JJ Abrams Blocking Any Possibility Of A New Star Trek TV Series For Now

fb share tweet share

JJ Abrams may be in charge of the Star Trek franchise, but in the past he’s said flat out, “I’ve never been a fan of Star Trek”. He was pretty willing to admit that in the past, confessing that he “didn’t get it” and that he thought Star Trek was “silly” and “campy” before he took the directing gig on Star Trek in 2009. At the time his view of Star Trek was that, “there was a captain, there was this first officer, they were talking a lot about adventures and not having them as much as I would’ve liked.” So he took the gig, and used the characters to make something different from the Star Trek he wasn’t really fan of, something that was more about adventure and shooting things than people talking and exploring. His movie succeeded and I suppose there’s nothing wrong with that.

Or there wouldn’t be anything wrong with that if the success of that movie didn’t mean that JJ Abrams now had a stranglehold on the entire Star Trek universe. He’s in charge now, not just of the next movie but of pretty much anything Star Trek. Brian Fuller, who tried to team up with Abrams to bring Star Trek back to television, confirms as much to EW when calls Abrams “the guardian of Trek right now”. And if you’re wondering why no one has gotten moving on a new Star Trek series, then look no further than the franchise’s guardian.

When asked when we’ll get a new Trek TV series Fuller admits, “I don’t think anything is going to happen in any official capacity until after the next movie comes out. And I’m sure it would be wisely under J.J. Abrams’ purview of what happens.”

So let’s review what’s going on here. A man who doesn’t really like Star Trek is now in complete control of the Star Trek universe. And he’s blocking future Star Trek projects, outside of anything directly done by him.

Look, I liked the 2009 movie quite a lot, but this seems like a worst case scenario in the making for Trek fans. Nicholas Meyer, who directed two of the most successful Star Trek movies of all time in Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country also wasn’t much of a Trek fan. But he made great movies anyway, and that was fine. But everyone had the good sense to limit his powers to making movies, and didn’t also give him the keys to the entire kingdom.

Letting Abrams make more movies is a great idea. Giving him the last word on an entire universe, a universe which outside of his one movie he doesn’t even really like, seems like a really bad idea.


  1. Beautiful Nightmare says:

    That’s illogical and completely unethical! O_O

  2. Andrew Clapper says:

    What happened to Rick Berman?  Wasn’t he a top producer for STNG, Voyager, and DS9?

  3. Tad Whatever says:

    What a spock-blocker.

  4. Matthew Cole says:

    Actually, it does make sense. Abrams is controlling the Trek message, and is not letting it be diluted to the point that only Trekkies will pay to watch/read/surf. 

    • JT says:

      Great news for people who make money off Star Trek. Bad news for Trekkies.

    • Randy Paré says:

      This is why I long for the day when geek culture is back in the hands of all us geeks. Being so corporate and successful comes at the cost of disenfranchising the base.

    • david95 says:

      He’s just pushed the Trekkies away from watching it. Sounds like a well thought out plan to me.

    • Arthur Dent says:

      there’s no ‘Message’ anymore, & that is already the dilution point. & btw, ‘Trekkies’ are a significant portion of the global population by this point in the civilization curve…The ‘Message’ is Roddenberry’s original message, which unfortunately made it possible for this idiot to come in & eliminate the message. kinda like hitler getting elected, & after taking office forbidding the electoral process..This is all about hijacking a great culture mechanism & making a shitty career at everyone else’s expense…whether they like it or not. this is the opposite of Roddenberry’s message.

  5. Jpeters1138 says:

    Abram’s admitting he didn’t really “get” Star Trek before working on the film, is a lot different than him saying he “doesn’t like Star Trek.” The reason the 2009 movie was so amazing for me, is that it actually was more like the original series than any iteration since then. Instead of focusing on sci-fi technicalities, his film was about adventure and strong characters. Can anyone honestly say the original show wasn’t campy? Despite its strength’s, Star Trek WAS silly and campy in a lot of ways. Its obvious that he poured himself into the Trek universe more than he anticipated and the result was a genuine resurrection of the spirit of the show into a legitimately exciting and compelling movie. How many times have we heard actors and directors claim fandom of something to avoid offending fans? Do you really think every actor that says “I was a big fan of the book/show/movie” really had any kind of special tie to the material before their agent called them up? Abrams was straight up genuine, and I respect that. As far as fearing him “controlling” the Trek universe…Really? We’re worried the guy who made the first good Star Trek movie since Voyage Home is gonna wreck something? I’m pretty sure any Star Trek show coming out now would have been a shameless money-grab riding on the success of the Abram’s film. Abram’s blocking cash-ins is a very GOOD thing. You can keep your “worst case scenario” theories, I’m looking forward to being blown away by  Star Trek 2.

    • Randy Paré says:

      Okay.. where do I begin? 
      1. Was the original show campy? Yes and we loved it. We also loved the many ways Roddenberry and Berman further expanded the universe.
      2. JJ Abrams movie was the first good movie since Voyage Home??? What are you smoking? First Contact, is arguably on par with Wrath of Khan – for legions of fans it is their favourite Trek movie. 

      • Guest says:

        There are some TOS episodes that stand up to the test of time. Others…do not. No network these days will fund the kind of budget that Trek requires, and the “monster of the week” stuff isn’t going to make a movie. GFR is just assuming the usual “nay-saying” reactionary attitude that it always has.

        • JT says:

          Please point out one thing that’s reactionary. There’s actually some documented interest both from CBS and Paramount in getting another Trek series going, and several different creative people, like Brian Fuller, are going to Paramount (and apparently being sent to JJ Abrams) trying to pitch new Star Trek shows.

          • Guybrarian says:

            Let’s face it. With Abram’s track record, even with other science fiction endeavors, we don’t want him helming a full-on series. Even in a producer role, he’d shoe-horn it into the “Mythology” arcs he likes so much.

          • JT says:

            I like him as a director, but not so much as the mastermind behind Star Trek, particularly when he doesn’t even like it.

          • Guybrarian says:

            Oh, I love him in general. I like most of his stuff. I even liked the 2009 Star Trek movie, for what it was. But I don’t think he’d be the best show runner for a Trek vehicle. The article plainly says that Abrams doesn’t want to talk about a series til the next movie’s done. I’m okay with this. Give them something to stand on. Hell, that time might give Fuller the time to come up with a solid series. For *now*, we aren’t going to see a series. Let’s talk next year. the last thing we need is a badly thought-out, cobbled together Trek series that bombs in a year.

      • JT says:

        Actually I would say #1 isn’t true at all. No it wasn’t really that campy. Particularly for the time it wasn’t. A few of the episodes are but a lot of them hold up really well. Only people who never watched it think its campy.

        Totally with you on #2. Star Trek 6, and First Contact are great.

      • Ben Fenton says:

        HWAT??? First Contact utterly ruined the Star Trek franchise! You, sir, have lost your credibility. I want you to clean out your locker by Friday, and you won’t be getting any severance package. Good day, sir. *”Security! Escort this man out of the building!!”*

        • JT says:

          You’ve confused your personal opinion with general perception.

        • Randy Paré says:

          First Contact was well written and directed. The F/X were amazing and arguably, the BEST line of dialogue in all of Trek:

          Picard: I will not sacrifice the Enterprise. We’ve made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And *I* will make them pay for what they’ve done.  

          Tell me that quote doesn’t give you goose-bumps!

        • Spencer says:

          Agreed, the drunk troy, the entire drinking scene, Picard acting like Kirk would (finally) which did not fit well with the constant preachy Picard. Any of the Next Generation movies sucked by comparison.

        • Arthur Dent says:

          In the 24th century, human beings are no longer driven by the motivation of a severance package, or having their own locker…We’ve grown beyond such limitations….Or was that Aldous Huxley? Hmmmmm…

    • Jack says:

      When asked about directing a new ST movie, wasn’t this a dream come true, was he a huge ST fan as a child his response was- he was not much of a fan,& did not really get Star Trek due to the reasons he then listed. THIS IS THE SAME AS SAYING HE DID NOT LIKE STAR TREK !!! Gimmie a break Jpeters1138.

      As far as “can anyone say the original show wasn’t campy” -EVERY SHOW at that time was CAMPY!!! From Batman, Land of the Lost, Lost in Space, The Munsters, Laugh In, The Mod Squad, Brady Bunch, the list goes on & on!!!

      I’m glad Abrams was honest also,however that does not mean his vision should be the new law! I also do not think ANY product should be reimagined to appeal to those who do not enjoy the product! It is a current cultural fad that is ruining every product it touches! Make a NEW product to appeal to them, leave what is there alone!

      Abram’s ST movie was deffinately NOT the 1st good ST film since ‘Voyage Home’ & producing remakes with new young actors to replace the original actors has NEVER proven to be any stellar formula. Just cuz Abram’s film made money says nothing, the masses pay to see the dumbest movies in history every year. Go research how many millions were made on inept films over the past 5-10yrs. Then keep an eye out this year too. All that seems to matter is the hype machine leading into the release which flocks them into theatres.

      Your idea about tv shows being shameless money-grabs is clueless. 99% of tv shows ARE shameless money-grabs. Rarely do you find a show that regardless of this fact, ends up being worthy of existence! Stargate SG-1 was a ridiculous contortion & money-grab off the blockbuster film which only succeeded due to the actors involved. The writers really went nowhere with the possibilities,& true fans are still waiting for more SG movies. Cameron had planned on Stargate being a trilogy,until MGM disgusted him with their tv plans. A new Star Trek tv show would NOT match this trend unless the show was a clone of Abram’s theme & style. A new ST show in the classic theme/style would be for the true fans.

      You end with the epitome of idiocy by stating “Abram’s blocking cash-ins is a very GOOD thing.” You miss the entire scope of what happened!!! Abrams MILKED the ultimate cash-in cow by making a movie about a subject he did not enjoy for people who do not enjoy the genre in order to….MAKE MONEY. If this was even remotely not true, he would have written an original script & made his own movie which was in no way riding the coat tails of a mega franchise-ESPECIALLY one he openly claims to “not be a fan of.”

      Wake up dude. I mean “really.”

    • The Original Series was “silly and campy” in SOME ways but not “a lot of ways.” The stories that made the biggest cultural impact were serious and well-written dramas that gave the series’ actors plenty to do dramatically. Camp only came into the picture in the third season, when they had an executive producer brought in to fill the distant Roddenberry’s shoes (Fred Freiberger) who also “didn’t get” Star Trek, thus we have the indelible embarrassment of “Spock’s Brain,” “And The Children Shall Lead,” and “The Way To Eden” all contained within that one final, and slightly errant season.

      One must remember that the very best episodes were produced in seasons one and two, at least one of which was Hugo-worthy (several were nominated—one won). It’s impossible to watch dark dramas like “Conscience of the King” and “City on the Edge of Forever” and even bring any sense of campiness to mind.

      Trek at its very core was serious, compelling and socially conscious drama, and went on to inspire all future SF shows that ever tried to do something worthwhile, including one of my all-time favorites, “Babylon 5.”

      Still, it is a relief to know after the fact, that, thanks to the cultural crater left by the impact of The Original Series, producers who still “don’t get Star Trek,” like Meyer and Abrams, can honor the soul of that great series, please the fans, and still produce something really, really good.

      • Straker says:

        Yes, “Conscience of the King” is one of the finest episodes of the classic series. People that are fans of TNG that thought that the classic series was “campy”, well I showed them that episode and they changed their minds fast. Some of the best writing in the series.

    • Oh, yes, and “the first good Star Trek movie since Voyage Home”? Really? Star Trek VI was dark, moody and politically and socially compelling, making it some of the best and most relevant Trek since TWOK. Generations, while flawed, is still quite good, and “First Contact” has to be the TNG cast’s true cinematic gem.

      Why you don’t acknowledge those is actually quite telling, and may encourage many readers to outright dismiss everything you have to say.

    • ted says:

      nicely stated. i agree 100%. funny how so many so-called fans use such hateful language to convey their dislike of the JJ movie…is this the type of universe of “acceptance” they think Roddenberry embraced when creating the original series? i think not.

  6. Why does he have any say over it? His timeline is different than the real one so why can’t they both happen at the same time?

    • JT says:

      I suspect that Paramount and CBS saw how much money the last one made and said, screw it, and just gave him complete control. He’s the new Rick Berman.

    • Randy Paré says:

      EXACTLY – in the same way that the classic Trek films used a gap of 70+ years to separate the Trek films and TNG series being produced simultaneously, the new timeline could keep Trek films separate from Trek TV and allow fans of both to be satisfied and entertained!

  7. Bovice says:

    Fuck everything about this

  8. Brian says:

    There was much I liked and did not like about the various TV Treks and while I respect those that are fans of all of them, I think improvements to the approach were warranted. I never got the holo deck adventures. Why did I want to see my space based characters in Noir situations? Rhetorical question and again my personal opinion. And TOS did as much as it could with very limited tech, but I am rewatching it on Netflix and it is not really holding my attention as it did through high school and college. 

    I’d like to see a Trek get the Fringe treatment, raise the bar – though I have a general concern that Alias and Fringe’s downfall are making the stories about the hidden history of the main characters. Alias started as great spy intrigue and should have never assigned Sydney as some prophesy incarnated. Now we have Olivia and Peter being central to the stability of two universes, makes the whole story trite though I still love the show and characters. 

    So, I agree to the intent of the article, JJ, let go the tyrannical reigns over Star Trek and let today’s TV audience enjoy new adventures.

  9. Lucian says:

    This is just an incendiary article. I don’t see the point in trying to create scandal where there isn’t one. I am a fan, and I don’t have a problem waiting up until after the next movie to see what’s up. Nobody is closing the Star Trek universe to nobody here. I can see how a new series can be problematic if that is going to mess up the storyline for the (possibly) two more ST movies coming our way.One thing is to be a loyal follower of the show, another one is to be a blind fanatic.

  10. Jeff Hendrix says:

    that’s stupid,allowing one man that much control over a franchise berman had complete cintrol but atleast he had movies and hit shows under his belt before he fucked up with enterprise.i’d rather see a new star trek show then another JJ Abrams movie

  11. TREKKER59 says:

    If Star Trek was “campy” and that bad, why did all the Star Trek series last so long ? JJ Abrams has bad judgement, but i thinks the space travel concept  has reached it’s end in Star Trek – what more can be explored ?? I think a new series based on another aspect would be better such as “Starfleet Academy” for example which was once mentionned as a possiblity

    • Jack says:

      “I thinks the space travel concept has reached it’s end in Star Trek – what more can be explored??” 

      – WHAT!!!????!!! Boy have I read some dumb things online, but this is up there with the worst. How about the REST OF THE UNIVERSE!!! Anyone thinking there is nothing left to explore knows NOTHING about reality. Go learn something about the fabric of space-time & the vast size of the universe. If you even care enough to bother, then return & compare it to what has been explored in all Star Trek shows & films, you will see exactly how little has been explored. 

      You will also see how some of the best stories involved the depiction of how reality is altered under specific circumstances, or specific regions of space. None of the best stories were from the soap opera plots, or emo plots found on other shows. 

  12. Robert says:

    I must have missed the part where Abrams somehow acquired the rights to the entire franchise. Does anybody here believe, really, that anybody *but* Paramount has full rights to greenlight a new television series or not? Even if Abrams had objections to a new series, if Paramount really wanted to, it could make a new series. If you want a new series, I’d direct your activism to Paramount.

    • Leroy says:

      He doesn’t need to own the rights to control the screen end of franchise. He’s a well known name and has made Paramount enough money that they will give him what he wants and allow him to make the decisions so that they can make more money

  13. Jamie Helton says:

    Before we get all heated up, let’s look at the source and what exactly is said.  Bryan Fuller is the same guy who is bringing back “The Munster” to TV, and if he attempted to start up a new “Star Trek” series and was turned down, it seems that he might have some sour grapes for being rebuked at jumping onto yet another remake.  As for his actual words, it’s obvious that nothing more will happen until after the next film comes out.  Despite its success with Abrams’s first film, Paramount will want to hedge its bets.  If the second film is a hit, then they can proceed with other options.  “Trek” was saturated in the past on both TV and in the theaters, causing both to fizzle (“Enterprise” and “Nemesis” are both considered failures that ended runs in both mediums).  It’s understandable that they’re a bit gun shy and want to make sure that they have a fan base before expanding back into TV.  The next thing Fuller said was, “And I’m sure it would be wisely under J.J. Abrams’ purview of what happens.”  This is not fact, but speculation on his part.  He is giving his opinion that J.J. would be the best person to shepherd the entire “Trek” universe, and not only in the movies either.  Consider that Abrams is a very successful TV producer; it would only make sense for Paramount to trust him to oversee any prospective small screen series and tie it into the mythology he created for the big screen.  However, it doesn’t say that Abrams IS doing this, only that it would be wise to do this.  Let’s face it, if the second film bombs, Paramount will be unlikely to invest more money into any form of “Trek” in the near future.

    • Jack says:

      For all fans of actual Star Trek looking for solid content it sounds like the ultimate catch-22.
      I want nothing more from Abrams so I hope ST2 is a total bomb. Let him go remake Sex in the City.
      Seeing what Lucas did to the Star Wars franchise with more films, it’s really hard to decide what would be worse; continual Abrams projects, or a halt on Star Trek.
      Let’s not forget a total destruction of value could open the rights up to be purchased from Paramount by someone with a clue.

  14. Sasquatchwithaswatchwatch says:

    Jack, you obviously don’t know shit about sci-fi if you think James Cameron directed Stargate. It was Independence Day director Roland Emmerich… The difference being, some sc-fi gets to you on the level of nerds watching monster trucks… like ID4 or Abrams’s Trek… ooh look at the explosions… and some relies on the cerebral and the sense of wonderment. THAT’S what JJ’s Trek missed. The more I hear inane words come out of his mouth I begin to think that this man…who only “created” LOST by a technicality…brilliant show… is actually a populist and an asshole.

    Which is why I call the recent Trek film “The Code Red:Mountain Dew” of Trek movies

    Abrams is seriously over-rated. His Super 8 film was like watching a fratboy cover band do Spielberg and Dante’s greatest hits, only without any of the emotional weight of those films… nothing surprising or deep enough to work its it way into the geek canon like the movies he’s cribbing from… LOST was mostly written by OTHER PEOPLE, and his Trek movie was like watching an SNL parody of Trek… hits all the coloring book expectations of sci-fi, but SO overblown and so immature.

    There is huge difference between real sci-fi as Rod Serling and our fathers knew it in its golden era. And shows like SG1 and the new Trek film are closer to USA Network/ Sy Fy Croc Vs Octupus fare than I would like. Speak up about what’s been lost, don’t revel in revisionist garbage just because the rubber monsters and laser battles are cool.

  15. OTownStarTrekFan says:

    Here’s what I know: Abrams originally said he “didn’t get it” when he first started getting into doing ST(2009), but he DID go back and watch the original episodes and began to realize just what the substance of Star Trek was.  Leonard Nimoy had to be talked into doing his more-than-a-cameo cameo, and Abrams had to present to him how he wanted original Spock to fit into his storyline, and NIMOY said Abrams “got it”.  Now unless you guys want to start arguing whether or not LEONARD BLEEPING NIMOY knows anything about the Star Trek universe, I’d say his approval (and his agreement to appear in the movie) pretty much crushes any doubts anyone would have that Abrams knows what he’s doing.  As for the “next TV series” controversy, I’m perfectly fine with there not being any new TV Trek for a while.  It’s actually rather refreshing, since I’m discovering tons of other unique visions of the future (BSG, SG:U, Caprica, Eureka, etc.) without them getting drowned out by more Trek.  Besides, now that we have two established universes to deal with, which one and what time period would you want to explore?  The universe we’ve known and loved came to a crashing halt at the point in time Spock and Nero went through the black hole, so any TV series set AFTER that would still be in the Abrams-verse, any TV series set BEFORE that would literally be an alternate universe…..see the confusion a new TV series would bring to anybody who wasn’t already well-versed in Trek?

    • Matt says:

      it’s obvious he didn’t get Star Trek because the movie he made was not Star Trek it was a space sci fi movie with the characters stolen from Star Trek….all Nimoy’s inclusion shows is that a) he was desperate for money b) has fallen off his rocker or c) both but that stinky turd JJ Abrams wrote and directed is NOT Star Trek in any shape or form

  16. I am super mad, there should have been a tv show already. How dare he do this to all of us. Life sucks without Star Trek and he is annoying the piss out of everyone, or at least I assume so, cause he is to me. I can only say Abram stop being a douche and bring back Star Trek TV already, you are a very mean person if you do not. Your hate is noted and not welcome, now get over it and do the right thing. Bring it back now!

  17. Zoot365 says:

    Perhaps he should worry less about “getting it” and more about learning how to direct. Just goes to show how a good cast and crew can survive a hapless directer. Hell, if you can surive McG You can survive anything.
    Also helps to be in good with daddy.

  18. I liked the movie, but I don’t think he should have any control of the Star Trek franchise.

  19. debbie casey says:

    This makes me so mad. Fuck Abrams. The new Star Trek sucked balls anyways.

  20. Gary M Wise says:

    I knew the person who brought us “Lost”, would do this to one of the most beloved franchises.
    Well, thank God for Dvd’s and fan driven adventures.
    Abrams is what kill Star Trek.
    Good bye old friend.

  21. stuohque says:

    My worry is that any TV-series under Abrams’ control would be too much like his films. I like his movie, I loved “Lost” — neither of those is “Star Trek,” the one I know and love. I can foresee an Abrams’ Trek show looking a lot more like “Enterprise” than TOS or TNG. That’s something I’m not really okay with.

  22. PhilthyWan says:

    The original series was NOT campy when it came out. My father was in the aerospace industry, helping to build satellites (including Voyager) and I remember that he lit up about the space travel experience whenever it was on. I would not miss an episode and I still watch them today. Today, yes, they are campy. But we are much older now and technology in movie making has come a long way. (end defense of iconic tv)
    Now Abrams is a fine movie maker. He has a signature that you can pick up on even if you haven’t seen the credits. Great work. Consistent work. Star Trek is an American cult classic that has given us not just entertainment, but ideas for the scientific community to work on making realities. It has, single-handedly inspired people in the realms of science and human rights. It spans languages and countries. And psuedo religions have been created using the prime directives as commandments.
    This is not just a TV show or movie franchise. It MUST be treated with respect and it MUST be allowed to continue to grow with the help of people who love it, get it and know it. The spirit of Gene Roddenberry will smite you Mr. Abrams. Let’s hope he has mercy on you when he does.

  23. Matt says:

    JJ Abrams is a fucking moron his last movie sucked donkey testicles and it it lowered my IQ by ten points why are we, Star Trek fans, letting this piece of horse crap ruin something we love so much something must be done to ensure that is he is NOT allowed to do anymore damage to the good name of Star Trek

  24. Kamandi says:

    Screw you JJAbrams. I highly doubt he can make the next Star Trek do as well as before. Wish Paramount had gotten Joss Whedon involved. At least he can do both tv series and movies well. Abrams ruined it for me with destroying Vulcan and will probably destroy another big Star Trek Icon in the next movie.

  25. he doesn’t just not like the universe… he went back in time and Killed kirks dad and then nuked Vulcan with red matter killing off an entire primary race with in the federation… Maybe this new universe will include a federation marines corps?

  26. JRS says:

    I pretty much hope J.J. Abrams gets bitten by a cobra and dies gasping. Fuck him.

  27. This man is a heretic and should be tarred and feathered for this talk. The fans will have new series please sign our petition. http://www.change.org/petitions/cbs-television-cbs-television-should-create-four-new-star-trek-television-series

  28. Harlowe Thrombey says:

    Letting Abrams make more Star Trek movies is a horrible idea.

  29. The real problem with Voyager was Jeri Taylor.

    Enterprise actually had its merits. Especially in season’s 3 and 4, it really picked up in quality (just like every other Trek series).

    J.J. Abrams hates intelligence. That’s why his films are so unintelligent. The real Star Trek is intelligent. That’s why it is so beloved by intelligent people. When people find intelligent things “boring”, it is because they are not intelligent people. J.J. Abrams, and all the fans of his films, are not intelligent people. If they were, they would not be attracted to his work.

    The decline of the Star Trek franchise is directly proportionate to the decline of the general population’s intelligence.

  30. Ira Steven Behr is the person who is capable of bringing a new level of action and intrigue to the Star Trek franchise, while at the same time preserving its heart. J.J. Abrams should go back to making disposable films like Armageddon.

  31. Black Dynamite says:

    I hate what he’s done with the franchise. I guess I’ll be watching the old movies and making up new ones in my mind until they figure out he screwed up the franchise and the temporal prime directive fixes his crap fest.

  32. Robert Bilicki says:

    J.J. Abrams doesn’t want a new Star Trek series? Just kill the poor fuck.

    • sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch says:

      Hate to break it to you, but Orci and Kurtzman, the genius screenwriters behind Transformers 2 and Hercules: The Legendary Journey are pitching to networks as we speak. If the universe continues hating us comic and sci fans by giving us limp, lowest common denominator versions of classic characters… Then I’d say yes, a BAD ROBOT Trek TV series is not far off. Shia LaBeuf as Riker and Chris Tucker as Guinan.

  33. That_Brooklyn_NY_Guy says:

    JJ Adams is not a star trek fan – never was and never will – This is why Uhura wants blow Spock and not to mention the other silly zhit – it’s all about him making money off you dummies.