July 18 2024


An archive of Star Trek News

New Star Trek 3 Rumors

1 min read


For fans hungry for news about Star Trek 3, a few new rumors about characters will be of interest.

One of the rumors is regarding several new female characters.

In the first rumor, there will be “at least three new female characters.” One of those will be the captain of another ship, according to Filmdivider.

The second new female character is supposed to be the President of the United Federation of Planets.

The third female character rumored to be in the next movie will be of interest to McCoy fans. According to the rumor, the third female character is to be McCoy’s ex-wife! And McCoy is expected to get more screen time in Star Trek 3.

The males aren’t left out when it comes to the latest batch of rumors regarding Star Trek 3. A male is said to be the villain of the next movie, and word has it that he will be “Bryan Cranston-like,” and that Cranston himself has had discussions about “taking on the role.”

Remember, all of this is not confirmed and may not pan out, but the rumors will surely set fans to speculating and thinking about the next movie.

About The Author

53 thoughts on “New Star Trek 3 Rumors

  1. > word has it that he will be “Bryan Cranston-like,” and that Cranston himself has had discussions about “taking on the role.”

    I love Cumberbatch as an actor, but his own personal success did nothing to improve STID. So here they are again riding the coattails of somebody else’s success.

    Every day, I’m more and more disgusted by the state of this franchise.

  2. Star Trek in 2015 is like the corpse of the dead host in the middle of the floor at his own party. Nobody wants to notice or say anything about the increasing stench for fear of killing the party mood.

  3. A corpse that made close to $500 million at the box office. Star Trek was a corpse after Nemesis and Enterprise, thank god JJ Abrams revitalised the franchise.

  4. smfh, its like I said before people star trek is dead and gone…. long live star wars forever and beyond!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. Nemesis was crap, Insurrection was pretty weak but revitalised? Just look at how JJ-Trek compares with Star Trek V.

    Most Profitable Star Trek Films, Domestic – Adjusted For Inflation (revenue, profit margin)
    1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) $190.3 million 615%
    2. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) $152.0 million 296%
    3. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) $144.8 million 172%
    4. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) $128.5 million 150%
    5. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) $264.6 million 135%
    6. Star Trek Generations (1994) $119.4 million 116%
    7. Star Trek: First Contact (1996) $137.1 million 104%
    8. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) $98.5 million 88%
    9. Star Trek (2009) $280.7 million 84%
    10. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) $100.6 million 21%
    11. Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) $228.8 million 20%
    12. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) $56.0 million (-28%)

    Most Profitable Star Trek Films, Worldwide – Adjusted For Inflation (revenue, profit margin)
    1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) $234.9 million 783%
    2. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) $283.6 million 432%
    3. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) $195.9 million 411%
    4. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) $446.9 million 297%
    5. Star Trek Generations (1994) $189.3 million 243%
    6. Star Trek: First Contact (1996) $223.5 million 233%
    7. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) $161.2 million 213%
    8. Star Trek (2009) $420.2 million 176%
    9. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) $132.5 million 152%
    10. Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) $467.4 million 146%
    11. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) $170.7 million 105%
    12. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) $87.5 million 12%

    Source: http://1701news.com/node/527/what-most-profitable-trek-movie-all-time.html

  6. There is no script as of yet, so this whole story is bogus. Just like the location shooting story (South Korea) last year…

  7. Interesting stats.


    The latest Trek movies are the iterations of Star Trek that have had the highest numbers of ‘bums on seats’

    some cool stats here too, I paid attention to the critical consensus, which was interesting.


    As for a summary of why I think JJ has revitalised the franchise, here is a summary of why:

    Critical and commercial success. Check out the RT rankings or the metacritic rankings for the critical and as for commercial, Star Trek 2009 sold incredible numbers on blu-ray – I think it’s the 3rd highest figure ever or something. Also STID was the 3rd most downloaded film on itunes. Not only that, but Trek is mainstream again, the latest Trek movies are the iterations of Star Trek that have had the highest numbers of ‘bums on seats’. 2 million were watching Enterprise at the end of its run, a trivial number compared with the 8 million that turned out for the opening weekend of STID.

    So all I’m saying is that to call the franchise a corpse is incorrect.

  8. And cost just as much if not more to produce and advertise. You JJ fans keep forgetting it cost money to make these things. It’s not just a one way train. Further, the theaters get a cut of the money made as well. I’m sorry, but while it wasn’t super hero money, the original franchise did more with less. A lesson dear Mr. Abrams has not yet learned.

  9. Everything that made Star Trek great before Abrams touch it is either completely gone or has turned into a stinking parody of itself. You can take all your critical acclaim and stuff it, Star Trek is DEAD! All I see is JJ-Trek, which is some kind of half breed franchise spun out of something much greater that has gone away.

    Oh ya, will those same critics stand in line for hours in twenty years to see Chris Pine at a Star Trek convention? Probably not.

  10. With regards to TWOK, that’s undeniable. Made on a TV budget, it’s easily the most profitable of the Trek movies.

  11. We have to agree to disagree on the ‘stinking parody’ argument – many would disagree with that statement, some would agree. If your referring to STID and the whole sacrifice bit, I’d use the term homage.

    I’ve been lucky enough to listen to Shatner speak at a convention, he was great. Would I be so interested to listen to Chris Pine? ask me again in 20 years. I certainly wasn’t fussed to listen to Patrick Stewart back in 1990, but now it’s a different matter – he’s become a legend. Still not bothered to hear from Avery Brooks or Kate Mulgrew, though I’d be interested to listen to Scott Bakula if he were talking about Quantum Leap.

  12. Your right. Some refuse to accept that STID did not make as much as was expected. It cost $240m to film and market. Out of the $467m it took in world wide, less than half went back to the studio. It’s not hard to figure out why the production crew did not return.

    A blockbuster movie relies on a return audience. I saw ST:2009 in the theater, 3 times, and STID, only once. Prelude to Axanar, a fan-made short film, was better, and most of it was dialogue. Can you imagine the response if they had made something like that for the theaters?

    MOJO.com suggests ticket sales on the TOS movies just maybe over-inflated by other websites.

  13. Since we’re talking a period of decades, any analysis based on number of tickets sold (“bums on seats”) should take into account population growth.

    Year Population Tix Sold % of Population Viewing
    1979 225.06 million 32,772,293 14.6%
    1982 231.66 million 26,841,144 11.6%
    1984 235.82 million 22,759,240 9.7%
    1986 240.13 million 29,572,273 12.3%
    1989 246.82 million 13,151,146 5.3%
    1991 252.98 million 17,788,360 7.0%
    1994 263.13 million 18,103,140 6.9%
    1996 269.39 million 20,820,789 7.7%
    1998 275.85 million 14,965,386 5.4%
    2002 287.63 million 7,444,821 2.6%
    2009 306.77 million 32,868,245 10.7%
    2013 316.98 million 28,140,056 8.9%

    So it looks like JJ-Trek has indeed attracted more of an audience than any films post-Star Trek IV.

    However, the massively larger audience of the Transformers series would lead one to conclude that that franchise is a much larger “commercial success” and much more “mainstream” than Star Trek.

    As to “critical success”, there’s definitely no accounting for taste.

    I wouldn’t call JJ-Trek a corpse, though. It’s more like a zombie – devoid of the spirit and personality of the original.

  14. “Every day, I’m more and more disgusted by the state of this franchise.” No one cares.

  15. The tansformers franchise is undeniably a bigger commercial success than Star Trek, though of course it lacks the critical acclaim that the Trek films enjoy. You are entirely entitled to your opinion on the spirit and personality of the new movies, though I disagree with your assessment. The world would be pretty boring if we all liked the same stuff.

  16. I respect your difference of opinion. I would not be so negative regarding the new movies if it weren’t for the fact that they have been and, barring a surprise announcement, will continue to be the only form of Star Trek officially in production for the foreseeable future. As it stands, the world is indeed pretty boring for those of us Trek fans who are now expected to like the same stuff – the only stuff being produced by Paramount, i.e. JJ-Trek.

  17. How do you define alive? By only having a movie? Star Trek continues to make millions in syndication broadcasts all through the world, creating new fans as people discover the series. Merchandising ( very, very limited with the reboot) makes millions more. All over the world, actors and fans from the various series interact at conventions. Star Trek is very much alive, was very much alive before the 2009 movie, and will be regardless of what happens with the latest reboot film.

  18. Indeed, “devoid of the spirit and personality of the original” is a perfect description of JJTrek.

  19. Thank the stars for the occasional ST fanfilm that surpasses in spirit the questionable quality of the JJ films.

  20. Where else can you have a great time prancing around with magic swords and learn wisdom from a muppet?

  21. the OS/TNG movies, save for the TMP, never did that well internationally at the box office.

  22. It didn’t help that they were nowhere near as widely released and marketed internationally as the JJ films have been. In fact, nearly one-quarter of the overseas total for Star Trek Into Darkness came from China alone and none of the OS/TNG films were even released there!

  23. In the theaters I saw the first JJ-Trek once and never saw Into Dumbness. From Star Trek V to Nemesis, I saw ever Trek film from that group at least twice. I was too young to remember seeing movies before Trek V. This new franchise is based on fair weather fans and as a result is loosing traction far sooner than I think anyone at the studio had hoped for or expected.

    Star Trek when it’s at itself best is made for it’s loyal audience. Time and time again it has been proven that when you try to make it something for the general audience, it doesn’t do as well. There isn’t anything wrong with that, it is what it is. It’s just that till the studio figure that out, good luck to them making this things.

  24. I wrote a whole long well thought out response to you James, and dang it but my computer did something dumb and it was lost. So we’ll keep it to this: I’m happy you like JJ-Trek, I don’t. If the studio starts making Star Trek I actually care about again (like TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise), then I’ll be happy.

    Maybe to cut to the chase that is what we are really fighting about over on these boards: what kind of entertainment we personally want to see. I get it that a lot of people like dumb forgettable pop corn movies. I like something with a bit more substance, which JJ-Trek lacks ten fold. May we each find the Star Trek that connects with us personally the best.

  25. Yeah, I really loved DS9 – even seasons 1 and 2. But know a lot of people who would say that it’s not really Star Trek as it was too dark. I also think that the films are a bit different to the TV series as they have to appeal more to modern audiences. I also literally adored TNG, but my dad – an old TOS fan loathed it – and still does 🙂 Then again, my wife really likes Voyager and Enterprise – shows that I’ll watch, but which don’t for some reason, don’t work as well for me as TOS, TNG and DS9.

    I’d argue that the substance that you refer to is there in the new movies, but perhaps it’s lost under the ‘sposhions and fast pace of the film. I did dislike the last 30 mins of the movie – watching Spock loose it again was derivative of the surprising moment in ST09 where he hits out at Kirk on the bridge. I’d have liked to have seen him solve the problem in a more interesting way than with his fists. If you’re interested in an alternate opinion on Into Darkness, this is my own take on it:


  26. It’s actually even more complicated, because we have to take into account:
    1. A general decline in movie audiences caused by other forms of content delivery such as streaming media.
    2. The increased price of tickets.
    3. The fact that films have a shorter time in movie theaters than they used to.

    So it’s pretty hard to compare films performances over the years as there are a whole lot of factors to consider.

  27. Good point. Probably the best way to compensate for these factors is to compare the percentage of tickets sold for each Trek movie vs. total numbers of tickets sold for that year (Source: Boxofficemojo.com)

    Year . Star Trek Tix Sold . Total Movie Tix Sold . % of Trek Moviegoers
    1979 . . . . 32,772,293 . . . 1,022,000,000 (est.). 3.21%
    1982 . . . . 26,841,144 . . . 1,175,000,000 . . . . . 2.28%
    1984 . . . . 22,759,240 . . . 1,199,000,000 . . . . . 1.90%
    1986 . . . . 29,572,273 . . . 1,017,200,000 . . . . . 2.91%
    1989 . . . . 13,151,146 . . . 1,262,800,000 . . . . . 1.04%
    1991 . . . . 17,788,360 . . . 1,140,600,000 . . . . . 1.56%
    1994 . . . . 18,103,140 . . . 1,291,700,000 . . . . . 1.40%
    1996 . . . . 20,820,789 . . . 1,338,600,000 . . . . . 1.56%
    1998 . . . . 14,965,386 . . . 1,480,700,000 . . . . . 1.01%
    2002 . . . . . 7,444,821 . . . 1,575,700,000 . . . . . 0.47%
    2009 . . . . 32,868,245 . . . 1,412,700,000 . . . . . 2.32%
    2013 . . . . 28,140,056 . . . 1,343,600,000 . . . . . 2.09%

    So again, it looks like the most popular post-Star Trek IV films among moviegoers are the JJ-Trek films. There is a common link to this pattern – the most popular films were those shown when no Star Trek TV series was in production. This leads me to conclude that Paramount/CBS will be very reluctant to launch a new TV series while still producing JJ-Trek films and that they will likely continue the film series as long as the movies are profitable. With Orci no longer in the picture, I honestly hope the writing quality of the next film will improve but at the same time I think a hit film will actually hurt the prospects of Star Trek returning to the small screen in the near future.

  28. Agreed. Unless it’s a monster smash hit like The Avengers. Honestly, Paramount/CBS could have a tied together Marvel-esque universe with ST if it could get it’s act together.

    Mind you – if the films a dud then that doesn’t bode well for a new TV series either.

    I’d love it if they’d release say 3-4 TV movie’s per year. Voyager two parters always got pretty good ratings.

  29. I realize that many think that the market had at one point become saturated with Trek – with films and multiple series on the air but, in my opinion, the sense of saturation was largely the result of the same creative team (referred to by many as “Bermaga”) being behind all of them with the exception of DS9 and the latter seasons of Enterprise – both which of which featured some outstanding episodes. The Star Trek universe (or multi-verse considering the mirror and JJ universes) should be large enough that any number of stories can be told. The challenge is having a variety of creative minds behind them. To paraphrase a certain old country doctor, we may see ecstasies, miseries, broken rules, desperate chances, glorious failures and glorious victories but all of these things we’ll never know unless Paramount/CBS decides to expand the Star Trek universe with films, miniseries and animation as we see happening with DC/Marvel/Star Wars. If the next movie is both thoughtful and adventurous while ending up a smash hit, this might be a possibility. If, however, it is just another dumb action flick then I truly hope it tanks and that we’ll eventually see Star Trek return to the small screen where a good creative team will have more flexibility and a better opportunity to explore those strange, new worlds.

  30. at least they were ALL profitable….although i thought insurrection was the worst of them all….

  31. since 2006 the meritorious nature of sci-fi movies has noticeably
    diminished. especially with these Star Trek retreads. instead of
    broadening the genre with well developed plot continuity these movies
    seem to be trying to think outside of the envelope they are pushing. not
    to mention trying to get outside the universe of familiarity (or that
    familiarity that the original Star Trek established) in order to
    transport the audience into the mind of the re-teller, who hasn’t i,
    hate to say, introduced a very desirable, or stable, reality. designing
    epic and sweeping digital theatrics,heightening drama to increase our
    adrenalin isn’t aiding, in the least, our enjoyment (or enlivening us)
    any. what’s transpiring here is driving us in, and through, white
    knuckled, frenzied, tumultuous obstreperousness and impractical schmaltz
    but how long can this be kept up? i await any new science fiction
    production, including TV series, that isn’t an insult to the theories or
    modesty of real writers and authors of the field. i don’t think the
    lack of a happy medium, or temperance, is being true to the fans or
    responsible to the
    future that won’t, in likelihood, be marked
    with critical time variances. we can probably be assured that there will
    arrive for our viewing displeasure a whole selection of movies that do
    not reach the same, or similar, quality of 20th century shows and
    movies. i don’t live in the past but my standards for good, re-viewable
    movies that become favorites is somehow unattainable since
    aforementioned date, and not representative of critical periods in

  32. I loved Star Trek TOS, TNG, DS 9 and Voyager, as well as most movies. But I was unable to keep my own flame alive the minute Star Trek started to go backward. I don’t think going back to the past was a good idea in Entreprise, and I think it was an outright bad idea to reboot TOS, and use the excuse of an alternate universe to throw away what TOS really was. Star Trek looks at the future, not the past! It is all about evolution, not de-evolution! The only way to keep the true fan base is to respect that, and to do something totally new – be it a movie or a series, or both – while respecting Gene Roddenberry’s view of the whole Star Trek concept / universe. “Star Trek 3″… Really….

  33. I don’t think going back to the past was a good idea in Entreprise, and I think it was an outright bad idea to reboot TOS, and use the excuse of an alternate universe to throw away what TOS really was. Star Trek looks at the future, not the past! If enough NEW ideas and NEW characters – rather than going back to the past – was put into new movies, or even new series, Star Trek would live on. But, yes, Star Trek is doomed if J.J. Abrams’s vision is not kicked out!

  34. You’d also have to take into account inflation which will have a bigger effect than population growth. This will put JJ’s garbage back at the bottom again.

Comments are closed.

©1999 - 2024 TrekToday and Christian Höhne Sparborth. Star Trek and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. TrekToday and its subsidiary sites are in no way affiliated with CBS Studios Inc. | Newsphere by AF themes.