As JJ says... It´s utterly false. And also a good marketing move, I might add.

Oh, so it ain't true?

Abrams wants to clean it up and reboot the franchise into something new I'm sure.

Meanwhile, Paramount wants a "traditionla" Star Trek film. I'm sure they have a major disagreement about this.

They should stick with abrams.

On the other hand, Abrams Mi:3 was total ass, flat and uninspired. He's nowhere near any of my 'filmmakers to watch for' lists.

Personally, another StarTrek film is not required or even wanted by most of the world. Let it lay for another 5 years or so and do not use a signal member of any of the previous crews of any of the shows. Start fresh in 5 years is my recommendation.

Triflic, did we watch the same Mi:3 film? I thought the 3rd one was fantastic!

Flat uninspired action sequences. A wasted Philip Seymour Hoffman (not to mention the rest of the supporting cast) and little tension, coherence, or relevance to the plot. The movie was not creative or fun. Yep, I didn't like the movie.

Admittedly, the opening 5 minutes were excellent, but that scene was also the basis of the trailer for the film.

What aspect of MI:3 did you like, Simone?

Also, watch MI:3 and Collateral back to back and then tell me what you think of MI:3

The thing is I loved the first Mi film and hated the 2nd, but I thought the Mi:3 one was the best in the franchise, I just loved it, on the basis of Mi:2.

But Collateral is an altogether different and way better film, I hope we agree on that? To this day, why Cruise was never nominated in that film but Foxx was is still beyond me.

Well I'm with Simone, M:I:III rocked I loved it and reviewed it with five stars. Now to compare it to Collateral would mean it rated much lower, but how can you?

The MI series is big set pieces of huge action scenes, Collateral is a much more character based, powerful and restrained film. They are tides apart. To pull MI into that genre for comparison is unfair to both films.

They were both five stars for me (out of five!) and for wholly different reasons.

Lest we remember Die Hard. I still think you need good acting in an action movie for it to work, and other than the opening scene, the acting and screenplay are flat and for me un-interesting. The action scenes also had no zip (compared to the Cruise on strings of the first film, or John Woo Slo-Mo overkill of the second). Overall I thought that MI:3 felt like an expensive made-for-TV movie.

Well, I didnt have a problem with the acting or the screenplay, Mi:3 revived my interest for the franchise and was one of the most entertaining films I have seen last year.

Triflic, I disagree with you, with all due respect.

"Another StarTrek film is not required or even wanted by most of the world"... Excuse me? I am not talking only in my name, but those who made First Contact what it was, and many, many cinema viewers are in real expectation for the resurrection off the franchise. You are using John Campea´s point: since you are not interested, nobody must be. Wrong.

Then you talk about MI3 and J.J Abrams in general. Well, everything is arguable, but MI:3 is quite more than what appears to be. It is not only pure entertainment (as if that was a shame), but a reflection on responsibilities and marriage, and it has the best villain seen in many time, terrificly portrayed by P.S. Hoffmann.

And Tom Cruise delivers a powerful performance as always. As always, I say. The guy takes the same proffesional care portraying the guy in Collateral (I agree with ya, it´s a tremendous movie) than in this sequel of a very interesting franchise, or even in a bad movie.

And Abrams... who better to renew Star Trek? He knows the TV medium (don´t tell me you dislike Lost or the inferior Alias), he gave new energy to M:I after John Woo, he is perfect for the task of bringing Star Trek where no one has gone before. Now that the Piller/Berman/Braga trio is gone, we don´t need a decade to see another take on the saga.