‘Star Trek’ Still Called ‘Star Trek’ March 9, 2009
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
Earlier today we reported that the new Star Trek trailer would be shown during Heroes tonight on NBC as a ’sneak peek’…a non-event for Trekkies right? Well it actually turned out to be one, but not because they suddenly decided to show some new footage. Many fans wondered why the NBC announcer (introducing the trailer) referred to the film as "Star Trek: The Future". Were they announcing a new name? Um, no .
What a difference inflection makes
The problem arose because the NBC announcer introduced the Star Trek trailer saying what appeared as:
And now a special sneak peek of "Star Trek The Future" — begins in theaters May 8th.
Hear it for yourself
When what he should have said was:
And now a special sneak peek of "Star Trek." The future begins in theaters May 8th
"The Future Begins" is the new tagline for the movie. The announcer tacked ‘the future’ part of the tagline after ‘Star Trek’ and the next thing you know over a dozen people email (and tweet to) TrekMovie asking if the title changed. TrekMovie contributor and Memory Alpha editor Chuck Trotter says that someone even tried to change the name of the movie on the Star Trek (film) page at Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki. In case you have any doubt, TrekMovie double checked and Paramount is not changing the name.
New theater standee shows film title ‘Star Trek’ and tagline ‘The Future Begins’
Why ST09?
While we are on the subject of names, some fans have asked why TrekMovie has used the abbreviation ‘ST09′ for the movie, and not ‘ST11′ or ‘STXI.’ This site stopped using "Star Trek XI" long ago because the Trek films stopped using roman numerals with Generations. However every film has had some kind of ’subtitle’ and each one has been given an abbreviation, such as TMP for The Motion Picture or FC for First Contact. The problem with the new film is that "Star Trek" can refer to the entire franchise or to The Original Series, which was also simply titled "Star Trek"…so ST09 is short for "Star Trek (2009)".
Thanks to Dan for audio file
Loading ...
Comments»
I dont like ST09
Wonder if Paramount still has to pay for the advertising time? Haha.
it’s amazing how something as small as a comma can send people into a frenzy!
Hmm…. I keep getting confused, cause ST09, as in ST IX is Insurrection.
I’m sure that we’ll come up with something.
Looked the same clips to me
Anthony, why don’t you set up a poll to see what people like most?
It seems… logical.
Thanks for that pointless information Anthony!
I am 100% in favor of “ST09.” It is not in the franchise’s interest to suggest to the general public that this is the eleventh installment of something they haven’t really seen much of before.
i’m glad i didn’t watch heroes. I must admit I would be one of the ones quickly tweeting and posting about the title.. Good crowd control anthony.
Stupid announcer. Sounded like the guy was in a rush to do something else and didn’t take the time to really read what he was supposed to say.
#8 …What percentage of that “general public” frequent Trekmovie.com?
Apart from that, it’s pretty common knowledge that Trek has been around for, like…deacdes, man. :)
A poll seems like where this post is going. I for one dont care either way surprisingly. but what happens if there is a sequel? we cant go around saying st-2013 or some weird thing like that.
#8: I agree – I mean, they don’t number Bond movies.
#12: I imagine that if there are sequels, they’ll just be like “Star Trek: [subtitle]“. Of course, the more radical approach would be to do like “The Dark Night” and not even use “Star Trek” in the title at all.
#13 like Enterprise?
someone failed reading comprehension. stay in school kids.
It is all a matter of semantics and inflections, I caught the promo watching Hero’s on my 42″ HDTV, and run one of my Dish DVR’s on the same channel, HDTV is off air live broadcast and the DVR is because live hi-res TV has no rewind. I love the picture quality of HD but still can not afford HD Dish. I can pay the extra $10 a month cost but the $350 for the new Terabte VIP-922 is some thing I’ll have to save for.
Now to get back to the original topic, During the commercial break I kept jumping back to replay the video to make sure I comprehended what was said, I like most Trek fans (be it …ies or …ers) would desire to have what was implied via the syntax used to become true.
I know that we did not have WWIII as the story lines state had just happened in the Trek timeline. My biggest wonder is if our new President Big Butt O’buma (oops to use correct English not my label for him, it’s Barack O’bama) is trying to create a similar holocaust with as bad of events as what Atomic and Genetic wars created and Star Trek emerged from.
Either way if our president were to create the perfect world that Trek-lore holds he might get the label as Great. It is just the suffrage that we must suffer through day by day in the present tense that hurts. To get past the word fights that can become physical the biggest things I think we need to start doing to create the Trek Universe is to understand our own indivigal persona so we can define ourselves to others as a person not fluff or harming words others use to characterize whom you are. That will make each individual person a whole solid person not a ill informed mass.
When we learn to make ourselves a whole persona them we can start working on learning the technology we develop to become a Species with a Destiny and not just another lost life form in this chain of life.
Do we want to become a grease spot in live or start becoming GOD like? Can we all create a better life for everyone else with out the pitfalls of greed and power that harms humanity today.
ST09? Windows95? No thanks. ST11 is more logical. ST9 is Insurrection.
whoa there everybody! random guy named David doesn’t like ST09!
not only that, but he feels so justified in not liking it that he doesn’t even need to post any sort of rationale as to why he doesn’t like it. for that matter, he doesn’t even bother to let us know whether it’s the movie that he doesn’t like (if so, how did he get to see it and can we hang out sometime?) or if it’s the abbreviation which most people will never see for the title of a film everyone will remember.
this is compelling stuff! i hope you’re all convinced.
and to Spockish…
um… what?
Sounds like a cold read.
“Star Trek: The Future?”: Not Canon. ;)
16 – WTF?
I went to ‘Watchmen’ in the weekend, but the trailer was not played with it (bugger!). However, there was some advertsing for the ‘Star Trek’ movie … the poster comprised of the black and white close-up of Zachary Quinto as Spock. There was also a brief outline of the movie, which was titled as ‘Star Trek Zero’, which I believe was one of the earlier working titles?
Cheers …
#7
That is just a rude and pointless remark! Anthony works very hard to give us the information we all crave, you you are obviously just ungrateful for it!
Understandable mistake, let’s not have kittens about it!
-cs™
17. Its just an abbreviation, not a life and death situation! For the love of God you’re argueing about how a film title is being abbreviated for the sake of clearness and frankly common sense!
Either way this is a pretty mute subject (though me commenting on it undoubtdly makes it a bit more than that for me ;) – we all know the new film is called ‘Star Trek’ so it shouldn’t bother anyone about how it’s abbreviated or mis-spoken by a TV announcer- the amount of times TV announcer’s get something wrong in what they say is enough to be shrugged off.
omg i missed the sneak peek tonight does anyone have a link to see it i had to f@#kin work lol
#16
Huh?
“The Future, Conan?”
I mentally refer to it as ST:JJ
Complete with the colon.
Honestly, every time I see ST09 I have to step back and remind myself that you aren’t talking about insurrection… That said, not really a big deal either way.
#28 “Complete with the colon”
Better not let a proctologist near that particular colon!
ST09 bahhh should be TFB
We didnt call Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan ST82 !
What it really ought to be called is “iTrek”
what not abreviate it as ST:TFB
I suppose you could always call it
ST2009
STMAY09
ST THIS YEAR
Strangely enough whenever Anthony has used ST09 throughout this and last year no one has had a problem figuring out which film he meant.
Also if it weren’t for a mix up in a speech we all would have thought nothing of it and had 34 comments and counting to babble on about nothing.
Heh its brightened my day, “it was…fun”
@16…
“My biggest wonder is if our new President Big Butt O’buma (oops to use correct English not my label for him, it’s Barack O’bama) is trying to create a similar holocaust with as bad of events as what Atomic and Genetic wars created and Star Trek emerged from.”
Excuse me?
Maybe the it was supposed to be the following and the announcer had to wait for “begins” to scroll up the teleprompter:
” And now a special sneak peek of “Star Trek The Future Begins” — in theaters May 8th.”
And we could always just throw in an apostrophe:
ST’09
#16
Rush..I had no idea you liked Star Trek !
Star Trek – The Future Begins, wouldn’t actually be a bad title.
“Star Trek” is the best title for this movie – this to me is a completely new franchise, beginning again and having it called “Star Trek” just confirms that this isn’t Star Trek 11, it’s the first film in (i hope) a trilogy of films.
Amongst my peer group we’ve been referring to it as STAR TREK ZERO, which seems to work.
Just post more pics of Zoe Saldana please.
All else will then be forgiven.
40
Wouldn’t that be the same as
Star Trek — Naught!
:-)
ST09 never made much sense to me, ST2009 could be a valid alternative?
Haha, you would have thought someone would have listened to it before it went to air!!
I’m happy with Star Trek being referred to as ST09. It’s easy and simple!
ST09 = “Star Trek: Insurrection”
Please stop confusing me!
Use 2009 or even ST without the 09…
Star Trek is fine because there has been no movie simply called Star Trek until this one. Given our love of Acronyms for the titles, ST is equally fine.
And for those folks who want to get technical about the fact that the original series was simply Star Trek, I see it called TOS more often than not these days, since there have been five tv series in the franchise.
st9 is tng movie st09 is this one but the oh is not silent ps anyone see SPOCK ears appearance on yesterdays KYLE XY
Star Trek The Future Where We Will Spend The Rest Of Our Lives.
-This film dedicated to Criswell.
To me it is Star Trek XI. It is the eleventh movie in the Star Trek franchise and from what I’ve heard the plot leads off from the previous films in a indirect fashion.
BTW wasn’t it being called Star Trek: The Beginning in Korea? I wouldn’t mind taking to that title, certainly seems to sum up the movie well.
Easy solution. Call it what it is. “Fake Trek”
The more information that comes out, the more this is apparent…
No, I haven’t seen the whole thing, but I’ve seen enough and read enough about it to know that the style and much of the substance is not what I think of when I hear the words, “Star Trek.”
They should have named the new movie “Star Trek – The Beginning”, (TB) like they did in South-Korea.
Egads. Are we still debating the name of the film??
Can’t we go back to debating the colour of Kirk’s eyes?? At least that was interesting.
Like the slanted/italics type in the standee better than the straight up type in the trailer.
16-wha?
Actually STXI is Star Trek 0 so should we all it Star Trek Zero : The Future?.
@16 – don’t drink before you post.
@51 – nah. “Star Trek” sounds just fine.
um…wasnt ‘The Future Begins’ the original full title for Terminator Salvation before it got shortened (presumably to avoid the all too obvious Batman connection) ?
just checked imdb – and yes it was
People need to chill out and relax. ST11, STXI, ST09, Star Trek (2009)…
I’m pretty sure I can figure out which movie you are talking about no matter what abbreviation you use.
Having said, I don’t think the franchise will adopt ST09 as the abbreviation for this movie.
But that’s just me.
32. April Roberts – March 10, 2009
What it really ought to be called is “iTrek”
You kind of crystallised my thoughts there, April Roberts…
i just don’t understand the renumbering, and it’s confusing. STXI would have simply meaned that this is the eleventh movie about star trek. when you look at the preparation of a new bond movie before a title comes they refer to it as Bond 22, Bond 23 ecc… after the title is presented the number remain talking about it for simple cronological individuation
16. Spockish
Anthony, this racist nitwit should be banned.
I have to admit, ST09 took a little getting used to, but I’ve accepted it. An understandably needed abbreviation for a movie that receives thousands of posts per day. Don’t you think it’s kind of late in the game to worry over what the new movie title is shortened to on this website? It’s been used enough so everyone should quickly know to what its referring.
I’m more interested in what Anthony will be calling this site after the movie’s premiere and theatrical run. I believe he once mentioned the name StarTrekHQ. I can live with that.
Again, Anthony, great job on staying on top of things here. Your and your team’s research and rumor busting skills are unmatched.
#60–Agreed. NO place for THAT here.
@ 16. There should be no politics in this forum. There are other blogs or websites for that. I agree with #60 and #62.
ST:TFB
or
ST2009
Does it okay for me.
Have to say every time I see ST09 I have to mentally slap myself to remember it is this years film we are talking about.
Not that a good slap isn’t enjoyable, but a time and a place for everything as they say.
Just who are ‘they’ anyway? Always wondered that…
Why am I asking myself these questions? Please feel free to jump in anytime people… :-)
I still call the movie Corporate Headquarters…
The series all seem to have 3 letter abbrevs. But the movies don’t right?
TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT
TMP, TWOK, TSFS, TVH, CRAP, TUC, GEN, FC, INS, NEM, TFB
If you insist on “09″ make it “ST2009″. 09 is Insurrection
Was it my imagination or did the trailer shown during Heroes seem shorter than the trailer online?
Also, isn’t this a Star Trek site, not a spout my right leaning political theories as #16 has done. Trek is about a future where everyone can live together regardless of what race or planet they are from.
I guess #16 didn’t like DS9 because Sisko was black and blamed the Dominion War on him…
68: “The Future Begins” isn’t the subtitle, it’s just the tagline. This movie has no name other than “Star Trek”.
The stuff 16 wrote is inexcusable.
ST09 was a great title– but that was another life… Before Spockish Prime came back from the nice future and changed it to ST11, which caused horrible confusion when they started making the sequel in 2011, killed all the progress we’d made against the economy and started the genetic engineering of Eugenic Screenwriters to name movies and rule the world. Luckily Anthony Prime came back too, and pulled ST09 out of a bar in Iowa to set things straight.
Whew! Better stick with ST09 and avoid all those multiple timeline reboots and reimaginings. This way its still a sequel.
I need more coffee.
#16 Spockish
Hmmm. Yes, I see. Fascinating. What translator are you using by the way?
Should be ST2K9. That would end all confuzzles.
#72 Thorsten
I would agree with you, if I understood what it is he wrote…
I will say it again, wh not have Quinto anounce the trailer since it was during heroes?? that would have been much better IMO
Do we STILL need to kill Edith Keeler?
I think it should be called PineTrek. OMG he is such a hottie!!
After all J.J.’s loose talk I thought Star Trek might be retitled Star Wars. ; )
But wait… it was ST08 until they moved it.
I prefer Bob Orci’s Star Trek Zero. They wrote it after all. It’s their nickname. ST0
This “The Future Begins” tagline though is getting a lot of airplay. Upon the replay, Star Trek: The Future Begins is a rational title. This is what Star Trek now will be in the future, and it begins with this movie.
Or even better… the sequel can be Star Trek Double Aught ST00: License to Kill Canon.
Or Star Trek Double Aught: Please Insert Dollar. ST00:PID
#16-I’m a Republican, and, with all due respect: “You sing and dance as well as any man, but what the devil are you talking about?”
Just call it star trek XI an get it over with
@16
Take your medication – now.
I don’t care if Star Trek movies have stopped using roman numerals, I HAVE NOT! Sorry but STXI is way better than ST09. It does not matter that this is a prequel, sequel, or that there are no roman numerals, “oh no mommy!” This is the eleventh Star Trek movie that has been made within the Star Trek franchise. This is Star Trek XI.
When I tell my non trek fan (who are Star Wars fans) friends that this is the eleventh movie in the franchise they are just blown away, “what!?…the eleventh film!?” Yea thats right Star Wars only has 6 and will only ever have six. I think only James Bond is beating Trek with the number of feature films within a franchise.
THIS MOVIE IS STAR TREK XI whether it says it or not, in spirit it is, and you cant destroy a spirit.
16.
Eh, speaking of semantics… I caught an oh so sly and subtle jab at President Obama, but that was about it. Something in your tone did make me LOL, though, so thanks for that.
I have no problem with ST09, I can usually tell what you’re talking about just from the context clues. Maybe adding an apostrophe (ST’09) would help?
So we’re all agreed then. . . it’ll be ST: CorpHQ from now on.
@ 16. Spockish whoa no acid trips on the posts. As a Canadian I was so happy when Obama was elected, it slightly improved my very very negative views and feeling towards America, you know how the entire world feels about America. Bottom line, the tolerant, intelligent, kind, and down to Earth Americans are stereotyped for the inbred, racist, warmongering, and religious fanatics like you. Obama is Star Trek fan himself (God bless, even though I don’t believe in God) and with only two months into his term, you need to back the hell off and you also need to leave politics out of this post. This is about Star Trek not America.
I don’t think “The Future Begins” would make a very good title, in the same way I didn’t think X-Files “I Want To Believe” made a very good title. “Star Trek” — on its own — is a fine title… it always was. I understand when the producers started getting into more Trek films, they either had to be numbered or given a title.
The title of a film is tremendously important. “The Future Begins” is alright for a tag-line, I suppose, but as a title it just sounds cliche, unimaginative, and rather old-school sci-fi. This is just my opinion, of course.
I just want to see the movie no matter what it is called!
Oh, #16 – you are not canon – lol! I love Star Trek and sci-fi in general as an escape from reality – don’t ruin it. Oh yeah and Chris Pines IS hot, too!
Imagine, if Elder Spock is on that suicide mission scene, would he transmit his “katra” to young Kirk, since young Kirk and Elder Spock would meet on that icy planet? He did it to McCoy when he knew he was going to die in TWOK. It would be interesting if that was Elder Spock on that timeship ramming toward the Nardana. His “katra” would be lost. It’s just a thought.
“Star Trek” Still Called “Star Trek,” eh?
And in other top news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead…
(If you’re too young to get it, Google it…)
Silly NBC announcer. Punctuation is important — respect it!
I’m still wondrin’ what “D.A.C” means…
Oh, and #16’s post was very entertaining :)
#89 When Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out… most of us were just calling it “the Star Trek movie”. This “lock” on “TMP” came a bit later, after we had TWOK and TSFS and TVH to compare it to. (There was a TFF?)
In honor of #16, perhaps we can call it Star Trek O and STO9 rather than 0 and 09, with the O for Obama ;) 0r n0t. ;)
I still like the Prime Trek/ Punk’d Trek contrast…
But #87 is correct. This is Star Trek: Corporate Headquarters. Or Star Trek: Too Many Bags of Doritos.
ST09 is fine with me. How about ST:TB (Star Trek: The Beginning) ;-)
Or ST:A (Star Trek: Abrams)?
Guys, it’s just short hand for “Star Trek” (2009). No biggy.
Couple of points:
Don’t ever name something Zero. That implies nothingness. Or diet cola.
ST09 won’t stick. It’s like automatically dating yourself. Hard to think about the future when the date you use is in the past..
I’m very happy that Stanky still posts here.
#16 needs to put down the crack pipe. And get right with the Lord. Or cheesecake. Or something. Just don’t ever speak out loud. Or we all need to get the hook out of our collective mouth.
This movie shall henceforth be called—Star Trek: Timmy!
You are welcome.
I thought the announcer said “Star Trek, the feature.” Which makes sense.
they should just bite it and call it ‘Star Trek Begins’…and to hell with all the ‘hey they nicked that off batman!’
STB
but seriously the fact they are calling it ’star trek’ is perfect…i mean if TMP had just been called ’star trek’ then obviously they probably wouldve had to add a lsubtitle on…like ‘Star Trek: The Beginning’ but since the simple ’star trek’ movie title is still free then theres no problem…even makes perfect sense as its kinda of a mega budget version of TOS…just like the first MI was simply called Mission Impossible…
as for abbriviating…well since TOS is now reffered to as ‘TOS’ then it should be ok to refer to this as ‘ST’…no need for 09
#89 We citizens of The United States of America just want to let you know that we are so happy you finally approve of our Country. How sad it would be if we ceased to exist and Canada might actually have to worry about national defense instead of deferring that goal to the US. Oh wait Obama is in the process of gutting our military, maybe you guys can take care of us in the future…..whew…..
I’m maybe thinking that #16. Spockish has played everyone for the youngest two Billy Goats Gruff; that or he really is cracked out on the interwebs….
Goodness…over a dozen people! Earth shattering!
I like ST:TB (not the disease), ST:TFB or just ST:XI…although I have no problem with ST09…well aaaall know that Insurrection is ST:PANTS!
@16…ooook, um…what the dickens?
The problem is the announcer said it wrong, and worse, no one caught it. DAMN YOU, NBC. They just never liked Trek, did they?
Not ST:TB–As you pointed out, that is a disease. And not TFB. Unfortunately when you see TF you think WTF.
Nope. It is Star Trek: Timmy!
Now I know what I am going to do with my afternoon.
16- What the frak were you smoking? Must be potent.
It’s a god damn abbreviation! Who gives a damn! Really don’t you have lives?
#22 – Well said! I was just about to make a similar comment to #7, having just read that post, but you took the words right out of my mouth. If folks posting here can’t show a little decent respect and courtesy to the folks who work hard bringing us all this news, please do something else with your time other than slinging nasty and POINTLESS (to borrow an adjective) barbs.
16 A basestar’s hybrid is more coherent than you.
Thinking about all the Trek movies that will come after this, I think Star Trek (2009) is the most logical. While Star Trek (”oh”-”nine”) is clearly distinguishable from Star Trek IX: Insurrection, we have to consider the future.
We can’t call the next film Star Trek (10) because that would cause FAR too much confusion with Star Trek X: Nemesis. We Trekkies love our acronyms, but in this instance I suggest we can afford adding the words “two thousand” to our abbreviations.
#16:
Did someone let Rush Limbaugh in here (covertly)?
Where I come from we treat our politicians, whether we like them or not, with a little more respect… Your disrespect for the president is uncalled for.
I thought we were talking about Star Trek here.
Is it me or does the similarity between this film and TMP’s tagline the same. TMPs tagline once the film opened was …”the human adventure has just begun.” Now Star Trek’s is “the future begins.” Kind of the same. No? Yes.
I’m anxious to see the movie. I still don’t like the warp drive depiction. From the snippet we’ve seen in the trailer, it doesn’t have that cool transphotic blur from the original movie. Maybe there’s more to it in this movie than we’ve seen.
#88 Chadwick
Take your own advice and keep politics off this post. I’m Canadian too but here is not the place for your negative opinions about America. Every country has good and bad people and everything in between… Have you ever even been to the US? Nicest people I’ve met actually.
#100–. Please don’t speak for all citizens of the US, just your myopic self. Thanks.
AJ–”The problem is the announcer said it wrong, and worse, no one caught it. DAMN YOU, NBC. They just never liked Trek, did they?”
This is a conspiracy theory I could get behind….
Should be called Star Trek 0 as in crappy film coming your way… or even Star Trek: Starship Troopers
Kirk’s dad? Uhura in a bra? and that stupid looking Enterprise…
I was clearly established in “The menagerie” that the Enterprise was bult when Kirk was about 5 years old…
JJ should have left Trek alone if he wanted to mess with it so much… anyway, thank god for Cawley’s New Voyages…
16 -off topic much?
Aw come on, call it Star Trek : The Future. It needs a suitably silly name to match the trailers…. ha-ha.
I’m still calling it Star Trek XI. It starts after the last film and then depicts events in an alternate reality. Star Trek XI.
115. saint-antoine – March 10, 2009
“I was clearly established in “The menagerie” that the Enterprise was bult when Kirk was about 5 years old…”
So you think Kirk was 18 in ‘The Menagerie. Got it.
#105 Star Trek: We’re The Future! Very good, yes? ST:WTF!
#114 Kirk’s father being in Starfleet has been fan speculation since the 70s, and then appeared in countless Pocket Novels with him serving under Robert April (and now previously Richard Robau).
If Uhura didn’t wear a bra, I wouldn’t mind.
The Enterprise has always looked rather stupid. Really. As anyone who ever attempted assembly of the AMT model kit in the 70s knows, it’s very fragile. Now the Klingon D-7, that’s a spaceship. :)
The Menagerie established nothing of the sort. Cage’s events happened 11 years or so before the Spock kidnapping of Pike. Are you thinking Kirk was 16 when he captained the Enterprise?
Before the universe shifted, The Enterprise was launched in 2245, Kirk was 11 or 12. With his father on board running security (since he wasn’t killed on the Kelvin, originally). Not sure where you get the 5 from.
As for James Cawley… they’re messing with Trek just as much by doing this Phase II arc among other things.
No one’s going to take away the 80 installments of TOS, the 22 of TAS, and the 6 TOS-only movies, or the hundreds of novels. That universe lives on forever.
I think it would have been cool to call it : Star Trek: The Future Begins
because “Star Trek’ is the actual name for 79 episodic gems produced in the 1960’s. That series was never titled Star Trek: TOS.
James Cawley
#16 – my universal translator seems to be damaged. What species you said you were?
My brother just reminded me, that The Enterprise under April was supposed to be named the Constitution as the novels have it. And George Kirk suggested Enterprise instead.
Since the film has Kirk die earlier on the Kelvin due to Nero’s interference, it makes sense that in 2245 Robert April still launches the Constitution, and the name Enterprise ends up assigned to the special project assigned to a certain Captain Chris Pike.
So, even “fanon” and “novel canon” can remain intact in the “Prime” Universe, with Nero’s attack on the Kelvin even explaining all sorts of shifts.
We know Orci refers to the novels quite a lot in early comments.
#115-”Risk is our business…that’s why we’re aboard her!”
#114. You are right. Nbc Had Trek from the Start and they treated it like a second class step child. But boy when that child grew up it became a Multi Billion $ Empire. But at least the announcer did not say Star Track. But Im sure he thought about it. Nbc just hates Trek
#16
Your planet welcome! I name not important. You seek I. Message received, available ship stands by.
You be getting on ship now. Go far away.
#120. I think it would have been cool to call it : Star Trek: The Future Begins
because “Star Trek’ is the actual name for 79 episodic gems produced in the 1960’s. That series was never titled Star Trek: TOS.
James Cawley. (Well james i havet to Disagree with you on that. I like the fact there just calling it Star Trek. I have been a fan since 1975 and To me just calling it Star Trek just says it all. I know some People will disagree with that but to me it is goijng back and reintroduceing us to Kirk and Spock and the Big E. So Star Trek just works for me.
#125-LOL!!!!!!! “How can you be deaf with ears like that!?”
On another subject: I really need to get one of those stand up “Star Trek” displays from a theater!
120 – Mr. Cawley, I agree with you. In some ways, I wish that Paramount had called TMP simply “Star Trek” back in ‘79. The original cast deserved to be in film titled with that simple, bold name.
Let’s call it ST:TFB (Star Trek: The Future Begins) :-P
Star Trek the Motion.
Picture.
Eagle Eye In The Sky
#17, 45, 69 — yes!
It’s not ST09… That was Insurrection! This should be ST11, shouldn’t it? I mean, I get that it’s the date instead of the movie number, but shouldn’t we have learned better from the Y2K bug issues of abbreviation??
What If instead of ST09 it was TFB? That isn’t part of the movie name, but I think it works.
STAR TREK: REVENGE OF THE ROMULANS
130. boborci – March 10, 2009 said-
“Star Trek the Motion.
Picture.”
boborci, if you ever tire of writing, you just might have a future in NBC voiceovers….
;-)
124. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire –
“#114. You are right. Nbc Had Trek from the Start and they treated it like a second class step child. But boy when that child grew up it became a Multi Billion $ Empire. But at least the announcer did not say Star Track. But Im sure he thought about it. Nbc just hates Trek”
That’s a bit far-fetched. A decades-long company-wide loathing for Star Trek at NBC? Are you suggesting this nitwit announcer was handed a memo from the network execs directing him to purposefully misread his line? To what end? In some fiendish plot to confuse the most nitpicky of Trek fans?
Mr. Orci, will we get to see more of Starfleet in the movie or will it be more The Enterprise (and Kelvin) doing the shooting at the Narada? It seems the E is always the only ship available to defend the Federation… Wouldn’t it be nice to see more ships in action?
Just asking. I’m sure you can’t really answer but it was worth a try. Whatever the answer is I’m certain the movie will be a hit.
#85 – I don’t care if Star Trek movies have stopped using roman numerals, I HAVE NOT!
If the studio ceased the use of roman numerals, and you continue to use ‘em, isn’t that going against canon?
…sorry… couldn’t resist. Can’t believe people are debating this one… it’s like the Kirk eye color argument.
Didn’t Kirk wear color-changing contacts? ;) Kind of like “mood eyes”, they adjust depending on which parallel universe you’re in.
136:
Izbot:
Liz was quoting me (104), and I was being sarcastic. I think she was, too.
16. Spockish – March 10, 2009
I’m sure that sounded really cool in your head while typing it, but….huh?
And please don’t insult people. I really don’t care what you think of the President of the United States. It has no bearing on this thread.
140. AJ -
Ah. That’s what I get for reading from the bottom of the thread up. Mea culpa.
@140…
Is that the reason for the Network calling it Star Track all the time?
143:
Star Track, with Leonard Dimoy as Dr. Spock, I believe.
Nimoy
AJ, now you spoiled a perfectly nice thread with your unneccessary bout of sarkasm!
ST:TFB
Everytime I see ST09, I think of ST: IN…I always have to think twice about it…
STAR TREK: STAR TREK
143. thorsten –
“@140…
Is that the reason for the Network calling it Star Track all the time?”
Lol, yes, let’s all get on the Star Track! Run a few laps… It’s like they were saying “What’s this word ‘Trek’? Is that French or something?”
Raumschiff Enterprise: Wie Alles Begann!
146:
This, coming from Mr. “Nacelles Monthly?”
thorsten, I’m just an amateur.
STAR TRACK: POLE POSITION
TSAR TREK: The Downfall of the Romanovs
I vote we call it ST:PFM for “Star Trek: Poo-Flinging Monkeys.” It’ll remind us of all the happy times we’ve had with the Canon nuts in the months leading up to the movie.
Random thought of the day. If that is Spock’s ship slamming into Nero’s ship and he’s sacrificing himself in some meaningful way, roll with it! Let the poor man die. Don’t bring him back to life. For once, embrace sacrifice and change. You’ve got plenty of timeline in TMP to pump out more Spock stories.
The last thing I want to see is some novel that draws upon the theory that Spock died in a time ship, which of course teleported his preserved body back to the future when the temporal core breached, ejecting him into the vacuum of space only to, by random chance, get absorbed by the Nexus. Three weeks later, we find Kirk and Spock at the cabin feeding bacon scraps to Butler.
Oh, the humanity.
Like I said, random.
@154…
there again with your russian heritage!
ST09…took me a while to understand what it meant. ST in 2009.
I understand why some/many of you may think it refers to Insurrection, but last year it could be ST08 for the latest movie news (before we learned it was moved to this year), or, if it moves to next year by some horrible catastrophe then the news can be referred to ST10.
It is just like video games that use the ‘09 in the title to tell you the year they represent.
I watched Heroes and the trailer was awesome, but I missed the announcement faux paux (sp?). My partner thought, before it aired, that it was the same trailer that premiered in the Super Bowl and he liked what he saw.
Star Trek 2009 (ST09) is something of a strange movie–a lot of history to which it can be compared, but a lot of promise for which it could hold.
@155…
Ahh, no.
Spock Prime got caught in some temporal twirl and ended up as Jacob
in the hut on that Island. But John Locke will set him free!
155. Randominator -
Then Nimoy could launch a series of successful non-canon novels in which he rescues Spock from that fate, has him marry some sexy Romulan babe and continue his geriatric adventures saving those whippersnapper upstarts Picard, Janeway, etc. We can refer to it as, oh, I dunno, the Nimoyverse?
@158 – LOL!
@154 With Captain Pavel Chekov of the URSS Wladiwostok?
#150 No in French it’s Le Starre Trèque
JJ’s lucky that back in the day the first movie had TMP tacked to it so now he can get away with just calling this one star trek. If they make a sequel to it there’s gonna be a problem though. During the first run of Star Trek movies there just happened to be one called Star Trek II, just in case people didnt know :P So in that case, he might be better off putting the release year with it, I know its not the best sounding, but it may be the most logical thing to do.
155:
“Three weeks later, we find Kirk and Spock at the cabin feeding bacon scraps to Butler.”
In their bathrobes in San Francisco.
@164…
Star Trek: The Odd Couple
BAR TREK: KIRK’S EARLY ADVENTURES
@164 – I was going to say something about neck rubs in the hot tub, but I didn’t want to open that can of worms.
Good thing I didn’t say it, then.
@162…
So, Silvereyes, what do they call Bones in the FrenchCanadian Dub version? In Germany he is called after a famous contraceptive…
There’s a new Star Trek movie coming in May?!
158. thorsten –
“@155…
Ahh, no.
Spock Prime got caught in some temporal twirl and ended up as Jacob
in the hut on that Island. But John Locke will set him free!”
I’m really hoping Richard Alpert makes a cameo in the movie — same age, eyeliner and all. I’m very sure Jacob will be in the movie. Of course we won’t be able to see him…
167:
That ‘can of worms’ has been open since, like, 1972. LOL.
168:
Dr. Durex?
@169…
That was just a rumor from AICN,
but it turned out to be just an ep of Family Guy
written by Orci/Kurtzman,
so go back to sleep, kabat.
Sarcasm? in Trek fandom? Perish the thought. ;)
And yes, WHAT is it with Star TRACK and DOCTOR Spock???!!
162. Silvereyes –
“#150 No in French it’s Le Starre Trèque”
Huh. I thought it was Toulouse LaStar Trek.
Ouch. Now I know what it’s like to be Harry Balz.
@172…
No, for some strange reason the translators called him Ectomy,
Vas Ectomy…
#168
“So, Silvereyes, what do they call Bones in the FrenchCanadian Dub version? In Germany he is called after a famous contraceptive…”
I’ve mostly watched Star Trek in English, very rarely in French and it’s been at least 20 years since I’ve seen a French episode. Maybe they still call him Bones I don’t remember…
So, he’s called Condom in Germany, is he?
One “adult” Tfrek parody calls Bones “Boner.”
My! How we’ve digressed!
I too thought he said “Star Trek: The Feature” and thought “I’ve never heard any movie referred to as that.” “The Movie”, “The Motion Picture”, but not “The Feature”.
I do think it should have had “The Future Begins” as a subtitle. And who knows? We officially changed the name of “Star Trek” to “Star Trek: The Original Series”. In a few years it just might be that way.
As least its not “JJ Abram’s Star Trek”, a la Tyler Perry’s every waking moment.
AJ –this is starting to sound like Chat.
179. doubleofive –
“As least its not “JJ Abram’s Star Trek”, a la Tyler Perry’s every waking moment.”
Well he’s in the movie. Maybe it’ll be called “Tyler Perry’s Star Trek: Madea in Space”.
@ #175
Izbot, that was brilliant.
180:
Happens from time to time, Liz.
Star Trek Begins?
182. earthclanbootstrap –
“Izbot, that was brilliant.”
Blame art history. And Harry Balz.
ITS THE STAR TREK or STAR TREK MOVIE so…
TST or STM
More like Star Trek Gets A Do-over
STR
Star Trek Reboot or Redo or Relaunch or Retcon or Returns etc
…or Revisited
LET’S CALL IT
“STAR TREK: SPOCK HERO IN TIME”
NOW HOW WOULD THAT ABBREVIATE?
… or Redux ?
obviously, post 191 was for Izbot, not geezer.
back to Toulouse LaStar Trek, the best part about it was that there was really no way to up the ante on that one. I tried to come up with something at least as good and couldn’t do it, they all fell short of the original.
Star Trek: Timmy!
It just rolls off the tongue. Like purple microdot.
Actually that doesn’t roll. It just sort of dissolves and then #16’s comments sound coherent.
@ 100. Lore You are citizens of The United States of America? You are Borg?
@168 thorsten – in Czech language Bones is Kostra :-)
i think :
STAR TREK – KERT RATS
Ok. Star Trek the serch for more money for the Next Movie.
@194…
hehe, sweet, Oxmyx…
No, Bones is called Pille in Teutonia, and as far as I know will still be called Pille in Star Trek: Origins…
The new film is supposed to follow continuity, so I’d still consider it the eleventh Trek movie. ST09 is kinda confusing.
Trek11
ST11
ST-XI
ST-JJ (Abrams)
There’s a time travel / alternate reality aspect in the new picture also. Maybe this will be the first of a few “tangent universe” Trek films?
ST-TU1 (tangent universe 1)
ST-R1 (reboot 1)
#173: how dare you. Apologize to me at once.
I am confused by the ST09 everytime it is said, because to me that is Insurrection.
I think ST is OK, but not preferred.
I would go with STO for Star Trek Origins, or ST0 (ST-Zero).
or just STCAD (Star Trek: Ctrl-Alt-Del)
“ST09″ is idiotic, and I’ll be laughing my a*s*s off when it backfires in 2109 for the fourth reboot
I’d prefer calling it 11. Even without them being Roman numeraled, they’re still referred to by their numbers as well. I always see it and think its an article about Insurrection before I remember “Duh, 2009.”
@198…
what, you are demanding satisfaction?
Just throw down the gauntlet…
It is either
“Star Trek: The Future Begins” – In theaters May 8th.
Or
“Star Trek” – The future begins in theaters, May 8th.
The reading was just a bit off.
@199…
Star Trek: Command-Z
goes nicely with the Time Travel etc.
And we know Bob and JJ made the movie on their MacBooks…
I don’t care what abbreviation we use, I just want someone to explain what the hell #16 is talking about.
#198: I’m demanding an APOLOGY, can’t you read?
@205: he’s giving out the plot, don’t read!
As portuguese speaker, we won´t have problem here, in Brazil. Star Trek is know as “Jornada nas Estrelas”, and the old movies are called like that, with the numer and the subtitle:
Jornada nas Estrelas, o Filme (Star Trek the Motion Picture)
Jornada nas Estrelas – A Ira de Khan (Wrath of Khan)
etc…
So, the movie theatres will put the same name of U.S, as Star Trek. So, the use of english words can be a mark for the new begining.
@206…
what for, exactly?
#198, #206 You’re kidding right?
@210…
Silvereyes, you wanna be my sexy canadian second?
damn thers a lot of posts in here.
i vote for ST09
ST-JJ LOL
190
LOL (bad)
#206
You are SO cute when you demand unwarranted satisfaction.
Star Trek XI: Timmy
Star Trek XII: The Wrath of Timmy
Star Trek XIII: The Search For Timmy
Star Trek XIV: The Voyage of Timmy
Abrahm’s Star Trek is re-visiting and re-inventing the universe established by Kirk and company. Not TNG or it’s fellow 24th or 22nd century brethren. Re-visiting the familiar characters and settings of Star Trek in an alternate timeline called Star Trek makes perfect sense.
Discussing the project in this forum using the title ST09 also makes perfect sense, as to not confuse it with vintage Star Trek.
And the roman numerals? Well, they need to be jetisoned along with Ben Finney. This is starting from scratch and doesn’t need XI thrown in to confuse things. For many, this StarTrek will be their first Star Trek. No roman numerals needed.
#211
I’ll go anywhere with you, my friend. Just say the word and I’m there! Except for the sexy part… Well, I have been told I’m rather handsome but how would you know?
115- It’s a new universe so let go of the old one as far as this story is concerned. Why is it that some of the trekkies on this site can readily accept the mirror universe but not this new one. It doesn’t change what happened before or will or whatever (someone needs to invent some time travel tenses cause writting about this stuff will drive you up the wall). So kirk was 5 when the Enterprise was built. Great. This is not the same Kirk. This is not the same Enterprise. THIS IS ANOTHER ALTERNATE UNIVERSE. Another divergent timeline. IT DOES NOT MATTER! In this universe its being built when he is in his teens. DIFFERENT UNIVERSE. Kirk seems to have been born in an escape shuttle instead of Iowa. DIFFERENT UNIVERSE. The Enterprise has a radically different design. DIFFERENT UNIVERSE. All of these elements are canon. They are as canon as TOS and TNG. They are as canon as as Spock with a Goatee.
Obviously, the abbreviation should be ST:EB.
“Star Trek: Electric Boogaloo”
#213 Ok I tried to resist but I’m too weak. What’s this about Timmy? Is this like the Mugatu thing?
“Why is it that some of the trekkies on this site can readily accept the mirror universe but not this new one. ”
Uh, cause that’s self-contained. This is a mix of both, hence the dilemma for some.
ST:TWOC
Star Trek: The Wrath of Canon
ST:WOS
>
>
>
>
>
Star Trek: Without Shatner!
Generations should have been called
“Star Trek VII: Star Trek The Next Generation: The Motion Picture: Generations”
or STVIISTTNGTMPG for short.
#218
See if this works. And explains anything. Like how I can’t let anything go.
http://trekmovie.com/2007/08/12/vegas-con-07-nimoy-reads-out-trekmoviecom-comments/
If it doesn’t work copy and paste to your browser. My computer has been wonky.
217- I support ST:EB. It’s funky fresh.
Silvereyes
And then it led to this:
http://trekmovie.com/2007/08/13/vegascon-07-shatner-grills-nimoy-on-star-trek-movie/
What new footage???
The anouncer was doing his best Shatner impersonation. :)
219 Self contained my butt. Why are there characters transporting themselves between universes all willy nilly. If you watch DS9 Going to the mirror universe is like going to the grocery store. In “The Emperors New Cloak” the Grand Nagus goes there on a frakkin buisiness trip. The mirror universe is self contained and the new movie is a mix of both arguement doesn’t hold any water.
I’d vote for ST-2009 or ST11, but no one is holding an election.
#226 Thank’s THX. Now I know.
^ 229. Cylon
Getting to see Ezri and the Intendant make out is a hell of a business trip…
:-)
56:
can’t believe your the only other person to comment on that, Paramount have blatantly nicked the tagline from Terminator Salvation, it was all over the first trailer for it…
Bob if your still reading this far down I take it was a marketing dept. decision…
;) :D
#229–Not sure how your butt figures into things…..at any rate, I have very little investment in the MIRROR universe — it’s just a bit of whimsy and fun. I AM invested, however, in the TOS world so it’s just jarring to have it changed in ways where I don’t really understand the reasoning behind it.
I’m glad it doesn’t matter to you, but please remember that that is YOUR opinion and others’ mileage can vary.
#12: Hmmm….knowing Hollywood, for a sequel, they might just go with “Star Trek 2,” (numerical as opposed to roman numerals to separate it from “..Khan”).
That is, if everyone makes sure this first one has a huge turnout for the first couple of weeks =)
233.
Actually, Alex and I presented “THE FUTURE BEGINS” as a marketing theme in early meetings with Paramount, and they adopted it long before we saw anything about Terminator salvation It’s on the first Trek teaser.
Bob,
Can I ask, privately have the production team been given any target numbers by the studio regarding the viability of the franchise going forward? Have they set a bar that must be cleared for the final gross?
#213: what is wrong with you and that satisfaction thing, I said I demanded an APOLOGY. Satisfaction – no, Apology – yes!
237. MATT – March 10, 2009
Surely they have, but I haven’t asked.
Mr. Bob#236- Does not matter what the name is – I am spending way too much time at my computer, eyes affixed to trailer over and over…
Because my expectations were so high so see the Kirk and Spock origins only to be handed this alternate universe version, I think the likely casualties in my brain will likely be the previous alternate reality episodes of Trek. I’m quickly becoming over-alternated. Time travel episodes may suffer as well.
This film should be called Star Trek: Alternate. Or STA 01.
The effects look superb and I hope ILM gets Oscar nods for them. However, great effects can give temporary validity to bad ideas. I hope fans are able to separate out the good from the bad as they watch.
Hey Bob Orci. Have you guys thought about what the Next Trek Move will be.Any stories you are looking into. You not need to tell just if you are.
Dude the mirror universe started in TOS. Your TOS universe isn’t being changed. Like I stated before, NEW UNIVERSE. Also this is MY OPINION. Take offense or not I’m just stating what I thought were some readily apparant observations. As to the statement that the the TOS matters to me, well it doesn’t . It is an entertaining peice of fiction like all of Star Trek , BSG, Star Wars or any other sci-fi show or movie. What matters to me is my family, health and career. What I won’t do is loose sleep over the new weave of the traditional TOS uniforms in this movie or that the nacelles look too big. Because it really doesn’t matter.
That post was for 234
#240–Denise, step away from the computer. (Said the pot to the kettle.)
#243– I’m not offended by others’ opinions — differences make the world interesting. I’m just pointing out that what is “apparent” to you isn’t necessarily agreed upon by everyone. That’s all. And please…if it didn’t matter, you wouldn’t BE on a trek board posting — only a small minority do so. Pretending you’re less obssesed than the rest of us is a cop-out.
@215…
Thank you, Silvereyes.
It was a trick I learned from an old friend.
ST:TFB for the Future begins. I know It’s not officially the name but it is the tag line.
Personally, I think ‘Star Trek’ should have had the following subtitle:
“STAR TREK: JAMES T. KIRK WAS A GREAT MAN, BUT THAT WAS ANOTHER LIFE”
Coming May 2009
XD
Now let’s hear that NBC announcer say it three times as fast.
Star Trek – A New Hope
#234—”I AM invested, however, in the TOS world so it’s just jarring to have it changed in ways where I don’t really understand the reasoning behind it. ”
I am invested in it as well, but I don’t see how any of that world is “changed”, beyond the window dressing at least.
Everything in that timeline happened. It is preserved in the continued continuity of Star Trek. Without it, the story could never advance to this point. Moreover, I am pretty sure that we are not *supposed* to know yet the reasoning behind it.
@249…
Star Trek. Buckle Up.
236:
Bob, you must have a widget that beeps every time your name is posted!
I just re-watched the teaser for the first time in a long while and remembered it, my sincere apologies…
besides I think it suits Trek far better than Salvation, in these times we need a message of optimism for the future. not that a guerrilla war against killer cybernetic organisms that we created and can look like humans wouldn’t be a bit of a laugh at least some of the time.. hang on, am I talking about Terminator or BSG? ;p
i’m going to call the film “REGINALD FIRMTHIGHS: A MOVIE PICTURE”.
just because i can…
I like Star Trek : The Future Begins. But I don’t really see why Star Trek (2009) is so bad.
There has never been a feature film titled simply as “Star Trek”. It shouldn’t be confusing to anyone, realistically..
I also think that it would be bad marketing strategy to call it Star Trek XI officially. Its ties to the 5 television series and 10 previous films are not exactly great promotional points for the mainstream moviegoer. That should not be emphasized in the campaign to promote it. I think that includes its title. Even if the message sent out by how it is titled is subtle—it is still there.
Everything about the marketing strategy should be to distance itself from that, and convince the average moviegoer that he/she should give this film a chance, despite his/her preconceived notions about Star Trek.
If, in the end, the film is embraced by more mainstream ticket buyers in the way the creative team behind it hopes, its ties to what came before will no longer be a potential issue. The hook will already be in the mouth of the fish.
Star Trek: Day of Reckoning
––Decide your own Destiny
251- Hi Closet! Let me meander mentally for a minute…. and please keep in mind I am looking forward to the new film and have the best of hopes for it. I want it to be successful, Trek minded, and entertaining…but:
It makes me think of what we could be seeing. I know and understand a movie released in 2009 can’t look like a 1960’s TV show, so I am not talking about set dressings or models or phasers, or any of that- I am only talking about story. I really really DO want to see how the “prime” universe’s Kirk and Spock came together. I really want to see Sulu coming on board as an astrobiologist and finding his abilities as a helmsman. I want to see the easy friendship between Kirk and Gary Mitchell, and Spock, while dealing with a new Captain finding his place in the command structure now that Pike has moved on. I want to see what lead Uhura to Starfleet. Mr. Abrams is right- we’ve never seen how the crew came together, and though this looks like it will be a really entertaining film which does not erase my Trek Classic DVDs, I STILL won’t have seen the crew come together when the movie is over.
Mr. Cawley, are you out there? What if instead of only doing “Phase II” someone scripted a production covering the Prime timeline’s origin story? It’s win/win. Star Trek gets an overhaul appealing to the majority of the moviegoing audience, and I am sure the majority of Trek fans, and we long time fans get the itch JJ tickled us with scratched. Get DC Fontana or David Gerrold to write it- maybe even get Paramount in on it for some limited DVD release. Just a thought, just a thought… “Coming from Cawley Productions… STAR TREK: PRIME!!!!!”
remember airport ‘77?
no difference. They just should’ve used an apostrophe.
#257—”I really really DO want to see how the “prime” universe’s Kirk and Spock came together. I really want to see Sulu coming on board as an astrobiologist and finding his abilities as a helmsman. I want to see the easy friendship between Kirk and Gary Mitchell, and Spock, while dealing with a new Captain finding his place in the command structure now that Pike has moved on. I want to see what lead Uhura to Starfleet. Mr. Abrams is right- we’ve never seen how the crew came together, and though this looks like it will be a really entertaining film which does not erase my Trek Classic DVDs, I STILL won’t have seen the crew come together when the movie is over.”
I understand that, and I would pay to see that too. But the truth is, Paramount has had 40 years to do that, and hasn’t. In my mind, I don’t think it’s really a *big* enough story for a feature film. To me—that’s kind of what the novels are for.
#257 – a few of us are sympathetic to your feelings, but Misters Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Pascale, Bailey, Closettrekker, et al, are very firm in their stance that your interest is in the way of the most important thing, which is a Star Trek movie that is a mainstream success. Mr. Abrams did not make this movie for you. If you want to hop on the Whatever It Takes to Be Popular bandwagon, there’s room for you, but otherwise you are SOL.
259- Sure- and a couple of different novels and comics have covered that ground. Trek to me though is at its best in the video media, be it TV or movies. I do think their could have been a version of that story supported by the budget of this film that would have served both purposes (showing an origin and kicking off a revitalized franchise), but we’re beyond that now. We have ST09 (or STXI, ST:TFB, ST:0, or ST:EB depending on your taste), and I’m in the line of well wishers. But ST:P2 doing it as a feature length special would rock…
246 Thats your opinion. I come on here for the sheer entertainment value of this sites message boards, which you can’t deny is pretty rich. And yes, I do get some cool news about the movie but it really is about this online community. I have never seen so many people butting heads over something petty ( ex: nacells). It’s pretty funny actually.
There is a hundred ways this could have gone, but the bottom line to me is—we get to see new stories about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy—without having to pretend (for the sake of those stories) that none of what we’ve already seen ever happened in that fictional universe. Moreover, we get to see those characters put into *new* situations and circumstances which are not limited by knowledge of what ultimately happens to them down the road.
In short, we have the *benefits* of a reboot—but without having to sacrifice previously established continuity. That very continuity is what forms the chain of events that gets us here.
#238
satisfaction- the compensation for a wrong; atonement–i.e. an apology
(of course, if you have something else in mind, let me know. I’ll be your huckleberry)
#257
BINGO! that is exactly how I feel and haven’t been able to put into words adequately. This new movie does look like a lot of fun, but it’s not the movie I was hoping for.
Oh! And one more thing…..
Star Trek: Timmy!
(I told you what I was going to do with my afternoon.)
263- yeah, and there’s the added ADDED benefit of getting a hint at what happens post TNG, but my fanboy within still finds himself restless…
Since I am playing the hypothetical game anyway (unless Mr. Cawley is reading, then I plead with him STAR TREK: PRIME!!!!!), how well received would a movie have been casting Chris Pine as Chris Pike? You get a chance to spice up the Trek universe, and have very little continuity to have to worry about, for at least four or five movies if we go by the idea Pike commanded the Enterprise for two to three five year stints. Chris Pine as Pike (since he looks just like Jeffrey Hunter), some talented but underated actress as Number One, and about movie three some shy, brooding guy with pointed ears shows up… Hmmm.
@264…
Maybe kabat is not aware that I carry corbomite in my pocket…
#257: ‘I really really DO want to see how the “prime” universe’s Kirk and Spock came together.’
Well, given the original cast is too old and animation is out, I think the Shatnerverse and Enterprise: The First Adventure are the best we’re likely to get.
Also, it’s possible that the origin story in the first timeline (I hesitate to say ‘Prime’ or ‘Primary’ timeline, since the new film’s timeline is now arguably the primary one!) isn’t that interesting.
It could simply be a case of Kirk getting a promotion and arriving the Big E, possibly with Gary Mitchell as his first XO and Spock being the science officer. Scotty, one assumes, is already in engineering In that year, Sulu looks after astrobiology before Gary Mitchell dies. Sulu becomes helmsman because maybe he applied for the job! Sometime in the next year, McCoy comes on board, as does Uhura and possibly Chekov.
Thing is, it might all be very dull and professional: I get the impression from the show that it was! The point with ST09 is that, in the parallel universe, the TV show Enterprise was never constructed or was destroyed and the TOS crew never got together, so events have to be manipulated (presumably by the TOS incarnation of Spock) to get the crew together to stop Nero.
I’m not sure how a James Cawley origin story would sit with Paramount. At the moment, Phase II can do new stories, but running a story that technically contradicts Paramount’s major new movie might be stepping on rather bigger toes than it should!
Incidentally, I’d love to read the Shatnerverse book that leads to Spock leaving the original timeline, where it includes Kirk and McCoy among others. It could tie into Countdown and add another emotional layer as they would have to face losing Spock again.
Of course, maybe Kirk, Scotty and McCoy follow Spock to the other universe and are also lurking in the background!
#260—lol.
Since when have fans been able to dictate what kind of Star Trek they get to see on screen? Even if fans were given that priviledge, could we even come to agreement upon what that would be?
And I assure you that being a Star Trek fan and a successful businessman who understands marketing to some degree are not mutually exclusive qualities.
And “whatever it takes to be popular”? What is this—a high school drama? Name me one principle you are sure you’re going to have to sacrifice in order to embrace this film.
Paramount is out to make money. So are the creative people trying to make a living doing this. I don’t live in a fantasy world where that doesn’t matter. Chances are—neither do you.
I have been a fan of Star Trek since I was a young boy in the 70’s, watching it for the first time in syndication. In the mid-late 80’s, Paramount stopped showing me the Star Trek I wanted to see, in favor of something totally different (excessive technobabble, holodecks, and android pinnochios, etc.). I didn’t feel betrayed. I just stopped watching.
What I am seeing promoted now is storytelling with action, adventure, romanticism, sexuality, humor and the promise that Star Trek’s original vision for an optimistic future is uncompromised. That sounds like the Star Trek I fell in love with to me.
Forgive me if I wouldn’t mind my kids (mainstream moviegoers) to fall in love with Star Trek too.
Inevitably, some are not going to like it. This isn’t new either. The only thing Star Trek fans can agree on consistently is that they like Star Trek in one form or another.
Star Trek Generations II
(hey i like Generations!)
#16
I don’t know about you, but I enjoy having my “suffrage”.
Does anyone know when tickets start going on sale?
268- Well sure Dom, it COULD be all professional and dull, but since we don’t know, it doesn’t HAVE to be! Since we do have “Enterprise: The First Adventure” (Vonda McIntyre, right?) and that fairly goovy DC comics annual which tied Kirk taking command to the aftermath of a first contact Pike was involved in years before, and even JJ talking about it, it would seem there’s some onus to make that story a doozy.
A fair point on Paramount, but I am not sure how they could complain- the whole point of the new movie is it doesn’t erase that continuity. If Paramount claims the story contradicts theirs, they would be arguing the new film is in fact a reboot ;)
I would like to think the majority of people who would be looking for this and even know about it wouldn’t complain about it to Paramount. I adore the New Voyages/Phase II productions, but I don’t see your average movie goer ferreting them out, even with a DVD release.
Appreciate the reply Bob
Is the music new???
http://www.startrekmovie.com/
Yes, new music! :) Woah! (After the trailer)
#262–”I have never seen so many people butting heads over something petty ( ex: nacells). It’s pretty funny actually.”
And it’s pretty funny to me that you are right in the thick of things yet pretending to be above it all! But if this is the first time you’ve noticed Trek fans butting heads over details both large and small….where have you been dude!!!?? It’s what we do.
“I am invested in it as well, but I don’t see how any of that world is “changed”, beyond the window dressing at least.”
Really? Window dressing? We at least have an explanation for Kirk being different — his dad’s death at Nero’s hands. But the crew being at the Academy together — gymnastic explanations to explain away the age/rank issue notwithstanding — is problematic for me. Now, I honestly don’t care that the ship is different — that’s just calendar year, movie technology and budget. (But I feel for those for whom it does matter.)
“Everything in that timeline happened. It is preserved in the continued continuity of Star Trek. Without it, the story could never advance to this point. Moreover, I am pretty sure that we are not *supposed* to know yet the reasoning behind it.”
Hmm, I hope the reasoning comes to fruition. But I guess the problem is that I don’t subscribe to this theory that because it happens the continuity is advanced/preserved. It’s just time travel mumbo jumbo to me but we’ve discussed my fatigue with this particular plot device before.
But heh, I want the film to be huge. I’ve never wished against any form of Trek and never will. And I get to see Leonard as SPock one more time. My favorite Trek actor and character. All good.
Starry Trek stilled called Starry Trek? That’s news, eh?
OK…
BND Presents:
“Starry Trek Begins”
THE ENTERPRIZE: My builders were taken from me when one of my enormous nacelles was struck by a clown car and fell on them. I will always remember that day and curse bad luck forever.
ALFRED THE BUSSARD: You canna blame yerself, Enterprize. Those workmen were good people, but they’re gone. You got thar’ name, tho…
THE ENTERPRIZE: What? Is that why “Vinny was here” is scratched into my lower saucer section?
—
THE KELVIN: Fear is the enemy, young master Enterprize. You must face your fears and I can help and… Oh, no! Izzat Shinzon, I mean- Nero! He’s gunna give me a warpcore wedgie! Help! Help! When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
—
THE ENTERPRIZE: I’ve returned to Gotham Galaxy. Maybe I can clean up this place…
CHRIS PINE: The captain and first officer are gone. I’m taking over this ship.
ROBIN SPOCK: Gee whiz, Kirkman, do you think you can do it? Well, you are dressed all in black like some sort of dark knight.
THE ENTERPRIZE: That’s an obvious analogy. I have a ship full of children! How will I be able to investigate the disturbance at Regula 1?
—
KORAB: I will show you what fear really is, little ship.
THE ENTERPRIZE: Oh, great! Jackson is dead!
JACKSON POLLACK: Oh, great- just when I was going to dribble on one of JJ’s models…
—
THE ENTERPRIZE: I’ve saved the galaxy again… I’d retire but they’d just make a new Enterprize looking even sissier…
PICARD: Look, my vessel is the flagship of the fleet! It is not sissy at all! Wait… is that Nero? I mean- Shinzon? Crimeny, Riker- get us out of here! Hurry! Hurry!
RIKER: I’m trying, sir. The solar wind just can’t get us going… I’ve got several kites outside engineering trying to catch it and push us off.
PICARD: Riker! There… are… FOUR… kites… You need some more…
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…
Starry Trek stilled called Starry Trek? That’s news, eh?
OK…
BND Presents:
“Starry Trek Begins”
THE ENTERPRIZE: My builders were taken from me when one of my enormous nacelles was struck by a clown car and fell on them. I will always remember that day and curse bad luck forever.
ALFRED THE BUSSARD: You canna blame yerself, Enterprize. Those workmen were good people, but they’re gone. You got thar’ name, tho…
THE ENTERPRIZE: What? Is that why “Vinny was here” is scratched into my lower saucer section?
—
THE KELVIN: Fear is the enemy, young master Enterprize. You must face your fears and I can help and… Oh, no! Izzat Shinzon, I mean- Nero! He’s gunna give me a warpcore wedgie! Help! Help! When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
—
THE ENTERPRIZE: I’ve returned to Gotham Galaxy. Maybe I can clean up this place…
CHRIS PINE: The captain and first officer are gone. I’m taking over this ship.
ROBIN SPOCK: Gee whiz, Kirkman, do you think you can do it? Well, you are dressed all in black like some sort of dark knight.
THE ENTERPRIZE: That’s an obvious analogy. I have a ship full of children! How will I be able to investigate the disturbance at Regula 1?
—
KORAB: I will show you what fear really is, little ship.
THE ENTERPRIZE: Oh, great! Jackson is dead!
JACKSON POLLACK: Oh, great- just when I was going to dribble on one of JJ’s models…
—
THE ENTERPRIZE: I’ve saved the galaxy again… I’d retire but they’d just make a new Enterprize looking even sissier…
PICARD: Look, my vessel is the flagship of the fleet! It is not sissy at all! Wait… is that Nero? I mean- Shinzon? Crimeny, Riker- get us out of here! Hurry! Hurry!
RIKER: I’m trying, sir. The solar wind just can’t get us going… I’ve got several kites outside engineering trying to catch it and push us off.
PICARD: Riker! There… are… FOUR… kites… You need some more…
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…
I think it’ll be interesting to see what they do with sequels to this. Will it be Star Trek:(subtitle)? Will they start numbering all over again and call it Star Trek 2? Who knows at this point, could be interesting. lol
#279
Wha???
just ‘STAR TREK’ for me. plain and simple. it doesnt need anything else. that says it all.
Greg UK
#281
HINT:
It is not dissimilar to # 278. Or were you referring to content?
Star Trek: Timmy!
Who let BND out?!
Well, after Bob’s clarification, it’s clear this is “Star Trek (comma, not colon) The Future Begins” or his previous Star Trek 0. And since Star Trek: The Motion Picture didn’t have a 1 or a I, Star Trek 1 is clearly the sequel to Star Trek 0. And Star Trek 1 1/2 should be a lot of fun. It might be like “Lt Leslie and Lt Kyle Are Not Dead” and they sing a few numbers.
Or not.
If you don’t like “ST09″ one other possibility could be:
STANCEWLNPOSOTTANC
Star Trek All New Cast Except With Leonard Nimoy Playing Old Spock Other Than That All New Cast
Who knows, it may catch on.
#7 you don’t like the information Anthony posts then dont bother coming in here to read it. He does this all as a service to us…Im’m sure he gets nothing out of it…so treat the man with respect. It is his website bottom line
I wonder if he will see this but,,
Anthony,, why not call this web site “TrekMovieNews” afterwards ?
:o)
or
TrekMovie’s
:o)
Anthony -
I do love this site and appreciate your work here, but your justification for using “ST09″ as an abbreviation is completely absurd.
You state:
The problem with the new film is that “Star Trek” can refer to the entire franchise or to The Original Series, which was also simply titled “Star Trek”…so ST09 is short for “Star Trek (2009)”.
You must realize that ST09 can also refer to something else – The ninth Star Trek movie!!! And not only CAN it refer to the 9th movie. Common sense would interpret ST09 as referring to Star Trek: Insurrection. I will even explain WHY. You see, numbers that follow a movie title customarily refer to the sequel number in the movie series, and do not typically refer to the year.
If you are looking for clarity, then call the movie ST11. This will confuse no one. And who cares if they are not referring to the movie as Star Trek XI? You say they stopped using Roman numerals with Generations. So use ST11 instead of STIX. “11″ uses no Roman numerals. And further, although the studio has stopped using Roman numerals for ST movies, they have not adopted the odd practice of adding the last 2 digits of a year to the movie title either.
If you have an open mind, you will reconsider, and either switch to ST11, STIX, or else provide a better reason than you provided above.
Somebody maybe said this already, but how about:
STAR TREK: BACK TO THE PAST
Michael J. Fox could have played Scotty!
Okay.. so we have these choices that people are saying…
ST09
ST2009
ST0
STXI
STZ
ST
what else was there??
Anthony.. do I sense a poll coming up? ;)
My personal opinion, I like just “ST” … That IS the abbreviation of the title after all. Since the original series was TOS and teh first movie was TMP … ST won;t be confused with anything else.
I see ST09 and think it’s the 9th movie… know what I mean? Anyway. Not a huge deal.
291- I think you missed ST:EB (Electric Boogaloo).
THANK YOU, Anthony.
I was curious about this point when I heard it during Heroes last night.
Also, ST09 is a-okay. After all, we’re going to get a lot more Trek films, right? :) ST11, ST13… wait maybe that numbering doesn’t work well.
Why not use the tagline and abbreviate it?
ST:TFB
Star Trek: The Future Begins
ST09 is a bit confusing
Or to Shorten it JJST (JJ’s Star Trek)
Lol i agree with a previous poster – hold a T’POLL ! so people can vote.
Star Trek Timmy is really growing on me. ;)
if you’re going to use the year, make it
ST’09
otherwise, use STXI
The producers may have stopped using roman numerals, but most of us haven’t.
I like the title, Star Trek: Alternate.
Here’s a wild thought – since it’s Anthony’s site let him decide what to call it. Outrageous, I know…but I’m pretty damn sure we’ll all know what movie he’s talking about! What are the odds he’s talking about Insurrection? Pretty freakin’ low, my friends. Nobody wants to talk about Insurrection and Klingon pimples.
265
Star Trek V: Not Timmy’s Turd?
299. sean
Actually.. everytime there is something posted for the new online Star Trek game.. it is called STO (for Star Trek Online) … for some reason.. i always think it’s about the new movie. And with ST09, I just think the movie it’s the 9th but know it’s not. But yes.. you are correct. It IS Anthony’s site and he can call it what he wants.
277 OMG your kidding. You mean you argue all the time (a hint of sarcasm)? Why do you think I’ve been occasionally visiting these boards now for a few months. Because it is funny. Your replies prove my point. As to being above it all? Don’t be absurd. I want this movie to be a hit so we see more films in the future because thay are fun (except for Star Treks 5,7,9and 10. Blagh). Just because I do not live and breath Star Trek does that mean that I cant post here? I bow down to you KRIKZIL KING OF THE TREKKIES. My humblest apologies Lord Trekkie.
Commercially the features stopped with the Roman numerals with “Generations” but on the lot, they still used them when a Trek goes into pre-production. In fact, I have a rare shirt with the logo that was originally on the “Star Trek First Contact” directors chairs – “Star Trek Generations II”. =) This one was referred to as Trek XI on the sides out here in LA for casting… just a little Hollywood foot note.
THX@ 283:
No, no, no!
It’s Star Trek: T’meh!
Gotta use that Vulcan spelling, doncha know!
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:- |
Bob Orci @ 239: Speaking from personal experience, very, very often, ignorance *is* bliss!
But you guys will probably have kicked that number into the stratosphere! }:-) So, no worries!!
Peace. Live long and prosper.
And write way more new Trek.
The Vulcanista }:-)
#16. Spockish – March 10, 2009
You are absolutely unintelligible! What the frak are you on, dude? Do us a favor and stay off the comments until you recover.
275. Xindi
Thanks for the link.
That gave me the old Star Trek chills!
Since ST09 reportedly will follow the crew of the Enterprise in an altered timeline, I suggest the abbreviation STAG (Star Trek the Alternated Generation) for the movie. Considering how young the new crew members are, STAG seems appropriate.
“Star Trek: The Future Begins”? What, that’s the best they could do, given that “Star Trek: Fight The Future” and “Star Trek Begins” are too close to certain other titles…? ;-)
Quit bashing #16 already. Yes, he’s retarded, I get the point. There really is no obligation to bash everyone who appears to dislike Obama
16 Nah, gotta’ keep bashing.
To paraphrase, When Harry Met Sally
I’ll smoke what he’s smoking.
#302—”I bow down to you KRIKZIL KING OF THE TREKKIES. ”
That would be “Queen of the Trekkies”…
Closet#312- LOL! Have I ever told you I like your style?
#313—Style and style. What is style?
Where’s my apology? I’m still waiting
315- Not my business, but I hope you aren’t holding your breath…
#316–and stomping his/her feet!
:)
OMG! Has anyone read #16?!
“It is just the suffrage that we must suffer through day by day in the present tense that hurts.”
I don’t get it, he doesn’t want women to have the vote? And Obama — I’m sorry, ‘to use correct English not my label for him, it’s Barack O’bama’ (he’s Irish? Who knew?) is trying to create a holocaust something something mumble mutter what?
Closet– “That would be “Queen of the Trekkies”…”
Heh heh. Course, Closet, I’m not sure we should be encouraging this guy. He’s seems to be wound a little tight. ;)
“277 OMG your kidding. You mean you argue all the time (a hint of sarcasm)? Why do you think I’ve been occasionally visiting these boards now for a few months. Because it is funny. [snip]….I bow down to you KRIKZIL KING OF THE TREKKIES. My humblest apologies Lord Trekkie.”
#302/Cylon — Actually I sure hope YOU are kidding with your post. Um, has no one ever disagreed with you before? You don’t seem to handle it very well. At any rate, any webmaster will tell you that while millions are fans, and thousands may visit websites, only a tiny percentage actually post, and then fewer still regularly post. (And I’m thinking even fewer crown other posters King of a Fandom but I’m not sure there are available stats.)
Well, I apparently have a Kingdom to run…..so TTFN.
#296 Krikzil
Try Compound W. It works for me.
#300 BK613
Correct! A winner!
#302 Cylon
Back up just a bit. That’s my friend You’re talking to.
#304 Vulcanista
Oooh! That’s right! I had forgotten.
#311 Biggfrogg
Agreed.
#315 kabat
Alright already. We’re sorry for you.
New Trailer for J.J. Abrams’ ‘Star Trek’ Breaks All Existing Records With Over
1.8 Million Downloads During First 24 Hours on Apple.com
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS181729+11-Mar-2009+PRN20090311
#320 you now owe me an apology as well, I resent your sarcasm
I like ST09. That’s what I use. But if you want to get picky, we could go ST2009. But that just looks too long for an abbreviation. xD
Shame on the NBC announcer!!!!
#16 – Wha? Huh? What?
Wow…….just wow
#322
Now, why am I reminded of Abbott+Costello?
“Hey, kabat!!”
322- wait, I was snarky, why don’t I owe an apology? Are you ignoring me? You owe me an apology!
I have a question about the design of the Enterprise in the new movie. Maybe its just me, or the answer has already been addressed, but the Enterprise is designed like the 1701-A not like the one from TOS………….Is it just me every time I see a preview you only get quick looks at it.
Is this really a prequel if ENT takes place before it? Perhaps this isn’t so much a prequel to TOS, but a sequel to ENT! Maybe it sould be called ST:ENT: The Path to the Future
How about ST: ENT: Where the Hell Do We Go Now?
ST: ENT: “Canceled and Expunged”
Just to pound upon a deceased equine, Insurrection was NOT “ST09″ it was “ST9″
How about ST:UPID??
UPID= United Planets In Distress!
For all those in this thread who feel they are owed an apology, or are even demanding one, the government is now offering prolific surplus apologies at low, low discount prices.
How are they able to do this? Well after eight years of the sorriest leadership we have ever had as a nation, we are now in a very sorry state of the Union.
So pick up your apologies today!
If this has offended anyone, I would like to offer an apology. However, you will have to complete the requisite paperwork for one.
In any case, I apologize for this apology.
#331: “9″ equals “09″
#334
I’m SORRY to hear you say that!
Truthfully, I hadn’t noticed the “09″ thing until Anthony mentioned it but I know I had seen it repeatedly. I do believe that coming to a site aptly titled “trekmovie” already predisposed me to thinking about the 11th Star Trek movie that is forthcoming and thus as I read “ST09″ I was mentally changing that to “STXI” to make the universe right again.
Am I still Monarch of Fandom? If so, I declare by Proclamation….Apologies for All!!
Actually, my first and only Proclamation would be RELEASE THE DAMNED MOVIE NOW AND I DON”T CARE WHAT THE SUBTITLE IS.
#335—”9 equals “09″
But it has never been that way.
As pointed out above, Star Trek feature films only utilized the numeric system of distinction through STVI, and always in Roman numerals.
TWOK was “STII”, not ST2 or ST02.
And “INS” was “Star Trek: Insurrection”. It was never officially STIX, and certainly not ST9 or ST09.
I think it will either be titled “Star Trek” or “Star Trek : The Future Begins”. If it is the latter, I think that STXI would be appropriate. If it is the former, then “Star Trek (2009)” would logically be abbreviated to ST09.
This might be the most worthless argument in the history of Star Trek…
336 – Apology accepted, as long as you did the requisite paperwork.
338 – Release the movie now and Paramount will be sorry…
339 – I think they should have called it “‘Star Trek’ Goes to College.” ;-)
334- I went to request the forms, but it turned out I had to find the forms to fill out in order to request the forms to request the apology. While I was there, the guy handing out forms spilled his coffee on me, but immediately said he was sorry. I accepted and walked out leaving him very flustered, and my lap very burned. I may have circumvented the process, but I have my apology, so its all good.
343 – lol! Your epithet is well-earned!
How about “The Romulan Spring of Mr. Shatner” ?
Do you suppose that Nero has really thought out his long term plan?
“Ah, at last! I’ve destroyed Vulcan and all the worlds of the Federation!”
[Drums fingers on control panel.]
“At last! Yes, at last! That felt good!”
[Crickets.]
“Well…I guess I’ll go read some posts on trekmovie.com.”
346 — Interesting and humorous. And where will Trekmovie.com exist if all the Federation planets are destroyed? Not to mention crickets.
Perhaps Nero would have been better off joining the French Foreign Legion or going to cosmetology school…
I demand an apology from JJ Abrams, Bob Orci, and Leonarsd Nimoy. They know the movie should be called Star Trek: Timmy! and yet they continue to call it Star Trek: BFD or Star Trek: 8 + 01=? or star Trek: What’s German for “oh, no” again?
I also demand an apology from the Typonian syndicate for all the misspellings they put in my posts. Because I NEVER misspell things.
Wait a minute- hasn’t Kirk saving the galaxy at various times saved Romulus? For instance, in Balance of Terror, him destroying the bird of prey, according to the Romulan Commander, keeps the Romulans from starting a war they can’t win. Also, Kirk does plenty to keep the Klingons in check, so they can’t come flooding over the Romulan border. Heck- Kirk (and Earth) keep the Federation going, and said Federation teams up (however surreptitiously) with the Romulans to defeat the Dominion. Without the Federation, the Borg would likely overrun the Alpha and Beta quadrants.
Perhaps Nero is planning for this by by destroying Klingon fleets and giving the Romulans future tech, but it would seem he has a high chance of becoming another Annorax, continually altering timlines, but never making it truly the way he wants it.
Star Trek: Typonians
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Star Trek: T’ponians.
339: A very long time ago, on a usenet board far, far away, I remember reading some vehement arguments about whether Deep Space Nine was properly abbreviated DS9 or DSN.
To my mind, that still eeks out the victory for most worthless Star Trek argument ever.
As for the absolute dumbest thing I’ve ever read on the Internet, the clear winner is a conspiracy theory once posted to a sports-related chat board, which postulated that the NBA had intentionally cut the power to a nationally televised Chicago Bulls game, so that the television network would have an excuse to run a Kevin McHale interview where he criticized Michael Jordan while power was being restored, so that Michael Jordan would get mad and be motivated to play harder, which would then create an increase in TV ratings.
Haven’t seen that one beat in 15 years of internet reading, though some of the comments in the “this movie can’t possibly be good because the floors are not realistic” thread came close.
The Enterprise looks too much like NCC-1701A. Should look more like the Defiant in Enterprise’s “In A Mirror, Darkly”.
I don’t care what the fans call this movie. I don’t care what the makers call this movie. I don’t even care that you’ve all just spent pages and pages arguing about silly stuff. I just want this movie to rock!