star trek movies by jj abrams

Home > Jj Abrams Star Trek Movies In Order

Jj Abrams Star Trek Movies In Order

UPDATED: December 1, 2023

JJ Abrams Star Trek Movies in Order: A Journey through the Final Frontier

When it comes to science fiction movies, few franchises have captured the imagination of audiences quite like Star Trek. With its rich lore, captivating characters, and thought-provoking themes, Star Trek has become a cultural phenomenon that has spanned over five decades. And in 2009, director JJ Abrams took the helm to breathe new life into the beloved series with his rebooted Star Trek movies. In this article, we will take a journey through the final frontier and explore JJ Abrams’ Star Trek movies in order .

1. Star Trek (2009): The first installment of JJ Abrams’ Star Trek trilogy takes us back to the origins of the iconic crew of the USS Enterprise. This film serves as a reboot of the original series and introduces audiences to a younger version of Captain James T. Kirk (played by Chris Pine) and his loyal crew. With stunning visuals, thrilling action sequences, and a fresh take on familiar characters, Star Trek (2009) successfully reignited the franchise’s popularity.

2. Star Trek Into Darkness (2013): The second film in JJ Abrams’ trilogy delves deeper into the relationships between the crew members while introducing a formidable new villain, Khan Noonien Singh (played by Benedict Cumberbatch). As Captain Kirk faces personal and professional challenges, he must navigate a web of deception and make difficult choices that will test his leadership skills. Star Trek Into Darkness is an action-packed installment that keeps viewers on the edge of their seats.

3. Star Trek Beyond (2016): In the final chapter of JJ Abrams’ Star Trek trilogy, director Justin Lin takes over the reins to deliver an exhilarating space adventure. The crew finds themselves stranded on an uncharted planet after their ship is attacked by a ruthless alien warlord named Krall (played by Idris Elba). As they fight for survival and reunite with new allies, the crew must discover the true nature of Krall’s intentions and find a way to save the Federation. Star Trek Beyond is a fitting conclusion to Abrams’ trilogy, offering a perfect blend of action, humor, and heart.

While JJ Abrams’ Star Trek movies have faced some criticism from die-hard fans for deviating from the original series’ tone and style, they undeniably brought new life to the franchise and introduced it to a whole new generation of viewers. With their stellar cast, breathtaking visuals, and thrilling storytelling, these films successfully captured the essence of what makes Star Trek so beloved.

In addition to Abrams’ trilogy, he also served as a producer on subsequent Star Trek projects like Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard, further expanding the universe he helped revive. Whether you’re a longtime fan or new to the series, JJ Abrams’ Star Trek movies are an exciting journey through space that should not be missed. So grab some popcorn, set your phasers to stun, and prepare for an adventure that will take you where no one has gone before.

Ad Blocker Enabled!

In defense of the J.J. Abrams Star Trek movies

J.J. Abrams' Star Trek movies dared to go boldly go where 'some men' had gone before.

For a fanbase as passionate as the one Star Trek has collected over the years, change is often met with collective suspicion rather than communal excitement.

Star Trek is sacred, and those who cut their teeth on the William Shatner -starring original series or the much loved Next Generation are fiercely protective of their darling franchise. Anyone brave enough to reimagine the series for new audiences has a cosmically high bar to leap, with many believing the task to be a no-win scenario (a ' kobayashi maru ', perhaps?).

In the age of remakes, remasters and reimaginings, Star Trek has seen numerous iterations of its winning formula, some garnering success and others catastrophic failure. Losses be damned, though, as when it does succeed, the seasoned sci-fi franchise does so in spectacular fashion.

While shows like Discovery and Lower Decks take us to a new branch of Starfleet or a new story in the Star Trek universe, the 2009 self-titled film tackles the Kirk and Spock story head on, and it's bravery is rewarded. The 2009 film is a masterclass in contemporary science fiction, and by building Kirk and Spock respectively and setting them for a collision course in the film's opening act, it reminds us of the pair's polarizing differences, as well as their critical similarities.

It’s a new Star Trek for a new audience, and in forging something fitting for the current climate of films and media it’s crucial that the seasoned franchise makes small, yet significant differences to ensure that new releases don’t feel like a relic from the past.

In Defense of the J.J. Abrams Star Trek Movies: image shows Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) in Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Leap Before You Look

The success of the Star Trek license has been a result of a winning formula; one that’s sure to capture the hearts of many, and - critically - is future-proofed to continue to appeal to new fans. J.J. Abrams and Bad Robot Productions didn’t do away with what made the original series special (unlike some sci-fi properties), instead they reflected on the past and evolved them significantly. Thus, the Kelvin timeline was born.

Old friends and new alliances prop up the plot of the first in the trilogy, and the familiar face of series icon Leonard Nimoy is simply a wonderful wrinkle that pays dividends. The passing of the torch from Nimoy to Quinto was simply excellent, and though the role was somewhat short-lived for the Heroes actor, it was more than prosperous as his performance as the stoic, yet compassionate Spock impressed critics and fans alike. In fact, it's hard to pluck a bad or out of place performance from the entire trilogy, as the glut of talented actors presented offer some of their best to date.

It has to be said, however, that though the performances remain top notch, it's evident that some of the magic is lost as the trilogy develops. Into Darkness reintroduces us to an iconic villain but lacks the emotional weight of the first and while Beyond provides more of the USS Enterprise crew that we’ve come to love, it does have an air of the 'soulless Summer blockbuster' feel to it. What makes the trilogy more than a one hit wonder is Abrams and co’s ability to develop authentic, grounded and human character quirks for a whole host of personalities that are often anything but.

In Defense of the J.J Abrams Star Trek Movies: image shows Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Star Trek Into Darkness was largely a victim of a poor release window. Set out into a world cluttered by cookie-cutter offerings in the MCU like Ironman 3 and lackluster Shyamalan sci-fi attempts like After Earth, the consensus was that it didn’t offer much that the scores of other summer blockbusters didn’t. It’s a great film, and a continuation of a story that thoroughly deserved another chapter in the tale. The chemistry of the Enterprise crew is as good as it’s ever been and the injection of a menacing villain was a much needed correction to the only significant flaw of the first film.

Beyond was helmed by Justin Lin of Fast and Furious fame, and while he brought his own flavour to the franchise (and far fewer lense flares), it saw our heroes depart on a fun --albeit linear-- adventure that served as a platform for the already-developed characters to flourish. No origin story was necessary to maintain the viewers’ attention, as the chemistry that three films across seven years had forged between the actors and their respective roles.

In Defense of the J.J Abrams Star Trek Movies: Idris Elba and Chris Pine in Star Trek Beyond (2016)_© Kimberley French_Paramount Pictures

Furthermore, the somewhat vague reports of Quentin Tarantino circling the Star Trek IP is enticing to anyone familiar with his previous work, and though many believe the recent trilogy to be concluded, there's always a possibility of a continuation, and the Pulp Fiction director's supposed interest is enough to garner more than a little excitement. Will it happen? Who knows, but it's enough to make keen cinephiles (Star Trek fan or not) curious.

The trilogy is flawed, yes, but with the franchise providing less-than-stellar action sequences and over the top acting in decades past, it's clear to viewers that Star Trek wears its flaws on its sleeve. In truth, most of said viewers would find such blemishes charming rather than distracting, and a reminder that the franchise has always blazed new trails rather than retreading old ones.

Like James T. Kirk and his father before him, Star Trek is a franchise that always leaps before it looks, which has resulted in a few harsh lessons and more than a few home runs. A quick glance at our Star Trek movies, ranked worst to best article will show that when J.J was firing on all cylinders, his Trek movies were up there with the best of them.

To Boldly Go...

In Defense of the J.J. Abrams Star Trek Movies: image shows kirk and spock

Nostalgia is a frightfully difficult impulse to overcome. When we find something we love in fiction, the characters, its stories and the adventures that they take us on are forever etched into our minds, only maturing with age to the point where the rose-tinted spectacles are in full effect.

To many, Star Trek was the first series that took our impressionable minds to the moon and back, providing hours of escapism amongst the stars and allowing us a glimpse at what the future could be like.

As the swinging 60's stretch further into the rear view mirror and Star Trek's humble beginnings feel even more humble in comparison to modern CGI, the JJ Abrams-produced trilogy is proof that, in the face of immense adversity, the franchise still has more to give.

Abrams' take on the seasoned sci-fi franchise provides bright-eyed viewers of today the opportunity to feel the same way our parents and grandparents felt the first time their screen was graced by the frightful Gorn or the sinister Khan. It's made Star Trek fans of the sons and daughters of those faithful Trekkies from decades past, which is all the evidence you need to believe that J.J. Abrams created something truly special.

If you're looking to revisit the latest Star Trek trilogy, check out our Star Trek streaming guide to find out where you can watch the movies online. And if you're wondering where the Kelvin movies fit into the rest of the Trek timeline, well it's complicated, but our Star Trek movies in chronological order guide explains it all.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: [email protected].

Get the Space.com Newsletter

Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!

'Beacon 23' series returns to MGM+ on April 7 with glowing blue rocks and alien artifacts

This Week In Space podcast: Episode 105 — Apoc-eclipse 2024!

Maya nobility performed bloodletting sacrifices to strengthen a 'dying' sun god during solar eclipses

JJ Abrams: 'I never got Star Trek'

I was trying to avoid using the G-word, but JJ Abrams brings it up himself, unprompted. We're talking about his childhood and I begin a question with a slightly meandering: "So were you a ..."

"Geek?" he interjects, pre-empting a question he's clearly heard many times. Well, now you mention it, were you? "I don't think it's much of a question," he laughs.

He's right - it doesn't really need asking. Firstly, in an age when the most popular movies and TV series are based on comic books, sci-fi, fantasy and the supernatural, we are all basically geeks now. And secondly, his appearance is all the answer I need: a slight, young-looking, 42-year-old with thick, black-rimmed glasses, wavy vertical quiff and a blue-grey smock shirt that could be part of a uniform on, say, an intergalactic space vessel. And he's just directed the new Star Trek movie.

Actually, Abrams is personable, attentive, self-effacing and in no way socially maladjusted - but he is also ruler of an ever-expanding universe of geek-friendly viewing, in particular Lost, the cryptic TV series about marooned jet-crash survivors (complete with polar bear and smoke monster) that has viewers eating out of its hand, even as they scratch their heads in confusion. Add in TV shows like Alias and Fringe, and movies like Cloverfield and Mission: Impossible III and he's one of the most powerful forces in the industry. Now, with the addition of Star Trek's legions of devotees, he's a veritable emperor of uber-geekdom.

One thing Abrams has never been, though, is a Trekker. Or a Trekkie. Or even a Trekkist. "Star Trek," he says, referring to the original TV series, "always felt like a silly, campy thing. I remember appreciating it, but feeling like I didn't get it. I felt it didn't give me a way in. 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. Maybe I wasn't smart enough, maybe I wasn't old enough. But The Twilight Zone I was obsessed with. Loved it."

Any new addition to the Star Trek universe must manoeuvre through a dense asteroid belt of existing Trek lore that has accumulated after 79 episodes of the original series, its TV successors (The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Enterprise), 10 movies and innumerable other spin-offs. But Abrams's ignorance was, he says, an asset: "I had no idea there had been 10 movies! I still haven't seen them all. I didn't want to become a student of Star Trek. I felt that was actually one of the few advantages I had. I was trying to make a movie, not trying to make a Trek movie."

Sure enough, Abrams's Star Trek zips along, fuelled by state-of-the-art special effects, agreeable young actors and a generous measure of comedy. By focusing on Spock and Kirk as novices finding their footing, and putting their gut-vs-logic dynamic at the heart of the film, Abrams gives non-followers plenty to hang on to, but also pays homage to familiar Trek tropes: Bones says: "I'm a doctor, not a physicist!"; Scotty says: "I'm giving her all she's got!"; and Leonard Nimoy, the original Spock, makes a cameo to symbolically pass on the torch.

For advanced-level Trekkers, there are in-jokes and seismic events hardly anyone else will notice. This is the first time, for example, we see how Kirk cheats Starfleet's notorious Kobayashi Maru test, as mentioned in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - an event, indeed a sentence, that will mean absolutely nothing to the rest of us. And only the faithful will notice how Abrams pulls off a cheat of his own with this movie: the time-travel plot neatly sidesteps all that hazardous Trek lore - and sets up a fresh, blank future in a parallel reality (if you don't understand how, ask a Trekker). If there is a sequel, and it's difficult to imagine there won't be, he's free to boldly go wherever the hell he likes.

As usual, everything seems to be going Abrams's way. It's difficult to shake the impression that he mapped out his entire career in advance and it's all coming good. If you were to make a biopic of his life, it would be too corny to believe. At a time when most children were being entranced by the magic of moving images, young JJ was already peering behind the curtain, Wizard of Oz-style, figuring out how they worked. He would take apart electrical appliances with his grandfather and learn how they ticked. He learned magic tricks. His father, Gerald W Abrams, is a successful TV producer, so he was no stranger to sets and studios, even if Dad discouraged him from going into the industry. "He thought he'd be paying my bills for the rest of my life," he laughs.

Abrams, who lives in LA with his wife and three children, first picked up a movie camera aged eight."Making movies was more a reaction to not being chosen for sports. Other kids were out there playing at whatever; I was off making something blow up and filming it, or making a mould of my sister's head using alginating plaster. So the answer is: Yes, I was and am a geek."

Abrams was also an obsessive fan. He wrote to his heroes - not just directors but top makeup artists and special-effects legends, industry giants of the pre-computer age such as Douglas Trumbull, John Dykstra or Dick Smith. And he got replies. "Dick Smith sent me a little cardboard box with a tongue inside. It was one of the fake tongue extensions from The Exorcist, with a note saying, 'Just stick a dab of peanut butter on the end and put it on.' I was like, 'Holy shit!'" After seeing Jaws, he sent a little finger-puppet contraption to Steven Spielberg, but he didn't reply. "Not until recently."

By college, Abrams had sold his first screenplay, Taking Care of Business, which starred James Belushi. By his early 30s, he'd written a blockbuster, Armageddon, and was starting to produce TV programmes. One thing led to another, including Alias, a spy series starring Jennifer Garner. Tom Cruise liked Alias and asked Abrams to direct Mission: Impossible III. Paramount liked that and offered him Star Trek.

Like Spielberg, Abrams has been immersed in film-making for so long, he seems to have mastered every aspect of it. He appears to have an innate feel for entertainment that is cult yet mass-market, accessible but not dumb, polished and high-tech yet character-driven, zeitgeisty but infused with good old-fashioned storytelling. Abrams hasn't revolutionised film-making, though he may be perfecting it. What he has revolutionised, though, is the art of 21st-century entertainment. The movies and TV shows are just one feature in a landscape of viral marketing campaigns, merchandising tie-ins, spoiler alerts, online chat forums, fan blogs, websites that treat fictional worlds as real places, and so on. "People want to find magic," he says. "It's almost like a Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe thing. You want to find that secret. You want there to be some kind of portal between reality and fiction."

Lost is the perfect illustration. From the basic starting point of plane-crash survivors on a desert island, its plot has thickened and thickened to the point where it is now an inhabitable universe. Fans are happy to spend hours not just scrutinising the show's every shot, but collectively pondering its mysteries online, quizzing its makers, solving puzzles to gain access to "restricted" areas of the (fake) Hanso corporation website, speculating on Hindu symbolism, nanobot clouds, time travel or whatever, and generally positing theories as to what the hell is going on. It might be the biggest geek-magnet around, but Lost is also as risky and radical a TV programme as there's ever been: one that provides no answers week after week, has no qualms about killing off major characters, takes huge liberties with narrative convention, and deals with spiritual and even political questions of our age, including fame, leadership and even the Iraq war. It's as much a religion as a TV series - a bit like Star Trek.

But, while "Losties" have faith that the show's creators have it all figured out, Abrams says that's never been the case: "It's a leap of faith doing any serialised storytelling. We had an idea early on, but certain things we thought would work well didn't. We couldn't have told you which characters would be in which seasons. We couldn't tell you who would even survive." That instinctive, improvised, unpredictable element, he says, makes for great entertainment: "You feel that electricity. It's almost like live TV. We don't quite know what might happen. I'm sure when Charles Dickens was writing, he had a sense of where he was going - but he would make adjustments as he went along. You jump into it, knowing there's something great out there to find."

More of a Kirk approach than a Spock approach, you might say, more heart than head. In fact, Captain Kirk could well be Abrams's alter ego. They're both child prodigies following in the footsteps of their fathers; they're both partial to taking a chance; and they both find themselves at the controls of a gigantic and gigantically expensive machine, at an inordinately young age.

And right now all Abrams wants to do is sit at the bridge and shout: "Give her all she's got!."

Science fiction and fantasy films
Action and adventure films
Star Trek (Culture)
Star Trek (Film)

More on this story

Will Star Trek live long and prosper at the box office?

Who's who in JJ Abrams's Star Trek

Jj abrams's star trek: 'i went in fearing the worst, i came out a convert'.

Enterprise reprised

Star trek's eric bana: 'the film's almost made for the non-fan', most viewed.

Search Please fill out this field.
Newsletters
Sweepstakes

J.J. Abrams teases the return of his original cast in new Star Trek film

Maureen Lee Lenker is a senior writer at Entertainment Weekly with over seven years of experience in the entertainment industry. An award-winning journalist, she's written for Turner Classic Movies, Ms. Magazine , The Hollywood Reporter , and more. She's worked at EW for six years covering film, TV, theater, music, and books. The author of EW's quarterly romance review column, "Hot Stuff," Maureen holds Master's degrees from both the University of Southern California and the University of Oxford. Her debut novel, It Happened One Fight , is now available. Follow her for all things related to classic Hollywood, musicals, the romance genre, and Bruce Springsteen.

Star Trek is ready to boldly go where they've gone three times before.

On Tuesday, J.J. Abrams announced plans for a fourth Star Trek film at the Paramount Investors Day presentation. The film will be directed by Matt Shakman ( WandaVision ) with Abrams producing, and the aim is to bring back many of Abrams' original stars from his 2009 reboot of the long-running franchise.

"We are thrilled to say that we are hard at work on a new Star Trek film that will be shooting by the end of the year that will be featuring our original cast and some new characters that I think are going to be really fun and exciting and help take Star Trek into areas that you've just never seen before," Abrams said. "We're thrilled about this film, we have a bunch of other stories that we're talking about that we think will be really exciting, so can't wait for you to see what we're cooking up. But until then, live long and prosper."

However, EW has learned that the studio has yet to enter negotiations with that original cast at this juncture. The cast features a litany of high profile names, including Chris Pine as Captain Kirk, Zachary Quinto as Spock, Zoe Saldana as Uhura, John Cho as Sulu, Karl Urban as Bones, and Simon Pegg as Scotty. Anton Yelchin , who featured as Chekhov in Abrams' previous three entries , died in 2016 before the previous film in the franchise, Star Trek Beyond , hit theaters.

The new film will feature a screenplay by Josh Friedman ( Avatar 2 ) and Cameron Squires ( WandaVision ) based on a earlier draft by Lindsey Beer ( Sierra Burgess Is a Loser ) and Geneva Robertson-Dworet ( Captain Marvel ).

With his 2009 film, Abrams reset the Star Trek timeline, originally established in Gene Roddenberry's 1960s groundbreaking sci-fi television series. He followed it up with 2013's Star Trek Into Darkness, but the last time the characters' were seen on the big screen was in 2016's Star Trek Beyond, which Abrams produced with Justin Lin directing.

Plans to bring them back — including a 2018 announced sequel set to team Pine with Kirk's late father as portrayed by Chris Hemsworth in the 2009 film — have stuttered along the way. For a time, Quentin Tarantino was even circling a project .

Of late, Star Trek fans have turned back to television for new content on series Picard and Star Trek Discovery.

Want more movie news? Sign up for Entertainment Weekly 's free newsletter to get the latest trailers, celebrity interviews, film reviews, and more.

A New Star Trek Movie Will Explore the Origins of Starfleet

J.j. abrams will produce a new star trek movie set on the kelvin timeline, before his 2009 film..

Star Trek has been doing quite well on TV of late but it’s time to beam back to the big screen. While a fourth Star Trek film on the Kelvin timeline is still in the works , now a new project has been revealed too.

Toby Haynes, who helmed episodes of Andor , will direct the film from a script by Seth Grahame-Smith ( It, Lego Batman ). J.J. Abrams will once again produce, which makes sense since the film is set decades before the events of his 2009 Star Trek film.

Deadline broke the news, and while there are no specifics on what the film will entail, it’s described as an origin story. We already saw the origins of all the main characters in Abrams’ original, so we are making the educated guess that Starfleet would be front and center.

The film comes at a time when Star Trek is thriving on TV with fans loving shows like Strange New Worlds , Picard , and Lower Decks . However, those shows are all on the Star Trek Prime timeline. This movie, like 2009's Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Star Trek Beyond, is on an alternate Kelvin timeline. A timeline that was created when the Romulan Nero was sent back in time by accident during the explosion of a Supernova that destroyed the Romulan homeworld.

And, as mentioned, a fourth film on that timeline—with those original cast members, such as Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Zoe Saldana—is still in the works. But, as has been proven on TV over the past few years, fans can handle more than one Trek , and this origin story seems to be the later iteration.

Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel , Star Wars , and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV , and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who .

April 9, 2024 | Sonequa Martin-Green Talks About Exhausting Last Day On Set For ‘Star Trek: Discovery’
April 9, 2024 | Review: The EXO-6 ‘Star Trek: Deep Space Nine’ 1:6 Odo Figure Is The Shape of Things To Come
April 9, 2024 | ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Director Fesses Up To Unplanned Cameo In Episode 502
April 8, 2024 | Skydance Reportedly Looking To “Supercharge” Paramount+, Potentially Merge It With Another Streamer
April 8, 2024 | Preview ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Episode 503 With New Images And Clip From “Jinaal”

J.J. Abrams Talks “Compelling” Story For ‘Star Trek 4’; Chris Pine Expresses Frustration Over Wait

| March 1, 2023 | By: TrekMovie.com Staff 130 comments so far

The saga of J.J. Abrams’ attempt to follow up Star Trek Beyond with another feature film at Paramount Pictures continues with the first comments from the producer himself since his high-profile announcement a year ago the project was moving forward.

Abrams still looking for a director

The update on the Star Trek movie comes from an Esquire Magazine profile primarily about Chris Pine, star of Paramount’s upcoming movie Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves . In between comments from Pine, interview Alex Pappademas dropped this clue from the Star Trek producer:

Pine and crew’s return to the screen was announced in February 2022; when I speak to producer J. J. Abrams by phone, the search for a director is ongoing. Abrams is elliptical about the film, even by J. J. Abrams standards. “I will say it’s the first time [since the original reboot] that we have a story that feels as compelling as the first one.”

Director Matt Shakman stepped away from the Star Trek project last August, recently citing issues with getting the Kelvin crew actors’ schedules aligned along with the opportunity to work on a Fantastic Four movie for Marvel, but the director said the project was still active at Paramount.

J.J. Abrams with 2009 Star Trek movie cast

Pine is frustrated

As for Captain Kirk, Chris Pine tells Esquire he is in the dark:

“I don’t know anything,” he says. Which is apparently pretty standard: “In Star Trek land, the actors are usually the last people to find out anything. I know costume designers that have read scripts before the actors.” Is it weird, I ask, to be the captain and know so little about what you’re signing on to? “I would say it’s frustrating,” Pine says. “It doesn’t really foster the greatest sense of partnership, but it’s how it’s always been. I love the character. I love the people. I love the franchise. But to try to change the system in which things are created—I just can’t do it. I don’t have the energy.”

One of the reasons it has been so hard for Paramount to follow up Beyond is due to the 2016 film not meeting studio expectations; it brought in $344 million, significantly less than the $467 million delivered by Star Trek Into Darkness in 2013. Pine addressed his concerns over the studio’s goal of trying to match mega-hits from other franchises:

“I’m not sure Star Trek was ever built to do that kind of business,” Pine says. “I always thought, Why aren’t we just appealing to this really rabid fan group and making the movie for a good price and going on our merry way, instead of trying to compete with the Marvels of the world?” He’d like to span more years as Kirk but wouldn’t be surprised if Beyond was the end of it. “After the last one came out and didn’t do the $1 billion that everybody wanted it to do, and then Anton”—Yelchin, who played Chekov—“passed away, I don’t know, it just seemed . . .” He pauses, looks out the window at the view Star Trek bought.

Chris Pine as Kirk with Anton Yelchin as Chekov and John Cho as Sulu in Star Trek Beyond

Matt Shakman, who helmed the Star Trek 4 project for over a year, recently said Paramount’s goal was to make another “large tentpole film,” noting it is expensive to make a sci-fi film, especially with the returning cast that includes stars like Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana.

For now, fans will continue to wait as we will soon pass the seven-year mark since Trek’s last time on the big screen, with no solid idea when it will be back.

Keep up with all the news on Star Trek 4 and upcoming Trek films at TrekMovie.com .

Star Trek 4

Zoe Saldana Is Still Holding Out Hope For ‘Star Trek 4’

CBS/Paramount , Star Trek 4 , Upcoming movies

‘Star Trek 4’ Gets Another Writer, But “Franchise Origin Story” Movie Could Arrive First

Interview , Star Trek 4

Exclusive: Danai Gurira Talks About Her “Cool” Role In The Shelved Chris Hemsworth ‘Star Trek 4’ Movie

Interview , Star Trek 4 , Upcoming movies

Exclusive: Nicolas Cage Explains Why He Wants To Be In Star Trek, Confirms “Comments” From Paramount

‘a story that feels as compelling as the first one’

Maybe he means its involving time travel/alt reality, and legacy characters?

Bring back a baddie like Chris Plummer’s Kang, have a weapon that does “Rockem-Sockem Starships”, and have Kirk’s half-human/half-cat son up as a young terrorist with a heart of gold!

I just don’t understand why you’re not working in Hollywood as a writer or showrunner. You got skills.

You just answered your own question with that second sentence.

“Bring back a baddie like Chris Plummer’s Kang”

Kang was Michael Ansara.

Time travel, Alternate Universe, Trans Warp.. They slowly become a nice sweet poison. You know it kills you, but you can not Stop to like it

What i mean:

Time travel: With Section 31 and other Time travels so far in Star Trek (also the Movies), at some Space and Time you want to ask yourself what was first? The Chicken or the Egg?

Alternate Universe: Surprisingly it’s always the Terran Empire. What if the Vulcans did not separated and are the bad guys? Because it is Logical to eliminate the “cancer” of all Unworthy Lifeforms?

trans Warp: Wrath of Khan in the Kelvin Timeline Enterprise say it all. Why this Tool is to Omnipotent. Nearly the Same as the Spore Drive of Discovery

I find that worrying. He thought what Tarantino wanted to do was a good idea. He liked the Daddy Kirk transporter story. JJ is also the person who thought turning Luke Skywalker into a worthless maguffin was compelling.

I thought JJ had nothing to do with LAST JEDI, that he just trashed the odd-numbered ones? Not making excuses for him, I hate nearly all of the guy’s work — TFA is somewhat rewatchable — and think he managed to disimprove on Berman era, which is really saying something pretty nasty in my book.

JJ had nothing to do with Luke’s story in The Last Jedi. I know for a fact JJ didn’t understand why Rian Johnson made the character choices that he made… for any of the characters.

I feel for Pine- such a great actor, and really an enthusiastic creative person- and Bad Robot has strung them along with a series of false starts. I’m really skeptical of J.J. Abrams’ tenure at this point. He’s failed to get a feature off the ground for a few years now. And with Kurtzman’s shows gaining so much momentum, I wonder if the film division is looking at this 4th Kelvinverse movie as a fading prospect. Eventually, the studio is going to move on, and probably not too long from now.

Shakman the Betrayer

Why? Because he took another job when this one was stuck in development hell. I think the real issue is they can’t afford to pay the actors and keep the budget on par with the previous film.

The jokes on him — Fantastic Four…lol

They can keep the budget in line with previous films, but Beyond’s $185m is why it wasn’t profitable, it needs to be lower. But the actors are part of the reason they can’t keep the budget reasonable.

No, Paramount’s loss of two marketing executives during the period leading up to BEYOND is why the film failed. Internally this is the explanation that Paramount reached almost immmediately.

That makes sense!

Even Trekkies weren’t very excited about Beyond though. It felt like Insurrection did, a big budget episode. And I liked it. It’s the only JJ verse movie I like actually but it just had no real hook.

And another supervillain trying to take down the Federation is probably another reason no one really cared They can’t seem to come up with something new and fresh.

It’s def true that the letdown from STID probably played a role in Beyond’s disappointment. But do you really think that doing something fresh and new, a decade later, is going to lead to a $750m box office? No matter how good it looks, I think any new Trek film will struggle to reach that kind of blockbuster status.

The problem is like Pine says: they need to set their sights lower, and produce something on a more modest budget and just have fun with it. But I doubt he’d take a pay cut to do it.

We agree fully brother! 👍

I’m still shocked they are still trying (and trying and trying and trying) to even make another JJ verse movie at all. I think it’s going to make what Beyond did or even worse.

But they can still make a good movie at least. I don’t care about about JJ verse at all, especially now that Star Trek is back where it really belongs, on TV. But if it’s good I’ll definitely go see it.

But I agree I don’t think anyone really cares that much anymore. Hardcore fans will go see it of course but everyone else will just probably catch it on Paramount+ in a month, especially if it’s the same ole same ole like the last three.

As for Pine, this guy keeps saying they should make smaller movies but wasn’t he the same guy who walked when they tried to make his paycheck smaller too? 🤣

Yeah if you want to make smaller movies then you have to start where the budget inflates the most, usually starting with actor salaries. That’s also easier to control.

But Pine is just talk. Trust me, if they ever decide to call the guy again, his asking price will be the same as before and why there won’t be another movie.

Transformers films have flopped or did not make the money Paramount wanted before, they didn’t stop making Transformers movies. Same with MI 3 was a near bomb, they continue to make those. Its just Star Trek the studio doesn’t believe in. They are far more likely to greenlight more Bayturtles films than to make a Star Trek film.

Bro not a single aTF has flopped or lost money, no idea where you’re getting this? What movies are you talking about??

Bumblebee has made the least amount of money, but it was also the cheapest movie too at $130 million. And keep this in mind, it still made $150 million more than Beyond did with a much lower budget;😂

It basically made what STID made and much cheaper than that as well. How these JJ verse movies keeps getting made for the ridiculous money but no real profit to show, I will never understand it?

Ok I went and looked. Transformers: The Last Knight can be argued it bombed because it cost $250 million but it still made $600 million. So I don’t think that’s a bomb but it didn’t reach expectations either like Tiger2 explained in another thread. They probably assumed it would do a billion like the one before it and it didn’t.

But we know it wasn’t a real bomb because unlike Star Trek they made too more movies since, Bumblebee and the new one this summer. And they didn’t cancel 5 movies before they finally made Bumblebee like how bad the Trek movies have turned into a joke.

And I’m glad they finally moved on from Bay.

MI3 didn’t bomb though, it just didn’t reach expectations. And it made more than 2 out of the 3 Kelvin movies and much cheaper than 2 out of the 3 movies as well.

That’s why we got four more of those movies and Trek remains DOA

Those two marketing executives, what were their names and how exactly did their exit lead to the failure? Were they fired? Did they quit? Genuinely asking, i’ve not heard of this before.

But if Paramount is well aware that these two execs are the key to a successful Trek film, have they rehired them?

Wouldn’t that affect Paramount’s non-Star Trek products in a comparable way, though?

If they can cut $80 million like they should have from Beyond then they will probably get a greenlight.

They know the next movie could bomb again.

And the real irony is like that old saying, necessity being the mother of invention. I’d bet that if they slashed the budget, and writers were forced to be creative, they’d wind up with a better movie.

Isn’t that literally what happened with TWOK? 😉

After putting everyone to sleep with the mind blowing budget of TMP (I’ve seen it once 20 years ago, promise myself never to watch it again) they came back and did it better with TWOK with a third of the budget.

It doesn’t have to be that low but half makes sense or around $100 million. No one is going to give these fools over $150 million anyway. Not anymore! 😉

But TWOK would have cost way much more if it would have been the first movie, that means if it had been made instead of TMP.

LOL at people who feel fandom requires them to defend every thing and every one involved in Star Trek.

So annoying I agree. Almost as bad as the ones who are required to trash every thing and every one involved with current Star Trek.

Is that me? I didn’t realize finding it absurd to call a director for hire a “betrayer” because he walked from a project defending everything and everyone involved in Star Trek.

Huh. They had no cast signed on, no approved finished shooting script and no greenlight. Just a bunch of pr to try and get investors. Worse than JJ’s mystery box smoke and mirrors.

As compelling as the first one? I’d really hope he means considerably more compelling. Yea, that film sufficed because it had novelty value, but they need to do much better this time. And for my money the best one was Beyond anyway.

Beyond was the best, indeed!

Beyond was the ONLY compelling one. It was great. The 2009 film was fun, but generic, and Into Darkness was a pale ripoff of Wrath of Khan.

Agreed on Beyond; I have found things to appreciate about all of them, but Beyond is the only one I was truly enthusiastic for.

Oh, don’t get me wrong–I like all three. But the 2009 film was rather simplistic and Star Wars-y, and Into Darkness was derivative. Beyond was the first original story in that trilogy, and the only one I’d call “compelling.”

Into Darkness was paranoid conspiracy theory junk.

I agree — BEYOND was the only one of the Kelvinverse movies that I ultimately liked, in retrospect.

2009 was Star Wars remade as Star Trek, basically he remade A New Hope. Then he did it again with Force Awakens.

I’ll go so far as to say it is the only emotionally engaging one, that it at least felt right in several key moments. I saw it twice in the theater, which makes it the only Abrams-related project so viewed by me. It still has a big sag in midfilm and a protracted act 3 with all the peter pan chasing tinkerbell above yorktown stuff that had me drumming my fingers on the chair arm. Still, tons better than ID and no comparison with the utter waste of film that is the 09, which I think I’m going to start calling the Mythology-Deformer, since it tries and fails woefully to Joseph Campbell a property that already had its own unique mythology.

Loved Trek 2009. It’s by far the best of the three Kelvin movies.

I know it’s going to be a bad day when I find myself agreeing with you…

It had a lot of problems. But all three did.

Yep Beyond was the best, mostly because it felt like Star Trek and waaay less dumb than the first two.

STID was bad and dumb but the first one was actually way more dumb in so many ways but less bad of a movie, so I guess they are even. 😀🙄

Just make Tribbles the villain! Can you imagine that trailer? Easy $1bn box office gross.

In all seriousness, Trek 2009 was a good origin story. But a HUGE mistake was made with ST:ID and the Kelvin film series has never recovered from it. I can see why they went with Khan as the villain for the 2nd movie, but the John Harrison thing was a massive blunder. Kelvin-Khan needed to show less head squishing, and more of that superior intellect, to be an intimidating villain.

Failing to use the Borg as a villain in the 3rd one is puzzling. Surely space-cyborgs done right would pull in a decent non-trek audience. You could literally have had a modified (better) version of Beyond.

Idris Elba as the Borg King (Edison first to be assimilated, then assimilated the Franklin crew).

The drone ships being actual Borg drones invading the E and assimilating crew, even as the E is being ripped apart.

The clear threat to Yorktown/Federation.

Spock wondering if he is more like the Borg than human in light of his break up with Uhura/thoughts on continuing friendship with Kirk.

Kirk’s fear of losing his individuality if he stays in his role as a Captain, or accepts Admiral’s position. Questioning his Starfleet future.

Jaylah seeing her family being assimilated/fear of Borg. Having to fight her borgified father/brother instead of random henchman.

Artefact from the beginning of the movie was a hidden Omega particle. Borg King wants it to perfect the collective and power his planned assimilation of the Federation. Ent-Crew activate it in climax destroying the borg and (an assimilated) Yorktown.

Ent Crew escape Yorktown/Omega detonation in barely completed Yorktown starship (designated ENT-A at end of movie).

I remember some rumours about the Borg being in Beyond even with the trailers out (twist would end up being Krall and his army are the borg). If they want some marvel box office (AntMan box office at least) they could do worse than bring in the borg .and even have them from the Prime timeline (to create a trendy multiverse link).

Apparently, Jonathan Frakes is interested… I doubt Bad Robot has/will ask him to though.

I don’t know that Frakes would be the guy to direct a potential $200mm film. A film that big is a massive undertaking.

These films shouldn’t cost $200 million though. Creative artists and producers can find a way to make magic out of a budget of half that. A $120 million film doing $300 million at the box office reads as a success story.

Depends how Picard Season 3 succeed, Perhaps he would be to busy for the Movie :)

“I would say it’s frustrating,” Pine says. “It doesn’t really foster the greatest sense of partnership, but it’s how it’s always been. I love the character. I love the people. I love the franchise. But to try to change the system in which things are created—I just can’t do it. I don’t have the energy.”

Yeah, Nimoy and Shatner, had much more pull in TOS movies than this.

The interviewer noting that “Abrams is elliptical about the film, even by J. J. Abrams standards .” just screams volumes about why Pine is frustrated. Anyone in Bad Robot’s orbit just talks in circles all the time. All the talent potentially involved with Trek XIV has moved on, because they are in demand, and you can’t work when all a potential project gives you is double, or elliptical talk.

They moved on because these movies don’t make real money. If the last three movies made what the Transformers movies did more would’ve stuck around.

There is a reason why Michael Bay did five TF movies and Abrams bailed after the second Kelvin movie. One made hand over fist in profits, the other one just broke even or bombed.

Like why doesn’t Abrams just direct this one then? Isn’t it weird how the guy who started these movies in the first place and has less to do these days since WB has turned down practically every TV show or movie the pitched for DC doesn’t seem to have any interest to do it?

Here’s the opportunity to step in and direct the next one once Shakman left just like he stepped in to direct Episode 9 when Colin Trevorrow left. Here is the chance for history to repeat itself. But that’s not happening, I wonder why?

Probably because either they can’t afford the guy anymore or it’s not enough potential money for a backend deal Abrams to do it like he made with Star Wars.

There could be a third reason and after making huge stinkers like STID and TROS they don’t want him near this either. But we know Hollywood doesn’t care about making quality stuff, only money. It’s why Bay made five Transformers movies in the first place. 🙄

So it’s probably just a money issue.

Star Trek Beyond was so boring, the other films were very disapointing overall but not boring as such, but Star Trek beyond just felt…boring, and it had the scale of a very expensive TV movie to me. They have soooo much potential with the Kelvin crew, each film has had moments of brilliance, true “Trek” moments, but they are just moments lost in a big budget mess of a dumbed down movie series. I dont know what to say, the last 20 years of Star Trek has been awful it really has struggled in the 21st Century, I include Nemesis and ENT in that and I am fans of both.

The real life tragedy of 9/11 disproved Star Trek ‘s thesis once and for all. That’s why everything we see now is either a pastiche of the 60s version or a gritty “update” with the label of Star Trek stretched over underlit Blade Runner ripoff schlock.

I’m not exactly sure what “thesis” 09/11 disproved once and for all, so I think that probably overstates it some. But there is no question that the classical Trek value of depicting a positive, rational future has been pretty devalued, and at this juncture is pretty out of touch with the culture. Plenty was going wrong in the world when TOS and its spinoffs were on the air — wars, assassinations, crime, environmental calamities, etc. — but there was also a sense that the world could be different, and the one thing liberals and conservatives alike took for granted was that there was at least a fair chance that their children would have it better than they did, as had been the case for every generation after the postwar boom. That, unfortunately, is no longer the case. So I’ll repeat the question I’ve been asking since the Picard season premiere: if Star Trek no longer exists to portray a more hopeful future than you can get in other genre offerings, what exactly is it for?

Spoken like an old, disillusioned liberal…and I get that, because I am one of those too!

I say that because I do see a lot of positive young people today who do have a better vision for the future. And for them, yes, we need more positive Star Trek — like what see see on SNW, Prodigy and DSC, for the most part, not like what we are getting on Picard Into Darkness and Cynical Decks, for the most part.

To turn a profit for Paramount in order to cover losses in Viacom’s larger portfolio.

I used to think that if Trek could convey optimism while on the air in 1968 — a year when it seemed the balloon went up (or is it down?) on world madness — that it would probably survive tough times again with the proper stewardship.

But the last few years (or the last 30 odd years if you want to go back to when I got seriously concerned about the environment in addition to all the other Big Things) have really provoked equal measures despair and rage in me, and a Pollyanna future barely works even as escapism. Older Trek still works for me because it is protected against my cynicism by its preexistence in a memory bubble of my youth, but honestly, the TREK that remains relevant for me is mainly the darker DS9 stuff: PAST TENSE nails things decades ahead of time, s31 shows what it needs to about governments and IN THE PALE MOONLIGHT is prid near perfect.

Sorry to pee on the wedding cake, but that’s my two cents. Now I got to go back to editing my PICARD article, which is quadruple the length it is supposed to be. (Too bad startrek.com and the newest version of the TREK magazine never respond to my inquiries, because I could keep them well-fed with just my leftovers.)

…there is no question that the classical Trek value of depicting a positive, rational future has been pretty devalued, and at this juncture is pretty out of touch with the culture. Plenty was going wrong in the world when TOS and its spinoffs were on the air — wars, assassinations, crime, environmental calamities, etc. — but there was also a sense that the world could be different…

This is a fascinating discussion. I’m not *not* convinced, but I’m not convinced, either. :)

TOS premiered in 1966 — that’s just over 20 years after V-E day, longer than the time that has passed between 9/11 and today.

If TOS could credibly portray an optimistic future a mere 20 years after the Holocaust, and indeed a mere 40 years after the Great War, I’m not sure why 9/11 precludes modern Trek from doing so as well.

I’d throw out the following hypotheses:

1. The issue is not so much 9/11 or other world events, but *domestic* politics — after Watergate, the loss of confidence in domestic institutions, and the US government to “do the right thing,” made it harder to believe in a future with a robust, stable, morally positive polity like the Federation. In the early 1960, people believed in the righteousness of Western democracy. Watergate changed that, and although that crisis of confidence receded in the 1980s and immediate post-Cold War period (uncoincidentally, the time when TNG was made), it came back with a vengeance in the new century after the Great Recession. Just *why* it came back is a huge question for political scientists.

2. Roddenberry and his cohort were not just garden-variety Hollywood producers — they served in the war, and then as a civilian commercial pilot with PanAm. Say what you will about him, but he believed in that future despite lived experience that showed how hard it would be to achieve. JJ’s lived experience is what, Hasty Pudding?

This is a fascinating (sorry) conversation to have. I think the parallel I would make is that in the mid 60’s, the nation was dealing with the existential dread of the A bomb constantly looming over them. If embracing space socialism meant not having the bomb dropped on themselves, that was something to look forward to! Now, the clear existential threats hanging over us constantly are not just the bomb, but also the wealth gap, a charred environment with the slimmest of chances of turning around, an economy that has pivoted to the exact opposite of socialism that we have healthcare from Amazon (owned by the richest person on the planet). The hopeful optimism of TOS Trek (which I still unabashedly love and show to my child) is not applicable. SNW did a radical thing (in my opinion) right off the bat in the pilot episode by showing familiar images to us 21st century rubes and pairing them with fabricated images of WWIII to show that it will get worse, much worse before it gets better. It shows us that we will pay for our follies but that we may still be resolute if we rely on each other to solve issues.

The nice thing about current Trek isn’t that all the programming is solid (spoiler, it isn’t) but that each show gives different people different views through which to help understand our humanity. Having trouble coping with trauma? There’s Discovery. Need a kids show that portrays a diverse group of kids working together? There’s Prodigy. Need a show about dealing with multiple midlife neurosis? There’s Picard. Want the old feeling of episodic cowboys in space? There’s Strange New Worlds. Need a good laugh while wallowing in the warm blanket that is 24th century LCARS and uniforms? There’s Lower Decks.

I didn’t mean to make this a defense of the franchise as a whole and sorry if I derailed the thread a bit, but I am one of the most cynical people I know and having a son that I am mostly convinced will grow up in a capitalist hellscape makes me reach for any amount of hope I can. I usually find writing and thinking about Trek gives me that so I think they’re still abiding by the original mantra set forth in the 1960’s. At least for me.

I find it very courageous that you even had a kid given that viewpoint. I knew that I couldn’t ever live with myself if I brought a kid into the world, given the way I saw the world as far back as the mid-70s when I was a teen. I spent a couple decades waiting for a vasectomy procedure to become free before finally shelling out for it myself. My wife and I always and only wanted to adopt, but never came across any situation where we’d qualify financially.

There’s a little core of gushy optimism in nearly all cynics, and Trek really used to tap that expertly with me. But that was another century …

For me Star Trek has been awful with Enterprise and only got worse JJ verse (but I thought all those were better than Nemesis at least) and more awful with Discovery and Picard.

Now I like more of that today. Really came to like Enterprise once I watched it and I did like Beyond but yeah it is on the boring side but a quality film. Picard is finally feeling like Star Trek to me this season but I said the same thing about the first two seasons after the first few episodes only to turn into huge stinkers, so not jumping the gun yet

But it’s sad I have been mostly unfulfilled since Voyager went off the air until very recently when LDS, SNW and PRO showed up. And I know some fans are still mixed on those shows too. But I am enjoying it more personally today, it just sucks it took this long.

Can’t be too compelling if no one is ponying up the money to make it, and the studio is waffling on starting it.

Even if the story was the most compelling thing ever conceived, this is a commercial business and the studio’s overriding concern is whether the pic would make money. The Kelvin films’ track record at the box office is pretty spotty. It ST films made bank, we wouldn’t be talking about when the fourth film is going to be released. We’d be eagerly anticipating the seventh .

Untrue. Film studios don’t make monetary decisions based on how compelling something is.

You’re splitting hairs on semantics there. Whatever the process is for evaluating a potential project, if compelling is one of the adjectives used to describe it, then they’ll make their decision accordingly. Outside of JJ talking it up, no one seems to be in a rush to make this movie (we’re assuming this story even exists). No one else seems too….compelled….by it.

Abrams wouldn’t know compelling if it hit him in the head.

If finding a director is the issue, why not JJ himself?

It would be erroneous to assume Abrahm’s isn’t busy.

JONATHAN FRAKES has been saying all along he’d direct a JJ ‘Trek film ….. what’s stopping Paramount (and JJ) from asking him, if they’re ONLY waiting to find a director?

Another candidate I would put forward from Star Trek is Olatunde, perhaps my favorite Trek director right now.

The problem with Olatunde is that he doesn’t know what a tripod is. Hand held camera works for action scenes, but when two people are talking and having a quiet moment he still has the camera bouncing around. It’s jarring and constantly pulls me out of the story.

Jesus Christ, no. All that guy knows how to do is spin a camera.

What’s stopping Paramount? Maybe no script. No story. No investors. Clearly, no budget. And Frakes waffles just a bit on directing, as well. Seems he does have other projects going on.

Yeah…all of this! 🤣

Simple answer. He doesn’t want to.

Because JJ will want a huge paycheck which will prevent it from being made on a reasonable budget. Trek was never a passion project for him, it was a job.

It was supposed to be a cash cow, with him wanting TPTB to suppress all other merchandise so that Kelvingear would have a wide-open road. When that didn’t happen, he probably washed at least one of his hands of it for good. And I’m more than fine with it going down that way.

I thought the 2009 film was great, which has re-watch value for me to this day. As does Beyond, which was very good except for pretty much wasting the talents of Idris Elba. As for STID, if it were a newspaper, I wouldn’t even deem to line my birdcage with it.

Overall, I find Abrams/Bad Robot to be very overrated. And please, stop using Beastie Boys songs in Trek movies.

Sooner or later Paramount will make this with the Kelvin crew! Its all about budget how little or how much they want to spend but in 2009 they went big & got approx $1.5b out of the franchise with 3 films. They just need to go big again relaunch the Kelvin crew with another mega budget JJ production with lens flare searing out of every frame & even JJ himself directing perhaps!

As crazy as that sounds, I think you’re right

Otherwise no point making another Trek movie the setup costs for new ship & crew are too high! Give the Kelvin one last adventure I think will do big box office & get a few more movies with this cast!

Makes no sense. A. They already have to make a new ship since they destroyed the last one lol. B. You think it will cost more to hire a new actor than it would to keep Zoe Saldana around who has already been in three of these and can command even more money now since her last three movies were Infinity War, Endgame and Avatar 2? Bro all those movies made more money in a single weekend than Beyond made total. 🤣🤣

What are you talking about??! New actors would be way less money unless they are Tom Cruise or Matt Damon replacing them lol.

They probably should fire the cast and just hire Cruise to do it and the next movie might actually make money.

I don’t get the lens flare or Apple bridge; SNW did that all much better with a smaller budget. I’d use the SNW bridge sets, ships just go with that’s the Kelvin “movie era” or restore the timeline or something along those lines. Go full motion picture era with Carol Marcus, Saavik, etc but something totally different like trying to stop a civilization from triggering a Higgs collapse at a supermassive black hole and go totally new with the 1701 ending up on some cross-galaxy expedition to stop it before everything (including the prime timeline) is doomed. Try to combine TMP with TWOK in some LOTR type adventure, something that should be possible but has never truly been done.

That’s not bad, something a little along the lines of what John Black pitched as a feature back in the 70s.

I always want to say that a small but successful Trek feature would be the way to go, but small, even if profitable, doesn’t often leave a mark that spurs more interest (look at Karl Urban’s DREDD — no followup and it has been over a decade I think.)

Is there just a whiff of sarcasm here?

Bro the last one bombed! No one cared about it but Trekkies and that was 3 years after STID. Now I don’t even think even a lot of Trekkies care about these movies anymore which means the next movie can bomb harder than Beyond did it the budget is too high again.

Why else has there been no movie after 7 years? It’s just money. Either they still don’t have enough to make a movie or they don’t think it will make enough. That’s all it is. If Beyond made a billion dollars, the next one would’ve been made years ago with an even bigger budget.

But instead it flopped, people aren’t dying to give the next movie more money because they will probably flop too. On top of that the cast can now ask for whatever they want not being under contract anymore and why no one has called Chris Pine. 🤣

I get why he’s complaining, but he’s also part of the problem. If they could make another big movie like Beyond they would just make the movie by now. It’s been 7 years! 😜

Pine should direct ST4. Obviously! They just need to ask him.

I just read the VF story. I don’t think that’s something Pine is interested in doing.

I like Chris Pine because, unlike pretty much everyone else involved with Trek, he’s not a hype machine. He’s an honest and thoughtful person.

One big problem is that the cast is now VERY expensive and that defeats the purpose of trying to make a film on a modest budget.

Well, perhaps the State of the Art now with Greenscreen and Monitor walling could reduce some Budget. But Today you need more CGI as in the Past and i bet many Star Trek “Pipeline CGI Artists” have their hand full with TV Series and such

But well, perhaps they can hunt for Ex-Game High Qualify Animators. They are trowing some of them out, because of saving Money. Same Ships but different Decks. could work

Go back to the TOS movie sequel model. Limit the number of space and transporter and ship shots to 150 cuts, not 1500.

And I find it terribly ironic that Pine is pushing for a lower budget. “Ok, Chris, we found a way to make it for $90m. You just have to do it for a $1m salary.” Crickets…

Quinto, Cho and Urban are doing TV shows. How pricey could they be? These guys aren’t Tom Holland or The Rock.

Semi-warm take: Pine is right. Trek films are never gonna make Marvel levels of money. Paramount would do well to disabuse themselves that they are.

Anyone in their right mind agrees!

I feel like Paramount is stalling and waiting for the clock to run out on JJ’s Kelvin Trek. It seems like it is going to be very close to a decade since Beyond before anything new is back in theaters.

With the Prime timeline of Star Trek flourishing on P+, how long will any interest in the unrelated and dormant Kelvin Trek last?

There are many questioning (including Paramount perhaps?) that the streaming series are flourishing, as you contend.

Who are the “many questioning” other than trolls here in the chat room? The streaming series objectively are flourishing as they are at the forefront of everything that Paramount+ publicizes.

Lots of people like those youtubers who have been yelling at the sky that Kurtzman is going to be fired ANY DAY NOW because new Star Trek is a failure, viewership is in the toilet, and Nick Meyer has ALREADY signed on to replace him! Haven’t you heard????

One can hope Trellium G.

2009 is the only Kelvin movie I could get my family to watch, and it convinced them to stick with the prime timeline. I can’t see myself going to a theatre to watch one alone.

I notice in hindsight that Paramount stuck JJ with making the announcement of the fourth movie launch window to investors…a deadline he’s failing to meet.

The fact that Abrams himself now seems to feel compelled to keep the hype alive suggests he’s not in a position of strength.

And why would he be?

His tentpole projects are not doing well.

Star Trek 4 should be about Kirk traveling back in time to save his father (aka Chris Hemsworth). In the process he sacrifices the Enterprise and dies dramatically but manages to restore the timeline. This erases the Kelvin alternate universe and puts everything back in place. It wound be a nice closure and ends the way the whole movie series started.

Of course the Alternative Universe is separate from the main universe so nothing needs fixing.

I’d direct it and I’d do it for 100.000 to 200,000. But I’m not really all that experienced with big budget films. Still to work on a Trek film is a dream of mine. I’ll do whatever the current prenise they got is though and not fight then. I will push it to be better of course. If anyone there at Paramount wants to contact me we can talk about it. Not that I expect them to from a post on this forum.

To summarise: I don’t feel like I need anymore of this crew. It’s too late. That era is closed for me. The series franchise is way ahead and currently way more interesting. I’m talking about SNW and any new post-TNG era series.

I feel bad for Pine, Quinto, Saldana, Urban, etc. These actors are constantly asked about a follow-up film. I don’t personally care about the Kelvin timeline … I would rather Paramount pour any money for the Trek film franchise into Kurtzman’s coffers.

A surefire way to generate the most comments in the least amount of time is to post an article on ST 4.

Maybe JJ Abrams should direct it. I mean he probably has enough pull left with the studio to actually get the movie made. Though i still believe the 4th movie as real as George Lucas sequel Star Wars trilogy. As in its not getting made.

After “Rise of Skywalker,” I’d prefer Abrams never direct anything else ever again.

I could be devil’s advocate and say he had to course correct after Last Jedi, but i won’t because JJ never had a plan. If only he had bothered to outline, and figured out who Rey was and had an actual arc for Luke. All he did was remake A New Hope. There were some interesting ideas i liked Rey as a scavenger and the idea of Finn as a renegade former stromtrooper turned Jedi. But it never went anywhere. The least interesting to me was Kylo as the new Vader. Why did Luke search for the first Jedi temple, why was there a map. A bunch of mystery boxes. And Last Jedi didn’t answer them. Also JJ making Rey a Palpatine i also found incredibly disappointing.

JJ was handed an impossible task with that film, and I guarantee he didn’t even want to do it. But they wanted his name attached, and probably thought that if anyone could clean up that mess it could be him, and backed up a brinks truck to convince him.

The real question is why they didn’t just contract him for all three in the first place, so there could be at the very least one clean story, win or lose.

Pine is frankly right. And I’m not even a fan. Trek was never going to pull in Marvel money and they should spend less on the movie and expect modest returns. As many of the TOS era movies showed us, You can make classic timeless movies on a limited budget if you Just Stick To the STORY!

“I always thought, Why aren’t we just appealing to this really rabid fan group and making the movie for a good price and going on our merry way, instead of trying to compete with the Marvels of the world?” At least Sad Robot did a decent job casting Kirk because that Pine guy is also smarter than the admirals.

Just feed ChatGTP with all those attempted scripts and ideas for ST4 (and the rejected for ST3) and we might get a story…

Chris Pine nailed it on the head. It goes to show you that the actual artists and creators understand the real potential and niche this franchise holds. It’s the number crunchers at the top trying to squeeze every damn penny out of us that create issues. Good on Pine for allowing his frustration to boil over. A combination of passion for the material and being self aware enough to know he’s ready to move on if it’s just going to cause frustration.

I’m of the opinion that the movie franchise needs a new “showrunner”, because it really demands someone’s undivided attention, and I mean no slight to JJ Abrams when I say his undivided attention is a rare commodity.

Is anyone even looking for a fourth movie at this point?

If pine wants the film made on a tighter budget he could have helped by accepting a lesser fee.

I’m hoping Star Trek 4 is base on TOS “Assignment: Earth” and TOS “Tomorrow is Yesterday” together. It would make a super Star Trek movie.

A better formula for success is to stop trying to recast old characters with new actors. Just invent new characters and tell new stories with those guys.

The Original Series
The Animated Series
The Next Generation
Deep Space Nine
Strange New Worlds
Lower Decks
Star Trek Movies
TrekCore on Twitter
TrekCore on Facebook

The now-tossed Star Trek 4 went through many iterations since the first announcement in July 2016 , including a story by legendary Hollywood director Quentin Tarantino, a surprise 2022 Kelvin cast announcement that apparently Chris Pine and company only learned about through the press, and prequel story set “decades before the 2009 film.”

Following the new Star Trek 5 announcement, star Chris Pine reportedly reacted “with a deep sigh” according to Deadline . “Chris is excited learn about this new film through today’s studio announcement,” said a representative for the actor, “because it went really well the last time this happened, right?”

Also expected for the Trek 5 reunion are co-stars Zachary Quinto (Spock), Zoe Saldana (Uhura), Simon Pegg (Scotty), Karl Urban (“Bones” McCoy), and John Cho (Sulu). Actor Anton Yelchin, who portrayed Chekov in the first three films, passed away in 2016.

While little is known about the planned story of this new film, sources close to Trek 5 development hear that Paramount is pursuing Dune and Wonka star Timothée Chalamet for the role of “Sybok,” half-brother of Spock, originated by actor Laurence Luckinbill in 1989.

Behind The Scenes
paramount pictures
Star Trek 5

April 2024 gift ideas and deals

Horizon Forbidden West Complete Edition – Steam Key (PC)

PS5 Slim Disc Console

Sign up for Disney+

Apple TV+ 7-day free trial

Buy Cat Deeley's This Morning outfits

PlayStation Portal

Xbox Series X

Shop Sky TV, broadband and mobile

Batman: The Animated Series Gotham City

New Star Wars Millennium Falcon set

Helldivers 2 - PS5 and PC

PS Plus Discount With Gift Cards

Content Production Intern, Digital Spy

After completing her joint honours degree in Journalism and English Literature at Cardiff University, Iona joined Digital Spy as a Content Production Intern in 2022. In this role, Iona writes across both news and features, specialising in TV and movies. During her time at Digital Spy , she has interviewed multiple Love Island stars, reported from the Black Adam red carpet and, most recently, interviewed the cast of Disney’s live-action The Little Mermaid .

.css-15yqwdi:before{top:0;width:100%;height:0.25rem;content:'';position:absolute;background-image:linear-gradient(to right,#51B3E0,#51B3E0 2.5rem,#E5ADAE 2.5rem,#E5ADAE 5rem,#E5E54F 5rem,#E5E54F 7.5rem,black 7.5rem,black);} Star Trek

Whoopi Goldberg on why she joined Star Trek: TNG

sonequa martin green, star trek discoveryseason 5

Star Trek Discovery sets final season release date

star trek discovery season 3, sonequa martin green as michael burnham, looking thoughtful

Star Trek: Discovery star opens up on show's end

star trek discovery season 2, michelle yeoh, philippa georgiou

New Star Trek movie adds Ted Lasso and Power stars

star trek 2009 spock prime zachary quinto and leonard nimoy

Star Trek getting prequel movie from JJ Abrams

Star Trek spin-off saved from cancellation

patrick stewart and tom hardy smile on the red carpet at a star trek movie premiere in 2002

Patrick Stewart surprised by Tom Hardy's success

patrick stewart as captain jean luc picard, star trek next generation

Patrick Stewart was advised not to do Star Trek

down low starring zachary quinto and lukas gage

First trailer for AHS star's R-rated gay comedy

Star Trek advent calendar available to pre-order

Screen Rant

10 star trek characters j.j. abrams introduced to canon.

J.J. Abrams' ambitious and exciting Star Trek Kelvin Timeline movies also introduce several new and vital characters to the movies' canon.

J.J. Abrams rebooted Star Trek in 2009 with a new USS Enterprise crew and the creation of the Kelvin Timeline.
George Kirk, Winona Kirk, and Jaylah are key characters introduced into the franchise by Abrams.
Abrams' Star Trek Kelvin-universe movies prioritize character and crew-based tension, with notable character developments and impactful villains.

Star Trek (2009) introduced the much-loved franchise to a new audience with a successful reboot. Director J.J. Abrams’ initial space-faring feature film launched a new, superbly recast Star Trek: The Original Series crew and introduced the anything-goes alternate Kelvin Timeline. Initially introducing origin stories for the movie’s leading characters, James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto), a series of unexpected and dramatic events soon leads to the early formation of the young, iconic USS Enterprise crew. As Kirk and Spock, Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), and the crew of the USS Enterprise work to overcome the universe-altering threat, a slew of familiar and new faces make spaces of significance in Federation history .

Over Abrams’ three Kelvin Timeline Star Trek movies, previously established but unseen and newly originated characters are revealed to delight or terrify audiences. The three movies’ villains devastatingly influence Federation history, substantially affecting Star Trek’s established multiverse timeline and posing dangers previously unseen. It’s important to note that Abrams’ films commendably prioritize character and crew-based tension as a primary source of conflict, resulting in subtle yet worthy character developments and heightening the impact and fall-out of each villain’s despicable drive. With a focus on these new and previously unseen faces, here’s a look at ten Star Trek characters J.J. Abrams introduced into canon .

10 J.J. Abrams Star Trek Movie Positives You Only Notice On Rewatch

10 lieutenant george kirk, chris hemsworth - star trek (2009).

Previously unseen in the Star Trek franchise, Lt. George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth) served on the USS Kelvin under the command of Captain Richard Robau (Faran Tahir). George was the youngest First Officer in Starfleet history at the age of 29 – a legacy later advanced by his son, James T. Kirk (youngest captain). Following Nero’s arrival and the subsequent murder of Robau, George Kirk was advanced to the USS Kelvin’s commanding officer. Winona Kirk (Jennifer Morrison), a fellow Kelvin crewmember and pregnant wife to George, is removed to an escaping medical shuttle when George Kirk evacuates the ship in light of Nero’s attack. With the ship’s automatic controls offline, George Kirk opts to remain on board and gives his life, manually pilot the ship into Nero's ship, the Narada, to protect the escaping shuttles.

It’s hard to overstate the significance and influence that George Kirk had on Starfleet history.

George Kirk’s youngest son, James Tiberius Kirk, was born and named moments before George’s death. In Star Trek Beyond , Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is troubled by his turning a year older than George was when he died, contrasting the reasons they each enlisted in Starfleet. Kirk says, “ He joined because he believed in it. I joined on a dare .” It’s hard to overstate the significance and influence that George Kirk had on Starfleet history, as well impact on the life choices and development of his youngest son. Making the ultimate sacrifice to aid in the survival of others, George Kirk makes a bold and explosive entrance into Star Trek legend.

9 Winona Kirk

Jennifer morrison - star trek (2009).

Winona Kirk (Jennifer Morrison) was the wife of Lt. George Kirk and mother of Captain James T. Kirk (and Jim's older brother George Samuel Kirk ). In 2233, pregnant with James, Winona Kirk, in the final stages of her pregnancy, was evacuated to Medical Shuttle 37 during the Romulan mining vessel Narada’s attack on the USS Kelvin. Advanced to acting Captain, George Kirk ordered the crew’s evacuation and Winona was transferred via wheelchair. The baby was born prematurely during the attack, named “James Tiberius” after his grandfathers, moments before George Kirk piloted the Kelvin into the Narada to protect the escaping shuttles.

Winona Kirk's significant and developing character adds further layers to the Kirk family dynamics.

When Winona returned to Earth as a widow , she settled to raise her young family in Riverside, Iowa. She subsequently returned to working for Starfleet, spending periods off-planet during her sons’ youth. Though Winona’s later relationship with Jim is not (yet) specified, Captain Kirk’s comment to Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban) in Star Trek Beyond that he planned to call her “ on the day ” (his birthday and anniversary of his father’s death) suggests at least a degree of emotional complexity and trauma. In Star Trek (2009), Winona Kirk is seen on-screen for the first time. Winona Kirk’s significant and developing character adds further layers to the Kirk family dynamics and character histories, and the franchise’s rich overall lore.

8 Captain Richard Robeau

Faran tahir - star trek (2009).

Introduced in Star Trek (2009), Captain Richard Robau (Faran Tahir) was the commanding officer of the USS Kelvin . When Nero and the Romulan mining vessel Narada encountered the USS Kelvin following their temporal incursion in 2233, Ayel (Clifton Collins Jr.) instructed Captain Robau to shuttle across for negotiations. With no available options, Robau delegated command of the Kelvin to Lt. George Kirk and boarded the Narada. Questioned, Ayel then demands the current stardate. Infuriated by the knowledge that they had become stranded in the past, Nero murders Captain Robau with a large-bladed weapon and resumes the attack on the USS Kelvin.

Robau is also the first example of a 23rd-century Starfleet Captain Star Trek (2009) introduced as the alternate Kelvin Timeline was created.

Captain Robau’s obvious strength and commitment to his crew and the Federation demonstrate professional versatility and deep respect for those around him. Robau's courage and innate calm accentuate his place in Federation history as the USS Kelvin’s ill-fated commanding officer. Robau is also the first example of a 23rd-century Starfleet Captain Star Trek (2009) introduced as the alternate Kelvin Timeline was created.

7 Nero & Ayel

Eric bana & clifton collins jr. - star trek into darkness.

The Romulan captain and second-in-command crew member of the 24th-century mining ship Narada were directly responsible for the formation of the alternate Kelvin timeline in Star Trek (2009). When a supernova of the system’s sun destroyed Romulus in 2387, Nero (Eric Bana) blamed the Prime-universe Ambassador Spock (Leonard Nimoy) and the Federation for failing to prevent the disaster and sought revenge. Inadvertently pulled into the artificially created red matter black hole designed to counter the supernova, the Narada is pulled into an alternate universe, back in time to 2233, where Nero and his crew soon encounter and attack the USS Kelvin.

Over many years, Nero’s actions resulted in the deaths of many. After Spock Prime’s arrival in the Kelvin timeline , Nero orders an attack on Vulcan – opening a singularity at the planet’s core – and later attempts a similar attack on Earth. By the sheer numbers involved in the “ particularly troubled Romulan ” commander’s genocide of Vulcan, Nero is one of Star Trek ’s most vicious and most significant villains .

Nero destroying the planet Vulcan created one of the most significant divergences between Star Trek 's Kelvin and Prime Timelines.

Ayel, a Romulan miner and second-in-command to Nero, supported Nero and regularly spoke in his stead. Ayel assists in Nero’s destructions , loyal to the captain but not sharing the depth of his need for revenge. Ayel attacks James T. Kirk on several occasions but falls from a high platform after Kirk shoots him with a Romulan disruptor. Nero is later lost when the Narada is ravaged by ignited red matter and pulled into a black hole.

Chris Pine's Star Trek Movies Explained

6 thomas harewood, noel clarke - star trek into darkness.

Noel Clarke stars in Star Trek Into Darkness as Thomas Harewood, a Starfleet officer and a member of the secretive and morally objectionable organization – Section 31. Primarily motivated by his family, Thomas was married to Rima Harewood (Nazneen Contractor) with their ailing and terminally ill daughter Lucille (Anjini Taneja Azhar) suffering in a critical care children’s hospital. Quietly coerced by John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), later revealed to be Khan Noonien Singh, Thomas Harewood agrees to assist in an attack on Starfleet in return for Harrison saving his daughter’s life through a small transfusion of augmented blood.

Harewood's story briefly contemplates the complexities of morality, humanity, and torn allegiances, pitting the horrors of death, compulsion, and destruction against the realities of parental love.

In exchange, Harewood detonates a bomb in the sub-basement of London’s Kelvin Memorial Archive – allowing for a later, more direct attack on high-ranking personnel at Starfleet Command intended to kill Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller). Prior to detonation, Harewood sends a short transmission to Marcus explaining his actions and that he had acted to save his daughter. Forty-two people, including Thomas Harewood, died in the bombing. Harewood’s story briefly contemplates the complexities of morality, humanity, and torn allegiances, pitting the horrors of death, compulsion, and destruction against the realities of parental love.

5 Admiral Alexander Marcus

Peter weller - star trek into darkess.

Fleet Admiral Alexander Marcus was the head of Starfleet and leader of the secretive Section 31 . Conspiring to create a war with the Klingons, Marcus used the revived and genetically augmented Khan Noonien Singh to develop advanced weaponry and further his aberrant goals. Holding Khan’s fellow Augments hostage later led to the disruption of his schemes when Khan escaped with the other Augments and attacked several Starfleet locations – a Section 31 facility disguised within the Kelvin Memorial Archive in London and an emergency session of high-ranking officials at Starfleet Command.

Marcus was father to Dr. Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) , who had falsified her transfer into the USS Enterprise under the name Dr. Carol Wallace, and mentor to Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), citing himself as the reason for Pike’s enlistment in Starfleet. Admiral Alexander Marcus’ conniving and cunning were counter to the ideals and responsibilities of his station and resulted in the death of many innocents. Marcus was killed by Khan following a failed attempt to recapture the augment and destroy evidence and witnesses to his illegalities treachery

Peter Weller also appeared as John Frederick Paxton in "Demons" and "Terra Prime" in Star Trek: Enterprise, season four.

Sofia Boutella - Star Trek Beyond

A member of an unknown species, Jaylah teamed up with USS Enterprise Chief Engineer Montgomery “Scotty” Scott (Simon Pegg) following Krall’s attack on the ship – and later worked with the Enterprise command crew to escape the planet and defeat Krall. A survivor of an earlier attack by Krall, her family subsequently killed, Jaylah had lived on Altamid for many years – hidden among the wreckage of the USS Franklin using holographic technology to conceal and defend herself, scavenging for parts and working to restore the ship.

Having learned to speak English from Franklin’s ship records and music library, later used to disrupt the Swarm ships’ cyber-pathic connection with a meaningful song, Jaylah worked through emotional and traumatic memories to provide a rough map of Krall’s base and assist in the rescue of USS Enterprise officers and crewmembers. After the escape, Jaylah joins the crew in celebrating Captain Kirk’s 30th birthday and is offered acceptance into Starfleet Academy . Jaylah’s lone, impressive character is meaningful and bold, hopeful though damaged, showcasing a courageous determination and passion for life and knowledge that echoes Star Trek ’s core ideals .

Jaylah was Inspired by Jennifer Lawrence 's character in Winter's Bone.

3 Krall AKA Captain Balthazar Edison

Idris elba - star trek beyond.

The primary villain in Star Trek Beyond , Krall was formerly a human Starfleet Captain who commanded the USS Franklin in the 22nd century. Initially serving as a MACO (Military Assault Command Operations) during the Xindi and Romulan Wars, Captain Balthazar Edison was left stranded on the planet Altamid after the USS Franklin crash-landed. Using alien energy transference technology found on the planet, Edison mutated himself into alien form to prolong his life and take on new abilities. Edison objected to the ideals of peace, tolerance, and unity that the Federation was founded on and, as Krall, sought to destroy it.

Krall was ultimately defeated by Captain Kirk, consumed by the Abronath, and sucked into open space.

Captain Balthazar Edison transformed into Krall , his frustration with the Federation amplifying into active hate and a belief that unity was a weakness. Krall made use of other technologies on the planet, too, learning about and searching for the Abronath – a powerful weapon, split into two pieces – later learning that the missing half was onboard the USS Enterprise. Sending Kalara to lure the Enterprise to Altamid, Krall used his Swarm drone to “ cut their throats ” and devastated the ship. Later locating the missing Abronath artifact, Krall launched an attack to destroy all life on the new Starbase Yorktown . Krall was ultimately defeated by Captain Kirk, consumed by the Abronath, and sucked into open space.

Chris Pine’s Star Trek Movies Ranked Worst To Best

2 kalara aka jessica wolfe, lydia wilson - star trek beyond.

At Starbase Yorktown, Kalara arrives in an escape pod and explains that her ship and crew are stranded on the planet Altamid in a nearby nebula. She requests aid to rescue them, and the USS Enterprise is assigned. As Captain Kirk and the Enterprise crew set course, Kalara helps lure them into a carefully orchestrated trap. Formerly a human Starfleet officer serving as a scientist on the 22nd-century USS Franklin , Jessica Wolff was stranded with Captain Balthazar Edison and the USS Franklin crew when a wormhole led to a crash landing. Among the few survivors, Wolff used an energy transference technology found on the planet to artificially prolong her life, transform her appearance, and renamed herself Kalara.

Mutated over time by the energy transference into an alien form, Kalara joined Captain Kirk and Ensign Pavel Chekov (Anton Yelchin) on the planet’s surface after the devastating attack on the Enterprise. When Kirk soon suspects her of dishonesty and involvement in the attack, Kalara is tricked into messaging Krall – exposing her true intentions and Krall’s location at the same time. Duplicitous and deadly, Kalara is subsequently killed in the ensuing fight between Kirk and Chekov and members of Krall’s Swarm , crushed when the Enterprise’s wrecked saucer section is overturned.

1 Commodore Paris

Shohreh aghdashloo - star trek beyond.

Star Trek Beyond introduces Commodore Paris (Shohreh Aghdashloo) as the commanding officer of Starfleet’s newest and most impressive Starbase , Yorktown. Kindly and wise, Commodore Paris is understanding of Captain Kirk’s uncharacteristic uncertainty regarding his future when he applies for promotion to a Vice-Admiral position at Paris’ Yorktown, ultimately offering him the role upon his return from the disastrous rescue mission to Altamid.

Commodore Paris is professional and warm, providing subtle yet valuable insight and advice, occupying an influential position of power and respect that accentuates her moral capability.

With Captain Kirk, Commodore Paris receives a request for assistance from the unexpected Kalara – her ship and crew apparently stranded on the planet in a nearby nebula. Upon Kirk’s return, Paris closes the long-pondered files on Captain Balthazar Edison and the crew of the USS Franklin and commends Kirk and his crew for their actions surrounding the attack on Yorktown.

Kirk declines the promotion in favor of commanding the new USS Enterprise-A, explaining that “ Vice Admirals don’t fly .” After the negative impression left by Admiral Marcus, Commodore Paris is professional and warm , providing subtle yet valuable insight and advice, occupying an influential position of power and respect in J.J. Abrams' Star Trek movies that accentuates her moral capability, experience, and charming merit.

Star Trek (2009), Star Trek Into Darkness, and Star Trek Beyond are available for streaming on Paramount+.

Star Trek (2009)

J.J. Abrams' 2009 movie Star Trek rebooted the iconic sci-fi franchise in a totally new timeline. When a Romulan ship travels back in time and alters the past, the lives of James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), and the future crew of the USS Enterprise are drastically changed. In this new timeline, the Romulan Nero (Eric Bana) sets out for revenge on Spock, setting off a chain of events that reshape the entire universe.

Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek Into Darkness is a 2013 movie directed by J. J. Abrams and starring John Cho, Alice Eve, and Benedict Cumberbatch. Part of the Star Trek franchise, this sequel sees Captain Kirk relieved of his duties as commander of the USS Enterprise.

Star Trek Beyond

In the Kelvin timeline of Star Trek Films, Captain James Tiberius Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the U.S.S. Enterprise crew return to fight a new enemy who puts everything they and the Federation stand for to the ultimate test. This third installment of the rebooted Star Trek films marked the 50th anniversary of the classic sci-fi franchise.

Alice Eve Redid Her Star Trek Into Darkness Audition Almost 20 Times

J.J. Abrams' 2013 film "Star Trek Into Darkness" was a parallel universe retread of Nicholas Meyer's 1982 film "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." In Abrams' movie, the central villain, Khan Noonien Singh, was played by Benedict Cumberbatch, while in Meyer's film, Khan was played by Ricardo Montalbán. Both films feature the death of Kirk and/or Spock, and both films feature the survivor yelling "Khaaaaan!" The plots of the films differ, however, as Khan remains the central villain of the 1982 film, while he was supplanted by a vengeful Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) in "Into Darkness."

Both films also feature Dr. Carol Marcus, a paramour of Captain Kirk (Chris Pine in "Into Darkness" and William Shatner in "Wrath of Khan"). In "Star Trek Into Darkness," Dr. Marcus was played by Alice Eve, taking over for Bibi Besch in "Wrath of Khan." Because the characters in "Into Darkness" are younger than they were in "Wrath of Khan," Kirk and Dr. Marcus don't yet have their son, David. Dr. Marcus was also transformed from a benevolent scientist into a Starfleet officer proficient in weapons technology.

Eve was happy to audition for the role of Carol Marcus, although it seems her audition was a wonderful yet harrowing experience. During a Build Series interview in 2019 , Eve revealed that she received the call to play Dr. Marcus while she was driving in her car and that she had to pull over. When it came time to actually audition, however, Eve said she was heavily directed by Abrams, explaining that she had to read certain sections over and over and over again.

Getting the call

Eve said that she received a frantic call from her agent revealing that Abrams was about to call. Sure enough, two minutes later, Abrams called her directly. Eve knew that "Star Trek" was a big deal and safely pulled her car off the road to talk to him. The next step was the audition and boy, did it seem difficult. According to Eve:

"I must have done it 17 times in a row in the room with J.J. Like, various different ways. I was heavily auditioned for that role, yeah. But [I] really enjoyed auditioning for him. Sometimes it's not fun to audition, but with J.J it felt a little bit more like a workshop and a work in progress rather than a test. [...H]e's always doing that and he's very amenable. And so in the middle of it, if I didn't like it, I'd be like, 'No, no, I want to go again.' 'Yeah, yeah, go again! Yeah, yeah, yeah, go again! Yeah, yeah, yeah.' It was very kind of [inter]active, the process."

The Dr. Marcus in "Into Darkness," as noted, is a wholly different character from the one seen in "Wrath of Khan," so Abrams and Eve were able to, essentially, create her from scratch. This also allowed Dr. Marcus' father to play a major part in the film despite not being mentioned in "Wrath of Khan."

Sadly, just as Carol Marcus didn't appear in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock," nor did she appear in the "Into Darkness" sequel "Star Trek Beyond." A pity; Eve did an exemplary job in the role, even if it was only a small one.

The underwear controversy

There was some controversy to the Dr. Marcus character as she was depicted in "Into Darkness," specifically in a scene wherein she had to change uniforms in Kirk's presence, with the camera being careful to catch a glimpse of her in her underthings. (Strangely, it seems brassiere technology won't change much from the 21st to the 23rd centuries.) The shot was clearly included for mere titillation's sake, and there was criticism of it upon the release of "Into Darkness." Abrams admitted he understood the criticism, and co-writer/producer Damon Lindelof even apologized for it .

Eve, however, did not feel exploited in any way, and she was happy to shoot the underwear scene. Speaking to Inverse in 2021 , she explained:

"It was something I voluntarily worked with a trainer to be fit for, was very much prepared for, and very much enjoyed [doing] — filming, executing, promoting. [...] The feeling I shouldn't have done it, or that it was exploitation, was confusing to me. [...] There are many things in the world that are confusing. I put it down to one of those anomalies. I'm proud of that scene, and all the work I did."

Despite the cheesecake moment, Dr. Marcus was still presented in "Into Darkness" as expert, professional, and capable. She's not hung up on Kirk and doesn't define herself by her relationship with a man. "Sci-fi is cool because it shows powerful women," Eve said. " They're working for their passion." Dr. Marcus was, to her, a powerful woman whom she got to workshop with her director. There was, it seems, nothing to regret.

an image, when javascript is unavailable

The Future of ‘Star Trek’: From ‘Starfleet Academy’ to New Movies and Michelle Yeoh, How the 58-Year-Old Franchise Is Planning for the Next Generation of Fans

“I can’t believe I get to play the captain of the Enterprise.”

“Strange New Worlds” is the 12th “Star Trek” TV show since the original series debuted on NBC in 1966, introducing Gene Roddenberry’s vision of a hopeful future for humanity. In the 58 years since, the “Star Trek” galaxy has logged 900 television episodes and 13 feature films, amounting to 668 hours — nearly 28 days — of content to date. Even compared with “Star Wars” and the Marvel Cinematic Universe, “Star Trek” stands as the only storytelling venture to deliver a single narrative experience for this long across TV and film.

In other words, “Star Trek” is not just a franchise. As Alex Kurtzman , who oversees all “Star Trek” TV production, puts it, “‘Star Trek’ is an institution.”

Without a steady infusion of new blood, though, institutions have a way of fading into oblivion (see soap operas, MySpace, Blockbuster Video). To keep “Star Trek” thriving has meant charting a precarious course to satisfy the fans who have fueled it for decades while also discovering innovative ways to get new audiences on board.

“Doing ‘Star Trek’ means that you have to deliver something that’s entirely familiar and entirely fresh at the same time,” Kurtzman says.

The franchise has certainly weathered its share of fallow periods, most recently after “Nemesis” bombed in theaters in 2002 and UPN canceled “Enterprise” in 2005. It took 12 years for “Star Trek” to return to television with the premiere of “Discovery” in 2017; since then, however, there has been more “Star Trek” on TV than ever: The adventure series “Strange New Worlds,” the animated comedy “Lower Decks” and the kids series “Prodigy” are all in various stages of production, and the serialized thriller “Picard” concluded last year, when it ranked, along with “Strange New Worlds,” among Nielsen’s 10 most-watched streaming original series for multiple weeks. Nearly one in five Paramount+ subscribers in the U.S. is watching at least one “Star Trek” series, according to the company, and more than 50% of fans watching one of the new “Trek” shows also watch at least two others. The new shows air in 200 international markets and are dubbed into 35 languages. As “Discovery” launches its fifth and final season in April, “Star Trek” is in many ways stronger than it’s ever been.

“’Star Trek’s fans have kept it alive more times than seems possible,” says Eugene Roddenberry, Jr., who executive produces the TV series through Roddenberry Entertainment. “While many shows rightfully thank their fans for supporting them, we literally wouldn’t be here without them.”

But the depth of fan devotion to “Star Trek” also belies a curious paradox about its enduring success: “It’s not the largest fan base,” says Akiva Goldsman, “Strange New Worlds” executive producer and co-showrunner. “It’s not ‘Star Wars.’ It’s certainly not Marvel.”

When J.J. Abrams rebooted “Star Trek” in 2009 — with Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Zoe Saldaña playing Kirk, Spock and Uhura — the movie grossed more than any previous “Star Trek” film by a comfortable margin. But neither that film nor its two sequels broke $500 million in global grosses, a hurdle every other top-tier franchise can clear without breaking a sweat.

There’s also the fact that “Star Trek” fans are aging. I ask “The Next Generation” star Jonathan Frakes, who’s acted in or directed more versions of “Star Trek” than any other person alive, how often he meets fans for whom the new “Star Trek” shows are their first. “Of the fans who come to talk to me, I would say very, very few,” he says. “‘Star Trek’ fans, as we know, are very, very, very loyal — and not very young.”

As Stapf puts it: “There’s a tried and true ‘Trek’ fan that is probably going to come to every ‘Star Trek,’ no matter what it is — and we want to expand the universe.”

Every single person I spoke to for this story talked about “Star Trek” with a joyful earnestness as rare in the industry as (nerd alert) a Klingon pacifist.

“When I’m meeting fans, sometimes they’re coming to be confirmed, like I’m kind of a priest,” Ethan Peck says during a break in filming on the “Strange New Worlds” set. He’s in full Spock regalia — pointy ears, severe eyebrows, bowl haircut — and when asked about his earliest memories of “Star Trek,” he stares off into space in what looks like Vulcan contemplation. “I remember being on the playground in second or third grade and doing the Vulcan salute, not really knowing where it came from,” he says. “When I thought of ‘Star Trek,’ I thought of Spock. And now I’m him. It’s crazy.”

To love “Star Trek” is to love abstruse science and cowboy diplomacy, complex moral dilemmas and questions about the meaning of existence. “It’s ultimately a show with the most amazing vision of optimism, I think, ever put on-screen in science fiction,” says Kurtzman, who is 50. “All you need is two minutes on the news to feel hopeless now. ‘Star Trek’ is honestly the best balm you could ever hope for.”

I’m getting a tour of the USS Enterprise from Scotty — or, rather, “Strange New World” production designer Jonathan Lee, who is gushing in his native Scottish burr as we step into the starship’s transporter room. “I got such a buzzer from doing this, I can’t tell you,” he says. “I actually designed four versions of it.”

Lee is especially proud of the walkway he created to run behind the transporter pads — an innovation that allows the production to shoot the characters from a brand-new set of angles as they beam up from a far-flung planet. It’s one of the countless ways that this show has been engineered to be as cinematic as possible, part of Kurtzman’s overall vision to make “Star Trek” on TV feel like “a movie every week.”

Kurtzman’s tenure with “Star Trek” began with co-writing the screenplay for Abrams’ 2009 movie, which was suffused with a fast-paced visual style that was new to the franchise. When CBS Studios approached Kurtzman in the mid-2010s about bringing “Star Trek” back to TV, he knew instinctively that it needed to be just as exciting as that film.

“The scope was so much different than anything we had ever done on ‘Next Gen,’” says Frakes, who’s helmed two feature films with the “Next Generation” cast and directed episodes of almost every live-action “Trek” TV series, including “Discovery” and “Strange New Worlds.” “Every department has the resources to create.”

A new science lab set for Season 3, for example, boasts a transparent floor atop a four-foot pool of water that swirls underneath the central workbench, and the surrounding walls sport a half dozen viewscreens with live schematics custom designed by a six-person team. “I like being able to paint on a really big canvas,” Kurtzman says. “The biggest challenge is always making sure that no matter how big something gets, you’re never losing focus on that tiny little emotional story.”

At this point, is there a genre that “Strange New Worlds” can’t do? “As long as we’re in storytelling that is cogent and sure handed, I’m not sure there is,” Goldsman says with an impish smile. “Could it do Muppets? Sure. Could it do black and white, silent, slapstick? Maybe!”

This approach is also meant to appeal to people who might want to watch “Star Trek” but regard those 668 hours of backstory as an insurmountable burden. “You shouldn’t have to watch a ‘previously on’ to follow our show,” Myers says.

To achieve so many hairpin shifts in tone and setting while maintaining Kurtzman’s cinematic mandate, “Strange New Worlds” has embraced one of the newest innovations in visual effects: virtual production. First popularized on the “Star Wars” series “The Mandalorian,” the technology — called the AR wall — involves a towering circular partition of LED screens projecting a highly detailed, computer-generated backdrop. Rather than act against a greenscreen, the actors can see whatever fantastical surroundings their characters are inhabiting, lending a richer level of verisimilitude to the show.

But there is a catch. While the technology is calibrated to maintain a proper sense of three-dimensional perspective through the camera lens, it can be a bit dizzying for anyone standing on the set. “The images on the walls start to move in a way that makes no sense,” says Mount. “You end up having to focus on something that’s right in front of you so you don’t fall down.”

And yet, even as he’s talking about it, Mount can’t help but break into a boyish grin. “Sometimes we call it the holodeck,” he says. In fact, the pathway to the AR wall on the set is dotted with posters of the virtual reality room from “The Next Generation” and the words “Enter Holodeck” in a classic “Trek” font.

“I want to take one of those home with me,” Peck says. Does the AR wall also affect him? “I don’t really get disoriented by it. Spock would not get ill, so I’m Method acting.”

I’m on the set of the “Star Trek” TV movie “Section 31,” seated in an opulent nightclub with a view of a brilliant, swirling nebula, watching Yeoh rehearse with director Olatunde Osunsanmi and her castmates. Originally, the project was announced as a TV series centered on Philippa Georgiou, the semi-reformed tyrant Yeoh originated on “Discovery.” But between COVID delays and the phenomenon of “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” there wasn’t room in the veteran actress’s schedule to fit a season of television. Yeoh was undaunted.

“We’d never let go of her,” she says of her character. “I was just blown away by all the different things I could do with her. Honestly, it was like, ‘Let’s just get it done, because I believe in this.’”

If that means nothing to you, don’t worry: The enormity of the revelation that Garrett is being brought back is meant only for fans. If you don’t know who the character is, you’re not missing anything.

“It was always my goal to deliver an entertaining experience that is true to the universe but appeals to newcomers,” says screenwriter Craig Sweeny. “I wanted a low barrier of entry so that anybody could enjoy it.”

Nevertheless, including Garrett on the show is exactly the kind of gasp-worthy detail meant to flood “Star Trek” fans with geeky good feeling.

“You cannot create new fans to the exclusion of old fans,” Kurtzman says. “You must serve your primary fan base first and you must keep them happy. That is one of the most important steps to building new fans.”

On its face, that maxim would make “Section 31” a genuine risk. The titular black-ops organization has been controversial with “Star Trek” fans since it was introduced in the 1990s. “The concept is almost antagonistic to some of the values of ‘Star Trek,’” Sweeny says. But he still saw “Section 31” as an opportunity to broaden what a “Star Trek” project could be while embracing the radical inclusivity at the heart of the franchise’s appeal.

“Famously, there’s a spot for everybody in Roddenberry’s utopia, so I was like, ‘Well, who would be the people who don’t quite fit in?’” he says. “I didn’t want to make the John le Carré version, where you’re in the headquarters and it’s backbiting and shades of gray. I wanted to do the people who were at the edges, out in the field. These are not people who necessarily work together the way you would see on a ‘Star Trek’ bridge.”

For Osunsanmi, who grew up watching “The Next Generation” with his father, it boils down to a simple question: “Is it putting good into the world?” he asks. “Are these characters ultimately putting good into the world? And, taking a step back, are we putting good into the world? Are we inspiring humans watching this to be good? That’s for me what I’ve always admired about ‘Star Trek.’”

Should “Section 31” prove successful, Yeoh says she’s game for a sequel. And Kurtzman is already eyeing more opportunities for TV movies, including a possible follow-up to “Picard.” The franchise’s gung-ho sojourn into streaming movies, however, stands in awkward contrast to the persistent difficulty Paramount Pictures and Abrams’ production company Bad Robot have had making a feature film following 2016’s “Star Trek Beyond” — the longest theaters have gone without a “Star Trek” movie since Paramount started making them.

First, a movie reuniting Pine’s Capt. Kirk with his late father — played in the 2009 “Star Trek” by Chris Hemsworth — fell apart in 2018. Around the same time, Quentin Tarantino publicly flirted with, then walked away from, directing a “Star Trek” movie with a 1930s gangster backdrop. Noah Hawley was well into preproduction on a “Star Trek” movie with a brand-new cast, until then-studio chief Emma Watts abruptly shelved it in 2020. And four months after Abrams announced at Paramount’s 2022 shareholders meeting that his 2009 cast would return for a movie directed by Matt Shakman (“WandaVision”), Shakman left the project to make “The Fantastic Four” for Marvel. (It probably didn’t help that none of the cast had been approached before Abrams made his announcement.)

The studio still intends to make what it’s dubbed the “final chapter” for the Pine-Quinto-Saldaña cast, and Steve Yockey (“The Flight Attendant”) is writing a new draft of the script. Even further along is another prospective “Star Trek” film written by Seth Grahame-Smith (“Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter”) and to be directed by Toby Haynes (“Andor,” “Black Mirror: USS Callister”) that studio insiders say is on track to start preproduction by the end of the year. That project will serve as an origin story of sorts for the main timeline of the entire franchise. In both cases, the studio is said to be focused on rightsizing the budgets to fit within the clear box office ceiling for “Star Trek” feature films.

Far from complaining, everyone seems to relish the challenge. Visual effects supervisor Jason Zimmerman says that “working with Alex, the references are always at least $100 million movies, if not more, so we just kind of reverse engineer how do we do that without having to spend the same amount of money and time.”

The workload doesn’t seem to faze him either. “Visual effects people are a big, big ‘Star Trek’ fandom,” he says. “You naturally just get all these people who go a little bit above and beyond, and you can’t trade that for anything.”

In one of Kurtzman’s several production offices in Toronto, he and production designer Matthew Davies are scrutinizing a series of concept drawings for the newest “Star Trek” show, “Starfleet Academy.” A bit earlier, they showed me their plans for the series’ central academic atrium, a sprawling, two-story structure that will include a mess hall, amphitheater, trees, catwalks, multiple classrooms and a striking view of the Golden Gate Bridge in a single, contiguous space. To fit it all, they plan to use every inch of Pinewood Toronto’s 45,900 square foot soundstage, the largest in Canada.

But this is a “Star Trek” show, so there do need to be starships, and Kurtzman is discussing with Davies about how one of them should look. The issue is that “Starfleet Academy” is set in the 32nd century, an era so far into the future Kurtzman and his team need to invent much of its design language.

“For me, this design is almost too Klingon,” Kurtzman says. “I want to see the outline and instinctively, on a blink, recognize it as a Federation ship.”

The time period was first introduced on Season 3 of “Discovery,” when the lead character, Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green), transported the namesake starship and its crew there from the 23rd century. “It was exciting, because every time we would make a decision, we would say, ‘And now that’s canon,’” says Martin-Green.

“We listened to a lot of it,” Kurtzman says. “I think I’ve been able to separate the toxic fandom from really true fans who love ‘Star Trek’ and want you to hear what they have to say about what they would like to see.”

By Season 2, the “Discovery” writers pivoted from its dour, war-torn first season and sent the show on its trajectory 900-plus years into the future. “We had to be very aware of making sure that Spock was in the right place and that Burnham’s existence was explained properly, because she was never mentioned in the original series,” says executive producer and showrunner Michelle Paradise. “What was fun about jumping into the future is that it was very much fresh snow.”

That freedom affords “Starfleet Academy” far more creative latitude while also dramatically reducing how much the show’s target audience of tweens and teens needs to know about “Star Trek” before watching — which puts them on the same footing as the students depicted in the show. “These are kids who’ve never had a red alert before,” Noga Landau, executive producer and co-showrunner, says. “They never had to operate a transporter or be in a phaser fight.”

In the “Starfleet Academy” writers’ room in Secret Hideout’s Santa Monica offices, Kurtzman tells the staff — a mix of “Star Trek” die-hards, part-time fans and total newbies — that he wants to take a 30,000-foot view for a moment. “I think we need to ground in science more throughout the show,” he says, a giant framed photograph of Spock ears just over his shoulder. “The kids need to use science more to solve problems.”

Immediately, one of the writers brightens. “Are you saying we can amp up the techno-babble?” she says. “I’m just excited I get to use my computer science degree.”

After they break for lunch, Kurtzman is asked how much longer he plans to keep making “Star Trek.”

“The minute I fall out of love with it is the minute that it’s not for me anymore. I’m not there yet,” he says. “To be able to build in this universe to tell stories that are fundamentally about optimism and a better future at a time when the world seems to be falling apart — it’s a really powerful place to live every day.”

More From Our Brands

Olivia rodrigo sings with jewel at madison square garden: ‘an honor’, a baby formula billionaire just dropped $27 million on this massive beverly hills estate, ncaa men’s final ratings can’t match women amid uconn routs, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, the rookie’s eric winter opens up about filming this week’s ‘raw’ #chenford scene: ‘tim has spiraled’, verify it's you, please log in.

Is a Star Trek: The Next Generation reboot inevitable?

I t's a question that has come up before. Could Star Trek: The Next Generation be rebooted somewhere down the line? Is it possible that Paramount would attempt to replace Captain Picard and the entire, memorable crew?

Star Trek: The Original Series was essentially rebooted with the J.J. Abrams' movies, beginning with Star Trek (2009). And, in Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, characters we've known since the beginning of Star Trek have been recast with, for the most part, fan approval. But Star Trek: Picard recently brought back the characters from The Next Generation, making the final season of the series a rousing success. All of the actors returned to reprise their original roles, and they still fit easily back into their parts. In ten episodes, Picard brought us one long movie that could have would have been epic as a three-parter on movie screens much like other movie franchise have done. So that season proved those characters aren't ready to be retired. In fact, they don't need to be as they easily undertook a season-long mission and proved they could handle more.

Giant Freakin Robot seems to think, though, that it's inevitable for The Next Generation to be rebooted and even provides a recipe for success. But I question whether that will actually happen with original actors still in fighting shape, so to speak. The Original Series was rebooted onscreen without giving most of the original characters a chance to reprise their roles. Could they have done just as well in a new movie?

Leonard Nimoy appeared in the movie, and he didn't miss a beat as Spock. William Shatner, who is now 93-years-old, was only 78 at the time of Star Trek (2009) so he could have slipped back into the role of Captain Kirk just as Patrick Stewart reclaimed his role as Admiral Picard. Essentially, the 2009 movie didn't have to happen with a reboot of the characters. It was a choice made by the studio.

A reboot of The Next Generation would, of course, be another choice by the studio, but with such success coming from the final season of Picard, with the original characters still fresh on fans' minds, would it be a wise decision? Probably not, and with Alex Kurtzman saying he wants all the series to be different, this is something that probably isn't going to happen.

This article was originally published on redshirtsalwaysdie.com as Is a Star Trek: The Next Generation reboot inevitable? .

Copy from this list
Report this list

J.J. Abrams Movies

Movies or TV
IMDb Rating
In Theaters
Release Year

1. Mission: Impossible III (2006)

PG-13 | 126 min | Action, Adventure, Thriller

IMF agent Ethan Hunt comes into conflict with a dangerous and sadistic arms dealer who threatens his life and his fiancée in response.

Director: J.J. Abrams | Stars: Tom Cruise , Michelle Monaghan , Ving Rhames , Philip Seymour Hoffman

Votes: 390,112 | Gross: $134.03M

Fast-paced, with eye-popping stunts and special effects, the latest Mission: Impossible installment delivers everything an action fan could ask for. A thrilling summer popcorn flick.

2. Star Trek (2009)

PG-13 | 127 min | Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

The brash James T. Kirk tries to live up to his father's legacy with Mr. Spock keeping him in check as a vengeful Romulan from the future creates black holes to destroy the Federation one planet at a time.

Director: J.J. Abrams | Stars: Chris Pine , Zachary Quinto , Simon Pegg , Leonard Nimoy

Votes: 619,738 | Gross: $257.73M

Star Trek reignites a classic franchise with action, humor, a strong story, and brilliant visuals, and will please traditional Trekkies and new fans alike.

3. Super 8 (2011)

PG-13 | 112 min | Action, Mystery, Sci-Fi

During the summer of 1979, a group of friends witness a train crash and investigate subsequent unexplained events in their small town.

Director: J.J. Abrams | Stars: Elle Fanning , AJ Michalka , Kyle Chandler , Joel Courtney

Votes: 367,147 | Gross: $127.00M

It may evoke memories of classic summer blockbusters a little too eagerly for some, but Super 8 has thrills, visual dazzle, and emotional depth to spare.

4. Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

PG-13 | 132 min | Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

After the crew of the Enterprise find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one-man weapon of mass destruction.

Director: J.J. Abrams | Stars: Chris Pine , Zachary Quinto , Zoe Saldana , Benedict Cumberbatch

Votes: 496,696 | Gross: $228.78M

Visually spectacular and suitably action packed, Star Trek Into Darkness is a rock-solid installment in the venerable sci-fi franchise, even if it's not as fresh as its predecessor.

5. Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

PG-13 | 138 min | Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

As a new threat to the galaxy rises, Rey, a desert scavenger, and Finn, an ex-stormtrooper, must join Han Solo and Chewbacca to search for the one hope of restoring peace.

Director: J.J. Abrams | Stars: Daisy Ridley , John Boyega , Oscar Isaac , Domhnall Gleeson

Votes: 972,513 | Gross: $936.66M

Packed with action and populated by both familiar faces and fresh blood, The Force Awakens successfully recalls the series' former glory while injecting it with renewed energy.

6. Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019)

PG-13 | 141 min | Action, Adventure, Fantasy

The surviving Resistance faces the First Order once again in the conclusion of the Skywalker saga.

Director: J.J. Abrams | Stars: Daisy Ridley , John Boyega , Oscar Isaac , Adam Driver

Votes: 492,185 | Gross: $515.20M

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker suffers from a frustrating lack of imagination, but concludes this beloved saga with fan-focused devotion.

List Activity

Tell your friends, other lists by baxtercallow.