No numbers or numerals in the sequel's title | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:34:34 on Jun 24, 2009

Quote:
I've tried to find this quote, dude, and no dice. You sure this isn't just something you want him to have said?

Actually dickhead, I found the quote in two minutes using the "More Stories..." link. IMAGINE THAT!

http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=4a28da7574da0&topBrowse=all

Abrams was asked what number should the sequel have (like Star Trek XII) and he noted that if they make a sequel, "it would have a subtitle instead of a number." There.

--------

-- Steve

"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

Reply

Quote

RE: | Report this post to moderator
By: Chronic Harlot (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 10:27:27 on Jun 24, 2009

"Orci: That's one of the things we have to figure out! [Laughs.] With the first one, we just wanted to call it Star Trek. We got away with it, which was nice."

Why not--depending on the content of the story--just use a famous phrase associated with Star Trek in much the same way the sequel to Batman Begins used 'The Dark Knight'.

Such as simply 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' or 'The Final Frontier'. No Star Trek prefix in the title at all.

--------





The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on

my skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their

breath and disappeared, my heart went cold, and

only hollow rhythms resounded from within.

Reply

Quote

Yikes | Report this post to moderator
By: Trekker121 (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 09:06:41 on Jun 24, 2009

having seen the reviews of Transformers I hope they do take some lessons from that sequel and avoid the same problem in the next Star Trek. I'm nervous.

--------

"Yes, madam, I am drunk. But in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.

-- Winston Churchill

(Picture Main Street Salt Lake City UT, Circa 1900)

Reply

Quote

Captain Pike Continuity questions | Report this post to moderator
By: RMooreislame (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:52:20 on Jun 24, 2009

Its been bugging me. I know the new Abrams Trek is supposed to be an alternate universe with the time travel altered outcome ala Back to the Future II, I get it. But a couple nagging questions concerning Pike and the Enterprise persist..Why include the character Pike as the Captain of the Enterprise while strangely changing some of the canon when they really didnt have to? For example, we know that Pike was captain of the Enterprise with Spock as a crew member as established in the Cage. It should be assumed they were on their own five year mission during that time, which was 18 years prior to season 1. Couldnt they have made Pike fleet captain performing training missions during the time of the new movie and made a reference to the fact that spock served some years ago on the Enterprise with him? For that matter, why then make the Enterprise brand spanking new? We know that wasnt the case when Kirk took over, it should have been in spacedock for a refit, ala STTMP. We know it basically was because Pike's bridge looked different than Kirk's. Could have all fit together nicely. Anyway, all these changes would have smoothed over the canon issues much more nicely. Personally, I think it would have made much more sense that Spock was taking command from Pike as the new Captain (being that he had served under him and earned his stripes) at the start of the movie and then of course Kirk takes over as depicted. I wont get into how I completly thought Pike should have been sverely injured at the end of the movie ala the Menagerie, but thats another issue..

Reply

Quote