The only thing which raises doubt in my mind is the possibility that any alternate timeline might be permanent and not so subtle. But that remains as what it is—speculative doubt, not a negative conclusion.

Like Anthony said in the thread about the Writer’s Strike, they are not making their details public. None of us knows that the story is good or it isn’t. It involves time travel and possibly altered timelines. Well, that’s been done well, and it has been done poorly. It has been a common theme in Star Trek. Even in TOS, there were some pretty good ones.

Of course he’s no Scorcese, but neither were any other previous Trek movie makers. I wouldn’t compare the best Star Trek films to some of those done by my favorite director. That’s a whole other genre in filmmaking.

I’m not sure I’d like Star Trek with a Rolling Stones soundtrack, either.

Nor do I think “Gangs Of The Orion Syndicate”, or “Raging Klingon” would sell as good Star Trek. How about “Ferengifellas”, or “The Last Temptation Of Surak”? What else could you suggest–”Quark’s Casino”? Maybe “Mean Planetoid”? “Cape Remus”?

I know you didn’t mean it that way, but I couldn’t resist…The point is, he has done some popular and successful work (not to mention carrying with him a large following of his own), and he is young. You have him sunk before he even sets sail.

As for Nimoy, it does make me feel better that JJ’s story was impressive enough to lure Leonard out of hiding to portray Spock again. Mr. Nimoy was never comfortable being defined by Star Trek, so it says alot about the script that JJ wrote. At least it says enough to refrain from burying the film before it’s even finished…

Guarded optimism. That means that even you have your doubts. Why? Don’t you believe this film will be a booming success? I don’t blame you for your doubt that you finally admitted to. From what I read here I’ve been seriously wondering myself. That’s not being pessimistic – that’s being realistic.

Let’s do the time warp again. With alternative timelines. Snooze.

Please stop putting words in people’s mouths! No one is saying “the movie is going to make the franchise better.” None of us has enough information to say that at this point, or refute it — not even you. What’s actually being said is that there are reasons to be optimistic, ranging from Abrams’ pedigree as a writer-director to Nimoy’s enthusiastic endorsement to the quality of the talent that has been hired to fill the roles. That’s all. You can choose to believe otherwise, of course, but understand that’s a reflection of your personal attitude, not the result of any sort of fact-based reasoning process.

I did see (after my last post here) the spoiler you speak of. While I admit that it gives me pause, I am happy as long as it is a good story that, in the end, restores the original timeline. No permanent altered timeline, please. Other than a gratuitous Shatner shoehorning, that might be the one thing that could easily ruin this for me, more than anything else. Check that. That could be worse than a Shatner shoehorning!

But do not compare my guarded optimism to your definitive pessimism. There is no comparison.

Pffffffhhhhhhtttttt!!!!!!

A giant raspberry.

You talk about my proof being based on straw foundation – well what about your proof? You have absolutely nothing to go on then says this movie is going to make the franchise better. Oh, Abrams is directing it. Big deal, so what, who cares? This doesn’t give us a guarantee. From what I read here on this website I have not been impressed and no one has done anything to change my mind. Where’s all your solid proof that I’ll be missing out? Ummm, there isn’t any.

#80 Don’t do me any favors. You go have a good sulk and keep thinking there’s no place like home. Buh bye.

Even if there was to be an “alternate timeline”, would Nimoy’s Spock’s involvement not indicate to you that such an altered timeline would exist only until Spock restored the original timeline we know?

What if Spock is not time travelling at all, but instead, something happening in the 24th Century makes a “Lost”-like flashback relevant to the plot?

Your negative conclusions about a film which you have yet to see indicate that either your imagination is somewhat limited, or you just want it to be bad for some other reason. You also seem to have a curious aversion to what you call, “filling in the blanks”. This is Star Trek. There are a million possibilities in which such a project can tell an excellent “stand-alone” Trek story—one we may not have seen in a feature film since TMP, if you ask me.

#80–You said,
“…it’s not real Star Trek to me. It adds no new concepts nor does it explore any. That’s what Star Trek is about. Therefore this movie is Fake Trek.”

How do you know it adds no new concepts or explores any? It seems to me, you know nothing more of this story than I do. If you can build case in your mind for this being a bad movie (with only vague hints as to who and what will be in it) on this kind of “straw foundation”, then you have my sympathies. I will waste no more time with you.

I also never said anywhere that I thought it will be better than the last TOS film — but then again I’m one of the few who didn’t think ST6 was as good as its made out to be anyway. I felt the allegory was a little too forced, and the whodunit way too lame and predictable. Suddenly, for this one and only time in Trek history, the Star Fleet officers wear 20th century American military insignia, and the Klingons speak with Russian accents? Why, whatever could it all mean??

I guess what I’m wondering is, how exactly do you know that the movie doesn’t “add or explore new concepts?” Assuming you’ve read the script or seen the production dailies (since that’s the only way you’d know what the movie offers in terms of “new concepts”), perhaps you’d like to share what you know?