film.

Deadline makes no mention of why Orci will no longer be directing, but the report does add a rather enticing nugget of information by noting that Edgar Wright is on the shortlist to take the job, among others. While it might seem at first glance that replacing another director on a franchise sequel would be atypical for Wright, who tends to develop his own projects, the filmmaker actually has some serious connections to this new Trek series. His longtime friend and collaborator Simon Pegg is one of the main cast members, of course, and Wright also visited the set of Star Trek Into Darkness and directed one shot of the film.

There doesn’t seem to be any tangible info on Wright’s involvement with the pic just yet, so right now it’s simply a possibility, but it would certainly be an interesting next step for the director after parting ways with Marvel’s Ant-Man due to creative differences with the studio. Would he be willing to step into an already established franchise with a studio that’s targeting a closely approaching release date? That’s unclear, but the guy’s insanely talented so Trek would be lucky to have him. It’s not like he’s sitting idle, though, as the filmmaker is currently developing a couple of great-sounding original projects to direct in the near future.

Hopefully we hear more soon, but this latest Star Trek 3 development is certainly surprising.

Read more at http://collider.com/star-trek-3-director-edgar-wright/#LqpwlYj2FZjLzgPt.99

.

I mean, I'm glad dude is successful and whatnot. I don't wish for anyone to be out of work, but I do wish he'd stop having anything to do with any franchises I like or want to like.

Wrote movies I love but then takes over a franchise and runs it into the ground while taking a huge shit on the franchise.

Orci has written about 2 movies I liked, so his track record was worse than Goyer.

https://youtu.be/XRVD32rnzOw

Too many hands in the pot, and all of them non Trekkies.

Not a whiff of any moral dilemmas...just ROCK N ROLL...in SPACE!

Simon Pegg: "They had a script for Star Trek that wasn’t really working for them. I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little bit too 'Star Trek'-y. People don’t see it being a fun, brightly colored, Saturday night entertainment like the Avengers... , which is a pretty nerdy, comic-book, supposedly niche thing, made $1.5 billion dollars. Star Trek Into Darkness made half a billion, which is still brilliant. But it means that, according to the studio, there’s still $1bn worth of box office that don’t go and see Star Trek. And they want to know why."

And having to find a way off. It seems like they're trying to make a bigger storyline which is disappointing. But it looks like a Justin Lin film; big and dumb. Although I want to watch Better Luck Tomorrow again because I thought that was smarter.

It is funny how they destroy the Enterprise in every movie. It's like Kenny from South Park.

...and from what it looks like, this timeline is going to address the original ST: III

Not sure how that's really a complaint. I just like the idea of a more contained story (although the trailer makes it seem like Act 3 will be everyone teaming up to stop some major end of the world plan, which is a let down.)

The "classic Star Trek" is dead - now it's just an action movie.

I'll end up seeing it.

Nerds in my Twitter feed are going ballistic that they aren't showing any Starfleet negotiations or intergalactic council meeting or shit... in a 90-second teaser trailer.

I didn't need to see a trailer to know it was probably going to be dumb, since the last one was dumb. But man, I can't recall the last time I've seen nerds on Twitter froth at the mouth like this. They're *furious* because a teaser trailer chose to be a rock-n-roll explosion fest.

For every Avengers trailer that was as excellent as the movie turned out, there was the trailer for the Matrix which looked cheesy and turned out to be nothing like the movie, and the Total Recall reboot which was a great trailer which was as well-put together as the movie was a mess.

Time will tell.

This STAR TREK Trailer Is Too Action-Oriented

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/12/14/this-star-trek-trailer-is-too-action-oriented

What's with all the fighting? Where's the exploring?

By Devin Faraci Dec. 14, 2015

This Star Trek trailer is just all action. Where the exploration?

Yeah, I'm writing another piece about today's Star Trek Beyond trailer. And yeah, that's the trailer for Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. And yeah, I'm making a point.

Two of them. The first, shortest point is: this is a trailer intended to get general audiences interested. It's a trailer that is being attached to Star Wars, and it's a trailer selling a movie that is following up the dour and destructive Star Trek Into Darkness. Just as that Khan trailer was selling a Trek movie to non-Trek audiences, so is the Beyond trailer.

Second, Star Trek has always been fun. Let's assume the 90 seconds we saw represent the film: so? The original Trek had two pilots: a talky, more cerebral one that the network declined and a more pulpy one that ended with Kirk fist fighting a god and then killing him with a cascade of rocks. I like the second one much better, if we're being honest. And that one set the tone for the original show.

The original Trek was pitched as a space Western - Wagon Train to the Stars. This was at a time when the Western was among the most populist, action-oriented forms of storytelling around. That was no mistake. Trek was conceived as an adventure show that would smuggle in deeper thoughts alongside the fun that appealed to audiences.

It wasn't just a Western - Trek changed genres almost weekly. There were spy stories and gangster stories, war stories and murder mysteries featuring Jack the Ripper. There were submarine stories and light comedy stories. Often the scifi was used like magic - an excuse to get the characters into certain kinds of actions, like having them fight Ghenghis Khan. The original Trek rarely ended stories by reversing the dilithium crystal chamber or by having a heart-to-heart with the enemy; there were a lot of fights and plenty of space battles, and Captain Kirk often used his wits in adverserial ways.

If Trek could be a different genre every week, why can't it be a Fast & Furious movie, as some people think Beyond will be? That, of course, is based on the presence of one motorcycle, which is the modern equivalent of the cowboy's horse and Trek was created as a space Western, but whatever. You don't have to agree that Kirk - an avid horseman, we know - would ride a motorcyle (despite it being established in Star Trek 2009) to understand that Star Trek is flexible enough to be any genre at all, as long as it's with these characters.

That's the first key to what Trek is - stories about these characters. The other key is that these stories need to tell us something about our world today, or about what it means to be human. Will Beyond have that? It's hard to say based on a 90 second teaser, and it's safe to assume it won't be as on-the-nose as the space hippies in Way to Eden or the racial strife of the black and white people in Let This Be Your Last Battlefield, but there is dialogue ("This is where the frontier pushes back") and a scene of something being revealed to Scotty that indicate Justin Lin, with Simon Pegg co-writing the script, may have smuggled something into this. We'll have to wait and see.

But then again that Wrath of Khan trailer doesn't tell you anything about the larger themes and character arcs at play. It really just tells you there's some killer space action in the movie. Would you have walked away from that trailer complaining that this was Trek in name only? I mean, Roddenberry apparently did, and that's why we ended up with the tedium of Next Generation. But my Star Trek is made up of genre-oriented adventure stories featuring great characters and with a kernel of social messaging at the core. So far nothing in that Star Trek Beyond trailer tells me this will be any different.

Thanks to my brother Derek for remembering this Khan trailer.

Once I accepted that the reboots weren't going to be like the old show/series, I've grown to enjoy the movies. I'm all for action packed Star Trek films. This isn't the series. You can't have these deep, cerebral movies that are allegories for society and expect to have a hit movie. You can do that stuff week in and week out. TNG did an excellent job of that. But you've got $150 million invested and 120 minutes to tell a story, you gotta go for the action. If you don't you'll end up with "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". Which was a bore.

The best Star Trek movies tend to be the ones that aren't trying to be so high minded. They're the ones with great action sequences, funny quips, and chemistry between the actors. Khan, Search for Spock, Undiscovered Country, First Contact.

All that said, this is still only a 90 second teaser clip. There could be more to the film than that.

>The best Star Trek movies tend to be the ones that aren't
>trying to be so high minded. They're the ones with great
>action sequences, funny quips, and chemistry between the
>actors. Khan, Search for Spock, Undiscovered Country, First
>Contact.

"The Undiscovered Country" is my second-favorite Trek movie after "First Contact." And "The Search for Spock" stinks, seriously. Like it should never ever be mentioned as a good example of a Trek movie. Ever. There's a reason people invented that odd/even thing about Trek movies. And that reason is that 1, 3, and 5 reek.

Back to the lecture at hand, though, it's REALLY hard to shoehorn TUC into an argument about successful, fun Trek movies not being high-minded. It's a pretty heavy-handed Cold War allegory, and the trailer for it is actually pretty fucking awful and slow:

https://youtu.be/qCcf9FBsNVo

I think it's possible to do both. I think it's possible that STB does both and this was just a really bad trailer. Good movies can have bad first trailers. I wasn't keen on "Guardians of the Galaxy" until its THIRD trailer, and that shit is fucking fantastic.

So I'm horribly disappointed in this trailer, but I'm not writing the movie off. Yet.

i've always like da' beasties, but as a music choice for a star trek trailer???!!!!!

gtfohwtbs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeRghYqi090

It's becoming a schtick.

We'll see if it finds its way into Star Wars.

https://youtu.be/2f4aAwa5wdg?t=2s

https://youtu.be/HzWIGFiGrlA

n/m

What the hell is their obsession with destroying the Enterprise? This batter not have shades of III strung along in here...

.

Focus on the characters this time out without it being boring. The set pieces are aces and the new characters are A+++.

Seeing Kirk launch out of the Enterprise watching it crash is one of the most emotionally moving scenes in a big blockbuster recently. It makes sense when you see it.

I thought Idris was an undercooked villain till it got to the climax and we get that nigga's very surprising back story.

I wish Anton got more screentime (RIP)

There was a Q&A after the film and Karl Urban and Simon Pegg make a good comedy duo.

I wish this was it tho since they bring it full circle.

And this Rihanna song during the credits is hella catchy: https://youtu.be/BXhIT4MpRis

I'm a big fan of the first two and seemed to like them more than most so since it's getting such a good reaction I imagine I'm gonna love it.

yeah I dont pay attention to speculation or trailers really until right before movies drop. But damn he is collecting paychecks this summer. He had that small role in Finding Dory, also Jungle Book, and this. Fucking great.

Glad you liked this one. Means I will most likely like it. Cant wait to see it.

Numbers don't lie...

Edit: now up to 93%...

Early on, there's a joke from Kirk about his life feeling episodic, which is ironic since this movie kind of plays like a long episode. Which isn't necessarily a problem; I wish more franchises would do this. After Into Darkness, it feels like everyone involved agreed to just go out and have some fun this time around. It kind of follows my Predator Principle of keeping the plot as simple as possible.

After a kind of slow beginning, the pacing is almost non-stop, which is a bit problematic since there's little time to really set up the villain or stakes but was probably the right choice since it's not like the quieter moments really worked IMO; you have to really be invested in Leonard Nimoy's death or else it's just kind of cheesy.

I didn't think the direction was anything to write home about. Some nice visuals and action but, at the same time, there were a lot of times where I just had no grasp of the geography of anything, which is fairly standard nowadays but I think it hurts action scenes.

The action is solid. Karl Urban is, once again, doing more of an impression of Bones than a character but he supplies a lot of comic relief so it's not an issue once you get used to it. Simon Pegg is good although I could have done with a few less "Lassie"s. Zoe is barely in it. A nice bounce back role for Chris Pine, whose been overshadowed by fellow Chrises Pratt and Evans but I'm still not really feeling him as a leading man of a non-franchise. (And, this sounds odd, but I feel like he's growing into more of a villain look than good guy.)

All in all, it's one of those films that I probably won't remember in a year but it does make me more likely to see the next Star Trek film (which I wouldn't of if Abrams was directing the follow up to Into Darkness.)

>Zoe is barely in it.
That's weird, because I thought Zoe had many scenes...

She was mostly there to give Idris someone to talk to. Same with Anton who had a lot of scenes but didn't really do much besides respond to Kirk's orders.

(that probably doesn't help sell it...)

I wish it'd been a little less action-packed, and a little more "Star-Trekky" (borrowing a rightfully infamous word from Pegg). But it was Star-Trekky enough and probably mainstream enough to do some numbers.

It's easily better than the Wrath of Khan remix, and I'd also say better than the first Abrams one.

I really do hope someday the franchise gets wrested away from Bad Robot, though. It's been a fun experiment to see big-budget Star Trek, but I think we've had enough. Let them focus full time on ruining that other space opera franchise.

i was super wrong on how this would turn out. impressed with what pegg and lin did. it's definitely an episode on steroids in a good way.

a little too many "look we're thinking in 3 dimensions" quick cuts and it could use a few more minutes of slow down.

i felt like the only thing i wanted was a bit more fleshing out of the villain's story, but i think they gave us enough that we could do that ourselves (especially trekkies), and i can see why they might avoid that given how much they bungled cumberkhan.

i thought both this and ghostbusters were much better than expected.

Not sure anything tops the opening sequence of the first movie, but it's still the best of the three and definitely reminded me of TOS more than any of the reboot movies to date.

I liked it but I was like meh. Not bad meh but satisfactory meh.

i'm not a trekkie, either.

enterprise and crew got their asses WHOOPED.

definitely the most introspective/pensive we've seen pine's kirk out of the three films.

Though Spock was a useless waste of a character which is a shame. Also, I've seen the Enterprise blow up enough in my life time to never have to see that shit again.

But I dug it. Still think Trek works best as a TV show, but the flick was legit.

trilogy. first one was good but into darkness put me to sleep...thank god they're back on track here

visually stunning! dayummm better looking movie i've seen all year. character interaction was great. the only thing i disliked was that white skinned female alien...when she was fighting with that monster i thought i was watching an old ass power rangers episode.

also they went a bit overboard with the nimoy tribute.

other than that, 3.5/5

There really didn't seem to be much development of the motivations of the characters recent history - Kirk deciding at first to become a Vice Admiral and Spock deciding to go to Vulcan or even Idris' character decision to go rogue.

That being said, it didn't seem to detract from the action. The movie might have had a greater payoff if the storylines become more than the sum of their parts, but I really enjoyed the movie.

The technology of those mini-fighters was creative. I don't remember any similar approach a filmmaker has used in a recent movie. The closest thing would have been the 'squiddies' in the Matrix movies, but that was almost 15 years ago.

I didn't find a problem with the action sequences editing, but I've also given up hope that directors pay attention to the fundamentals of blocking and editing action sequences.

I wish there could have been a way to honor Checkov or give his character some closure. There's no way they could have known during filming that Yelchin wouldn't be in another flick, but it would have been similar to what happened in Fast 7, I think.

.
.
.

Villain still sucked, and motivation and explanation for everything was crap, but I did like the interplay of the crew. Still following some beats of the original movie timeline, but it finally feels like it's ready to step out of the shadows of the OG crew and do their own thing next time out. The timelapse build at the end was pretty dope

So, Jaylah’s been living in a Federation ship (the Franklin) that crashed there 100 years ago. and she has repaired this 100 year old crashed ship to the point were it’s almost ready to go. She’s clearly some kind of super engineer, even though they dont explain that part. She also has some hologram technology that is a) portable, b) capable of making multiple hologram duplicates, c) also able to camouflage a whole starship. Later, the crew observe that the ships are like ‘bees’ and they must use some sort of signal to coordinate. They decide if they play the Beastie Boys on that frequency they can disrupt the signal and beat them. Technically, that’s not even the stupid part, that’s just Hollywood cliche. However, I assumed what they were talking about is that the ships would be come disorganized, crash into each other a lot and become easy pickings for a divide and conquer strategy; but what actually happens is the Beastie Boys music causes all the bad guy ships (except the one with the big bad guy in it of course) to immediately and simultaneously explode, because....

>They decide if they play the Beastie
>Boys on that frequency they can disrupt the signal and beat
>them. Technically, that’s not even the stupid part, that’s
>just Hollywood cliche. However, I assumed what they were
>talking about is that the ships would be come disorganized,
>crash into each other a lot and become easy pickings for a
>divide and conquer strategy; but what actually happens is the
>Beastie Boys music causes all the bad guy ships (except the
>one with the big bad guy in it of course) to immediately and
>simultaneously explode, because....

I did not get that either. And are the "swarm" ships "alive" somehow, or were they piloted by what I assume are gorns?? (EDIT: Looked it up - they are drone ships .)

Because if they aren't alive then where are the pilots for them? Were they asleep in the ships that took off right at the end, because I didn't see them boarding the shits.

And do those swarm ships work? Do they shoot weapons or just fly into things and break through them??

Because if they fly and break through them then how was the Franklin able to stop them at the end?

Or is it a mixture of alive ships plus piloted ships? Because some ships clearly had pilots in them who boarded the Enterprise. Maybe the piloted ones wouldn't penetrate the Franklin's hull? (we've seen them stick to the shit before.)


Also, why didn't Kirk shoot the crazy man with the super bio weapon instead of letting him monolog on the ladder at the end?? Would have saved a lot of time if he shot (even if it's stun) the guy instead of riding the "gravitational slipstream" or whatever that was.

And someone better go grab the fucking super-weapon that's floating in space - I hope to hell it does not re-apepar in Star Trek 7 or whatever.

were drones too. i don't remember most of them taking off their armor and i figure bipeds are as easy to run off a network as spaceships.

.

.
.
.

universe from the first of this series. And even in the old timeline the Borg existed during Kirk's time, they just were in a distant quadrant so the Federation wasn't aware of them.

I'd be interested in seeing how Kirk would handle the Borg - it would be something we've never seen. And I'm sure his approach would be different than Picard's.

seems like the 22nd century enterprise stuff is still canon for *this* reality. it's a little paradoxy because the cochran/borg/first contact loop that led to that episode is not so different from the spock/romulans singularity shenanigans that set off this timeline in the first place.

since they're from the other side of the galaxy though, 30ish years probably isn't enough time for them to diverge too much from the prime timeline...the only question involved here is how/when they come into direct contact with the federation.

that said, i hope they don't go anywhere near the borg. it's been done to death in star trek, and stargate did it better for several seasons.

Assuming the Borg are in the galaxy they wouldn't become aware of humans until Q made the introductions to Picard.

The question is around the temporal disturbances in "our" timeline:
Is the original time line from TNG still in place? You know where the Enterprise goes back in First Contact, then defeats the Borg - but leaves several Borgs frozen in the arctic or not?

Plus, the Borg seems to be too big to be introduced and resolved in a single movie.

If they bring anything back I hope it centers around Harry Mudd. We could use some real comedy in the movies.


(But please not played by Nick Frost --unless he nails an audition.)

like, not as major plot points, but it would be funny to see something in the background or a double entendre.

ferengi too.

Let them do their own thing with this cast and this timeline.

Just made no sense.

Was Idris stuck on the planet or no? Seemed like he had plenty of ability to get off.

And if Scotty can repair his ship by himself, why couldn't Idris and his whole crew?

BTW, what changed Idris and his crew? Is it really a coinky dink that the mysterious weapon (what was the weapon by the way) returned to the planet of it's origin? If that's the case how was Idris looking for it?

How did the Enterprise not know they had something so important in their hands the whole time? Was the best place really to hide it really in a girls head?

Also how many times can we see the enterprise blow up? And why was it soo easy to take out the enterprise? Or hack into the enterprise and all of star fleet computers?

This movie was a dumb or dumber than batman versus Superman.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"