Austin, TX Fans Get Surprise Showing of Star Trek Movie [UPDATE 2: First Reviews In] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Austin, TX Fans Get Surprise Showing of Star Trek Movie [UPDATE 2: First Reviews In] April 6, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Conventions/Events/Attractions,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Tonight Paramount pulled off one of the coolest stunts in fan history. Promoted as just a 10 minute preview of the new Star Trek to show along with The Wrath of Khan, tonight fans in Austin, TX were actually shown the entire new Star Trek movie. The event included surprise guests, including the original Spock himself, Leonard Nimoy. [UPDATE: A number of reviews are already in - we have a summary of those below]

 

Surprise!
According to our man on the scene, the evening started off normally at the Fantastic Fest Star Trek event at the Alamo Draughthouse Theater in Austin, Texas on Monday night. Star Trek filmmakers Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof kicked things off by telling the crowd of around 200, that they would be seeing the Star Trek preview after Wrath of Khan. Two minutes in to the showing of TWOK, the film appeared to have ‘melted’ and the guys came back out on the stage and appeared to be stalling for time while the film was fixed…and then, wearing a ball cap, Leonard Nimoy came out in front of the audience holding a film can.

Nimoy noted to the crowd that it just didn’t seem fair that people in Australia were the fist to see the film and asked them "wouldn’t you rather see the new movie?" And apparently the crowd went wild. After that they showed the entire new Star Trek movie. Nimoy stayed for the entire event as did Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof.

According to a friend who called in to TrekMovie after the event, the audience reaction was very positive. There were "genuine laughs" at the jokes and "quiet moments" with the serious character stuff. And apparently the crowd applauded at the introduction to each character. The film ended with a standing ovation.


(l-r), Nimoy, OrciKurtzman, & Lindelof on stage in Austin (David Hilton)
[UPDATE: Click for new photos and video]

UPDATE: Review Tweets
Insta-reviews are starting to come up on Twitter, here are a few notables (some strong language used):

holy fuck! the new Star Trek fucking rules the universe
Harry Knowles, AICN

ust got super secret clearance to tell you that yes, I saw JJ’s Star Trek. And I was blown away. it is super accessible, in the right ways. Fans at my screening also dug it, so that bodes well.
Niel Miller, FilmSchoolRejects

Yeah, that Star Trek 2 screening turned out to be the premiere of JJ Abram’s Star Trek. Seriously, I cannot believe how good it was.
Rodney Perkins, Film, esq.

The cast is superb, the story is compelling, the action is exciting, and Abrams even avoids any blatant cheesy “winks” about his reboot. If Star Trek is the bluebird of the summer movie season, then we are in for a great ride.
Johnny Rollerfeet

UPDATE 2: First Reviews – very positive
The first reviews from Austin are already out on a number of geeky/film websites. Below are summary paragraphs from each. Click links for full reviews but beware of spoilers (nothing too major).

Quinto AintItCoolNews:

STAR TREK isn’t just a successful reboot, but a genuinely fun and exciting science fiction action adventure. My biggest complaint is that it feels like they just got started up when the film ended. I want more! I want to see the further adventures of Captain James T. Kirk and his crew aboard the USS Enterprise.

Neil at Film School Rejects :

The overwhelming sentiment that I have about this film is that J.J. Abrams, with the help of a few incredibly talented people, has created a very accessible, fun Star Trek film that is perfect for a new generation of sci-fi fans. Sure, it plays to the fan base a little bit, but its real strength is in the fact that it is delivered with a ton of energy, it presents a story that is easily grasped by fans and newbies alike and is a big, kick-ass ride. My hope is not only that this sort of film will inspire young people to go out and check out some of the older Trek movies and series, but that it also helps usher in a new era of space science fiction filmmaking.

Josh Tyler at Cinemabland:

The runtime flies by with very few lulls in the pacing, reinvigorating characters and a universe that had, lets be honest, grown stale and tired. More than anything else, the movie just feels so much more fun than any previous entry. There’s more humor, more thrills, far more energy and a much better movie here than anything I’ve seen from Star Trek since the 80’s. I admit I was skeptical- I was not prepared to care about this universe and these characters again, after the crushing mediocrity that they had become. I can be skeptical no more, though. This is a fantastic movie it’s own right, one I would definitely recommend to Trekkie and new fan alike.

Devin Faraci at CHUD

Tonight Paramount pulled off one of the coolest stunts in fan history. Promoted as just a 10 minute preview of the new Star Trek to show along with The Wrath of Khan, tonight fans in Austin, TX were actually shown the entire new Star Trek movie (hours ahead of the gala world premiere in Sydney, Australia). The event included surprise guests, including the original Spock himself, Leonard Nimoy.

UPDATE 3: Photos and Videos
TrekMovie has a new article with video and photos from the event

Comments

1. the governator - April 6, 2009

Damn! I missed it! NOOOOO! If only I had known.

I will give Paramount this: they just pulled the biggest surprise in movie history, or hell, the history of the entire planet!

2. Chumban - April 6, 2009

First

3. johnny - April 6, 2009

damnit, why does canada not get this kind of treatment

4. Chumban - April 6, 2009

Almost First

5. David - April 6, 2009

Damn I was thinking of going

6. markg1701 - April 6, 2009

I think it’s really great that they pulled this stunt off and given that it is the country that it was created in it seems fair that the US would be given the premiere.

However it seems a bit dishonest to deceive the people going to the Opera House tonight like myself. I think it will take away some of the premiere feel from it in some way.

Regardless I can’t wait.

7. Critch - April 6, 2009

Get off the internet everyone, the spoilers will probably start spreading within the hour.

8. paustin - April 6, 2009

wow what a thrill

9. Sogh Ho'neH jorDe' taI-VamPyr - April 6, 2009

Who went just to see the Sneek Peak?

10. Matt Wright - April 6, 2009

Oh wow, lucky Texans!

11. Voltaire - April 6, 2009

Holy crap.

12. SChaos1701 - April 6, 2009

6

Dude…if you got to see the film so soon….you have NO right to complain.

13. the governator - April 6, 2009

Anyone seen it yet? Seems like half the world already. Anyone? Anyone? Spoil me to death!

14. OneBuckFilms - April 6, 2009

Holy COW !!!!

That’s quite a stunt for them to pull !!!!

Well, it’s out there. It’s been seen in it’s complete form.

Mark this date.

15. Paul - April 6, 2009

I wonder if there was at least one person annoyed because of interruption of The Wrath of Khan. :o)

But, for future reference: which date counts as “release date” then? Texas date? Australia date? Or next month date?

16. Devon - April 6, 2009

Pardon my french… but HOLY CRAP!

17. Bill Peters - April 6, 2009

Those Guys in TX had all the luck! Wow wish I was in Texas!

18. SChaos1701 - April 6, 2009

Actually….the people pissed in Australia…tough! It should have been premiered in the US in the first place.

19. Dan - April 6, 2009

Man, that’s so cool.

20. OneBuckFilms - April 6, 2009

This shows that this is indeed for the fans.

21. Critch - April 6, 2009

Getting small snippets of reviews. “Incredible” “Blown Away” “Awesome” From Filmschoolrejects and a couple of twitters.

22. the governator - April 6, 2009

I am in a complete state of utter shock. I feel like i’ve been injected with razor needles. I am baffled beyond belief. (and a bit pissed too)

23. Navy - April 6, 2009

Well when are the reviews going to start showing up? I want all the juicy spoilers I can get!!!

24. Quarksbartender - April 6, 2009

Wow to cool! Well looks like we had the premiere here anyway. It’s like winning the Star Trek lottery

25. Paul - April 6, 2009

As an Okie, this moment is the first time i ever regretted being born in the Sooner State instead of our neighbors to the south congrats to yall

26. MC1 Doug - April 6, 2009

“fist to see the film?”

27. Harry Ballz - April 6, 2009

“after the event, the audience reaction was positive”

A crowd who loves Star Trek comes out to watch TWOK and, being treated to the world premiere of the new movie, the general reaction is “positive”? That’s it? After all this waiting and speculation, this is the initial review?

When Nimoy asked, “wouldn’t you rather see the new movie?”, the “crowd went wild”!!!

If you told me the crowd went wild AFTER seeing the movie, that would be good. To hear that the crowd feedback after seeing the movie was “positive”…..how underwhelming!!

We may be in trouble, folks!

28. Navy - April 6, 2009

#27 You’ve never been impressed near speachless in your life?

29. Harry Ballz - April 6, 2009

#28

That’s not the way they’re reporting it!

World premiere?? We should be hearing that the crowd went NUTS!

30. the governator - April 6, 2009

# 27. Don’t get your pants in such a wad! You’re ruining the moment! Positive is better than negative, my friend!

31. Newman - April 6, 2009

That is awesome!!!

32. Ryan H - April 6, 2009

#27 – The guy was probably shaken from the shock while typing into his phone. Relax.

33. garen - April 6, 2009

“According to a friend who called in to TrekMovie after the event, the audience reaction was positive. There were “genuine laughs” at the jokes and “quiet moments” with the serious character stuff. And apparently the crowd applauded at the introduction to each character.”

#27 you share my thoughts. That small paragraph lacked luster. This isnt exactly a whole hearted outpouring of joy and fantasticness! for the first time……i’m worried.

not even a “VERY positive”?

34. Odradek - April 6, 2009

27

I thought the same thing

35. JoBlo - April 6, 2009

Why?

Seems silly. They kept this thing under such tight wraps for such a long time and now they just show the whole thing a month early. Might as well have released it at Christmas — I don’t get that at all.

36. Devon - April 6, 2009

We have people now dicecting one man’s wording and phrasing of the word “positive” to turn it into something negative. Sad… or should I say “So very sad.”

37. the governator - April 6, 2009

Hey guys, chill. Lets wait for official reviews before we start making assumptions ok?

38. Harry Ballz - April 6, 2009

#33

Notice they say, “the crowd applauded at the introduction to each character”, but NO mention of any applause when the movie ended?

Uh, oh……….

39. Zotz - April 6, 2009

Waaaaaaay cool. BTW, tickets to the first midnight showing at Cinetopia in Vancouver, WA (an awesome HD theater) just went on sale tonight. I got my two. :-)

40. Navy - April 6, 2009

Human nature is present everywhere yet we are so blind to it.

41. OneBuckFilms - April 6, 2009

33, 27 – We were not there. Anthony is probably not going overboard with hyperbole.

Lets see what comes out of this when the smoke clears :-)

42. Ashley - April 6, 2009

:O

43. Ryan H - April 6, 2009

#35 Word of mouth is one of the best, if not the best, forms of advertising. They now have a select group of people who have seen it and can spread the word.

44. DJT - April 6, 2009

WHAT THE *********????!!!

The whole movie?? Are you kidding me?

Mutha.

Son of a.

Explicative, explicative etc, etc, et al.

Lucky bastards.

45. Jay - April 6, 2009

#35.
I agree.
While I think this was kind of a cool stunt, I’ve been excited and impressed with how much they’ve kept the details under wraps. Now the entire world is going to know…

How am I going to stay spoiler free for a friggin month???!!!

46. garen - April 6, 2009

anybody wanna link us to the other reviews/reactions from twitter or where ever. i need to read something!

47. cagmar - April 6, 2009

#27 and co,

Seems like the reviews are actually incredibly positive. These are just a couple words, NO SPOILERS, on people’s immediate reactions to ST on Twitter:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/06/early-twitter-buzz-star-trek-has-secret-premiere-in-austin-texas/

48. the governator - April 6, 2009

Trying to stay spoiler free for a month is going to be impossible. I’ll deal with it.

49. garen - April 6, 2009

thanks #47

50. MC1 Doug - April 6, 2009

#18: “Actually….the people pissed in Australia…tough! It should have been premiered in the US in the first place.”

Gee, now just tell me why would we be more deserving than the Aussies to see the film first?

C’mon, let’s not be so “me” centric. Let’s show some consideration to our Australian brethren, please.

A lot of American movies have been saved by the box office receipts off of American shores, so why not release a film “out there” first?

We’ll get our chance soon enough (in 4 weeks, 3 days).

51. garen - April 6, 2009

incidentally, they’re misspelling Khan’s name in the article linked in posted #47.

anyway…on with the comments!

52. Shane - April 6, 2009

46 – http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/06/early-twitter-buzz-star-trek-has-secret-premiere-in-austin-texas/

The reviews there are enthusiastic to say the least. I advise anyone who does not wish to be spoiled be cautious with this link. When I read it, there were no spoilers, but who knows what could happen.

53. Whatevo - April 6, 2009

I find that really poor, they promised the premiere to Sydney and then other people see it first. There are people who are paying good money to see the world premiere that have just been had.

54. Critch - April 6, 2009

#47 – I just did :-p

55. Harry Ballz - April 6, 2009

Just finished reading some of the twitter comments…..encouraging after all!

Sheesh, get off my back!

56. the governator - April 6, 2009

I just ran around my house after reading all the positive twitter comments. No, seriously I did. I am exhausted.

My prayers have been answered. It is OFFICIAL. STAR TREK LIVES!!!!!!!

57. David - April 6, 2009

man 31 days left this is torture

58. garen - April 6, 2009

EARLY TWITTER REVIEWS!!

“Seriously, I cannot believe how good it was.”

“STAR TREK is GREAT in a way that scifi movies haven’t been for a long time. They really got it right. ”

“holy sh** we just saw world premiere of new #Star Trek and it’s AWESOME”

“I just got back from Star Trek and it was AMAZING. The best Star Trek movie ever. Yes, it even bests Wrath of Khan. Believe me.”

59. JonWes - April 6, 2009

They always show movies early. LOL. People are acting like this is some crazy thing that will ruin the movie. It won’t. It can only build buzz if the movie is good. It’s an awesome stunt, and the people at the world premiere still get the glitzy party and most of the stars. I love this story.

60. Ensign Fox - April 6, 2009

AAAARRRRHHHHGGGGG!!!!!!

61. Jay - April 6, 2009

OK, those twitter reviews are getting me REALLY excited.

62. the governator - April 6, 2009

To those who went to Sydney. Don’t get mad, get glad! Seriously, I’m sure you’re screening will be worth it. Can’t wait to here from there too. Yipee!!!

63. Star Trek XI: Fakten, Gerchte, Infos - Seite 250 - SciFi-Forum - April 6, 2009

[...] DAS nenne ich doch mal eine wirkliche berraschung! Schn zu hren, dass die Reaktionen berwiegend [...]

64. Newman - April 6, 2009

I bet Nimoy feels like a million bucks when he gets to do something like that for the fans.

65. Critch - April 6, 2009

First review: http://www.rollerfeet.com/backporchbeer/2009/04/06/4169/

Tim League duped us again tonight. He sold us on seeing 10 minutes of the new Star Trek with J.J. Abrams’s writers in person, before a classic screening of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. Khan started, and the print looked/sounded awful, and scant seconds past the credits the film started glitching, froze, and melted in classic AICN/Drafthouse Teen Wolf 2 style. Tim ran onstage and asked the writers to stall while he ran to the projection booth. At this point most of knew what was up and were unspeakably manic. The writers were interrupted by !Leonard F’ing Nimoy! who was holding a FedEx canister used for film delivery. Applause, Standing Ovation for the legend, blah, blah, blah…then we got to see the world premiere of Star Trek (scant hours before the advertised premiere in Australia.)

I’m not the type to do spoilers, and if you’re still reading this then you’re the type to see the movie regardless of my review but I’ll tell you that I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

At one point in his life Abrams showed he knew how to start a show. The first few seasons of Alias had weekly opening scenes that compelled you to put down the remote. Between there and Cloverfield (which I didn’t care for at all) he started cheating the intro with the “flash forward” crutch. Abrams is walking without his crutch again…actually he’s doing hurdles as he bangs this movie’s intro two times — hit me!

The cast is superb, the story is compelling, the action is exciting, and Abrams even avoids any blatant cheesy “winks” about his reboot. If Star Trek is the bluebird of the summer movie season, then we are in for a great ride.

66. the governator - April 6, 2009

Shit. Mark your calendars guys. This is a day to remember. :)))))))))))))

67. markg1701 - April 6, 2009

#53

I completely agree, just getting ready to go and I couldn’t be happier for our American brethren (thanks #50).

I’m so excited to go, but it just seems a bit dishonest, seeing I spent good money for two tickets, took time off etc etc.

68. the governator - April 6, 2009

I am waiting for a complete internet shutdown do to positive fan outpour.

69. Gary Seven of Nine - April 6, 2009

Ahhhhh, they’re already at it: looks like people are already lining-up to bash the film based on quick secondhand reports about the crowd reaction to the film. Anthony even used the word “apparently” when describing what he’d heard.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the posters here simply cannot find joy in *ANYTHING*.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

According to a friend who called in to TrekMovie after the event, the audience reaction was very positive. There were “genuine laughs” at the jokes and “quiet moments” with the serious character stuff. And apparently the crowd applauded at the introduction to each character.

70. Rosario T. Calabria - April 6, 2009

Lucky bastards! What an awesome surprise.

71. OR Coast Trekkie - April 6, 2009

Haha, look at people who are angry becuase now they are going to have to read the spoilers instead of getting to post them.

72. David - April 6, 2009

Damn i was going to bed and now i can’t sleep i have to look for more non-spoiler reviews.

73. garen - April 6, 2009

as we speak i just saw the Erin Esurance Star Trek preview during the late late show with craig furgeson

74. the governator - April 6, 2009

Damn. Its 2:15 a.m. and i can’t go to sleep. Thanks a lot Anthony! :)

75. Devon - April 6, 2009

#67 – Take comfort in knowing that you are still going to see the movie before millions of Trek fans. Please don’t feel cheated.

76. Admiral Waugh - April 6, 2009

Thank God, thank GOD… I was initially worried about “positive reaction.” I mean, goodness, it should be more like:

“MY LIFE CAN END NOW… OR MAYBE AFTER THE NEXT ONE. OR THE ONE AFTER THAT.”

Bring it on!!!!!!!!!!!

(( And while we’re at it, how about releasing it in Hong Kong in a similar setting for those who deserve a decent premiere… do it in CyberPort — great setting. May 28th is WAY too long to wait and otherwise I have to fly to Jakarta or Singapore. Pretty pleeeeeeeeeeeease. ))

77. Newman - April 6, 2009

Seriously, the tweeters over at slashfilm are raving.

It is encouraging.

78. garen - April 6, 2009

#69

I’m certain that neither I nor Harry Ballz were “bashing” the film. At the very least…we’re simply wishing that the words used and thoughts expressed about the film were more OVERWHELMINGLY positive!

no bashing here. from me. ever.

79. Voltaire - April 6, 2009

Spoilers just hit twitter. Beware.

80. Admiral Waugh - April 6, 2009

Wait wait wait — Austin TX folk, you can give us this one tiny spoiler…

Is the soundtrack any good? Does it have the requisite Trek jingles? Poignant, adventures, what is it? Compare to Horner, Goldsmith ONLY please. =)

81. the governator - April 6, 2009

I think its safe to say that if you were expecting a stinker, you just got an “I told you so!” HA

82. The Original Spock's Brain - April 6, 2009

Why couldn’t it have been Houston? Lucky dawgs!

83. Critch - April 6, 2009

Those aren’t real spoilers, he already said he didn’t know, 80. Though I’m sure they’re coming.

84. Critch - April 6, 2009

From Twitchfilm:

A full Twitch review will appear in the near future but it is safe to say that J.J. Abram’s film is a very entertaining and reverential take on the Star Trek mythos. The acting and casting are spot on. The story mixes old and new elements of the Star Trek universe. The effects are breathtaking. Some people will inevitably nitpick this film but J.J. Abram’s new work is as good as (and arguably better) than most of the Star Trek movies that preceded it.

85. Austin, TX Fans Treated to Surprise Screening of Star Trek @ Your Entertainment Now - April 6, 2009

[...] reactions seem very positive.  Head on over to TrekMovie to keep on top of the latest news and reports on the surprise screening, and the upcoming worldwide [...]

86. catchupwiththesun - April 6, 2009

i am consumed with jealousy.

87. Nadia - April 6, 2009

do not worry, fans. movie was awesome, and the crowd was excited. overall, i think the austin crowd is a tough crowd on any night. repeat standing ovations and the fact that no one moved as the credits were rolling should demonstrate how the movie went over…

88. Harry Ballz - April 6, 2009

#69

Get off your high horse….I expressed initial concern because I care about this franchise!

As soon as we read some twitter comments we backed off! Sheesh!!

89. number6 - April 6, 2009

“The Film ended with a standing ovation.”

It that not “postivie” enough for you???

Sounds like people (who were expecting to see TWOK-no less) were genuinely blown away with the new film. That sounds very promising.

Jammy bastards!!!

90. garen - April 6, 2009

#88 thanks Harry B

91. Gary Seven of Nine - April 6, 2009

http://www.geektyrant.com/2009/04/4800/

92. Markus - April 6, 2009

The question i have is. is the film better than the Star Wars Prequels?

93. Capitaine Picard Jr - April 6, 2009

What a great stunt from JJ! I like this guy!
Can’t wait for the European Premiere in Brussels on April 15th!!!

94. garen - April 6, 2009

well….as much as i’d love to sit here hitting refresh for the next 4 hours….i’ve decided to sleep instead.

Everyone else….enjoy the early buzz!!!

95. Ensign Fox - April 6, 2009

Actually, what I meant to say was…

Darn, still a month to go for us “everyone else in the world” crowd…and the place I’m at doesn’t even have a theater. Looks like a long bus ride into Bangkok to find a decent place screening with english soundtrack.

Oh well, nobody ever said it was gonna be an easy life being a fan.

96. Alf - April 6, 2009

Gee, I hope someone had a HandyCam there…..

(hey, just kidding….put down that Bat’leth!!!)

97. Jay - April 6, 2009

I’m staying up until someone sposts a real review, so will someone please get to it? And EASY on the spoilers PLEAAAASSSSEEEE…

98. DJT - April 6, 2009

I will be in first in line for the local midnight showing.

“I swear it.”

99. The Governator - April 6, 2009

TO ANY WHO ATTENDED THIS EVENT

I am envious. Don’t spill the story beans, but how was the music? The ship? the feel of the movie in general?

100. rumpcuz - April 6, 2009

Ok ok, quit crying, where’s the ShakyCam copy

101. rumpcuz - April 6, 2009

#3: Bill, is that you?

102. Jonny Boy - April 6, 2009

Okay, so….

I’m somehow even more excited about the movie, and I appreciate others chiming in with their thoughts, but I was wondering if it would be possible to keep SPOILERS out of the comments?

103. Critch - April 6, 2009

New review found at Capitolized

So seeing the new Star Trek movie was a huge treat and it did not disappoint.

As much as I LOVE reading spoilers I am not going to ruin anyone’s fun. I will say these things.

a) The plot is solid. I am not super verse in Star Trek lore but this is a clear reboot of the original series that is completely congruent with all movies and TV show that have come before. It follows a ‘revenge’ trajectory along the same lines as Wrath of Khan and has a ton of familiar Star Trek lines and familiar situations that will satisfy the hard core fans.
b) The characterizations are amazing. All the actors do excellent jobs recreating the original crew without acting like SNL parodies. I had severe doubts of pretty boy Chris Pine being cast as Kirk but he owns the role. The rest of the main crew is brilliantly places and I look forward to seeing them in these roles for several more movies. And the guest role that Leonard Nemoy plays is a vital plot point and ties this movie to the rest of the Star Trek timeline.
c) J.J. Abrams directing is spectacular. I recognize a number of the same techniques that he used in Cloverfield and worked so well being brought into this project. Although I have never seen Lost this makes me think I am missing out on something.

So now I am at home watching Wrath of Khan :)

104. Aggie Titan - April 6, 2009

Hey guys – I found a review (no spoilers…)

http://capitolized.blogspot.com/2009/04/star-trek.html

105. Aggie Titan - April 6, 2009

Wow…

107 beat me to it by mere seconds….

106. Gregory L. - April 6, 2009

I’m just annoyed that I wasn’t there. All I can say is:
You’ve done far worse that kill me, you just me and you wish to go on hurting me. You left me as you left them marrouned for another month. Waitting forever, waiting forever.
ABRAMS!!!, Abrams!!, abrams…

107. Selor - April 6, 2009

So I don’t know if the Opera guys will actually like it that the Premiere had been stolen ^^

108. catchupwiththesun - April 6, 2009

#110 LMAO

and, i feel the same way.

109. catchupwiththesun - April 6, 2009

#108 i mean. yeah iguess i was laughing kinda hard.

110. sebimeyer - April 7, 2009

Holy crap…

Funny thing is, while this was happening *I* was watching Wrath of Khan at home.

For people to be expecting TWOK, which I would say is quintessential (but not the end all) Star Trek to be happy with the new movie is quite the good news.

Now how about a surprise screening at FedCon? ;)

111. captain_neill - April 7, 2009

Better than The Wrath of Khan? Better than Wrath of Khan?

I will probably end up loving the film but I will like it in a different way to the past ten movies. I will probably be liked it in a different way to Wrath of Khan.

Does it feel like sacriledge to prefer a film with the new cast over the original cast who made the roles?

Just a thought.

I adament that no matter how good these actors are they will never take the place of the originals.

112. Clay "Still hoping for red nacelle caps" Farrow - April 7, 2009

Spoilers? Please?

113. Anthony Pascale - April 7, 2009

this article is spoiler free….so the comments should be spoiler free

114. Amalak - April 7, 2009

Any ‘surprise’ cameos?

115. Emotionally Logical - April 7, 2009

AICN has their review up now too

116. Slade Brunner - April 7, 2009

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40675

117. Critch - April 7, 2009

Quint saw it. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40675

118. merrick - April 7, 2009

I’m surprised the crowd reaction to the film is downplayed a tad in the piece above. Not only did the audience applaud character introductions, they applauded particular lines and several of the film’s more heroic moments & the standing ovation at the end was protracted.

The film is REEEEEAAAALLLLLYYY good if you ask me.

It’s a little dizzying at times (it’s visually dense & highly kinetic movie in terms of both blocking and camera movement), but it’s an awesome throw back to those big-scale movies of the 80s – with ultra modern stylistic sensibilities. There’sa a lot of scope…a great deal of magnitude…in this thing that hasn’t even been touched on by the trailers we’ve seen so far.

Clearly made by people who either loved, or understood, what makes TREK work.

119. Chris Fawkes - April 7, 2009

@38

“Notice they say, “the crowd applauded at the introduction to each character”, but NO mention of any applause when the movie ended?

Uh, oh……….”

Don’t you know what a standing ovation is?

120. The Last Maquis - April 7, 2009

“I am A Fool” God I should have Gone to that, No excuses folks, I hail From The Live music Capital of The World, (Born and Raised) and I just F%$#ed up….That Would have Been RAD, However Words cannot Express How Awesome It Feels To Have Had The World Premiere of this Movie Here in my Home Town, that’s some consolation…I guess, But I vow That I will be at the Drafthouse (that particular one) on the Day of the General release in May, Beers in hand.

121. catchupwiththesun - April 7, 2009

does the aicn review have spoilers? cuz i dont want to follow the link if it does.

122. Darth Quixote - April 7, 2009

Rat bastards! Actually this is the coolest, sneakiest premier I have ever heard of. Oh, to be in Austin.

123. Newman - April 7, 2009

ahhh I was just about to read the review over at AICN but it looks too spoilerific for me!

124. zillabeast - April 7, 2009

AICN review is spoiler free if you have read the Countdown comics.

125. Macht Star Trek XI das Canon als Fan-Konsens kaputt? - Seite 40 - SciFi-Forum - April 7, 2009

[...] Und auch wenn Viper es im anderen Thread schon verlinkt hat, scheint der Film auch bei den Fans ziemlich gut anzukommen, so mies kann er also kaum sein. __________________ StarTrek XI wird toll und dann erstelle ich [...]

126. The Governator - April 7, 2009

AICN contains some spoilers. Nothing alarming, but thought you’d like to know.

127. Terpor - April 7, 2009

Star Trek is finally on its roots, now i really want to see this movie so badly.
Where to nerd wants to go so badly :D

128. Javier E. Trujillo - April 7, 2009

I have been VERY skeptical about the new movie, even with Nimoy’s involvement, but hearing that a rabid Alamo crowd loved it is good enough for me now. I only regret that I didn’t go due to illness! It sounds like a once in a lifetime event. Tim League definitely makes the Alamo Drafthouse THE best movie theater in the world!

129. sherlockfreak - April 7, 2009

That is friggin’ AWESOME!!!

Makes me wish I still lived in Austin–I’d totally have been there.

Congrats, you lucky, lucky folks!

130. sherlockfreak - April 7, 2009

#122

I agree! Coolest, sneakiest premiere EVER!!!

131. Andy Patterson - April 7, 2009

17

“Those Guys in TX had all the luck! Wow wish I was in Texas!”

Yeah, well I’m in Texas but it’s so big it’s still 4 hrs away. Plus you have to have the freedom to get away on a work night. Still, had I known…..

Boy, that Harry at AICN. What a linguist.

132. Tak Kovacs - April 7, 2009

Has anyone read a take on Giacchino’s score? I’m very curious about how that turned out.

133. Dunsel Report - April 7, 2009

I didn’t think the AICN review was spoiler-free, even for Countdown readers.

134. Yspano - April 7, 2009

Nothing quite as awesome as having Spock himself offer you the brand new movie before anyone else sees it! Hot dang, I wish I was there!!!

135. TrekMadeMeWonder - April 7, 2009

AS MUCH AS I LOVE READING AND POSTING HERE, I MUST NOW STOP VISITING TREKMOVIE FOR 30 DAYS.

I have to go in unspoiled. Sorry All.
I’ll still visit a bit, but less often and with one eye open.

And yes, I still beleive Shatner will be in the movie!

I want that dream to stay alive as long as possible.

136. Critch - April 7, 2009

Quint said in the talkbacks that the score was good but not as good as Horner/Goldsmith. And that the main theme is in it.

137. zillabeast - April 7, 2009

#133

Quint at AICN has noted that Giacchino used the TOS theme, however the rest was nothing too memorable off the bat like Goldsmith or Horner’s scores.

138. Slade Brunner - April 7, 2009

audio review (some spoilers)

http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/div-styletextaligncenterembed

139. Captain Quail Hunter - April 7, 2009

So actually this film was actually leaked from Paramount by design compared to Wolverine by misake or criminally???

140. KHAN NOONIEN SINGH - April 7, 2009

ABRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMS!!!!!!

141. Heidsdk - April 7, 2009

Oooh man i wish i could have seen it, its a one in a life time experience :O

oh well we have to wait another month, unfortunately :/

but its worth the wait ill bet :D

142. I am not Herbert - April 7, 2009

Oh Man!!! I’m EXCIT’D just hear’n about it!!

I CAN’T WAIT!!!

143. boborci - April 7, 2009

I heard audible gasps when Nimoy walked into the room. And the ovation at the end was… no words…

must sleep

144. Adam Cohen - April 7, 2009

Ah, the tease of the end credits rolling!

I wonder if the Property Master ran around the set yelling “I am McCumby, dammit!”

145. Adam Cohen - April 7, 2009

Hey Bob,

Congrats on a very generous and shrewd marketing move. You guys must be feeling very good about the movie right about now.

So, get back to work on TREK 2 and quit trolling! ;-)

146. Ryan Pominville - April 7, 2009

Who’s running this webcam in Australia? Stevie Wonder?

147. Ryan Pominville - April 7, 2009

BTW, Paramount rules!

148. boborci - April 7, 2009

145. Adam Cohen – April 7, 2009

Wish you all coulda’ been there… not much longer to wait!

149. Rastaman - April 7, 2009

What a brilliant way to introduce the movie to Trek fans. First of all, by billing it as a Star Trek II screening, you are certain to get the hard-core fans. All these folks showed up to see their favorite Star Trek movie for the millionth time with the bonus of an extended trailer for the new movie. And look what they got instead. Lucky bastards!

It is also a bit of marketing brilliance. By billing it as a Star Trek 2 showing, the crowd would be self-selected Star Trek fanatics–extremely biased toward favoring the new movie. From the sounds of it, however, the positivity is just overwhelming. Coming from a bunch of Star Trek fans, I’m all the more excited!

150. thorsten - April 7, 2009

@148…

totally stunning surprise… good night Bob!

151. Thomas - April 7, 2009

135. TrekMadeMeWonder

Don’t read the thread over at the AICN review, there are some spoilers in there that are NOT in the review.

152. Odradek - April 7, 2009

sleep well, bob
sounds like you deserved it, good job

153. Ryan Pominville - April 7, 2009

Bob, you’re awesome! Truly a fantastic person.

154. Selor - April 7, 2009

@148 Sleep very well! You deserve it ;)

155. Kevin May - April 7, 2009

# 1: Biggest surprise in movie history? No.

The Gone with the Wind producers pulled almost the same trick with an audience in 1939.

156. zillabeast - April 7, 2009

@157

Awww dude let them have their cake! Besides, did Gone with the Wind have 45 years of history behind it when released?

157. Val Jean - April 7, 2009

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/star-trek-makes-surprise-world-premiere-in-austin-read-our-first-review.php

looks good :)

158. Val Jean - April 7, 2009

btw if anyone is in Australia, today tonight on channel 7 is having a story with some coverage on the sydney premiere, the show started 5 minutes ago, story hasnt run yet.

159. captain_neill - April 7, 2009

wish I was in Austin to have seen this.

I tell when I see this film i will be at ease because i will then finally know if this respects Star Trek or not, rather than worrying and ranting because JJ is making changes that you see as taking away from what you love.

I cannot wait to this film. Sure I have my concerns still but I do want to see this.

160. K. Thatcher - April 7, 2009

Well, I guess that clears up the mystery of who the dolly grip operator on the movie was. Thanks, Sean Devine, for your hard work…

161. Val Jean - April 7, 2009

STar Trek story is on channel 7 now!

162. SpocksinnerConflict - April 7, 2009

I love that some people are arguing over the reviews now.

perfect.

163. GO - April 7, 2009

#55, Harry buddy, I’m gonna assume that the mention of a “standing ovation” at the end of the screening was added in an update of the article AFTER your first comments were made…

Oh, and any word on the Shat being in or out…? Still think there’s one more BIG surprise waiting for us a month form now.

164. GO - April 7, 2009

that’s “a month FROM now” of course

165. Anthony Pascale - April 7, 2009

fyi…are you guys aware there is live video and photoblogging from the red carpet going on in another article

http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/07/live-coverage-of-sydney-star-star-trek-premiere-video-of-trek-celebs-answere-fan-questions/

166. Val Jean - April 7, 2009

hey..how does a tv station have scenes no one has seen before?

just saw mcoy complaining about travel sickness and spock asking kirk “how did you beam aboard this ship? kirk answers ” i dont know youre the genius you tell me.”

Also, a scene of kirk trying to pick up uhura in a bar, he comes off as a cocky bastard lol

167. boborci - April 7, 2009

you gonna be up all night, Anthony?

168. Mr Phil - April 7, 2009

Very cool stunt, gotta love Mr Nimoy!

169. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 7, 2009

I WAS THERE. :-) I second Orci’s sentiment, must rest (just drove back to Houston from Austin). But I’ll be back later to discuss……

170. captain_neill - April 7, 2009

read the film school rejects review. I have to say that I really am feeling more at ease when I hear confirmations that JJ Abrams is honouring Star Trek.

My concerns about set design and how I don’t like the new Enterprise in comparison to the original or refit designs are still there, but at least JJ Abrams has got the ‘heart’ of Star Trek right and I am glad these actors are doing justice to these iconci characters.

They will never take the place of the originals, I will always them as they were the ones we grew up with. I am sure many of others here will agree with me on. But thank God that they have got things right.

171. thorsten - April 7, 2009

@169…

haha, sweet, SFP, congrats!

172. Anthony Pascale - April 7, 2009

yes bob i am still up…the Australia event has now started so that may be the end of the first round of reporting from OZ. We will have more pics, video, quotes etc tomorrow.

We put all our effort into the OZ event with all this cool coverage and it turns out TX is where it was at!

173. SpocksinnerConflict - April 7, 2009

I would quit my job if i could see it tomorrow.

Of course, I’m looking for an excuse.
______

No one on here “hates” as well as AICN. A few of them are still at it over there, even with this avalanche of praise. It’s just in their blood.

167
Orci, for the sequel you guys should create a new alien villain basted on Talkbackers.

174. SpocksinnerConflict - April 7, 2009

“Basted”,

wow I’m tired.

175. boborci - April 7, 2009

173. SpocksinnerConflict – April 7, 2009

“Orci, for the sequel you guys should create a new alien villain basted on Talkbackers.”

LOL!

176. thorsten - April 7, 2009

Sounds like Leonard was on a mission to stop Damon telling the truth about Smokey… now we have to wait another year ;))

177. Anthony Pascale - April 7, 2009

Bob…don’t you sleep

why dont you write your review of the movie!

178. The Angry Klingon - April 7, 2009

Im beating myself in the head…I was so tempted to fly back to Texas for this (I was just there a few weeks ago) and have always wanted to see a film at the Draft House. The GF was like,”You wanna spend yur money to fly to Austin for a movie that youve already seen a million times and a 10 minute trailer???!!!!!”
oi.
oi.
oi.
Well, congrats to both Texans and Aussies…it will be interesting to see if the new generation of Trekkers are as rabid as the old guard.
“Y’know, my dad used to dress up like Spock when he was a kid…”
“Fer real? Man dat’s whack! Its a good movie but I wearin’ a cost…oooh…that blue one is kinda nice…”

179. Chris Pike - April 7, 2009

that is one crafty, clever bit of marketing!

180. Geoffers - April 7, 2009

#27 “If you told me the crowd went wild AFTER seeing the movie, that would be good. To hear that the crowd feedback after seeing the movie was “positive”…..how underwhelming!!

We may be in trouble, folks!”

Bloody hell! talk about grabbing at straws to prove that the FILM is bad! Jeez what is wrong with folks!

181. Fleet Captain Kor'Tar (Wishes he was in Austin Texas last night) - April 7, 2009

I am for the folks in Austin and Sydney, and with the awesome reviews coming in for the movie , it will build the buzz for this movie even more .

We’ve waited this long…….What’s one more month?

(wait for it……)

Friggen’ annoying, that’s what!!!

182. Fleet Captain Kor'Tar (Wishes he was in Austin Texas last night) - April 7, 2009

*I am HAPPY for the folks…..*

Yikes I must be tired too, I left out an entire word! LOL!

183. thereare4lights - April 7, 2009

That was one truly massive pwnage

184. Stonn is Decius - April 7, 2009

the best written, most in-depth and thoughtful review is at CHUD, and it’s a bad review:

http://chud.com/articles/articles/18883/1/STAR-TREK-THE-WRATH-OF-A-REVIEW/Page1.html

185. Dennis Sisterson - April 7, 2009

Huh. That one makes it sound like it’s a big loud brainless action movie after all. Not encouraging.

186. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - April 7, 2009

What a cool stunt! First impressions are telling. I’m encouraged by these initial reports, especially because both the continuity-centric fans and the new-blood-advocate fans are voicing praise and excitement.

187. Chris Fawkes - April 7, 2009

@18. SChaos1701 – April 6, 2009
“Actually….the people pissed in Australia…tough! It should have been premiered in the US in the first place.”

I think the marketing theory for starting in Australia may be part of shaking the Trek is for Nerds image.

188. Cheve - April 7, 2009

Congratulations Bob!

After reading you here for so long, I’m very happy you are at least watching reactions to your movie!

BTW I wish you where coming to Spain with the cast for the promotion! Would really like to be able to see you in person!

189. That Nutty Fanboy - April 7, 2009

I believe I will now be able to convince a friend of mine to go to the english showing in may. ^^

190. Devon - April 7, 2009

#184 – The guy praises the film at the end. He just points out parts he may not have liked which is fair. But it seems to be a rare case thus far ;)

191. Geoffers - April 7, 2009

#184….et al … bet you guys are made up.. A BAD review.. yahoooooo.. all the people who have bashed can rejoice… the rest of us will wait, and allow ourselves to remain excited!

192. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - April 7, 2009

Having read the CHUD review @ #184, I have to disagree with #185. First of all, the review has minimal spoilers, but I obviously won’t get into them because that would be bringing the spoilers here.

The CHUD review is fair and balanced, in my opinion, and written by someone who likes what is good in Star Trek but is objective about what makes a good movie, too. That is a stance I can identify with, so I am inclined to take the reviewer’s opinion to heart. The reviewer does indicate that this movie is action/adventure oriented (like The Wrath of Khan) rather than more pure Science Fiction (like The Motion Picture), but not so much so that it could be considered a “big loud brainless action movie after all” as 185 Dennis Sisterson says.

I’m still encouraged, myself. I love The Motion Picture and the purest forms of Science Fiction, but I also knew that STXI was going to be more action-oriented, so I can’t say I am surprised to read that it is more comparable to The Wrath of Khan or The Undiscovered Country (which are both films I enjoy). What is more, I am heartened by the intimations present in the CHUD review of attention to certain plot intricacies involving time travel and alternate timelines — I read that as indicative of some attempts at depth.

193. Harry Ballz - April 7, 2009

#163 “I’m gonna assume that the mention of a ‘standing ovation’ at the end of the screening was added in an update of the article AFTER your first comments were made…”

GO, there was no mention of a “standing ovation” when I first posted that comment! Thanks for knowing my taste!

194. Dennis Sisterson - April 7, 2009

I was more concerned at the reviewer’s remark that any attempts at depth and meaning are limited to lip service, rather than truly exploring those ideas. TWOK is an action movie and managed to do both, but I suppose times have changed since then and a mainstream audience expects the pace to kept up a lot more these days.
Still – if it gives the franchise some new energy, that’s the important thing at this point.

195. marvin - April 7, 2009

am i the ONLY ONE who thinks that TWOK is overrated?

196. Mr. X - April 7, 2009

Read all the reviews, and it’s what I expected. Everything I feared is in there, from Kirk turning from cadet to Captain in an instant, and even worse, all crew members getting their “old” positions in pretty contrived ways, to the pipe engine room (with MC Esher-esque pipes, as one reviewer called them) which doesn’t even feel like it’s on the Enterprise, to Nero being another villain-of-the-week, etc…

And then those reviews end with “but all this doesn’t take away from the overall enjoyment.”

For me, it does. ;)

It will be the typical successful Abrams movie. M:I:3 was a success, Lost and Alias are succesful, but I don’t like either of those.

Good thing is they acknowledge it’s a parallel universe. Now if they would just do the next movie in the real universe please…

197. captain_neill - April 7, 2009

194 My main concern about going mainstream was that the depth will be lost to set pieces. I was worried that great drama and character development that made Star Trek universe so great would be lost to set piece.

TWOK was an action movie but was a thoughtful one, as well as being action orientated, it brought up themes of life and death, still having a purpose as you get older.

Michael Bay style moments, as reviewer at CHUD uses refer to the kid scenes when Kirk is driving the car, are not the kind of things I want in a Trek movie.

I still remain hopeful for the film. All the CHUD review does is that this should be treated as separate canon and separate from all the past Treks, which is how I was treating the film anyway.

What is everyone elses opinion on the mainstream these days?

198. marvin - April 7, 2009

another glowing aicn review

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40682

199. David B - April 7, 2009

What is Star Trek?

200. Ralph - April 7, 2009

#195: No, you’re not. ;)

201. rumpcuz - April 7, 2009

#199: LAME

202. I am Kurok! - April 7, 2009

Abrams is right up there with P.T. Barnum: the man knows how to put on a show!

203. marvin - April 7, 2009

what puzzles me is when have we crossed from being certain that this movie will suck, to being disappointed and revolted that its not going to be perfect. or are we now looking for any excuse to whine

204. Mr. X - April 7, 2009

I haven’t crossed that line as of yet. Although… actually I have been on both sides of that line. I am certain that it will suck, and I’m disappointed because of that, because I think they could have done a lot better.

All that freshness the reviewers are so happy about… did that really need a mirror universe reboot prequel? Why couldn’t they get that freshness with most beautiful visuals and fast pace and action and fun and stuff… why couldn’t they do this in a proper sequel?

And I strongly believe a TNG era movie with that budget and vision would have rocked the house just as strong, or even stronger.

205. Clinton - April 7, 2009

Well, Anthony is as good as his word. He managed to cover the event in the article — including quotes from those who were there — without spoilers. Nicely done, sir.

206. Charlie - April 7, 2009

To #3 johnny: Because there’s no SHAT in THIS movie!!! HAHAHAHAHA Just busting some balls, I’m a Shat fan. BUt really, I don’t know! But the movie isn’t out yet and maybe they DO have something planned for Canada!

But if it’s any consulation, San Diego doesn’t get stuff like this either =(:::

207. marvin - April 7, 2009

StephenFenech: just saw the world premiere of Star Trek. Jaw-droppingly good!!!!

mikegoldmantwit: Best Star Trek movie ever!Best premiere! Liked it so much I have a woody so big cirque de soeli could do a show under my tent! Wicked movie!

poor souls

208. Iowagirl - April 7, 2009

#169

Sleep well, my friend…:)

209. marvin - April 7, 2009

DanPapallo: Star Trek movie review – 5 stars. Bumped into Rove and Eric Bana on the red carpet.

BluntNate: Star trek. I am under review embargo, for now. So i will say only this, the world premiere was an impressive event. :)

maxmarkson: FANTASTIC!!!! Star Trek was great. I recommend it …

sad sad people

210. AJ - April 7, 2009

195:

TWOK is fine. “Space Seed” is actually guilty of being moronic. Captain Kirk takes the liberty of exiling 20th century augments on an uninhabited planet. One of the century’s great finds, and he dumps them on Ceti Alpha V. Not sure if that would sit well back home.

211. Jorg Sacul - April 7, 2009

Ha. It’s been filmed, it’s been shown, it’s been paid for by Paramount.

IT IS CANON! ;-)

212. SaphronGirl - April 7, 2009

143. (boborci)

Have a good sleep, you deserve it! Enjoy the rest while you can… ;)

213. Bill Lutz - April 7, 2009

…and here we go again…
Trek Fan vs Trek Fan…
…sigh….

214. Neal - April 7, 2009

cool!

215. Tom Welling For Superman - April 7, 2009

If anyone viewed this movie in texas do they mention Kirk Prime? Like when Nimoy talks to Pine does he mention the future? Or his death?

216. marvin - April 7, 2009

carmelengland: Live long and prosper. (Star Trek was awesome! Opera house as cinema was inspired)

rebelsofmars: After the premier in Sydney it seems that the verdict is in and… Star Trek 11 Rules!

alllll paramount workers

217. Sebi - April 7, 2009

I guess this will be my favorite line to my friends this summer:

“You know, I used to watch Star Trek before it was cool”

218. captain_neill - April 7, 2009

To me this will be a great movie but not sure it will be the best ever because it is not in the same universe.

I am treating this as a new series of films

I love Dark knight but I still Batman Returns, I actually say they are the best Batman movies of their respective series.

I think it will be the same with future Trek movies, I will still love them but as it is a new timeline best to treat it as separate from the rest of Trek.

Hope this makes sense

219. captain_neill - April 7, 2009

I will prob take back my last post once I see the movie.

Can I ask anyone who has seen the movie, does the movie fit in with canon as per the other shows when referencing the original timeline?

220. SaphronGirl - April 7, 2009

I have a question for someone who has seen the film: what is the chemistry like between Pine and Quinto?

221. Gary Evans - April 7, 2009

To the Canadian Fans:
Spock’s help gets residents of Vulcan, Alta., sneak peak at new ‘Star Trek’

20 March 2009
“Leonard Nimoy, the veteran actor who played the beloved character, was critical this week of a decision by Paramount Pictures not to award the premiere of the new “Star Trek” movie to the tiny town of Vulcan, Alta.”

“They deserve their day in the sun,” said Nimoy, 77, in a phone interview from Los Angeles on Thursday.

“Now Vulcan is being awarded a sneak peak of the new film on May 6 – two days before the film is released to world audiences.”

See complete report here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gKSKuS1YDFd-toZ34V3OmETVszqQ

Gary

222. tonymccollum.com | Always Be Remarkable - April 7, 2009

[...] outside of the box and dares to do something cool and remarkable.  Check out what Paramount did here.  BTW, all this does is make me want to see the movie even more so I guess it worked on a lot of [...]

223. Chris Doohan - April 7, 2009

148

Bob,

Wow, I so wish I could have been there!!!! Congrats on the great success to come.

Chris

PS I’m free on the 30th if there’s something going on that day.. Hint….hint…

224. JimJ - April 7, 2009

#222-Nice catch but AP and Trekmovie had this long ago. All Hail Lord A.P.!!!! lol

225. Tom - April 7, 2009

Could Kirk Prime have been in this story??

226. deleted - April 7, 2009

deleted

227. Andy Patterson - April 7, 2009

Nice they’d do the ‘first’ premiere in my home state wonder how they decided on Austin. I thought I felt a tremor in the force.

228. afterace - April 7, 2009

#227 so you have revealed every single detail of this movie, what a retard !!

229. Nemo - April 7, 2009

hi here’s a review : http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/review-star-trek.php

the movie got a B+ but the journalist isn’t a fan so …

230. marvin - April 7, 2009

#227 you are a prick. you might have as well recorded it on you cell and put it on net.

is there nobody to delete his post

231. Dude - April 7, 2009

YEAH, IT IS CANON!

As parallel universe, that is.

So this movie shows us how Kirk’s childhood and early career COULD have been if a time traveller makes funny things and destroys Vulcan, which didn’t actually happen in the last 40 years of Trek, and certainly not in TOS. How exciting.

It’s not even a Star Wars type prequel. Nor is it a BSG style reboot.

It’s a simple Mirror Universe Star Trek movie.

Now would you please do a big budget TNG era movie in the REAL Trek universe the next time? Please?

232. gogar - April 7, 2009

anthony, delete post 227

233. marvin - April 7, 2009

nemo, non fans are not the problem

234. Dude - April 7, 2009

LOL, marvin. That post included a spoiler warning, didn’t it?

235. gogar - April 7, 2009

Anthony, post 227. Delet it NOW.

236. Dude - April 7, 2009

Anthony, please do not delete post 227! This is a trek board, after a Trek movie has premiered. Why would we want to censor spoilers now? If people don’t want to be spoiled, they should be stop reading reviews and reports about the premiere and the discussions about them.

237. Captain Cohen - April 7, 2009

181 “I am for the folks in Austen and Sydney”

You mean like Losiris and hre computer clones say

“I am for McCoy / I am for Spock.. etc” in the TOS episode”That Which Survives…

just asking..

———————————

My goosebumps have got goosebumps. and we still have to wait [allegedly] until May 8th.

Not felt this excited about a movie for a very very very loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

Now if I could only borrow a certain pointy eared hobgoblin’s timeship and go forwards a teensy weensy bit..

238. marvin - April 7, 2009

yes, but thats a recap

239. TrekTwenty - April 7, 2009

This is the first time I’ve truly been able to say I wish I lived in Texas. Lucky!!!

240. Mark - April 7, 2009

I don’t care if Nimoy is in it and I don’t care how many people who have actually seen it say it is good. Even though I haven’t seen it, I KNOW it is bad because it is not a replicate of the cheap sets of the 60’s. I KNOW it is bad because it doesn’t follow my strict understanding of canon.

So there!

;-)

241. marvin - April 7, 2009

f#ck this. im off this blog

242. Nemo - April 7, 2009

another review from a fan thid time ( got A) : http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/star-trek-makes-surprise-world-premiere-in-austin-read-our-first-review.php

243. spockatatic - April 7, 2009

3.
yeah, I know! William Shaner and James Doohan were from Canada, and a number of other people as well! Why can’t Canada be as lucky.
LOL, we invented quodrotriticale, didn’t we?

244. Kenneth Thomson Jr. - April 7, 2009

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last night there was a showing of “Wrath of Khan” in Austin at the Alamo Draft House that a friend of mine invited me to go to him with. They were supposed to show ten minutes of the new movie. They were scanning everyone with magnetic readers to make sure no one had a camera or recording devices. Harry Knowles of Ain’t it Cool News was there, and the writers of the new movie were there too. They said that the world premiere was going to be in Australia and that JJ Abrams was there to debut the entire film.

The lights went dark and “Wrath of Khan” started up. They were in the middle of the Kobayashi Maru scene when the film started getting really scratchy and jumpy and then broke. Robert Orci got up and said that while they were fixing the movie in the booth they’d answer some questions.

First person to ask a question was… LEONARD NIMOY!!!!!!!!!!!

“Do you think it’s fair that they’re having the premiere of the film in Australia?”

Audience: “NO!”

“Would you rather be there, or here?”

Audience: “HERE!”

“How would you like to see the whole movie?”

Audience: “HELL YES!!!!!!!!!”

FREAKIN’ AWESOME!!!!!

I GOT TO SEE THE WHOLE MOVIE AND I GOT AN AUTOGRAPHED POSTER SIGNED BY LEONARD!

And, I have to say, nobody has anything to worry about. It’s a BADASS movie!

Ken

245. Paul B. - April 7, 2009

Gogar, stop ordering Anthony to delete a post. It’s his site, he’ll do as he pleases. You act like post 227 is going to melt your computer or something.

As for that post, it clearly said SPOILERS, so you should have stopped reading right there. If you kept reading, that’s YOUR problem for not heeding the SPOILER warning.

In case you don’t get it, here it is as numbered steps:
1) See post with “SPOILERS” in it. If you want spoilers, keep reading. If you don’t want spoilers, go to Step 2.
2) Stop reading at the word “SPOILERS.”

So very simple…

246. GO - April 7, 2009

#193 – is my knowing you were better than that a sign of my having spent WAAAAY too much time on Trekmovie.com?

Frak everything – it’s gonna be party time for all of us soon enough!

247. sean - April 7, 2009

#227

Anthony said no spoilers, and you completely ignored him. Not appropriate.

248. D.J. - April 7, 2009

Congratulations Austin on getting the unofficial premeire! I almost told my son who lives there about this even a few days ago as he is not a big Star Trek fan but very excited about the new movie from the trailers.

Then I decided not to call him since he is not big enough fan to go see just ten minutes of it. I called him this morning and told him I screwed up!

If I had known I would have used my frequent flyer ticket to hop from Nasvhille to Austin myself.

I think it is really cool how Paramount pulled this off. Excellent marketing and shows they have confidence in the film as they are not afraid to show it early.

I agree with the poster who wishes April K had kept the spoilers out of the review. I stopped reading that post but unfortunetely not until a major important story point was revealed to me that I do not want to know in advance. I also wish that post here could be deleted or edited or at least a large spoiler warning be given.

249. GO - April 7, 2009

marvin’s right…

#227 has overdone it.

A SPOILERS heading does not suffice if the guy’s gonna give a nuts-and-bolts description of every facet of the plot.

He should have started out with a heading stating “FULL TRANSCRIPT FOLLOWS”.

Dang. Good thing I just skimmed through it and didn’t catch much.

250. Jim - April 7, 2009

My issue with 227 is thats not the complete movie. He makes it appear as if thats the whole story but its not

251. The Angry Klingon - April 7, 2009

227.
Vulcan has no moons. Matter of fact that WAS established canon (Spock said Vulcan has no moon). Matter of fact when TMP was remastered they had to deal with that and explained that the ORIGINAL fx shot on Vulcan was not of a moon but of a nearby planet.
The planet Kirk is stranded on is Delta Vega which makes me question what you were watching….

252. sean - April 7, 2009

#204

“And I strongly believe a TNG era movie with that budget and vision would have rocked the house just as strong, or even stronger.”

I’m a TNG fan, and even I know that’s pure fantasy. TNG had 1 pretty good movie and 3 very crappy ones. Why should they have been given yet another? That ship has sailed, and there was no way a TNG movie was going to make the splash this movie will.

253. The Angry Klingon - April 7, 2009

I should clarify that 227’s review sounds bogus and gleaned from trailers and prequel comics.

254. Paul B. - April 7, 2009

I agree that post 227 goes over the line, but the reaction to it is insane. Come on, people! If a post from someone who saw the movie says it has “SPOILERS,” just stop reading. No need to “skim” through it at all, unless you want spoilers.

I’m sure Anthony will delete the post, but it’s his decision either way.

But this reaction to post 227 is just ridiculous. The moment I see “spoilers” in a post, I either stop reading or I read it with the knowledge that I’m going to get spoilers. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to avoid spoilers, especially when they’re clearly marked.

Geesh, people…

As for the movie itself, the reviews I’ve read seem to support my expectations: this isn’t going to be a “cerebral” Trek film. It’s a big action spectacle, loud and flashy, with bits of continuity and characters that feel like Trek, but definitely not “classic” Trek. But it sounds like a fun 2 hours, and after decades of TNG-style boredom, I’m looking forward to a Trek that is fun.

255. Tox Uthat - April 7, 2009

#227

Nice ego. Anthony asked for no super spoilers and there you go, serving them up like a dish best served cold.

I accept your opinion. Just not the form. But based on your numbering system, it’s an average movie and I’m just not reading that around the net.

256. Star Trackie - April 7, 2009

I’m avoiding any in depth reviews, just skimming the sound-byte reactions and headlines. So far this movie looks to deliver the goods. My only complaint is that Austin is 5 hours away….that and the fact that I have a job and have to be there…otherwise I would have loved having been punk’d by Roberto and company at the Alamo Drafthouse!

From all accounts it was truly a night to remember.

257. Mr. X - April 7, 2009

I said TNG era!!!

Period. Epoch. Timeframe. Era.

Everyone seems to stop reading after “TNG”. When I said in a lot of other posts I wanted a TNG era movie with a new crew and a new ship, the reaction was the same.

258. Tanner Waterbury (HUGE PINK FLOYD FAN) - April 7, 2009

G*D DAMMIT ALL TO HELL!!!! GAAHHHHH WHY AUSTIN?!!! WHY NOT SEATTLE? WAHHHHH I MISSED THE PREMIER OF STAR TREK XI!!!

Ok back to your normal programing

259. fizzben - April 7, 2009

# 227, very confusing. Your review didn’t sound like you cared for it at all and the abbreviated synopsis of the film seems unfair and gives an incomplete impression of what it really is, and yet you’d go see it again? No offense, but I think I’ll file your review under excessive flatulence.
Now, hearing the reviews from the more professional critics, I’m more than excited now than ever. I’m going to need a straight Jacket before May 8th!

260. Julio - April 7, 2009

What an amazing thing for Paramount to do for the fans in Austin! I can’t believe people are actually complaining about it…

261. sean - April 7, 2009

#255

“But this reaction to post 227 is just ridiculous. The moment I see “spoilers” in a post, I either stop reading or I read it with the knowledge that I’m going to get spoilers. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to avoid spoilers, especially when they’re clearly marked.”

Why is it ridiculous? Has someone told him to crawl in a hole and die? Threatened his life? Dedicated a post in ALL CAPS to him? No. A few folks have just said that he’s kind of a jerk for ignoring a very simple request by the site owner.

It’s not an issue of spoilers being avoidable, it’s that Anthony specifically asked for this talkback to be free of them. Just as it’s easy to avoid reading them (and since there are nearly 250 other posts that don’t contain spoilers I’d say it wasn’t that hard to understand) it’s easy to avoid doing the one thing the site owner told you not to do.

262. Paul B. - April 7, 2009

258 Re: TNG era

Mr. X, I think people are dismissing the TNG “era” as much as TNG itself, at least for future movies.

A TNG-era movie, with all new characters and ship, would be a bomb. Why? Because it wouldn’t draw the diehard TNG fans, the diehard TOS fans, nor a new audience. TNG diehards would want Picard & co; TOS diehards don’t want more TNG stuff; and the general audience would just be confused.

Why create another TNG-era movie or show? Do we really need more Borg, another incarnation of Dax, or yet another 1701-something-or-other?

The reason for going back to the TOS characters and restarting the franchise is simple: the TOS characters became legendary, a part of American popular culture in a way that TNG & its era never managed. Remember, the original 3-season show was enough to create a fanbase that was so involved, they wrote thousands of Trek stories and novels, pushed to get the first Space Shuttle named Enterprise, and helped bring Trek back to life.

TNG, on the other hand, mostly gave us some great “Family Guy” moments…

TNG and its entire era have run their course. Read the books, but don’t expect a movie. That’s completely unrealistic.

263. Dude - April 7, 2009

I get the feeling you wouldn’t be jumping at him about the spoilers if his review had been more positive…

264. afterace - April 7, 2009

#255 I think You are confusing “spoilers” and the “whole freakin movie reveal”. I mean, it’s ok for me to read some spoilers about the plot, the characters etc, but this doesn’t mean I want to know who will die, and how the whole thing will end up. Damn…

265. T'Cal - April 7, 2009

One thing the other Trek films have lacked is proper marketing. I feared that this trend might continue but my fears are laid to rest. I didn’t think the anticipation could grow any more but it has because of how wonderfully they are handling the marketing.

Buckle up!

266. Val Jean - April 7, 2009

from the SPOILER free reviews…and luckily i only saw one big detail on that bigmouthed 227 post… it sems to me like this movie is a great big scifi action adventure movie, designed to get bums on seats, not invite deep critisism or analysis, but still not upsettting the core fanbase in regards to the relationships between the characters.

AICN’s review liked that the movie adheres to scientific principles, and i think that is something to keep in mind when watching the movie, sounds like fun!

Im glad especially to read that Dr.McCoy captures the essence of the original character, and actually has a dynamic with Kirk.

Many were expecting this to the the most amazing surreal epic movie ever, but think about it, it could be a lot worse. A fun, entertaining movie that will no doubt drive the STAR TREK franchise forward? what more could you ask for?

267. Paul B. - April 7, 2009

262 — The poster of 227 was not just called “kind of a jerk.” He was called a “retard” and a “prick” for his post. THAT’s ridiculous. Two posts from “gogar” ordering Anthony to delete the post is ridiculous.

Plus–and I might be wrong here–it looks like “marvin” was so upset that he said, “f#ck this. im off this blog” because of post 227. (I could be wrong; he might’ve been reacting to something else. But going back through the comments, I think it’s clear he was pissed at 227.) Again, ridiculous.

But I agree with you, 227 shouldn’t have posted it at all. I also agree with The Angry Klingon @254: the ‘review’ sounds like it was cobbled together from trailers, might not even be real.

268. C.S. Lewis - April 7, 2009

227. K – April 7, 2009

Thanks for the honest review. It is about what I expected from the movie and its associated hype. It will do well I’m certain but it does not seem of interest to me.

(Sometimes, those “in the know” are speaking the simple truth all along, without hidden secret meaning. Orci &Co never mentioned any “deeper meaning” etc because there isn’t any. They were honest, telling us exactly what they had made, while many here heard what they wanted to hear, excoriating those that threatened their illusions.)

Maybe I’ll catch it as a matinee on a rainy Saturday. But this is said to be a very loud film. I lost too much of my hearing playing rock ‘n’ roll as a young man, in venues far too small for the wattage — ear plugs will be needed to keep what’s left me!

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

269. Devon - April 7, 2009

#227 – Your review is confusing. You mostly praise it and then give it a bad rating.

Just a correction.. Earth DID know who the Romulans were by the time of this movie since there was a huge Earth/Romulan War just a few years after Enterprise. So your review is really confusing.

270. sean - April 7, 2009

#268

I missed those posts! You’re completely right, of course, that’s uncalled for. Pie in my face, admittedly :)

271. sean - April 7, 2009

#258

Usually when people refer to the TNG Era they are also referring to the TNG characters. I’m sure you can understand why someone might make that ‘leap’ (more of a hop, really).

That being said, I still disagree. Now you’re talking about characters that no one has met or has any investment in. Unless you’re talking about DS9 or VOY characters, and even then I stand by what I said before – it would not have had the appeal of this film. Though I’m the biggest DS9 fan in the world (to me, it’s the perfect Star Trek with the good elements of TNG and TOS and most of the bad elements discarded), I recognize the limited widespread appeal of that show. It will never have the recognition factor of Star Trek or TNG. And since TNG had worn out its welcome, it seems only natural they’d turn to TOS. I don’t see how turning to brand new characters would have a better chance than that.

272. Paul B. - April 7, 2009

271 – No, no pie in your face. A pie in the face of post 227 and those who said horrible things. :)

273. Val Jean - April 7, 2009

btw heres a article with small excerpts of different early reviews

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/04/07/early-star-trek-reviews-seem-very-positive/

274. Alex Rosenzweig - April 7, 2009

re #227, I can only say this much…

*If* K’s summation is reasonably accurate–and the other stuff I’m reading elsewhere isn’t exactly contradicting it–it’s already confirming some of my worst fears about this movie.

Looks like I might be saving a few hundred bucks this spring. :/

275. Dude - April 7, 2009

Mr. X and Paul B.:

You both make valid points. With that kind of momentum in the marketing, with that kind of budget and with that kind of visual style, ANY Trek movie would turn out to be a success.

Just imagine for a second a movie with Picard that has a trailer like that, and visual effects shots that really blow you out of your seat again. And if the script is good, the cast has good dialogue again, and is used in the right ways.

Paul B, you are talking about how lame Borg, Dax, etc… were. And you are right. A TNG movie with such stories would be a horrible failure. But I don’t think that Mr. X means that kind of TNG. I myself could imagine a huge budget, epic TNG movie, that wouldn’t rely on lame Borg or lame Data-finds-yet-another-duplicate-of-himself plots.

And I see no difference if Chris Pine played Kirk or a completely new Captain. And that mysterious “new audience” everyone talks about wouldn’t see one either. They’d see that the movie is called “Star Trek”, but that it has such a nifty trailer. Nobody cares about the character’s name. Only the fans do. Non fans couldn’t care less.

Non fans would also accept Picard as the hero in a 150 million dollar movie. It’s actually the fans that don’t approve with that, because the last movie was bad, they came to the conclusion that every further TNG movie would suck.

But in fact, all a TNG movie needs is a good script that doesn’t repeat the mistakes. And that is not impossible and certainly not unrealistic.

276. fizzben - April 7, 2009

# 273, you know you may be right. He may be a mommy’s basement dweller just looking for attention. Nothing in the review contained much outside the trailers and perhaps some speculation. He probably didn’t even see the premier. I noticed he hasn’t posted again, probably soaking up all the furor he’s caused. Yep, re-filing that review under tp.

277. sean - April 7, 2009

I love Balance of Terror, but if this movie contradicts certain elements in that episode I’m fine with that. It contained a lot of goofy ideas that most writers seemed to ignore later, anyway.

A)The idea that Romulans lacked warp drive and yet controlled an interstellar empire
B)The idea that a ship on impulse made it all the way from Romulus into Federation space
C)The idea that Humans and Romulans fought a lengthy war yet neither side ever saw what the other looked like. You’re telling me this war never once reached a planet’s surface? Really? Starfleet never examined the wreckage of a downed Romulan spacecraft?
D)The idea that Starfleet didn’t posses visual communication in the 2100’s (obviously contradicted by Enterprise)
E)The idea that Vulcans, who clearly possessed warp drive technology for thousands of years (given the fact that the Romulans had to have warp drive to travel to their new homeworld), had never encountered their Romulan cousins and made the connection

If they ignore a few of these details, I can’t say I’ll be too bothered about it! :)

278. Iowagirl - April 7, 2009

#227 was inappropriate because Anthony asked us to avoid posting spoilers.

Having said that, what did Abrams & Co. think when they showed the film? Did they actually believe people everywhere would go live in seclusion for four weeks? Did they think the internet would stop functioning? Did they believe people reporting for Trek sites would stop covering Trek news? Even JJ Abrams can’t be that snotnosed.

Maybe some of you were just annoyed that #227 didn’t seem to be too excited about the movie; or maybe the spoilers are just made up. Who knows, no need to get mad.

If you don’t wanna read spoilers, don’t read them. And if you think Abrams can make the people lapse into self-inflicted silence, you might be wrong. :)

279. fizzben - April 7, 2009

actually referring to post 268

280. thomoz - April 7, 2009

“233. gogar – April 7, 2009
anthony, delete post 227

235. Dude – April 7, 2009
LOL, marvin. That post included a spoiler warning, didn’t it?

236. gogar – April 7, 2009
Anthony, post 227. Delet it NOW.”

Anthony must be asleep, the spoiler is still up!!!

281. Star Trackie - April 7, 2009

#276 “Just imagine for a second a movie with Picard that has a trailer like that..”

I tried to imagine it….but all I kept seeing in my mind was Nomad screaming “error! error! “

282. captain_neill - April 7, 2009

After reading the reviews I am getting more fired up about the movie

I apolgise for my rants against JJ Abrams in the past, it seems he has got it right. Of course there will be things he changes we will never agree with but at least he is getting the Trek ideals. But I will be liking this film in a different light than other productions of Trek. I am happy to accept this as now, more so than previously. It be good to have Trek back and at least the Trek we love still exists.

I would have wanted one more TNG movie, I wish they got a better send off than Nemesis.

283. sean - April 7, 2009

#279

Oh Iowagirl, there’s that cynicism of yours rearing its head again! ;)
Notice I don’t say ‘ugly head’, because I’m sure your head is quite lovely!

JJ and Paramount screened the movie to start buzz. He knows people will disseminate plot information. I think some of us are still trying to stay relatively spoiler-free, and it’s frustrating when someone posts what appears to be the whole plot right after Anthony asked everyone not to. That’s all. Nobody cares what #227 thought of the movie, trust me :)

284. Ian - April 7, 2009

Great audio review! *strong language*

http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/div-styletextaligncenterembed

285. captain_neill - April 7, 2009

276- agreed

I love TNG and wish they had a film with this scale.

286. deleted - April 7, 2009

deleted

287. Tom Welling For Superman - April 7, 2009

I hope the shat is in the sequel

288. falcon - April 7, 2009

#227 said he sat 10m behind JJ and in front of the cast. Who gets that kind of preferred seating anyway? Nope, probably just someone who wanted to sound like he was “in the know” but really doesn’t know anything.

289. Star Trackie - April 7, 2009

#287- “there will be a special screening of entire movie! And about 40-50 of our club members are invited”

Fantastic! Good to hear Russian Trekkers will get an early screening as well! Congrats from Texas!

290. jas_montreal - April 7, 2009

”sounds like fun !” -captain kirk (generations)

291. Gary Evans - April 7, 2009

Well, if what Elfwine says really happens, then Paramount and JJ Abrams finally get it. Star Trek is for everyone, not just the U.S. It will be truly a nice event if Paramount continues these small, seemingly impromptu, pre-release showings.

This is wonderful nod to the international Star Trek fans.

Kudos oto JJ Abrams and Paramount

Gary

292. fizzben - April 7, 2009

Congratulations Elfwine. I envy you!

293. afterace - April 7, 2009

#290 – I am from Poland and it seems they forgot about my country at all. I mean I haven’t seen even a single trailer/tv spot/poster here. I can only dream about a pre-premiere screening . Can’t understand this ignorance at all, it’s not a surprise Trek isn’t really popular here.

294. Tom Welling For Superman - April 7, 2009

Does pine say “sounds like fun?”

295. T.U.M. - April 7, 2009

Delighted that it’s a fun ride that looks beautiful, and that the acting is good. The only thing that still worries me is the story, which for me is the element on which the whole think sinks or swims. Can’t wait til May to find out!

296. Elfwine - April 7, 2009

Guys, I am being told that the event may not be necesseraly 100% sanctioned by Paramount, rather by local distributor, so I have asked the moderators to remove my post in order to avoid any sanctions for those nice people. I will keep you posted though after April 12.

But thanks for your congratulations, anyway.

297. Benntla - April 7, 2009

Förbannade skit, varför var inte jag i Texas denna vecka.
Grattis alla lyckliga som fick se den först!!

298. Closettrekker - April 7, 2009

#275—I don’t know how anyone could believe that this guy (#227) actually saw the movie.

He warns of “spoilers”, yet everything he says seems to come from the trailers and comics, and he even gets some of the details completely wrong (like referring to Delta Vega as a Vulcan moon).

Hardly a credible source.

299. Check the Circuit - April 7, 2009

@204 Mr. X…

I’d be more inclined to take your assurances about a proper sequel with TNG if the four attempts they made were better films. Two were awful, one was better suited for a TV episode and one was pretty good. TNG had there chance (four actually) and they didn’t deliver. Don’t blame the budget. Trek has often been at its best when it’s had the least to work with. (Didn’t TWOK have the smallest budget out of all the movies?)

Clearly it was time for a fresh approach to Star Trek. From what I’ve been reading this morning, it sounds like JJ and Company has given the franchise the shot of vitamins it sorely needed. And they pulled off the seemingly impossible; honor the fans and what has come before while delivering a new take that will appeal to general audiences. Bravo!

300. Dr. Image - April 7, 2009

So… if you see “spoilers ahead,” the solution is simple- DON’T READ THEM!!

And as an old-time Trekkie, I’ll fully admit that after all the bitching I’ve done, I’m ecstatic over the good buzz about the movie.
Finally, a break with the stagnant B&B sensibilities!
I absolutely LOVE IT!!

PS THANKS AGAIN, Anthony, for this site!

301. 24thcenstfan - April 7, 2009

Kudos to all who arranged the big surprise in Austin! Lucky group of movie goers!

Looking forward to seeing Star Trek even more this coming May. :)

302. immortal redshirt - April 7, 2009

Im sorry, call me a hopeless optimist, but im having a bit of a hard time accepting that JJ just up and blew up Vulcan. I mean we are talking about effing Vulcan!!!! One of the founding worlds of the Federation and he blows it up. He must have a big thing for offing the coolest planet since he already took out Romulus. Maybe after this we can blow up Earth and Q’onos, then all the major species could move to Risa and we could have National Lampoons Star Trek Vacation…………………..Sounds like an effing sweet movie otherwise

303. Dude - April 7, 2009

Mr. X and Paul B. see, Check the Circuit is the fan I mean… dooms a TNG movie because he thinks it’s impossible to write a TNG script that IS NOT like the scripts from the previous movies.

How is that any different from the fans that doomed this new movie?

304. Alex Rosenzweig - April 7, 2009

#299 – Maybe so, but considering that Delta Vega’s a few hundred light-years across the galaxy, and yet fairly reliable sources suggest that that’s where Spock dumps Kirk, either somebody making the movie didn’t know, or didn’t care, where “Where No Man…” had established that world to be, or we’re being asked to believe that Spock took a few days off to run across the galaxy, dump Kirk off, and run all the way back to ulcan, in the midst of a crisis.

None of that builds confidence ;)

Now, to be fair, that plot description is awfully skeletal, so I’m not going to dismiss it based solely on that, but that plus other things I’m hearing are starting to paint a pretty grim picture from where I sit.

#303 – “Im sorry, call me a hopeless optimist, but im having a bit of a hard time accepting that JJ just up and blew up Vulcan.”

Yeah, you and me, both. That’s a serious, high-end showstopper for me.

305. Shane - April 7, 2009

Well, from what I have read, Star Trek has now officially died. There will be more films, and who knows what else, but it will not be Star Trek. Please, before criticizing my “negativity,” realize that I’m not giving very much of my reasoning here because I don’t want to give away spoilers. I’ll get more into it once the film has been released.

306. Vaz - April 7, 2009

I wanted Khaaaaaan!

307. illogical - April 7, 2009

Never ever ever ever EVER EVER have I wanted to live in Texas before…. and now the moment has passed.

308. The Original Spock's Brain - April 7, 2009

305. Alex Rosenzweig – April 7, 2009

“#303 – “Im sorry, call me a hopeless optimist, but im having a bit of a hard time accepting that JJ just up and blew up Vulcan.”

Yeah, you and me, both. That’s a serious, high-end showstopper for me.”

People die, planets die. Live with it.

309. Mr Phil - April 7, 2009

Review by Empire:
http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=134061

Not read it myself, steering clear of all the spoilers, but 4 out of 5 can’t be bad…

310. markg1701 - April 7, 2009

#227 Obviously didn’t get it. I saw the film too, same screening. The film has humour and heart. The two most important things in a Star Trek movie.

All fans seeing this film will carry in some baggage and preconceived idea of what the movie should be like.

There were some decisions that I thought may alter the way I view the rest of the Star Trek canon, but after careful reflection I think it makes me appreciate the 40 years of Star Trek that we have all been blessed with, even more.

311. Iowagirl - April 7, 2009

#284

If you say so, Prince Charming…:)

312. Elrond L - April 7, 2009

I just love a great PR stunt… this is AWESOME. Thanks for the non-spoiler reviews, Anthony! I wish people making comments would do the same.

Anyway, TrekMovie’s coverage is much appreciated, and I’m officially bouncing off the walls in anticipation. :-) It’s going to be a LONG month.

313. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - April 7, 2009

I was in line art the theater and i was close to getting in and i didn’t get in. Im so and i mean so mad and I can kick my self. If i had known that it was the entire movie i wouild have just busted in and not played fair. Oh my God how did i not get in. I am so mad. Im going to the Agoniser booth and stay there for my own punishment for not getting in. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

314. freezejeans - April 7, 2009

313

Ya got that right, I was hoping for an advanced screening here in Phoenix for the media, but being in Austin for that would have rocked! A long, long month indeed. :(

315. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - April 7, 2009

Yes. I live in Austin.I knew i should have planned but thought i would wait for the movie. If i woiuld have known. oh i can’t believe i did not get in. Im so sad and gloomy today. But at least Austin Texas had the World Premiere. Hook em Horns

316. Alex Rosenzweig - April 7, 2009

#309 – “People die, planets die. Live with it.”

Yeah, and that’s why I can accept the loss of Romulus in 2387.

But Vulcan *didn’t* die, and now (apparently) they’ve decided that what came before doesn’t matter for their new alternate universe.

Thanks but no thanks. That kind of game is one I decline to play.

317. starfleetmom - April 7, 2009

OMG that is so awesome!! Those people are so lucky!
Isn’t JJ a swell guy?

318. willjs - April 7, 2009

yeah i was the dude that was at the beginning of the “no-way-ur-getting-in” line. thought about going back later to try my luck but decided dinner was better idea. i almost cried.

319. NickT - April 7, 2009

It said that the movie got a standing ovation, so I don’t know how someone could say “it didn’t even get applause at the end of the movie.”

320. JYHASH - April 7, 2009

AMAZING! I hope our hopes are confirmed, and they make an especially strong case with these reviews. I really need to get workin on that costume through. Opening night here I come!!!

~JYH

321. Andy Patterson - April 7, 2009

308

Ha

322. Chris H - April 7, 2009

Aww what an incredible gift/stunt! Reading this in the UK at work this morning I teared up a bit, just thinking of how wonderfully orchestrated it was – TWOK ‘burning up’ and Nimoy walking on with that cannister. Wonderful!!

323. DGill - April 7, 2009

The early reviews are VERY encouraging, but I know that “Transformers” had the same initial reaction when it came out a couple of years ago. I saw that film on opening day and when it ended there was applause. However, I realize now that the film gave me a massive adrenaline rush at the time, but it hasn’t left my DVD shelf since I bought it. I remain optimistic about “Star Trek”, and I know it’s probably going to give me the same adrenaline rush; I jut hope that it has the staying power that “Transformers” lacked. I can’t wait for May 8th.

324. Stonn is Decius - April 7, 2009

the CHUD reviewer’s essential line was, ‘well, it doesn’t suck.’ i think we’re going to hear more reviews that filter in with a sense that this film is as empty as TMP was boring

325. sean - April 7, 2009

#325

Stonn, will you be copy-and-pasting this same comment in every thread? ;)

326. Tom - April 7, 2009

Does this count towards the box office?? or does it count toward TWOK box office

327. Chadwick - April 7, 2009

Dear lord, I don’t have to be given any new spoilers, just reading about the reaction, joy, and excitement these people experienced last night is enough to make me go nuts.

328. OneBuckFilms - April 7, 2009

306 – From what I’ve read, spoilers and all, Star Trek has just been given one hell of an adrenaline shot.

It is absolutely alive, and starting to thrive.

329. ShatPine - April 7, 2009

Not to be negative but some of these reviews remind me of Superman Returns….

Lets take a look…

Both Movies got very good early reviews

Both Movies are “Quasi-Sequels”

Both Movies have a new star..i.e. Pine and Routh taking over for the legendary actors…i.e. Shat and Reeve

Now the question I think we all know is , will this movie have staying power at the box office…Hopefully so but the summer is chalkful of films.

Lets hope it can maintain at least 15 million a weekend after the first week.

330. BlueWaterDreamer - April 7, 2009

*raises glass*

To the next month of hell for the rest of us.
And to the optimism (and damn-near evidence) that this will be a great film. Cheers!

331. COMMANDER KEEN - April 7, 2009

It was good to read the reviews without major spoilers. It sounds like JJ pulled it off. Now, I want to see it for myself.

332. Dr. Image - April 7, 2009

And besides- blue phasers and photorps?
Now I’m on board for sure! ;)

BTW, Roberto- if you’re out there- care to comment on any of those “Balance of Terror” inconsistencies?
I am somewhat disturbed by them.

333. Will_H - April 7, 2009

As much as I would have wanted to be there, Im still glad that America got to see it first before Australia. Why doesnt Canada get this kind of treatment? Well, that’s because Canada didnt make Star Trek, we did. Maybe that sounds stuck up, but its the truth, and it wouldnt be right having it air somewhere else in the world first. Everyone will be able to enjoy it the same, no matter when it airs. And I think Texas makes sense as Gene was from there. Glad to see the reviews, gives me a big sense of relief about the movie and it possibly sucking.

334. VOODOO - April 7, 2009

Does Leonard Nimoy have a major role?

335. Katie G. - April 7, 2009

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sob!]

kg

336. Selor - April 7, 2009

@331

Cheers! I’m going to walk around in my Starfleet Uniform the whole month!

337. Denise de Arman - April 7, 2009

So Anthony, how about a thread for those of us who want to be spoiled? I am drooling with excitement and impatience…

338. kelinda - April 7, 2009

Sounds like what the Rolling Stones do — show up at a hole in the wall night club where people are expecting some second rate band – and give a great concert. Nice touch Paramount.

339. Christine - April 7, 2009

If I’d known it was going to be in Texas…!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAUUUUUGH.

340. S. John Ross - April 7, 2009

Some days I really miss Austin.

Usually it has more to do with the bookstores and restaurants, but very often with the Alamo Drafthouse :)

341. SHCone - April 7, 2009

Harry Ballz – seriously. Go to aintitcool or some of the other sites. It’s generally glowing out there in regards to the film.

Don’t project your desire for its failure onto the responses of others.

342. Holo J - April 7, 2009

“STAR TREK isn’t just a successful reboot, but a genuinely fun and exciting science fiction action adventure”

To me the film looks and sounds great from what I have heard seen so far but…

REBOOT! That word has broken this long time trek fans heart!

I am still looking forward to seeing the film but I’ll have a heavy heart knowing this is a parallel universe and not the
universe I’ve known and loved from the last 40 years of TV and film.
I know some people think it’s a good thing to start again but I liked
the idea that it all tied in together.

Surely there was a way to make it cool without the reboot in the timeline? Oh well too late now I guess!

I wonder what the name of this new universe is? I mean we have the mirror universe, so what’s this one going to be called?

343. P Technobabble - April 7, 2009

It’s gettin better all the time…
I’m glad to hear the raves about the new film, and I’m happy for JJ & Co., it sounds like they done us good.

344. Andy Patterson - April 7, 2009

343

“Surely there was a way to make it cool without the reboot in the timeline”

Agreed….we’ll wait and see.

345. Alex Rosenzweig - April 7, 2009

#329 – I can understand the feeling, on a certain level.

But for those of us whose love of Star Trek wasn’t limited to one set of characters, or one small situation, but who instead loved Star Trek’s entire setting and everything that took place within it, it’s a lot harder to feel the same way after the revelation that that setting and its history have now been consciously and deliberately gotten rid of.

(And for those who say that such has not happened, fine… Show me a serious commitment on the part of the studio to make more Star Trek productions in the original universe, and you might convince me.)

346. RD - April 7, 2009

I would have been very upset if I didn’t get to see Wrath of Kahn on the big screen again, regardless of what I had been given in substitution.

I’m sure the new movie is a lot of fun and really great and yada, yada, yada … but nothing will ever top TWOK for the best installment in the ST franchise.

347. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 7, 2009

#208 … Thanks, my friend. I am well rested now. :-) It was quite an experience being in the presence of The #1 Vulcan, let me tell you!! His surprise appearance brought the house down, and during the final credits, his name drew louder cheers than any other cast member. Overall, the entire crowd of 200 went nuts the entire time.

#299 … Where have you been?? I was hoping you’d go too!! I sent you my e-mail address in another thread, hoping we could team up for this, buddy!

#335 … I don’t know exactly how much I’m allowed to say here, but he did have a good sized role. Appears late in the film, though.

348. Denise de Arman - April 7, 2009

SHCone#342- Overreacting a bit to Harry’s comment. He has been here since this site was birthed by Anthony, and he has just as much right as anyone to make whatever comment he chooses within Anthony’s guidelines. It is not up to you to tell someone to go to another site.

349. SaphronGirl - April 7, 2009

311. (markg1701)

You’re so lucky! I’m curious, what was the chemistry like between the main actors, particularly Pine and Quinto?

350. S. John Ross - April 7, 2009

#324: Yeah, lots of films are good for that initial buzz but then fizzle in the mind leaving nothing to chew over.

I certainly _hope_ that the new Trek isn’t that way, but for now we have very little to go on one way or the other.

To be a great Trek film (or any kind of great film) you gotta have the legs (and I don’t mean Saldana’s, although I’m sure they’re fine). You have to have the substance to endure.

Here’s hoping this one has the stuff.

351. Fallen_62 - April 7, 2009

I just read the reviews and got goosebumps! I can’t wait for this movie now, and I’m so pissed that I’m several thousand miles away from Texas :(

Ganna be hard to try and not watch any shakey-cam versions of the movie for the next month… I wanna see it that bad…

352. TrekMadeMeWonder - April 7, 2009

151. Thomas

Thanks Thomas. I have not read that article. Too bad the review “appear to be” on line already. I still have one eye closed even now.

I WILL RETURN IN THIRTY DAYS FOR MY REVIEW!!!!
I am so sorry I cannot contribute any further for the next few weeks.

ENJOY THE BIG TREK EVERYONE!!!
I am so excited to see this movie, quantum wrinkles and all!!!!

353. Loran Alan Davis - April 7, 2009

Hey Anthony, I’m with Denise on this one: how about a thread for those of us who want to be spoiled!

354. Ryan - April 7, 2009

#330 – Superman Returns was, IMO, very boring. It was probably due to the movie being more about the story than with action. From what I’ve read so far, we get both in this new ST movie and plenty of them.

355. S. John Ross - April 7, 2009

Anyone know if Marc Savlov was at the screening? … If there’s a Savlov review out there somewhere, I could start resting easy, one way or another …

356. Denise de Arman - April 7, 2009

Spoil me! Spoil me, Anthony!

357. Closettrekker - April 7, 2009

#348—-I’ve been off the grid for a couple of days (usually the case on Sundays and Mondays). When I left work on Saturday, I had pretty much figured you weren’t going either. Damnit!

I’m glad you got to see it though.

358. Loran Alan Davis - April 7, 2009

Regarding #358:

I have what she’s having!

359. Loran Alan Davis - April 7, 2009

Opps! That should be:

Regarding #357 – I will have what she’s having!

360. ShatPine - April 7, 2009

355 I just thought the two was a good comparison

361. krikzil - April 7, 2009

This all just sounds like marvelous fun for those lucky enough to have been there!

“So Anthony, how about a thread for those of us who want to be spoiled? I am drooling with excitement and impatience…”

Yes please. We can spoil and be spoiled and discuss!

362. Denise de Arman - April 7, 2009

Oh Closet, you were going to go and missed out? Sorry sweetie.

363. Closettrekker - April 7, 2009

All the reviews I have read call it from good to great.

Of course, everyone expects a rave review from Harry at AICN, so no surprise there—but alot of these reviews are coming from people who seem genuinely surprised at themselves for getting that much enjoyment out of it.

364. welshknight - April 7, 2009

wow.. it sounds as good as we all imagined .roll on may

365. Denise de Arman - April 7, 2009

Okay, that makes three for being spoiled – do I hear four?

366. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 7, 2009

#360 … Closet, if you have any burning questions you need answered, I’d be glad to email them to you! In a way, I feel like YOU are responsible for me getting to have this experience, because I really had not considered going until you “deputized” me for this mission last week. So thank you, man! :-) I was actually turned down when I first showed up, with the theater staff telling me it was a complete sell-out. But I persisted. I actually told the manager I was wondering, “what James T. Kirk would do in my situation? Certainly not give up.” Which she thought was cute. I was friendly but I kept bugging them. It payed off.

Also, I’d like to tell everyone here sometihng I’ve not seen reported anywhere else yet, and that is that Leonard actually got choked up as he addressed the crowd after the movie. He said, “My association with this goes back to 1965…” and his voice cracked. You could just tell how proud of it all he is. Damon Lindelof said it was a night he’d never forget, and I believe Leonard felt the same way. This was something special, and certainly the best experience I’ve had in my 20+ years of being a fan.

Oh, and just to make you all a bit more jealous…we all got copies of the official US poster signed by Leonard too!! :-)

367. Closettrekker - April 7, 2009

#363—I was considering it, but didn’t want to go alone (especially with no guarantee of getting in). I suggested that if Shatner_Fan_Prime would be willing to go with me, I would do it.

I missed the message.

I should have checked back on Sunday (but I’m never around on Sundays or Mondays)!

Thanks for the sympathy. At least *he* went.

I still want his spoilerific review. Maybe “Chat” would be a good place to put it.

368. Denise de Arman - April 7, 2009

Thank you, Shat Fan, for the description of Mr. Nimoy’s reaction. Very moving.

369. Shane - April 7, 2009

343 – Agreed. To me, Star Trek is dead.

370. Denise de Arman - April 7, 2009

Shane#370- Why?

371. Loran Alan Davis - April 7, 2009

Shane – please explain?

372. Closettrekker - April 7, 2009

#367—-If I were you, I would submit a review to Anthony and see if he will post it here with a big spoiler warning. If you are willing (and Anthony will allow it), there are obviously alot of us who would read it.

Don’t be shy!

373. Denise de Arman - April 7, 2009

Closet#373- I second that motion.

374. Alex Rosenzweig - April 7, 2009

#370 – FWIW, in a lot of ways, it’s no more dead than it was before this cinematic misadventure. It merely means that with the studio ignoring the Trek world of the first 40+ years, it will fall to the fans to keep it alive, to introduce the folks who first learn of Trek through this film to the rich history that was already there, and perhaps convince the screenwriters, if not to do a story to clean up the mess, at least to do a tale in the sequel that might fit in either world, so we all can enjoy it together.

(Of course, if the film doesn’t perform as well as Paramount hopes, it might itself just get set aside as an alternate universe episode and the way cleared for other hands to someday explore different possibilities.)

375. Shane - April 7, 2009

371-372 I don’t want to give away spoilers, so it’s hard to get into it.

376. Shane - April 7, 2009

375 –

“Of course, if the film…”

That’s pretty much my only hope right now, but I highly doubt it will do poorly. And you’re right, it’s no more “dead” than it was in one sense. However, before, there was nothing in the way of more great Trek. It was as if a dear friend had disappeared. You would quite possibly never see him again, but he could unexpectedly show up. This is like finding the body.

377. BK613 - April 7, 2009

366
Four!

378. Denise de Arman - April 7, 2009

Shane#377- Have you actually seen the film? Hate that you have such a morose outlook on something most of us are so excited about.

379. Mark - April 7, 2009

Brother, #375– how melodramatic! “It will fall to the fans to keep it alive…” It sounds as if you are talking about a religion rather than a movie. I can’t believe how some people don’t understand all the episodes and movies of all the other shows are still with us and can still be appreciated. This is just a new opportunity to explore something familiar and loved in a new way.

And, #376, without more info, it is hard to believe you when you say “Star Trek is dead.” That, too, is melodramatic. When was one person given the right to make such declarations?

Boy, what a fandom!

380. Shane - April 7, 2009

379 –

You’ll unfortunately either have to wait for a spoiler thread or May 8th. I’d like nothing more than to voice my full opinion but I will try to be as respectful as I can of those who do not wish to be spoiled.

381. Dennis Bailey - April 7, 2009

#346: “Show me a serious commitment on the part of the studio to make more Star Trek productions in the original universe…”

There is and will be none, of course, because oldTrek finally stumbled to a failing halt onscreen. It was this or nothing. So I’m glad that “this” is turning out so well.

382. Closettrekker - April 7, 2009

#381—So you voice a vague opinion instead, without any support behind it whatsoever?

“Star Trek is dead”.

It doesn’t feel that way to me, and given the overwhelmingly positive reactions so far—-it doesn’t “sound” that way either.

So long as there is an optimistic vision of a possible future, in which Humanity does not destroy itself, but instead unites to conquer the social ills that plague our society today and explore the final frontier presented in this film and beyond—–then my friend, Star Trek couldn’t be any more alive!

383. T2 - April 7, 2009

I’ve read every post from 1 – 380, (except for 227 of course), and I’m thrilled to see the majority of people here range from “positive” to downright thrilled and it’s great.

It’s the same old story: “You can’t please everybody”. As good as this movie may be, some people are just not going to like it because of their own reasons, and some people are gonna put it down just to be that way.

I spoiled myself rotten with the last two ‘Trek movies…reading every spoiler, review, and leak I could find (putting all the criticisms of Insurrection and Nemesis behind) and I found the movies to still be entertaining to the fact that it was Star Trek. I’m trying to avoid anything that wasn’t in the trailers or Countdown or interviews, because this movie is the biggest Trek movie event since ’79 and odds are, at this point in the life of Star Trek, there will likely not be a bigger premiere or anticipation for any future movie and this movie, I think, needs to stay as fresh as possible. Had bad feedback hit mainstream after the Austin/Sydney premieres, that could have been a problem, but so far, so good.

I don’t think it’s as grim as some people here have said. We were told long ago what to and what not to expect from this. Until that last movie is made, last television series airs, and last story is written, and as long as there are fans, Star Trek is not dead, and I think that’s evident from the current buzz going around. Not much more can be said until it’s fully released for everyone to see and the effects can be observed. I know a lot of people who have had no interest in this movie solely because of the name, but that’s gonna happen. Also, some see the trailers and that begins to change. Before you know it, they’re asking about TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the first 10 movies, and there’s nothing more exciting for a Trek fan than to take it from there with newly-interested fans and I think this movie has the power to do that.

384. Shane - April 7, 2009

382 (and 383, etc.)

“There is and will be none, of course, because oldTrek finally stumbled to a failing halt onscreen. It was this or nothing. So I’m glad that “this” is turning out so well.”

In my opinion, nothing would be far preferable to “this.” Star Trek is alive still only in the same sense that the son is alive at the end of the Monkey’s Paw.

385. Closettrekker - April 7, 2009

#382—And even if there had been any indication of that, it wouldn’t likely had been at this level…or even close.

IMO—Star Trek has deserved this kind of treatment for a long time.

386. Soy un mediocre « El Holodeck - April 7, 2009

[...] aquí [...]

387. moauvian moaul - April 7, 2009

Not trying to dampen any excitement, really, but I remember the initial reaction to TMP the SECOND weekend after it was released. Very similar. Standing ovations etc, and Nimoy and company weren’t even there.

And reviews that the second Indiana Jones were better than the first.

I’m just sayin’

We’ll just have to see.

388. Closettrekker - April 7, 2009

#385—Do you feel that the “vision” described in #383 has been compromised by this film?

I didn’t like much of what came after TOS and the original films, but just because it wasn’t *my* kind of Star Trek—that didn’t mean that it was dead. It just evolved.

Star Trek is evolving yet again. That is what anything that wishes to survive in a changing environment must do.

389. Mr. X - April 7, 2009

I would be happily embracing this parallel universe movie if I knew it was followed by a movie in the “real” universe.

390. T2 - April 7, 2009

#389
“…that didn’t mean that it was dead. It just evolved.
Star Trek is evolving yet again. That is what anything that wishes to survive in a changing environment must do.”

There, you hit the nail on the head.

391. Closettrekker - April 7, 2009

#390—And what if the road ahead of this altered timeline is in itself an interesting one?

And by the way, neither one of them are “real”.

The potential for an altered timeline being created due to interference with the past is *part* of the Star Trek Universe, and has been since the very first season of Star Trek—more than 40 years ago.

392. Mr. X - April 7, 2009

Because the fun about Star Trek (to me at least) ia that for the past 40 years it has been a single ongoing story within the same universe. The story of 4 starship/space station Captain’s making extraordinary discoveries in our galaxy and even beyond. Now if that’s not an epic storyline, then I don’t know what would be one.

And this new movie would be another interesting chapter to this, because there is this connection to this grander epic story. But it needs to continue in the greater universe, and not in this parallel universe excursion that has actually no impact on the ‘real’ Star Trek.

BRING BACK STAR TREK I say. We know it can be huge now.

Face the fact, this movie is just as huge today as First Contact was in 1996. Just because the latest TNG movies went assleep while the Star Wars prequels, Lord of the Rings, Matrix and Harry Potter ruled the house, doesn’t mean that has to be the final chapter of the 24th century Star Trek.

393. Check the Circuit - April 7, 2009

@385

“In my opinion, nothing would be far preferable to “this.”

Then lock yourself away in a basement with VHS copies of TOS and have a blast. (I doubt you’d like DVDs or BluRay since a new twist on an older idea is blasphemy, right?)

Thankfully, the majority of people here are open-minded and will likely being cheering in the aisles on May 8th. Sorry you won’t be with us.

394. Jote - April 7, 2009

#294: agreed. The guys from trekkie.pl said that UIP (the distributor) wouldn’t even reveal which theater chains would show the movie in Poland!

The only theater chain that will show ST is CF Helios, but then again, not in every city (for instance they won’t be showing ST in major cities like Warsaw and Poland). No other chain (I checked with Cinema City) seems to have a clue at this point!

I guess no IMAX for Poles either

395. Jote - April 7, 2009

correction: I meant Warsaw and Lodz

396. Closettrekker - April 7, 2009

#393—“Because the fun about Star Trek (to me at least) ia that for the past 40 years it has been a single ongoing story within the same universe. ”

And it still *is* a single ongoing story.

ENT+TOS+ Original filmsTNG+DS9+VOY+TNG-era films= ST09.

Everything you have seen in 5 series and 10 previous films leads that single story to this point.

397. Dennis Bailey - April 7, 2009

#385: “In my opinion, nothing would be far preferable to “this.” ”

And you can *have* nothing, any time you like. You’re not required to devote a penny or an instant to new Star Trek.

Those of us who can appreciate and enjoy both TOS and this new version of Trek get to have them both.

Seems like that should work for you and for us.

398. Early Reviews of Star Trek 11, Directed by J. J. Abrams | Cinefantastique Online - April 7, 2009

[...] says the reaction to the new STAR TREK was “very [...]

399. RAMA - April 7, 2009

184. Stonn is Decius – April 7, 2009

the best written, most in-depth and thoughtful review is at CHUD, and it’s a bad review:

http://chud.com/articles/articles/18883/1/STAR-TREK-THE-WRATH-OF-A-REVIEW/Page1.html

If that’s a bad review I will take it. It wasn’t bad at all.

Jon

400. Alex Rosenzweig - April 7, 2009

#379 – “Hate that you have such a morose outlook on something most of us are so excited about.”

I freely admit it’s my own POV, but of all the things I was prepared to accept in the cause of bringing Trek–and especially TOS–back to the screen, they did the one thing I couldn’t, and that was to jump away from its world. To me, that is, in effect, not doing Trek at all, because continuity of a fictional world is that important to me.

I won’t speak for anyone else, but that’s why this is a bitter pill for *me*.

#382 – “#346: “Show me a serious commitment on the part of the studio to make more Star Trek productions in the original universe…”

There is and will be none, of course, because oldTrek finally stumbled to a failing halt onscreen. It was this or nothing.”

It was never such a binary choice. There was always the choice to do a proper prequel, or any one of a vast array of other creative directions in the original universe. The people making this film simply chose not to. That’s their right, of course, but it’s my right not to support that creative option with my money when there were so many better ones–IMHO–available.

But since, as you say, the likelihood that this creative team, at least, will go back to the world of Trek for the first 40+ years is exceedingly small, why should I be excited about all this? I see little to celebrate here. And that makes me very sad, because I really wanted to feel differently.

#385 – “In my opinion, nothing would be far preferable to “this.” ”

Better dead than rebooted? ;)

On one level I agree with you, but on another, there is the possibility that T2 is correct and there might be some crossover. But the more different this Trek is than what came before it, and the less likely that crossover becomes, which is why a simple backstory rewrite was something I could accept, and changing the setting on a planetary scale is something I can’t. That is the straw that broke the camel’s back for me.

#390 – “I would be happily embracing this parallel universe movie if I knew it was followed by a movie in the “real” universe.”

Agreed. Now, as I said before, that possibility actually could exist. If the story they tell in the sequel isn’t reliant on a whole range of “hooks” to the differences in the overall universes, it could be that said story could fit into either continuum, and be embraced by fans of both. That, too, is a creative choice that the writers have. I’ll be honest, though, and say that after all the “creative semantics” of the past couple of years, they’ve now lost my trust, so I’ll be a lot more wary next time.

401. Ian - April 7, 2009

Anthony, spoil me rotten! Bring on the plot leaks!

402. Shane - April 7, 2009

395, 394, etc.

I agree with 393. The argument that everything that’s happened so far leads to this entirely misses the point.

First, this movie has turned Star Trek into a bad comic book. This is just Crisis on Infinite Earths.

Second, and far, far more importantly, the characters in the series from now on are not the same characters as in the original series. Now I have no problem with new sets of characters. The problem is that they are alternate versions of the ones we know.

Trek fans have spent decades with these people, just like we have spent decades with our families, friends, and loved ones. Of course the Trek characters are only fiction, and the point is not to try to give them equal value as those real people in our lives – this would be rather disturbing, actually. One similarity, however, is important. We love our family and friends because of all of the shared experiences we have had with them. We were there for the hard times, the good times, the funny times, the sad times, and all the other kinds of times as well. We were there for their births, funerals, marriages, etc. etc. If something happened to your best friend, or to your mother, and he or she were replaced by a clone identical in every single way except for the lack of those same experiences, not only would you not love the clone, but you would probably consider it an abomination and a tremendous offense to the memory of that person who you loved so much.

That’s what these “new” characters are to those we know and love. Not only do I have, in all honesty, less than zero concern for them, but they offend me deeply. They’re not real people, so there is quite obviously a limit here (so please do not accuse me of holding fictional characters as important as real people :) ), but to the degree that one can care about a fictional character, I am deeply hurt and offended by these facsimiles.

Let me add one more point, which does not so much add to my argument but adds a context to it. That is, why couldn’t the franchise have been re-invigorated without changing things? The only argument I have seen from those who support the reboot is that Star Trek had grown stale and needed to be reinvigorated. That’s a perfectly reasonable stance. However, there is not a single aspect of the excitement that is surrounding this film that could not have been generated without the reboot. Have any of the small canonical changes really contributed to the film’s being highly anticipated? Was it not possible to update the visual style without changing history? Couldn’t the story be just as big, have just as big a production, and just as popular a director if it told the origins of the crew as we knew them?

Indeed, the final proof lies in the fact that the vast majority of those who are contributing to the excitement – the non-Trekkie types that so many Trek fans are so excited are beginning to care about Trek – do not even know it’s a reboot. So far as they are aware, it’s the same Trek it always was, just done bigger, better, and with more explosions and sex appeal. Yet they are still extremely excited about the film.

Thus, the biggest tragedy is that this was not in any way necessary! What is it for? What’s the point? The need?

403. Alex Rosenzweig - April 7, 2009

#397 – “#393—”Because the fun about Star Trek (to me at least) ia that for the past 40 years it has been a single ongoing story within the same universe. ”

And it still *is* a single ongoing story.”

But it is no longer in the same universe, and there is no hint that the story of that one world will be continued again by Paramount. Indeed, except perhaps from Spock and Nero’s (and that of Nero’s “henchmen” ;) ) specific point of view, it’s not even an ongoing story. With everything now revealed, the last hope that there’d be a way to bring the Abramsverse into synch with the prime universe is gone, and from the point-of-view of the prime universe, Spock and Nero etc. have simply vanished, possibly never to be seen again.

So, all the creative semantics aside, it is now two branching stories, one hopefully still to be told in media other than feature films, and one in the features. And, y’know, I could live with that if I believed that there would be a commitment to going forward in both worlds. But I have no such faith in the studio.

404. Dennis Bailey - April 7, 2009

#401:”It was never such a binary choice. There was always the choice to do a proper prequel, or any one of a vast array of other creative directions in the original universe.”

Only if they were willing to go so low-budget – animation, direct-to-DVD, “SCIFI Channel” – as to minimize their financial exposure.

Trek fans alone believed that oldTrek had a commercial future continuous with its past, and they believed so out of sentiment rather than fact or experience.

The people whose money and careers would be on the line recognized that major surgery on the property was a prerequisite for any future major investment in “Star Trek.”

In that regard, the choice really was pretty “binary.”

405. Alex Rosenzweig - April 7, 2009

#403 – “Thus, the biggest tragedy is that this was not in any way necessary! What is it for? What’s the point? The need?”

I’m going to be very, very interested in the “Supreme Court”‘s answer to these questions.

406. THX-1138 - April 7, 2009

Well, I read a review from a person who is a Star Trek liker, not a lover, and he enjoyed the experience. Said this was a great, plausible way to retell, or I guess just plain tell, stories with characters we know and have the outcome still be up in the air. The story is apparently quite good and the performances are spot on. The visuals are stunning, from all accounts.

The only two quibbles I have heard are: (in case you haven’t heard)

**SPOILERS**

Stop reading if you don’t want to know.

**SPOILERS**

The score is not the spectacular thing we were anticipating. Not bad, from what I’ve heard, but the incidental music is outshined by the original themes. I guess that isn’t totally unexpected. Nero isn’t the Bad-Ass that we thought he might be. He is described as more of a pissed off trucker out for revenge. And they occasionally lapse into a little bit of the character check list to make sure everyone is on the bridge. TMP did that, too.

No reports on how many people walked out of the theater because of bar-code scanners. Suspension of disbelief seems to have remained intact.

407. rangerone314 - April 7, 2009

176. Too bad we don’t find out about “Smokey” I am still not sure about that.

I think I already figured out today the key to understanding “Lost” is the Arthurian-related legend of the Fisher King… the Wounded King who is wounded about the legs and can’t move around on his own (like John Locke before he crashed) and guards the Holy Grail (which can heal people)

As long as the Wounded King was injured, his kingdom was infertile.

I think Jacob is the Wounded King, who is confined to his castle (cabin).

Alvar Hanso website for Lost said “that the work of the Hanso Foundation has always been intended to bring rebirth to a dying land and a dying people.”

408. Denise de Arman - April 7, 2009

Shane and Alex- I actually agree with you in regards to the parallel universe plot points. I would much rather have seen our own guys without the time-travel, etc. However, I am cautiously optimistic that the production team will pull off a great film because Leonard Nimoy approved of the script enough to be in it- as a matter of fact, all of the original cast seems to be excited about the movie.

I truly hope you are surprised and pleased with the finished product when you view it.

409. Angry But I'll Get Over It (for one more month) - April 7, 2009

I want to see something new in the Trek we knew, also, but it’s not gonna happen. I’d love to see a follow up to Nemesis, or something with the TNG crew once again. I’d like to see something that picks up in the late 24th/early 25th century, but that’s shown it won’t work anymore. That image of Star Trek has been too corrupted among the general, non-Trek, public and does not bring in the “right amount of money” and will not be given the time of day unless it went straight to DVD. The only way I could see something even close to this happening is if by some remote chance that once “Star Trek” is released fully and is available on DVD, that there is an insanely large attraction and thirst for Trek from tons of new fans, and $ profit skyrockets off of TNG DVDs and past Trek because new fans are just sooo interested and buying everything from the last 40 years, well then maybe we’ll see something like that, but I think the only way we’re gonna see the 24th Century on the big screen again is if JJ’s Kirk and crew time travel to it or JJ’s next Trek project takes him there.

410. Paul B. - April 7, 2009

403 – “That’s what these “new” characters are to those we know and love. Not only do I have, in all honesty, less than zero concern for them, but they offend me deeply.”

They offend you deeply? If I may crib from Shatner, GET A LIFE!

I’ve been a Trekkie since the early 1970s, and I am thrilled that a new movie is going back to the TOS characters. True, it is changing them to an alternate version, and that’s not my ideal solution. BUT…it’s the only solution we’ve got!

Yes, there needed to be changes to canon for this film, to clear the way for future stories. I’d rather watch alternate versions of Kirk & Crew than any of the post-TOS stuff we’ve had for 20 years.

Star Trek started as the voyages of the starship Enterprise, but it had grown to include DS9, Voyager, et cetera, et cetera…to the point where it was too unwieldly to make sense anymore. To reach a new audience–or ANY audience at this point–Trek needed to be brought back to the basics: Enterprise, Kirk, etc.

Star Trek has always used–and overused–time travel, but this is the first time we’ll really see the CONSEQUENCES of time alterations. That’s a great Trek idea, and it is a unique way of having the Prime and New universes together.

Fine, you hate everything about this film and you’d rather have nothing. Then have nothing! Go ahead! Star Trek is dead to you, so why are you posting about it here? Seems a bit silly to be posting your deeply offended feelings about something that is less than nothing to you.

411. Angry But I'll Get Over It (for one more month) - April 7, 2009

^ and I neglected to mention that my position on this is that now this new JJ film is out there, I’m all for it. I hope for its success as it decides what happens to Trek, and as much as I want to see the Trek we knew for 40 years back, I think it would be a bad idea.

412. Alex Rosenzweig - April 7, 2009

#405 – “#401:”It was never such a binary choice. There was always the choice to do a proper prequel, or any one of a vast array of other creative directions in the original universe.”

Only if they were willing to go so low-budget – animation, direct-to-DVD, “SCIFI Channel” – as to minimize their financial exposure.

Trek fans alone believed that oldTrek had a commercial future continuous with its past, and they believed so out of sentiment rather than fact or experience.”

What I’d like to know is why anyone would think it *couldn’t* be done. In that sense, I agree with Shane. The “origin story”, complete with modern filmmaking style and visually-updated sets, models, costumes, etc., didn’t require any sort of reboot, and the constant insistence that it would bespeaks a tunnel vision every bit as much as what those of us who prefer continuity are accused of having. The “Supreme Court” said it themselves: TOS had never had an origin story, and it was the perfect jumping-on point to introduce people to these iconic characters. So *why* is it necessary to throw everything out that had come before? The argument is that original-continuity Trek was no longer commercially viable, but no one ever manages to explain why that woul be the case, as if simply repeating the argument often enough would make it true.

“The people whose money and careers would be on the line recognized that major surgery on the property was a prerequisite for any future major investment in “Star Trek.” ”

But none of that “major surgery” really required throwing out the continuity. It all lay in the realm of how the storytelling is presented. Frankly, I believe that even the storyline of this film could have been told in continuity, if TPTB had cared to. I said that a few months back, and I still think it’s true, even with the additional information now available.

413. Alex Rosenzweig - April 7, 2009

#411 – “Star Trek started as the voyages of the starship Enterprise, but it had grown to include DS9, Voyager, et cetera, et cetera…to the point where it was too unwieldly to make sense anymore. To reach a new audience–or ANY audience at this point–Trek needed to be brought back to the basics: Enterprise, Kirk, etc. ”

Sure, but you realize that there still didn’t need to be a scrapping of the overall continuity. The answer’s so much simpler.

Just tell the story of Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise. No gratuitous references; no relying on information not provided in the story at hand. All that other stuff could just as easily still have been out there, but if the story doesn’t require referencing it, don’t.

Same effect, without the damage.

QED

414. Chadwick - April 7, 2009

Nimoy, Kurtzman, Lindelof, Orci, and the entire new movie, oh wow there must have been a ton of energy throughout the area. Reading the reviews of the movie (without spoilers) I am beyond the limitless excitement for this movie, if that is possible.

415. Mark - April 7, 2009

Alex,

While you said the same continuity could have been maintained, just with “visually-updated sets”– guess what, you’ve changed continuity and canon. Once you change one thing visually, it begs the question, “Well, how come in the old show the bridge was smaller, or less realistic looking, or the people looked different.” To update anything visually in this movie set in the same timeline as TOS would have automatically made things in the original show instantly and terribly outdated, DESTROYING continuity from a canon standpoint. Change the look of the tricorder or phaser in any way, and “original-continuity Trek” is no more.

So, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue that they could change SOME things visually and still be in canon but they can’t change other things and still be in canon. Once one change is made, canon is out the door.

At lease Crawley has been honest in ST:TNV. Fans love it because he is faithful to the old look, but it really only appeals to old fans, and it won’t help Star Trek continue.

Now, I agree with you and think they could have remained truer to some designs, but once I understand that any change destroys canon, then I know there was really no way they could have made this movie without doing so. And, once I understand that, I am open to at least giving these changes a chance.

I’ve got a big view of Star Trek, and hope they can pull it off and make me excited about it again.

416. Closettrekker - April 7, 2009

#404—“But it is no longer in the same universe…”

Same Universe…(canonically) altered timeline.

The potential for altered timelines as a result of interference with the past is *part* of the Star Trek Universe, and has been since around 1967.

#411—” I’d rather watch alternate versions of Kirk & Crew than any of the post-TOS stuff we’ve had for 20 years. ”

Agreed, with the caveat that they are “alternately developed”—which is to say that they are the same people at birth, but perhaps exposed to a different set of variables in their upbringing due to changes in the timeline.

They are still our heroes, even if they get to where they are going by another road.

#413—“So *why* is it necessary to throw everything out that had come before?”

Apparently, the writers believed that this would make an interesting story—the one which they wanted most to tell. It doesn’t have to be “necessary”. But if it works, it works.

417. Star Trek - First Reviews Appear « KitShicker - April 7, 2009

[...] Trekmovie.com [...]

418. Shane - April 7, 2009

411 –

“They offend you deeply? If I may crib from Shatner, GET A LIFE!”

I must say that I have quite a substantial life :). Honestly, I am a very big Trek fan, and I am, to take THX’s terms, a Trek lover, not a Trek liker, but as *any* fictional thing out to be, it is a small part of my overall life. Perhaps I ought to say that *as a Star Trek fan*, it offends me deeply.

“True, it is changing them to an alternate version, and that’s not my ideal solution. BUT…it’s the only solution we’ve got!”

WHY is it the only solution we’ve got? I went into some depth in the post you were responding to (403) to explain the various reasons that it is *not* the only solution there is. Were one to list all of the things about this film that have gotten people excited, and were one to list all of the things about this film which will make Paramount money, the creation of an alternate universe would not be on either of those lists. The vast majority of people who are excited about the film don’t know anything about it being a reboot. In fact, that aspect of the film may well be the most off-putting part of it to the general public because it the means by which it is achieved seems more a classic nerdy Trek idea.

419. Phil G - April 7, 2009

I just shifted through the 406 or so posts on here. I’m sorry people, it’s a little ridiculous to be arguing back and forth right now, before the movie has been officially released to the public at large, why or why not this new movie is good or bad.

Humans wonder why we can’t get along and bring a world together that has harmony. Hmmm…. Well take one good look at these posts and you will see on a small scale why Humans can’t live up to a Star Trek type world. We bicker and moan over some of the most inconsequential nonsense.

Like really: Get a life!!! Be happy that Paramount even WANTED to dare attempt to bring back the Original Series time line, let alone put the money into a new Star Trek film. Nothing is going to be perfect. However, I’d say that considering about 98% of the reviews I read stemming from last night have been good-great, it makes this movie an odds on favorite to be at worst, decent!!!!!

If you want to get technical, the Wrath of Kahn has about a gazillion plot holes and is really quite boring the first 30 minutes of the film. Why would the Enterprise be the only Federation starship to intercept a stolen Reliant class?? Why would the Klingons or Romulans have not shown up and joined the party knowing about this Genesis device? Why wouldn’t have Kahn insisted on whipping Kirks ass in person after all those years? However, we all seemed to still LOVE that movie.

Point being, take a chill pill fellow Trek nerds. In this current world we live in of panic, poor economy, and uncertainty, we all get to get an escape next month (For those of us who weren’t at the screenings last night) and take in a new Star Trek movie. It could honestly suck, and I’ll still be happy the opportunity was presented to see a new tale told about our favorite universe on the big screen!

Nuff said:)

420. Dennis Bailey - April 7, 2009

So, do you suppose T’Pring gets off the planet, or is Spocko going to have to come up with a more creative solution when all that green stuff gets backed up in there? LOL

421. Benjamin Adams - April 7, 2009

Ha. That CHUD review isn’t negative, it’s just trying to be balanced. Wish the reviewe hadn’t misspelled the names of so many of the actors involved. (Quintano?)

422. Shane - April 7, 2009

416 –

I completely disagree. Of alllll of the possible changes that could have been made to the film, I think the single most easily accepted of them would have been visual changes. As much as people are Trek fans, they also are people living in the real world (most of them :) ). They know that times change, technology improves, and budgets increase. While what they ended up doing visually may have been too much, I think that the vast majority of fans would have been perfectly fine with some updated visual designs, realizing that ultimately, it’s only fiction and that the budget and technology are better than in 1966. The changes that they have made to explain these visual differences, on the other hand, will alienate at *least* half of the fans.

(this is aside from the fact that the explanation strains credulity. A change in the timeline of the sort that takes place in this film could not possibly result in the technology advancing at THAT greater a pace. The tech in this Trek is decades ahead of that in TOS. Nero’s excursion to the past is simply not remotely close to a believable explanation for these differences.)

423. Mr. X - April 7, 2009

It’s like talking to a wall, isn’t it?

424. Denise de Arman - April 7, 2009

Dennis#421- LOL! I hope the b**ch dies, then I would most willingly take her place…

425. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 7, 2009

#421 … “more creative solution”

Unfortunately, we see who that solution/substitute is.

426. fizzben - April 7, 2009

420: applause

427. James Kirk's Unknown Son - April 7, 2009

Well I have been a Star Trek fan as long as or longer than anyone here. I was there as a child when the Enterprise was first launched. I was there for syndication; for the animated series; novels; fan fiction; for ST:TMP (I probably paid for it and saw it a half-dozen times in its theater run); all through the movies; all through the various other series. I know the episodes of TOS backwards and forwards; I know the characters like I know my own freaking family.

And you know what?

I don’t care that it’s an alternate timeline! It’s still Star Trek, with the characters on which I cut my teeth being given a rebirth! I say HALLELUJAH! More new adventures! And we don’t know how the story ends in this alternate existence. I find that alluring, interesting and fascinating. I will be there on 8 May with my heart thumping wildly as the movie starts.

I should have been there last night in Austin, but it was not feasible for me to drive across Texas to see The Wrath of Khan (which I have on DVD) and watch a ten-minute preview. Oh well. I will have to wait.

I am thankful that Star Trek will not remain six feet under, where it has been for the last few years, but that it has been resurrected! Like Spock! And given new life… What we’re seeing here is, in my mind, no different than Spock being reborn on the Genesis planet, and being reinfused with his katra. Now was that canonical? Really?

As Mr. Spock would tell us: “There are always possibilities…”

Be open to those possibilities. This film is the progeny of all that has come before; it is the same, yet different. Old, yet fresh.

From what I know now, this movie should make us “feel young – as when the world was new…”

428. Shane - April 7, 2009

428 –

“What we’re seeing here is, in my mind, no different than Spock being reborn on the Genesis planet, and being reinfused with his katra. Now was that canonical? Really?”

Of *course* it was canonical. It was a new idea which did not contradict anything which came before it. Canon doesn’t mean that everything has to be based on some former explicitly revealed fact, and obviously so, for if that were the case than no new stories could ever be told.

This is entirely different, because, while not non-canonical, it does something which the Search for Spock did not do: it changes the characters themselves. The characters in this “new franchise” are no longer the same ones from Star Trek. They have the same names, the same roles, and perhaps even the same personalities, but they are entirely different ontological entities. In other words, the Kirk and the end of Star Trek III was the same Kirk who was there at the beginning and the same one from Star Trek II, TMP, and TOS, and so too for all the characters. The Kirk (and crew) that will leave this film will not be the same ones that went in or came in previous installments.

429. tauntme - April 7, 2009

429 –

And that’s a problem why?

430. Closettrekker - April 7, 2009

#419—“The vast majority of people who are excited about the film don’t know anything about it being a reboot. ”

I don’t buy that. That word is thrown around in every (non-trailer) television spot and news source regarding the film.

What isn’t said with the same regularity (if at all) is that it is far from a traditional reboot, since previously established continuity is what leads the story to this point. The explanation for what has changed is very much an “in-universe” one. “Canon” encompasses many things, not the least of which are the potential consequences of time travel within the Star Trek Universe.

Are we cherry-picking what aspects of ‘canon’ we find acceptable for those in creative charge of Star Trek’s direction to utilize now?

Nothing has been erased. ENT-NEM is still part of the story. Philisophically, this is no different from any other sequel. The events in one story (or stories, in the case of the 5 live action series and 10 previous films) lead to another (ST09 and beyond).

Simply put, this story cannot take place without the events we have seen depicted for the last 4 decades—-not exactly a “traditional” reboot, is it?

There were a thousand directions in which this could have gone—none of which matter now. This one is canonically valid.

Same fictional universe—different timeline, the existence of which is dependant upon that of its predecessor.

431. Shane - April 7, 2009

430 –

To quote myself:

“Trek fans have spent decades with these people, just like we have spent decades with our families, friends, and loved ones. Of course the Trek characters are only fiction, and the point is not to try to give them equal value as those real people in our lives – this would be rather disturbing, actually. One similarity, however, is important. We love our family and friends because of all of the shared experiences we have had with them. We were there for the hard times, the good times, the funny times, the sad times, and all the other kinds of times as well. We were there for their births, funerals, marriages, etc. etc. If something happened to your best friend, or to your mother, and he or she were replaced by a clone identical in every single way except for the lack of those same experiences, not only would you not love the clone, but you would probably consider it an abomination and a tremendous offense to the memory of that person who you loved so much.

That’s what these “new” characters are to those we know and love. Not only do I have, in all honesty, less than zero concern for them, but they offend me deeply. They’re not real people, so there is quite obviously a limit here (so please do not accuse me of holding fictional characters as important as real people :) ), but to the degree that one can care about a fictional character, I am deeply hurt and offended by these facsimiles. “

432. Dunsel Report - April 7, 2009

When did the passionate defense of canon become the most common controversy on Star Trek forums?

Growing up in the “Wrath of Khan” era, I used to read the “Best of Trek” fan books. There was only a playfully serious attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies between TOS episodes, in the recurring feature “Star Trek Myseries–Solved!” Stuff like: How does Khan recognize Chekov? Why did someone call Spock a “Vulcanian”?

But there never seemed to be talk of canon and non-canon Trek until the day that Roddenberry renounced the idea that Spock had a brother, Sybok.

What I do remember was that there was a debate over whether the serious sci-fi ambitions of “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” had been betrayed by the lowest-common-denominator ka-pow violence of “The Wrath of Khan.” These days fans practically encase TWOK in marble, but back then its starship battles were attacked by purists as a concession to Han Solo mania. Now Nicholas Meyer is acknowledged as the Trek movies’ literate intellectual, but back then Trekkies were acting like his movie was “Cannonball Run.”

History repeats the old conceits…

433. Swift Justice - April 7, 2009

#384 : Thanks for that, well put (from my perspective, at least)!

434. pock speared - April 7, 2009

this is working out great! an early screening will get the morose, unhappy and generally miffed people out of the way so the rest of us can objectively enjoy the film. (not to mention screen the miserable whiners away from future trek projects.)

it seems to me that after statements like “star trek is dead”, “i won’t be seeing this mess” and “this is crap” then y’all might just go away now. you’ve had your take, sorry you didn’t like it, these aren’t the droids your looking for, move along.

435. Benjamin Adams - April 7, 2009

#432 So don’t see the movie, and let the rest of us enjoy it.

436. sean - April 7, 2009

#423

“The changes that they have made to explain these visual differences, on the other hand, will alienate at *least* half of the fans.”

That remains to be seen. I seriously doubt it, based on the polls and responses here on Trek Movie. Those that will be bothered are vocal, but not the majority.

“The tech in this Trek is decades ahead of that in TOS. Nero’s excursion to the past is simply not remotely close to a believable explanation for these differences.”

How do you explain the tech in Enterprise, then? It was waaay beyond TOS, and took place 100 years before. They were still getting hardcopy printouts in The Cage, which is preposterous. Many elements of TOS are simply not believable in this day and age, when our present technology has exceeded them several hundred years early.

Besides, we all accepted the ‘canon’ explanation of the refit Enterprise in TMP and beyond, and the visual reality was that those are not the same ships. The shape is similar, much as this film’s ship is similar, but no, not the same ship. If we’re going to apply ‘reality’ to Star Trek, then it would have made far more sense to simply build a new ship rather than retrofit an existing ship so extensively as to make it an entirely different ship.

Or how about the wildly different bridge designs between TVH and TFF? Supposedly, this was a brand new ship and in less than 8 weeks they’ve completely changed the bridge? Or how about the fact that not only the interior of the BOP changes between TSFS and TVH, but it also changes scale! Do we really think it’s reasonable that the Vulcans changed the ship THAT much while gassing her up?

I’m sorry, but I don’t find the idea of Nero’s incursion altering the progression of technology any more difficult to swallow than some of the basic Trek precepts we’ve swallowed for 40+ years.

437. Shane - April 7, 2009

431 –

It’s certainly canonically valid, but it’s an abomination for the reasons I have given ove and over, most recently in #432. Nobody argues that Nemesis isn’t canon, but it’s still regarded by most as utter garbage. While I didn’t mind Nemesis, let me concede this opinion for a moment to simply say that this film is far, far worse, for again, the reasons I have already given.

So far as the claim that “reboot” is thrown around in every TV spot, I haven’t seen it once. The closest I have seen is “forget everything you knew,” which in no way implies a reboot. It could easily be understood by the average joe to refer simply to the idea that this will be a Trek film unlike previous ones – that it will appeal to everybody. In fact, I am almost certain that this is the way it HAS been taken.

Let me put it this way: do you REALLY think that bunches of non-Trek fans are getting excited out there because they think this new film is going to change details of established Trek history? Really? All of these people who have never been interested in Trek and who now are, they’ve been staying away because Kirk served aboard the Farragut and now that that’s changed, they’d like to check it out?

438. Mr. X - April 7, 2009

Yeah, that must be the reason. Because it’s way to complicated for the normal people to comprehend that Kirk may have served on a different starship than the Enterprise. ;)

Shane, I absolutely agree with you.

439. Shane - April 7, 2009

437 –

That Enterprise looked more advanced than TOS is exactly my point. Enterprise was made in 2003. TOS was made in 1966. I can, and the vast majority of Trek fans, can deal with the visual differences. It’s just a TV show. Production technology changes, and so Enterprise looks better. The point is that you don’t NEED to explain that. It’s covered under “it’s just a TV show.” On the other hand, when you TRY to explain it, as this new film does, then you run into the problem of complete implausibility.

As far as the fan reaction, the reality is that most of the people on TrekMovie are those who have drunk the kool-aid. Those who have had any real criticism of this film have been demonized around here and told things like “Then don’t watch it and leave us alone,” and so they have gone to sites where their opinions are more respected. This is a wonderful site, and probably the best one there is about this new film. That said, the sample of fans one can get here is rather limited.

440. Harry Ballz - April 7, 2009

Boy, we’ve analyzed the crap out of this thing, haven’t we??

441. James Kirk's Unknown Son - April 7, 2009

Shane wrote: “…it does something which the Search for Spock did not do: it changes the characters themselves.”

And Spock was not altered after his rebirth? C’mon man. Spock became a new character! One need only see him in TMP and then again in TJH to know that he was changed, and not a small amount. He absolutely became far more human than he was before.

He had the same name, the same history, the look, but he was dramatically different. And it worked. Just like, from the sound of it, this is working.

442. Dunsel Report - April 7, 2009

Hmm, interesting fact:

Between 1980 and 1991, the words “Trek” and “canon” only appeared on USENET discussion groups (which had reams of Trek talk) three times. There was also a scattering of mentions between 1991 and 1995. It seems like a modern invention.

443. Closettrekker - April 7, 2009

#438—“Nobody argues that Nemesis isn’t canon, but it’s still regarded by most as utter garbage.”

As were the rest of the TNG-era films, as far as my own personal opinion is concerned, along with STV: The Great Trek Turd Of ’89.

Adherence to canon alone doesn’t mean its good, nor does the creation of an altered timeline alone make it bad. Its value will be determined by individuals based upon the quality of the writing, directing, acting, etc.—just like any other movie.

“So far as the claim that “reboot” is thrown around in every TV spot, I haven’t seen it once. The closest I have seen is “forget everything you knew,” which in no way implies a reboot.”

Every interview in the mainstream television media (Reelz channel, MTV, etc, etc.). As I said, “non-trailer” spots.

Of course, when confronted about it, the producers have said that it is not a reboot, and I agree with their strict interpretation of the term (suggests that previous continuity is discarded or ignored).

“Batman Begins” (which ignores the previous film continuity) is an example of a traditional reboot.

Star Trek (2009) is not, since its story actually depends upon that very continuity leading the broader mythos to this point.

“…do you REALLY think that bunches of non-Trek fans are getting excited out there because they think this new film is going to change details of established Trek history? ”

Of course not, and I’ve never implied that the reason for venturing into altered timeline territory was to attract new fans. I don’t believe the writers needed any reason other than their belief that telling a tale of our TOS heroes evolving under altered circumstances was in itself an interesting story to be told.

444. Alex Rosenzweig - April 7, 2009

#416 – “While you said the same continuity could have been maintained, just with “visually-updated sets”– guess what, you’ve changed continuity and canon.”

On one level, I agree with you, but if we imagine that what we’re seeing are representations of what happened, it’s possible to make a distinction between “visual canon” and ‘storytelling canon”. For practical reasons, I think it’s within bounds to treat the former as more fluid.

[snip]

“At lease Crawley has been honest in ST:TNV. Fans love it because he is faithful to the old look, but it really only appeals to old fans, and it won’t help Star Trek continue.”

I wonder if that would be the case, if it were accessible to more folks, especially given the modernization that even James Cawley and crew have done. It’s subtle, but it’s there. Given that, right now, it’s a very heavily self-selected audience, it’s hard to gauge whether there’d be marketability beyond “old fans”; I don’t think there’s a lot of data to say one way or the other.

“Now, I agree with you and think they could have remained truer to some designs, but once I understand that any change destroys canon, then I know there was really no way they could have made this movie without doing so. And, once I understand that, I am open to at least giving these changes a chance.”

I think the real difference is that I never drew a line of either no change or radical change. By that standard, even “New Voyages”/”Phase II” has “destroyed canon”, because it’s made changes, too. Sure, I would have done the production design of this film a lot differently, too, but I’m not going to condemn them for having different aesthetics than mine. OTOH, I do have real creative issues with them deciding that 40 years of steadily building the same fictional world was something from which they should walk away, no matter what sort of logic they cooked up to “justify” the choice.

As a few folks said, if I didn’t really worry that it was an all-or-nothing deal (i.e., moving into this new continuity means they’re going to just walk away from the old one), I could easily embrace it. And, maybe, even the studio will see there’s room for that, e.g., the features in the new “Abramsverse” and telefilms or DVD movies (a la the Stargate films) in the prime Trekverse. But if it has to be one or the other, I cannot support walking away from the primeverse, and without a real commitment from TPTB that the primeverse won’t be abandoned, I have a hard time justifying spending hundreds of dollars to support the new film, as I’d originally planned to do when I thought it was a true prequel.

Maybe that’s not what a lot of folks think should be the reaction to this, but, nonetheless… [shrug]

445. Catie - April 7, 2009

I also would like a spoiler thread. Is there a possibilty that trekmovie will have one for those who want to read it? :-)

446. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 7, 2009

I’ve put together my list of spoilers! I’ll post them if given the go-ahead.

:-)

447. Treker chick - April 7, 2009

All that I can add is “I’m waiting to hear about some people rending their replica TOS uniforms, and say that J.J. raped their adulthood.”

448. Devon - April 7, 2009

#432 – I’ve never seen such a load of garbage in my life. You offend me as a fan.

449. Shane - April 7, 2009

444 –

The story cannot possibly be interesting as we have not seen how the characters evolved in unaltered circumstances. “Mirror, Mirror” was an interesting episode precisely because we saw the differences between the characters we knew and their mirror universe counterparts. In this new film, we are seeing an altered origin story, but we don’t know the unaltered origin story to draw comparisons to and find interesting differences.

The argument is not that Star Trek 09 is a traditional reboot. The argument is that it is effectively so. All of the previous continuity leads to this point, yes. However, the end *result* is the same as if they had done a traditional reboot because the studio is not going to focus any longer on the unaltered time line.

In the case of Batman Begins, it was a fresh start. What came before will no longer be continued, and remains as a memory. Everything moving forward is in this new setting.

In the case of Trek, this is a story which draws its origins from previous continuity, but the *result* is the same. What came before will no longer be continued and exists only as a memory. Everything moving forward is in this new setting with these new renditions of the characters who lack the emotional backlog of 79 episodes and 6 1/2 feature films to be all that emotionally meaningful to the fan. Perhaps over time some fans will be able to develop an emotional concern for them, but I strongly suspect that most will not. First, it took decades to build up what we had with those characters. Second, many fans will feel like I do: offended by the “facsimiles” that are these new characters.

450. Alex Rosenzweig - April 7, 2009

#433 – “When did the passionate defense of canon become the most common controversy on Star Trek forums?”

I think probably when some people started actively promoting the idea that canon (or, more precisely, previously-developed continuity) should just be thrown out as somehow inconvenient. ;)

451. Link Dump « bright line rules - April 7, 2009

[...] Last night, some fans in Austin, TX got to see the new Star Trek movie, and, as io9 said, it exploded into a “Giant [...]

452. Shane - April 7, 2009

449 –

Please explain to me what I said that was garbage. Is it not true that our emotional investment in Star Trek is heavily linked to our shared experiences watching the characters go through various situations?

Don’t we care about the characters more because we remember the Trouble with Tribbles? Didn’t the sorrow of seeing Spock die, and seeing the reaction of Kirk et al, endear us to them? Didn’t the experience of seeing the gradual development of a friendship between McCoy and Spock have something to do with why we like Trek so much?

453. Doug - April 7, 2009

All of you subconsciously love Kirk, Spock and McCoy because of Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley. And that’s the truth, you can deny that all you want. If Kirk had been played by someone else, who sucked (which reminds me… what was the reason again that the Pike actor was replaced by Shatner as Kirk?), you maybe wouldn’t have turned into a fan.

454. Doug - April 7, 2009

And Shane has a point. Did you fall in love with Kirk, Spock and McCoy at Episode No. 1? Or was it TWOK? Or was it Trouble with Tribbles?

We like those characters because of their entire on screen history.

Those new characters don’t have that history because of which we love them so much, they are completely different characters. And now they will never experience the same things, so they will stay completely different characters.

455. sean - April 7, 2009

#440

“As far as the fan reaction, the reality is that most of the people on TrekMovie are those who have drunk the kool-aid.”

This is the problem in trying to discuss this movie. You’re upset because people have told you to ‘not watch it, stay home’, or otherwise dismissed your opinion, and you reply in kind by implying the majority of site visitors here have been deluded or hornswaggled into wanting to see the film/accept the changes.

Is there any way to have this conversation without all the name-calling?

456. Shane - April 7, 2009

456 –

I didn’t intend to participate in any name-calling or the like. My point was neither to denigrate those who are on this site nor those who are willing to accept the changes. They are entitled to their opinion, however much I may disagree with them! :)

My point was that most of the people who frequently post on this site are those who are willing to accept the changes because most of those who are not have been treated poorly and left. It was a point of demographic, not of judgment.

457. Xplodin_Nacelle - April 7, 2009

I am so jealous. – Lucky Texans!!!

458. Star Trek 2009 « Mike Cane’s No Flickr Blog - April 7, 2009

[...] It seems to be just what I thought it would be from the trailers: two-fisted kick-ass. [...]

459. James Kirk's Unknown Son - April 7, 2009

The thing is, James T. Kirk died.

We watched him die.

We also watched Kirk, Spock and Bones on many adventures. We KNOW how that story ends.

Kirk dies.

Spock dies (and is reborn). And in fact, we see him in his katra-infused incarnation in the new movie.

Bones lives to an over-ripe old age.

For these characters to be revived and reinvigorated, an alternate existence was necessary. For the audience to tag along on truly enigmatic adventures without knowing who or what bites the dust, it had to be this way.

Now, you can be offended or dismayed or whatever, but it is what it is: an iconic TV series has been rejuvenated, apparently in a way that is exciting and spectacular.

If your mind is made up, then what’s the point wasting any more time discussing it? Why complain about it? You have your last 40 years that you can still dive into, despite the canonical alterations, mistakes and wrinkles. Knock yourself out.

Me? I will excitedly be there 8 May, taking it all in, with a thumping heart.

Heck, I don’t know why I am even wasting my time saying all this to deaf ears.

460. Dr. Image - April 7, 2009

#403 Shane- Excellent questions. Why change it all, indeed.
Perhaps since recasting was necessary, there was the thought that maybe the experiences, stories, tribulations, history, etc. should be left as the domain of the original actors- so that there would not be a “raping’ of their contributions?
It’ll be interesting down the line to hear exactly why. The real story (pun intended.)
In the meantime, what’s done is done. Might as well enjoy it.

461. Jefferies Tuber - April 7, 2009

I can’t bear to read this shit. I feel like Charlton Heston in SOYLENT GREEN surrounded by masses of people, desperate and sweating for May 8.

462. McCoy - April 7, 2009

460. “For these characters to be revived and reinvigorated, an alternate existence was necessary.”

“Reinvigorated” is not what I would call it. That may be the attempt. But seriously…these characters are different by design anyway. Different people, different universe. Who now cares?

“For the audience to tag along on truly enigmatic adventures without knowing who or what bites the dust, it had to be this way.”

This was never a valid argument. For every movie a science fiction goes to see multiple times, he or she already knows the ending. Movies are successful for the ride and time spent with characters we care about. Knowing their fate is something we look beyond as we get caught up in each story.

463. McCoy - April 7, 2009

If I could type without mistakes I would be dangerous. :o)

464. AJ - April 7, 2009

432:

Shane:

“We love our family and friends because of all of the shared experiences we have had with them. We were there for the hard times, the good times, the funny times, the sad times, and all the other kinds of times as well. We were there for their births, funerals, marriages, etc. etc. If something happened to your best friend, or to your mother, and he or she were replaced by a clone identical in every single way except for the lack of those same experiences, not only would you not love the clone, but you would probably consider it an abomination and a tremendous offense to the memory of that person who you loved so much.”

That’s the problem. You and many others have taken the plunge that turns a TV show and corporate brand into a member of your family. My best friend is a person. So are my parents and my kids, girlfriend. I have loved Trek to death since 1972, but these characters are fake, and their ‘lives’ are written in corporate boardrooms, and their fates handed down by committee.

I’m sorry, but once you take fictitious Star Trek characters and start treating them like real people in your life, whom you “love so much,” you need to take a step back, stop watching for a while, and then take a fresh look.

465. markk - April 7, 2009

new clip!

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/04/07/exclusive-new-star-trek-clip-reveals-tougher-hornier-captain-kirk/

466. Dennis Bailey - April 7, 2009

#463: ““Reinvigorated” is not what I would call it. That may be the attempt. But seriously…these characters are different by design anyway. Different people, different universe. Who now cares?”

I do, for one. I’ve been watching Trek since 1966, and this sounds just fine to me.

A rising tide lifts all boats. If this movie recreates Trek as a *big* profit center for Paramount and makes the licenses worth real money again, then the sales of things like Trek comics and novels might pick up to the point that the licensees will spend more money and publish more and more varied material again – like the 1980s and early 1990s. I’ve no doubt that in addition to talent there’s enough fannish devotion amongst the writers and artists involved that those stories will be more than satisfactory to the fans of oldTrek who are dissatisfied with the movie. So even the folks who eschew the movie will be better off as a result of it. :-)

467. Patrick - April 7, 2009

Every new trek series has involved getting to know and care about a new set of characters. If we could start caring about Data, Geordi, Bashir, Dax, Janeway, Seven of Nine, Trip, T’Pol etc… why is it so unconceivable that we could develop a relationship to these new incarnations of the TOS crew? Especially considering many of the characters in later series were in one way or another reiterations of TOS stereotypes, it shouldn’t be much of a stretch.

468. Dennis Bailey - April 7, 2009

#468:”why is it so unconceivable that we could develop a relationship to these new incarnations of the TOS crew? Especially considering many of the characters in later series were in one way or another reiterations of TOS stereotypes, it shouldn’t be much of a stretch.”

This is completely true.

If you scan around the long-time Trek bulletin boards like TrekBBS and Trekweb, you find that openmindedness and excitement about the new movie among posters runs about nine-to-one – and mind you, it’s axiomatic that people with complaints are more vocal than folks without. In fact if you look at various *polls* taken on those same sites, the count is closer to 20-to-1 in favor of the movie based on what we’re hearing.

If this movie “splits the fanbase” – as the only really negative review on line so far, over at AICN predicts – it’s going to be the kind of split we saw in 1987, where a small minority of loud TOS fans rejected TNG outright but the vast majority gave it a chance and became part of the modern Trek audience.

469. BP - April 7, 2009

sounds cool, please no shakeycam though… remember Transformers? They build/animate these ultra-detailed robots and all we see are blurs fighting for 2 hours?

470. sean - April 7, 2009

#457

Fair enough, but perhaps a less pejorative phrase than ‘drinking the kool-aid’ would be in order.

“My point was that most of the people who frequently post on this site are those who are willing to accept the changes because most of those who are not have been treated poorly and left.”

I’ve seen plenty of negative posts on this site, and many among them who decided to insult anyone who was willing to accept changes or held a different point of view (‘sheep’, ‘mindless’, ‘kook-aid drinkers’, heck, I’ve had people accuse me of desecrating the memory of Gene Rodenberry!). That knife cuts both ways. Some people choose to play the name game, or otherwise attack those that don’t agree, but that’s something both viewpoints have been guilty of. I’ve never seen Anthony chase anyone off just because they didn’t think the new movie was a good idea. If he did, the talkbacks would be far less interesting! :)

471. Tox Uthat - April 7, 2009

There is too much psychological bs to go thru here to give kudos to the person who provided this link:

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/04/07/exclusive-new-star-trek-clip-reveals-tougher-hornier-captain-kirk/

I guess I have to state I’m an original Trekker from 1966. I’ve seen it all, and read most of everything during the years.

If this bar scene is representative of the rest of the movie, I can see why all the glowing reviews. Feels more real to me than most other Trek scenes. And isn’t that part of the point, to make Trek more to our modern tastes in movies and real life? I remember 1966. It ain’t nothing like today. And neither was Trek. And I love Trek.

Canon is what anyone can make of it. And that’s the problem. So move on.

You know, if I were like many here, I would have stayed on my high horse and would not have been open to something I recently discovered, that I find absolutely hilarious. It’s call The Family Guy. Had no desire to watch it before, had seen clips and it did nothing for me. But my girlfriend’s son turned me onto a clip that I found crazy and it opened a door. Now I have years of new entertainment to look forward. Bec I was open to change and new ideas. I don’t have to accept it but I have to be open to the possibility. The Family Guy (of which I just saw Stewie bitching out Marlie Matlin for not knowing she was farting) will not ruin my enjoyment of The Simpsons, nor Bugs Bunny nor Tom and Jerry nor Adult Swim nor Steamboat Willie.

Some of you will find that it is harder to hold on to the past than it is to change. It may not be logical but it is true.

And look what you’ll be missing. (Just saw Quagmire on the Enterprise, hehe)

472. wkiryn - April 7, 2009

regarding updated sets….

I really don’t buy the argument that original style sets would be a huge turnoff. Battlestar Galactica has 1970’s phones with curly cords and is hailed as the greatest show of our time . (though in context ST:Enterprise was the only other space genre show around when galactica started)

However alternate timeline universes should look as different as poossible.

473. Dos nuevas escenas de Star Trek | SALÓN DEL MAL | Difundiendo la Ecuación Anti-Vida - April 7, 2009

[...] sitio AICN. Con todo y presencia de Leonard Nimoy, la película a cargo de JJ Abrams recibió una notable cantidad de críticas positivas de una concurrencia Trekkie extremista que esperaba ver La Ira de Khan. Las escenas en cuestión [...]

474. esftsdgsdg - April 7, 2009

PU TOS DE MIER DA COME VER GA

:)

475. your mom - April 7, 2009

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSERS

476. Bones98 - April 7, 2009

As an Aussie who went to the Premiere:-

Firstly to those of you who spoke up for the Aussies getting the first view of the movie – many thanks, it is appreciated…

Secondly, Congrats to the Texans getting the World Premiere – We Aussies can live with that .. :)

I was very lucky to get Autographs from Karl Urban,John Cho, Eric Bana, Chris Pine and some unknown named JJ Abhrams .. ;)

I had a great time, and I didn’t even have a ticket to see the movie!!

Big thanks to Paramount for providing lots of free posters, postcards, signing pens (!!! ), and simply making the cast and Director so accessible for the fans who showed up … I go to lots of these and this was the best organised one I’ve been to….

And one more reason the preview might have been in Oz … I imagine doing these promotional tours its easier to start at the the furthest point on the world map … and work your way home to the USA Premiere :)

477. Closettrekker - April 7, 2009

#457—-When TNG debuted in 1987, I was sorely disappointed. It was a shadow of the Star Trek I remembered as a child. But just because my tastes were not pandered to, that doesn’t mean I was “poorly treated”.

No one consulted me before putting those guys aboard the USS Hilton, introducing holodecks, android pinnochios, ship’s counselors and little kids on the bridge.

Should I have been *offended*?

I certainly wasn’t.

Neither should you.

I’ve been a fan for more than 30 years. My Trek (adventurous, romantic, sexy, action-packed, humorous, and most of all—fun) has come and gone, and now seemingly returned.

I cannot imagine being offended.

2 years ago, if you had polled 100 Star Trek fans, asking them what kind of ST movie they would want to see—-I wouldn’t have been at all surprised to see 100 different answers.

Guess what? Not everyone is going to love it. But that would have been the case no matter what direction the producers took…

I’m looking forward to it. Like Harve Bennett, I thought the original characters should have been recast a long time ago. I’ve been waiting for this since the late 80’s, and now it is less than a month away.

478. boborci - April 7, 2009

441. Harry Ballz – April 7, 2009
Boy, we’ve analyzed the crap out of this thing, haven’t we??

LOL — yup… we expect nothing less.

479. Shane - April 7, 2009

465 –

I went to great lengths to specifically deny, on multiple occasions, that I would have any part of equating fictional characters with real people. In one place I went to far as to point out how insignificant Star Trek ultimately is in my life, insofar as it is a fictional work. There are far more important things.

However, that does not in *any way* mean that there is not some level of emotional investment that we as fans have or develop in the characters in Star Trek. Caring about characters is one of the major points that is regarded as distinguishing good fiction from bad fiction: good fiction causes people to care about the characters, while bad fiction creates no such investment.

The point of bringing up friends and family was to illustrate, in a way which is understandable to everybody (as everybody has family and friends) the *example* of replacing a cared about person with one who is identical in every way except for the shared experiences. There is a *very* different way that a man cares about a fictional character and the way that he cares about a real person. My point is that *in the way* and *to the degree* to which one can properly care about a character, these new versions of the crew are offensive. In other words, *as entertainment*, what they have done with beloved characters of 43 years is terrible.

480. redshirt96 - April 7, 2009

Hey Bob! Can you even describe what it’s like to be at this stage of anticipation? I can’t imagine what it’s like to have one’s professional output so publicly scrutinized. Most of us just have to worry about what our boss thinks – not faceless posters! Good luck – and I’m excited as hell!

481. boborci - April 7, 2009

481. redshirt96 – April 7, 2009
Hey Bob! Can you even describe what it’s like to be at this stage of anticipation? I can’t imagine what it’s like to have one’s professional output so publicly scrutinized. Most of us just have to worry about what our boss thinks – not faceless posters! Good luck – and I’m excited as hell!

We just feel lucky and grateful.

As for the anticipation, it really started to hit us when we heard people literally gasp at the realization that they were standing in the same room with Nimoy. And even though we all planned this and were in on the whole thing together, even I was shocked at how it felt.

482. redshirt96 - April 7, 2009

480 – Shane

I want to ask you a question – and I sincerely don’t mean to offend. I’m just looking for some clarity.

I’m a middle-age guy and this forum is my first ever experience with blogs or posters or anything like this. I’ve been reading and occassionally posting since the news of the movie broke. I’m constantly amazed at the stuff that gets written here.

I can’t argue with your perspective – it’s yours. I’ve been “invested” with these classic characters since their inception and I happen to feel differently than you – that’s my perspective. What I don’t understand is the reason behind the frequent posts. Your upset and offended and feel this is “terrible”. OK, I get it.

And now to my question: Once you took in all of the data you felt was necessary and made up your mind, why keep posting? I just don’t get the need to keep saying “I’m offended”. Do you need others to agree and validate your own opinion to yourself? Do you just like the back-and-forth? I would think that if you are offended, once you made up your mind you would pack up and move on.

Again, I don’t mean to be judgmental and I’m not implying that you SHOULD leave. I just don’t know why you stay and keep posting. I’m just curious as to your motivation. Is this common on boards like this? Am I missing something here?

Anyway, we are all definitely entitled to our opinions and I respect that.

483. Shane - April 7, 2009

484 –

Thank you for your kindness. Such is very infrequently shown on ANY message board, unfortunately.

The reason I keep posting is because blogs/message boards/whatever-this-site-really-is exist for people to share their thoughts and opinions, and when there are disagreements to have discussions about those points. They exist in order to bring people with similar interests together in ways that would otherwise not be possible.

I *am* very saddened by what this film has done, just as others are very happy with the film. Like any emotional reaction, those who feel upset about it or happy about it want to share that feeling. It’s part of being human – we want to share our thoughts and feelings with others. Boards like this are the only opportunity I have to discuss Star Trek, and so were it that I did not stick around after I had “made up my mind,” as it were, then that very important need of connecting with other people about my emotions would remain unmet. In other words, I do it for the same reason that those who are happy about the film keep posting once they’ve decided that they’re happy about it – to share that feeling and to interact with other people about that feeling.

That’s probably the broad, overarching philosophical reason. Perhaps a more tangible reason is simply this: people disagree with me and raise points in opposition, to which I respond. Then they respond. It’s a conversation. I don’t harbor very many hopes, or even intentions, of changing people’s minds. The point is simply that we disagree, and so we talk about that disagreement.

484. From a Cluttered Desk » This Just In…. Have you seen the new Trek film? - April 7, 2009

[...] is too seriously cool. You’ll find the whole article at TrekMovie.com. Here’s the first paragraph. Oh those lucky [...]

485. Shawn - April 7, 2009

Bob,

I just got a quick question. Did you, Kurtzman and Abrams record an audio commentary for the upcoming dvd and blu-ray release?

Looking forward to the film.

486. boborci - April 7, 2009

no… we should, though…

if it doesn’t happen, maybe we can record one for itunes that you can download and play along with flick.

487. Harry Ballz - April 7, 2009

Bob Orci

saw a video on TMZ of your sister walking through the airport with her husband, Brandon Routh! Very cute!

I asked you last December to pay my compliments to your brother-in-law for his performance as The Man Of Steel when you saw him at Christmas….you actually responded that you would. Silly to ask, but any chance you remembered to do that? I thought he did a great job as Supes!

488. Nueva escena de Star Trek at EL CASTILLO DE ALADYGMA EN ATOMIX - April 7, 2009

[...] sitio AICN. Con todo y presencia de Leonard Nimoy, la película a cargo de JJ Abrams recibió una notable cantidad de críticas positivasde una concurrencia Trekkie extremista que esperaba ver La Ira de Khan. La escena en cuestión [...]

489. markg1701 - April 7, 2009

#350 SaphronGirl

I thought the chemistry of Pine and Quinto was great (Off screen too), they were doing high fives etc on the stage.

It was interesting to see the Kirk/Spock relationship with so much tension but as the movie went along you could see it starting to develope into what is more familiar. It was strange to see them have so much rivalry.

Simon Pegg and Karl Urban were standouts for me. McCoy’s character is spot on.

Things that I was very pleased with that I wasn’t expecting was how good the Sarek character was. They added so much depth to his relationship with Spock and his mother.

490. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 7, 2009

#490 …

“as the movie went along you could see it starting to develope into what is more familiar”

“Simon Pegg and Karl Urban were standouts…McCoy’s character is spot on”

“I wasn’t expecting was how good the Sarek character was”

I agree on all counts.

491. wkiryn - April 7, 2009

@478

“2 years ago, if you had polled 100 Star Trek fans, asking them what kind of ST movie they would want to see—-I wouldn’t have been at all surprised to see 100 different answers.”

I wonder how it would go if the poll had been would NOT want to see. I suspect it would be a combo of the academy years and the muppet babies like putting the crew together way to soon – since this was always the studio’s Plan 9 for the dead golden goose and everyone knew it since way back when ST4 was rumored to be the final movie.

But at least they were kind enough to put it in an alternate universe.

492. Anthony Pascale - April 7, 2009

Bob,

that itunes commentary idea is a good one. If you did that while the movie was still in theaters it could encourage second viewings, although maybe it would be annoying to people if you were sitting right next to them and they could hear it coming from their earbuds

493. Austin Star Trek Fans Are SOOOO Lucky! « Opalescence - April 7, 2009

[...] TREKKIN’!. trackback Holy hell!  What I wouldn’t have given to be in Austin on Monday!  The coolest surprise in the world was sprung on Star Trek fans!  Let’s just say I would have already gone to see Wrath of Khan [...]

494. Son of Surak - April 8, 2009

420 Phil G wrote: “I just shifted through the 406 or so posts on here. I’m sorry people, it’s a little ridiculous to be arguing back and forth right now…”

Are you kidding, Phil G!? Some of us are addicts. We each have an ideal vision of the Star Trek universe in our head, and we yearn to glimpse that vision in each new Trek production. We want it like an addict wants his next hit. And like an addict badly needing a fix, we’re anxious and a little on the grumpy side right now because we’re not sure about what we’re being sold yet.

I’ve heard that every heroin addict has a first time they got sky high, and that was the very best time. And each time afterward when they shoot up, they want to relive the experience of that elusive best high. With Trek films, the elusive best high was TWOK. And it’s never been that good again — in twenty-seven freakin’ years!

So here’s our next fix — Trek XI — and from what I’ve been reading, I am hopeful that Abrams and company just might have pulled it off — it might be in the same ballpark. It won’t be perfect (neither was TWOK) but May 8 could be the best that Star Trek fans have felt when leaving the theatres since1982.

495. Star Trek Fans Saw New Star Trek, Loved New Star Trek | DoozyDaily - April 8, 2009

[...] TrekMovie has more information. Share and Enjoy: [...]

496. Devon - April 8, 2009

“449 –

Please explain to me what I said that was garbage. Is it not true that our emotional investment in Star Trek is heavily linked to our shared experiences watching the characters go through various situations? ”

The fact that you said that the new actors were “not real people.” Load of BS. Get a grip.

497. ShatPine - April 8, 2009

Can someone use spoiler tags and tell me what spock prime says to young kirk? Does he mention the future or his death?

498. Boldly Going Into Theaters « JR Tschopp’s Blog - April 8, 2009

[...] review, and  Massawyrm’s review from Ain’t It Cool News;  CHUD’s review; two reviews at TrekMovie.com; this and this review at Film School Rejects; a review from Cinema Blend; [...]

499. USS TRINOMA NCC-0278 - April 8, 2009

This movie will excel beyond anyone’s dream! Why I dare say that? Because this movie will invoke of what many people is looking for, and that is OPTIMISM! This country has been ambushed with so much negativity for too long, and a huge dose of futuristic optimism is sorely needed. Thank you Supreme Court for giving us the elixir we need. Mr. Bob Orci, thank you for using QUANTUM MECHANICS!!! Indeed, this movie is 100% pure SCIENCE fiction.

500. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 8, 2009

#498 … Not sure I’m allowed to post what was said, but I loved their scenes together. The “future” is definitely a topic of their discussion.

501. Alex Rosenzweig - April 8, 2009

#455 – “We like those characters because of their entire on screen history.”

To play devil’s advocate for a moment, remember, too, that part of the marketing for this film is to people who have no pre-existing history with these characters. For those people, it’s a clean slate, one way or the other.

The flaw in the marketing plan–or perhaps, more precisely–the limitation in that plan, is that making the movie so separate from all the rest is that there isn’t a motivation for the new fan to move beyond the film and into all the rest of Star Trek, because the first thing they discover is that the characters and overall setting that attracted them in the film don’t exist anywhere else, and consequently the exploration of all the rest is short-circuited, potentially costing the studio millions of dollars of lost revenue.

Oh, some few folks will make the jump, but I predict it won’t be nearly at the scale that could have existed if this movie really was an origin story for all of what had come before. (Of course, I also hope very much that I’m wrong.)

#479, 482 – Hi, Bob. As disappointed as I am with how it looks like this thing is playing out–and I’ll not lie, I am disappointed; there was only one thing you could’ve done that I’d have a real hard time with, and you did it–I still appreciate you hanging out with us here and interacting. Just thought I’d say so.

502. Closettrekker - April 8, 2009

#495—“…but May 8 could be the best that Star Trek fans have felt when leaving the theatres since1982.”

I remember being quite sad when I left the theater in 1982, but with that said, I understand your point. Whether it is or isn’t, one thing is certain already.

I’m just as excited about next month as I was back then, and the buildup alone has been fun!

503. Shane - April 8, 2009

497 –

You have *COMPLETELY* misunderstood what I said. I never said that the new actors were “not real people.” I said that the characters in Star Trek are not real people. James Kirk is a fictional character. Spock is not real. My best friend *is* real, as is my mother and father and the guy from work and so forth.

Here’s where the quote you cited of me came from:

“That’s what these “new” characters are to those we know and love. Not only do I have, in all honesty, less than zero concern for them, but they offend me deeply. They’re not real people, so there is quite obviously a limit here (so please do not accuse me of holding fictional characters as important as real people :) ), but to the degree that one can care about a fictional character, I am deeply hurt and offended by these facsimiles. “

Note:

1) I am talking about *characters* here. I have actually said in other posts that I don’t care that the roles have been recast and that I would actually support this.

2) In saying the characters were “not real people” I was indicating that I am aware it is fiction. To explain why some are so opposed to what’s been done with this new film, I was making an analogy between why we care about the real people in our lives and why we care about fictional characters. When I make this analogy, I am often accused of taking things too far and loving fake characters in the same way as real live people, and so in my post I was making it clear that I was not doing this, but only making an analogy which only works to the degree that one can care about a fictional character.

I wonder if you even read my post carefully at all, or just rushed through it angrily knowing what my opinion is, because honestly, your interpretation of what I said is so far off I don’t understand how someone who read the post could understand me to have meant that.

i’m not trying to accuse you of anything here. I’m just honestly flabbergasted at how far off you were. Certainly, if I HAD said what you thought I did, I would be deserving of all the ire out there. Of course Mr. Pine, Quinto, and the rest are real people. Oh believe me, if you knew me you would understand that how I treat these actors whom I’ve never met is infinitely more important to me than what I think of the roles they portray, for they are human beings deserving of right and just treatment.

504. Mr. X - April 8, 2009

Oh, and this movie may have, what, two sequels? What happens then?

Star Trek is dead. Face it. The old Star Trek is dead with this movie. And the new Star Trek will be dead within two movies. And then you can’t return to the old Star Trek, because that’s gone for far too long.

NOW is you chance. Keep the Picard/Sisko/Janeway universe alive by making the next Trek movie a TNG era movie. And then go ahead and make the movie after that a Pine-Kirk/Quinto-Spock era movie.

It will not even be confusing. That’s what advertising is for. 23rd century, 24th century, that’s a clear line.

Tell the story of a parallel universe, and the story of the real universe. And if you’re out of ideas for both, let them merge together in an epic adventure.

505. Closettrekker - April 8, 2009

#505—“Keep the Picard/Sisko/Janeway universe alive by making the next Trek movie a TNG era movie. ”

No thanks.

506. Tom - April 8, 2009

any truth to the rumor that people are still in the theater waiting for the big Shatner appearance. So much for those theories. I’m sure they will begin again once the supreme court starts work on the sequel. Seems like the first reactions are positive.

507. Elaan_of_Elas - April 8, 2009

They BLEW UP VULCAN???

F*ck Abrams and the movie he rode in on.

508. JL - April 8, 2009

#505

“And if you’re out of ideas for both, let them merge together in an epic adventure.”

Hopefully, if there is a god, they won’t run out of ideas.

509. Closettrekker - April 8, 2009

Still yet to see a poor review—by fans or nonfans who’ve seen the movie.

510. Mr. X - April 8, 2009

Two more movies, and it’s over. Mark my words.

511. Mr. X - April 8, 2009

Closetrekker, you annoy me. Why is your faith in Pine any more valid than my faith in Stewart, or my faith in that new TNG era Captain played by an actor we both don’t know?

512. Mr. X - April 8, 2009

Talk about being close minded.

513. Mr. X - April 8, 2009

You say TNG characters have had their chance. I say the same about TOS characters. TOS characters even got their final final final appearance in a proper send off movie. Their story is OVER.

So how is your opinion any better than mine?

514. Closettrekker - April 8, 2009

#511—You cannot take away something which isn’t there to begin with.

You might prefer “nothing” to this—but I don’t.

40 years of Star Trek in television (5 series and an animated show) and film (one big budget feature and 9 ‘B-movies’).

Add what will probably be 3 big-budget feature films to that (and who knows what will follow?), and you’re complaining???

Give me a break.

I think you need a “perspective” reboot!

515. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 8, 2009

#512 … “Closetrekker, you annoy me.”

He gets that a lot.

516. Mr. X - April 8, 2009

You don’t even read. I suggested a parallel movie release. 2009 “Star Trek”, 2011 “TNG sequel”, 2013 “TOS sequel”. Now that would be something cool.

And that TNG sequel better be a big budget feature film.

517. Closettrekker - April 8, 2009

#512—“Why is your faith in Pine any more valid than my faith in Stewart”

I don’t believe I have expressed any particular faith in Pine, but I do have faith in April Webster.

#514—“Their story is OVER.”

Apparently not, or you wouldn’t be so up in arms about this movie, which debuts about a month from now.

Their story *was* over. Not any more.

“So how is your opinion any better than mine?”

I didn’t exactly say that, but since you brought it up—just take a look at the box-office performance of the 6 original films versus the 4 TNG-era ones.

5 of the first 6 did well (to various degree).

3 of the 4 TNG-era film stink—the last one far worse (at the box-office) than even the abominable STV.

It isn’t just my opinion. There is quite a bit of tangible evidence to support the claim that the original characters were (and are) more viable for feature films—especially if the studio is going to put itself at risk with huge budgets.

The original characters are popular icons.

The TNG characters are merely “geek” icons.

Big budget films need crossover value. TNG doesn’t really have it. As for the other spinoffs—let’s face it—that was a “geeks only club”.

Yes—this is my opinion, but it isn’t as if I arrived at it out of nowhere.

You’re welcome to your own opinions as well, but if you want to avoid response—then you probably shouldn’t post them publicly.

Personally, I prefer that you do. The world wouldn’t be as much fun if everyone agreed with me.

518. Closettrekker - April 8, 2009

#516—I haven’t seen where you *initially* rank this one in comparsion to the others.

Do you put it number 2 after your first screening?

519. Alex Rosenzweig - April 8, 2009

#515 – “You might prefer “nothing” to this—but I don’t.”

Preference would seem to have little to do with it. For those of us who would like more filmed adventures in the prime universe–in whatever era, and with whatever characters–it would seem that *nothing* is what we’ll get (unless you count fan films).

My first choice above all would have been primeverse TOS, but if I was left with primeverse TNG vs alternate TOS (especially in a universe where whole central planets to the mythos have been destroyed), I’d go with primeverse TNG.

I wonder if there’s time to follow Pocket Book’s lead and slap a big “Myriad Universes” logo on the film, so folks know what they’re really getting.

520. Closettrekker - April 8, 2009

#520—“For those of us who would like more filmed adventures in the prime universe–in whatever era, and with whatever characters–it would seem that *nothing* is what we’ll get (unless you count fan films).”

As compared to what? The glimmer of hope that Paramount might have otherwise found it in their hearts to churn out yet another B-movie like the ones that many of us had stopped bothering to see anyway?

I’ll take this route.

521. Unreality - Star Trek Fans Think New Star Trek Movie is Awesome | - April 8, 2009

[...] nerdgasm this weekend as they showed up to a theater where Leonard Nimoy suddenly appeared clutching the newest Star Trek movie. Nimoy noted to the crowd that it just didn’t seem fair that people in Australia were the fist to [...]

522. ShatPine - April 8, 2009

Mr Orci,

Does the ending of this film still mean that Kirk Prime still dies in Generations? Or will the outcome of this new film mean that he is now living in the 25th century?

Thanks! :)

523. Alex Rosenzweig - April 8, 2009

#521 – “#520—”For those of us who would like more filmed adventures in the prime universe–in whatever era, and with whatever characters–it would seem that *nothing* is what we’ll get (unless you count fan films).”

As compared to what? The glimmer of hope that Paramount might have otherwise found it in their hearts to churn out yet another B-movie like the ones that many of us had stopped bothering to see anyway?”

Leaving aside that that presupposes that remaining in the primeverse required that Paramount would never give Trek better treatment (I can’t figure out how that actually would follow), if the choice is between an alternate universe and mid-level movies, then yes, I’ll take mid-level movies.

I don’t accept that that’s the only possible choice, mind you, so for me that’s a bit of a red herring. I mean, if JJ Abrams went to Paramount and said he could do a real TOS origin story without the whole time travel/alternate universe gimmick, do you really think they’d have demanded that he put that in? I’m not really thinking so. ;)

524. Closettrekker - April 8, 2009

#524—” I mean, if JJ Abrams went to Paramount and said he could do a real TOS origin story without the whole time travel/alternate universe gimmick, do you really think they’d have demanded that he put that in? I’m not really thinking so.”

And *that* is the real kicker to Star Trek getting this kind of budget treatment.

JJ Abrams wasn’t going to go to Paramount with *anything*.

It was the story that Orci and Kurtzman wrote (part of which is the leap into an alternate timeline) which persuaded him that this is something he should direct in the first place.

There is quite a bit of “presupposing” going on, including the notion that Mr. Abrams would have been equally interested in directing a feature that did *not* afford him the level of creative freedom he finds attractive. By his own admission, he initially had no interest in directing this—that is, until he read the script.

Make no mistake. It is the involvement of JJ Abrams as a director, more than anything else, that gives Paramount the confidence it has in the future of the Star Trek franchise—-and it was Orci/Kurtzman’s script that convinced him to become so intimately involved.

525. Alex Rosenzweig - April 8, 2009

#525 – But don’t forget, he didn’t go to Paramount thinking he was going to direct initially. He made that decision on the strength of the story and the script. When he first went to Paramount, it was as a producer.

That doesn’t alter the question, however. Had Orci and Kurtzman delivered a story that didn’t involve an alternate universe, does anyone seriously believe that Paramount would have insisted that they put one in?

I’m not claiming that wasn’t the story they decided to tell. I’m asserting it wasn’t the only possible way to get the studio to give Trek big budget treatment. I think a story and script as strong as this one allegedly is, told in the prime universe, would have excited the executives every bit as much. (The execs don’t care about alternate realities, after all; they care about a script that, once shot, will put butts in seats.)

Why Orci and Kurtzman felt that this was the right way to go is something I’ll leave to them to share with us.

For myself, I appreciate their appreciation of Trek, but I’m not so desperate to support anything with the name “Star Trek” on it that I’ll go to great lengths to endorse an approach that I think is off-base, no matter how many millions of dollars Paramount has thrown at it. I didn’t do so when I thought the TNG movies went off-course, either. As a consumer, I’d be perfectly happy to support a $20 million TV movie/DVD strategy that shows me what I want to see, as opposed to a $150 million feature film that doesn’t.

[shrug]

526. Harry Ballz - April 8, 2009

Alex, your shrug at the end was especially eloquent!

Funny how a little gesture like that speaks volumes!

527. Thorny - April 8, 2009

526. Alex Rosenzweig… “As a consumer, I’d be perfectly happy to support a $20 million TV movie/DVD strategy that shows me what I want to see, as opposed to a $150 million feature film that doesn’t.”

The problem with that strategy is, ‘how do you know which it is without actually seeing the movie?” Lord knows, trailers can be deceptive and reviewers can be way off base. It seems to me a great number of people have made up their minds about Star Trek 2009 without having seen the movie. (Not pointing fingers at Alex, just saying…)

528. James Kirk's Unknown Son - April 8, 2009

Thorny wrote: “It seems to me a great number of people have made up their minds about Star Trek 2009 without having seen the movie. (Not pointing fingers at Alex, just saying…)”

Well let me point my fingers for you at a number of posters on here.

And I frankly think it’s ridiculous to argue about how a movie is off base without having even seen it. I mean Good God, how close-minded.

If Vulcan is destroyed in the movie, so the F**K what, Mr. X?

You tell someone else they annoy you and almost in the same breath you tell JJ Abrams to get f**ked? Talk about annoying.

It’s all freaking make believe anyway!

529. James Kirk's Unknown Son - April 8, 2009

My apologies to Mr. X. I misquoted him. He did not tell Abrams that; Elaan_of_Elas did.

530. Alex Rosenzweig - April 8, 2009

#528 – “26. Alex Rosenzweig… “As a consumer, I’d be perfectly happy to support a $20 million TV movie/DVD strategy that shows me what I want to see, as opposed to a $150 million feature film that doesn’t.”

The problem with that strategy is, ‘how do you know which it is without actually seeing the movie?” Lord knows, trailers can be deceptive and reviewers can be way off base.”

Well, I did read the spoilers, and I’ve read a whole bunch of different reviews, which tended to corroborate each other in the matter of what happens in the film. I fully agree that I won’t be able to address how I feel about stuff like the actual direction, performances, etc. until I see the film. But I still have verified comfortably that they have done things in this film that, as a fan of, first and foremost, the fictional world in which the 5 TV series and first 10 films are set, I have a great deal of difficulty accepting.

Now I realize that a lot of folks don’t seem to understand, or at least share, what it means to be a fan of a fictional world in its entirety. Many people gravitate specifically toward a relatively few characters. And that’s fine. I am not one of them. For me, the setting, circumstance, and fictional history, on the macro-scale, are no less important than the characters. Ergo, for how I look at these things, destroying a planet which itself has been the setting for many important aspects of that fictional world is no less significant, for example, than killing Spock as a child and making Kirk’s best friend a Klingon who constantly urges him into aggressive stances.

“It seems to me a great number of people have made up their minds about Star Trek 2009 without having seen the movie. (Not pointing fingers at Alex, just saying…)”

You can point your fingers at me all you wish. :) Mind you, I’m still going to go *see* the movie, but it doesn’t change the fact that a) I despise reboots–traditional, effective, or whatever, and b) I consider a story that both is part of an ongoing fictional world and relies fundamentally on throwing away continuity to be compromised from the get-go, no matter what. If I know, going in, that the movie is those things, I don’t need to see it to know that I’ll have a problem with it. It may do many other things which I’ll enjoy, but at least now, when I go see it, I’ll be able to mentally prepare myself for when it does the things that will let me down, so they won’t overwhelm my perspectives on all the other things it may do.

Clear enough for you?

531. Harry Ballz - April 8, 2009

Well, no [shrug] THIS time!

532. Shane - April 8, 2009

Alex effectively echoes my sentiments as well in 531

533. Jay - April 8, 2009

Can’t anybody make up their own mind, instead of relying on reviews?

You are all a bunch of sheep.

534. AJ - April 8, 2009

Alex:

Lack of continuity is one of Trek’s greatest flaws, and there is an illusion of such thanks to the Okudas’ “Star Trek Chronology.”

The leap of faith here is that Star Trek itself must be saved from the cage of its own canon. This was attempted in DS9 and VOY by throwing the crews onto a far-off space station, and then a farther-away quadrant. ENT went back in time. While each was able to muster a handful of decent TV hours, they just didn’t catch the ‘fire in a bottle’ that is Star Trek. They kept trying to distance themselves from the “Trek” universe, and then, as ratings declined, became enslaved by it (DS9’s Dominion War/Worf, VOY and the Borg, ENT and the great, but too late, season 4).

To go back to Kirk and Spock (and McCoy) and the rest of the original crew is quite special. Star Trek wants to be Star Trek again, and O&K have decided to use the new timeline as a way to clear the playing field for new stories. Instead of seeking out a new isolated corner of the galaxy, they are going right to the heart and soul. Their (hoped for) success would trump, at least for me, the need to tack something onto the existing timeline for the timeline’s own sake.

535. Alex Rosenzweig - April 8, 2009

#534 – “The leap of faith here is that Star Trek itself must be saved from the cage of its own canon.”

See, the axiom upon which you lose me is this idea that canon (or, really, continuity is a better term) is a cage of any sort. I’ve seen a lot of folks express the view, but it’s a completely alien one to me. I have trouble even conceptualizing it in those terms.

It might be a leap of faith, but I tend to see it as a leap into a drained swimming pool.

“To go back to Kirk and Spock (and McCoy) and the rest of the original crew is quite special. Star Trek wants to be Star Trek again, and O&K have decided to use the new timeline as a way to clear the playing field for new stories.”

And, of course, this involves the assumption that to get interesting new stories, one *needs* to “clear the playing field”. It’s an assumption that I completely disagree with. I love the idea of going back to Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the rest, and when I thought they were going to really tell the “how they got together” tale that had never been filmed, I thought it was pure genius. Of course, we now know that that isn’t really what they were doing at all.

The reality, of course, is that once one is down to disagreements on such basic axioms as what we’re talking about here, there’s not a lot of place to go with the debate. ;)

So I’m gonna switch gears and float an idea that hit me earlier today, and that I also posted on another board, as part of my quest to try to understand why all this has happened the way it did:

The question is, why turn TOS into something that different? Is it just about pretending that what had already been built shouldn’t matter? Or is it something else? And given that they have done what they’ve done, how might it be possible that both versions would be supported? Something occurred to me earlier today.

This is the first Trek feature film to come out since the control of Star Trek sort of split up among different parts of CBS/Paramount. Now, as I understand it, the feature films are still under the control of Paramount and the motion picture division. The TV series are under the control of CBS and the television division.

I think a lot of us just always assumed that there’d be some sort of deal struck to make a TOS movie possible, that the different pieces of CBS/Paramount would just work together and sort it all out. But what if they didn’t? What if they both wanted a Kirk-and-Spock Trek to call their own, both had pieces of it, and they either couldn’t agree on sharing it, or didn’t bother to try? So how to resolve that? What if the answer was to do a Kirk and Spock movie, but make it different enough that it isn’t the same Kirk and Spock, or the same world? So what we’re shorthanding as the “Abramsverse” is the movie division’s version, and CBS still has the original TOS as its own.

Interestingly, if that’s the case, it would in effect be the same as creating a whole new series, even if the characters are sort of similar. It also could mean that, if the market will bear it, the two different wings of CBS/Paramount could cheerfully promote their own versions of Star Trek, with licensing, filmed productions, whatever. That could also explain a bit why CBS Digital was spending all that money updating TOS VFX, even when it would have become clear that Abrams was going in a very different direction.

I remember a lot of us wondering, a few years ago, how things would sort out, with Star Trek split up among different parts of CBS/Paramount. It might actually be that we’re seeing the result.

Hmph… I should have thought of this a while back. Still wouldn’t have made me any happier about a TOS reboot, but at least it lends a different perspective to the whole thing.

536. Harry Ballz - April 8, 2009

#535

“Logical. Flawlessly logical.”

537. Alex Rosenzweig - April 8, 2009

Thanks. :)

Now, whether it’s true, or me just speculating blindly, remains to be seen.

538. Harry Ballz - April 8, 2009

So, if any of us prefer one Trek over the other, is the one we choose to disregard…..to be known from here on in as……….the trek not taken?

(runs and hides)

539. sean - April 8, 2009

#530

“For me, the setting, circumstance, and fictional history, on the macro-scale, are no less important than the characters. ”

I think that’s where most of us are clearly splitting. I tend to side with Ron Moore’s axiom of “It’s the characters, stupid!”. For me, the fictional circumstances have always been secondary, and thus less critical. That’s why I could accept the various inconsistencies and contradictions that have cropped up over the years (and really, there are A LOT of them), or come up with a silly explanation as to why they weren’t really inconsistent (oh Chekov, he was just hiding below decks!). In fact, I’d say the third element in this equation is the story, and even that takes precedence over the setting, for me. It’s downright difficult for me to envision a circumstance in which I would care as much about the mundane background details of that universe (or even the not-so-mundane details) as much or more than I do the characters and the narrative. I imagine it must be the same wall you hit when you try to understand that same view based on where you’re coming from.

Personally, I invite some changes. If they want to blow up Vulcan, blow it up. It provides innumerable storytelling opportunities for the Star Trek universe, and more importantly, has a significant impact on the Spock character. How will it change him to realize he’s even more alone? Will he embrace his Vulcan heritage even more fully because he feels a duty to his now deceased homeworld? Will it test his emotional control in ways it has never been tested before? I’m interested in those questions. I’m thrilled at the idea of taking the same characters but throwing them into completely different circumstances. How will they change? How will they stay the same? To borrow a phrase, that journey will be totally fascinating, for me.

But I suspect it will not be, for you. That you’d have rather seen new characters in those new circumstances or a faithful retelling set in the original circumstances. And I can respect that. I think I’m much more clear on why this movie will not be your cup of tea. But for me, the idea of casting off the shackles of canon and laying down a new one is very appealing. And that’s coming from a lifelong fan.

540. OldGuy - April 9, 2009

Nothing about the precursors was science fiction, to my mind. If anything, it was anti(science) fiction. They didn’t just grab techno-babble out of thin air, they grabbed real terms, and bent them to purpose. One of the sweet things about classic hard sci-fi was that it might actually teach you some hard science, as well as making you think about societal issues, etc. Hadrons are real things–not just a sci-fi BS. As in serveral billion Euros worth of Large Hadron Collider. TNG had a hadron beam sweeping the ship, as a cheesy-evil-green-cheap-sci-fi-beam. Huge bogosity factor, as the writers were talking about an extremely powerful charged particle beam (think ‘death-ray’) and were too stupid to know it. It was just jargon to them. Rather like Joss Whedon *bragging* that he didn’t know the first thing about science.

What made the precursors pretty much watchable was chemistry and (I’m prepared to admit that this did happen) story. This one sounds as if it’s pure comic book, which so much ‘sci-fi’ seems to be these days, and much of current fandom doesn’t seem to know any better. But of course Trek-lovers always were a bit of a different crowd than the rest of sci-fi fandom.

I was never into comic books. Why bother, when there were brilliant novels available? The movie is never as good as the book, because in reading the book, you draw on your imagination to visualize that world. You build it exactly as you’d like it. Comics force cheap imagery on you. Effects movies force expensive imagery on you. Neither is a substitute for what a good film can bring–chemistry, fine acting, and possibly a new take on a novel. They don’t have to be, of course. Films are a different medium, and at the end of the day, all they have to be is entertaining.

Sadly, this one doesn’t sound like something to get enthusiastic about. Loud, fast-paced comic book movies have been everywhere, as film makers seem to have run out of imagination, and are just chasing some other guys’ success for a box office buck. No doubt this summer will have several to choose from. This Trek may be something I’ll pick up on Netflix, to honor the franchise, but theater time? Maybe in a fit of boredom, but I’m seldom bored. I just can’t get worked up about it. It sounds so…common.

541. Alex Rosenzweig - April 9, 2009

#539 – Indeed, sean, you do seem to grasp where I’m coming from quite well. Thank you.

I agree with you, BTW, regarding the three elements–story, characters, and setting–but for me they are all equally important. It’s easy to play around with those elements when creating an entirely new property, but when coming into a pre-existing world, I see the responsibility to be faithful to all the elements, not just to pick and choose among them.

I guess it’s those sorts of differences that will color how we all view a project like this new film. :)

542. Shane - April 9, 2009

539 “I think that’s where most of us are clearly splitting. I tend to side with Ron Moore’s axiom of “It’s the characters, stupid!”

That’s exactly my problem. I don’t see characters as just names and personalities, but experiences. Heck, that’s the whole idea of character development, which when lacking from a film generally causes the film to be bad, and when done very well generally causes a film to be better.

Now I can’t say how well the character development in this film is, but I can say that the characters in it aren’t the same characters as the TOS cre, because they lack all of the experiences that that original crew had.

For me it’s almost *all* about the characters, and I can’t get on board because, well, the characters in Trek ’09 are different characters from TOS and films 1-7.

543. txtabby - April 9, 2009

DAMMIT, JIM!

I just found out about this after checking trekweb.com this morning… the above comments are very true. Paramount really did pull off the best sneak preview in motion picture history that night. I’m soo frackin’ ticked off that I missed it… crap! LOL
Well, only 28 days, 14 hours, and 10 minutes to go, assuming they will have a special midnight showing (12:01 a.m., May 8th).

544. sean - April 9, 2009

#542

“For me it’s almost *all* about the characters, and I can’t get on board because, well, the characters in Trek ‘09 are different characters from TOS and films 1-7.”

For me it’s same characters, different setting. I don’t see anything that prevents this Kirk or this Spock from being like the original Kirk or Spock. Does Jim Kirk *have* to be at Tarsus IV to be Jim Kirk? I’m not convinced of that (especially since – like so many elements of TOS – it is never referenced outside the episode where it drives the story). Could it not be that witnessing wanton death and destruction at the hands of Nero provides a similar lesson/motivation for James T Kirk, just later in life? Does Uhura have to have her memory erased by Nomad in order to be the Uhura we’ve come to know before? Or are we more than simply a collection of experiences? Can’t similar but not necessarily the same experiences shape us in much the same way?

Personally, the thing I admire most about this whole endeavor is that JJ isn’t hitting the reset button. I was absolutely sick to death of stories in Star Trek (especially time travel stories) where everything was miraculously returned to normal and nothing happened Oh, we gave away the formula to transparent aluminum, you say? Well, it’s a pre-destination paradox! We always did that! I, for one, am interested in seeing what happens when you can’t just place everyone back at square one.

545. Closettrekker - April 9, 2009

#530—” …for how I look at these things, destroying a planet which itself has been the setting for many important aspects of that fictional world is no less significant, for example, than killing Spock as a child and making Kirk’s best friend a Klingon who constantly urges him into aggressive stances.”

I disagree with the notion that those two scenarios are even close to the same thing.

The latter completely changes the dynamics of the relationship between the 2 lead characters (and in fact, changes one of them out completely), while the latter does no such thing. The only thing that *could* be said about it is that perhaps the events depicted in “Amok Time” end up having a profound effect upon their friendship, and Vulcan’s absence from the equation makes taking their friendship to that level a goal of the writers which must be attained by other means. However, that can *still* be attained.

#534—“To go back to Kirk and Spock (and McCoy) and the rest of the original crew is quite special. Star Trek wants to be Star Trek again, and O&K have decided to use the new timeline as a way to clear the playing field for new stories. Instead of seeking out a new isolated corner of the galaxy, they are going right to the heart and soul. Their (hoped for) success would trump, at least for me, the need to tack something onto the existing timeline for the timeline’s own sake.”

I agree, but what makes it even better is that the previous continuity isn’t ignored, rather—it is the very vehicle which takes the audience back for another go with Star Trek greatest characters. I like that aspect of it. It is tied to the old, without being bound by its creative restrictions.

#542—“I can’t get on board because, well, the characters in Trek ‘09 are different characters from TOS and films 1-7.”

Given your quite correct assessment of how people (fictional or otherwise) become who they are—is it not also true that Jim Kirk, for example, is a different guy in TMP than he is in the first season of TOS? Is he not a different person in TUC than he was in TWOK? I mean—since he is the sum of his experiences—he is certainly a different man in GEN.

In the womb, Shatner’s Kirk and Pine’s Kirk are the same. Eventually, they both become heroes.

Perhaps it would help you “get on board” if you were to *embrace* the notion that the difference in “nurture” makes them different people. You may even like who Pine’s Kirk becomes, and come to appreciate him as you might come to appreciate any brand new character.

IMO, it seems rather ridiculous to preclude yourself from investing in him simply because he shares a name with another fictional character, from another timeline, in the same fictional universe.

Do you do so out of spite?

In fairness, it could be that you approach this as not *already* being invested in the characters—much like you were not invested in them before you watched your first episode of Star Trek. We were all at that point some time. I could understand that. New characters *should* have to earn your investment.

My opinion is that if this is not a good film, it won’t be because Orci and Kurtzman wrote a story which canonically alters the past and takes the audience into an altered timeline. It will be because the writing, acting, directing, etc. are substandard—-as in the case of any other production.

546. Cygnus X1 - April 9, 2009

My expectations, which were not very high to begin with, have been lowered yet again.

Not to say that Harry Knowles is the quintessential movie critic, but here’s what he has to say about the new Trek,

“This is the STAR TREK that I’ve been waiting for”.

Remember, this coming from the same person who said this of Star Wars Episode II,

“I love this film desperately. I want to continually watch it for about a week with my best friends.”

….and we all know how that turned out.

Here’s hoping that JJ & company have pulled it off, ’cause I’m not getting that warm & fuzzy feeling on this one.

547. Alex Rosenzweig - April 9, 2009

#545 – “#530—” …for how I look at these things, destroying a planet which itself has been the setting for many important aspects of that fictional world is no less significant, for example, than killing Spock as a child and making Kirk’s best friend a Klingon who constantly urges him into aggressive stances.”

I disagree with the notion that those two scenarios are even close to the same thing.”

Fair enough, but for me, they are. As I was saying to sean, setting/circumstance for me is every bit as important as individual characters. And Vulcan is a core part of the Star Trek setting, so its destruction is–for me–on exactly the same par as killing off one of the main characters.

548. Closettrekker - April 9, 2009

#546—“Not to say that Harry Knowles is the quintessential movie critic, but here’s what he has to say about the new Trek,

“This is the STAR TREK that I’ve been waiting for”.

Remember, this coming from the same person who said this of Star Wars Episode II,

“I love this film desperately. I want to continually watch it for about a week with my best friends.”

….and we all know how that turned out.”

So—because he likes a movie that you don’t, his opinion of this one doesn’t matter? Okay.

But what about the rest of the positive reviews?

I agree that his opinion alone shouldn’t be counted on to represent the collective tastes of moviegoers everywhere, but to suggest that because he likes it that it must be bad is something which makes no sense at all.

I mean, he had to have *some* reaction. I wonder what your response would have been if he had said that it was terrible. Would you have then become more enthusiastic about it?

Somehow, I doubt that.

549. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 9, 2009

I’m not as crazy hyped about it as Harry is (he always goes over the top, crying and whatnot), but I plan to see it twice more theatrically, once with my friends, once with my family. I had some issues with it, but my overall impression is favorable.

550. Closettrekker - April 9, 2009

#547—“And Vulcan is a core part of the Star Trek setting…”

Really?

It has been depicted a total of 5 times in 28 seasons of live action televised Trek and twice in 10 films, to my recollection, and really only *seen* 6 times in 40 years.

To me, the “core” of the Star Trek setting is made up of the various ships (or space station, in the case of DS9) upon which the principle characters serve, and of course (and perhaps more simply)—“the final frontier”.

In terms of significance, you may choose to equate whatever you wish with Spock (who has himself appeared 86 times)—-but I cannot accept that comparison as being even close.

In fairness, I have to agree that I think—at least on the surface—destroying Vulcan in the first installment of Trek adventures in this timeline seems to be a questionable decision. But I have to believe its destruction must serve some purpose to the story, rather than being of mere gratuitous shock value. I cannot say that I am in any sort of position to fairly evaluate it at all.

It doesn’t seem to have ruined the story for anyone who has seen it yet. In fact, it really hasn’t been dwelled upon thusfar in any reviews—by fans or non-fans who have already experienced it.

551. Closettrekker - April 9, 2009

#549—But where do you rank it among Trek movies?

552. Shane - April 9, 2009

544, 545

I understand your points. I just think we are approaching the issue in two slightly different ways. This came up on another board where I have been posting, or at least in a slightly different way. I was asked if I hate Batman Begins because it’s got different character tracks from Adam West’s series. What I said is that I don’t, because due to the fact that Batman (and other comics) have been rebooted so many times, I don’t look at them in the same way I do Trek.

With Batman, I just see the character in very general terms: Bruce Wayne is a tough, intelligent guy with a certain type of personality who dresses up as a bat and fights villains. I don’t see Batman with much *depth*. In other words, every experience of Batman I see is a “bottle experience” which is entirely unrelated to any other experience. There are certain constants, but mainly just in what the character does, and how he acts: not who he is, what’s made him who he is, etc.

With the Kirk, for instance, progressing from “Where No Man Has Gone Before” to Generations 86 excursions later, it’s fine with me that he’s a different man in film 6 than in episode 13. It’s character development, which is one of the key components to good fiction.

The problem I have with this is that I grew to care about Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. as characters over the years by watching their development. These new characters, I don’t care about at all. Now ClosetTrekker is right – it’s like before my first episode of Trek, when I didn’t know the prime Kirk or Spock at all. There are two big differences:

1) In this case, I have the loss of the prime characters I care about. However interesting the new ones are, I miss the ones I grew to care about. I’m sad that I won’t see any more adventures with them in it.

2) When I see this new film, the characters are being presented as Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, but they’re different. In other words – and maybe this is a very subtle point which is hard to express – this is being portrayed as the relaunch of Star Trek, and the characters are being made to behave like the originals, certain scenes are being presented to remind us of the originals (like the *brilliant* intro of McCoy on the shuttle), but they’re *not* the originals. When I see that scene with McCoy, I know inside me that it’s a different McCoy, I remember the original, and it comes across as fake. To you it may be ok, but to me, I have 87 adventures invested with these characters, 93 1/2 hours of “enjoying their compay,” for lack of a better term. It’s just… seeing this McCoy so similar to the original and yet on a deep level very different – due to nurture and all of that – makes me uncomfortable with him. Primarily, it makes me sad, because for example, that scene in the shuttle – when I see that, I love it, but at the same time, I remember that this “other character” who I care about never did that.

It is very hard to explain this.

553. Closettrekker - April 9, 2009

I have a feeling that there will be some things I do not like about the film. I anticipate not being satisfied with the reasoning behind Kirk’s ascension to command, for instance.

Like all Trek movies, it will probably have a few holes.

554. Closettrekker - April 9, 2009

#544—“I don’t see anything that prevents this Kirk or this Spock from being like the original Kirk or Spock. Does Jim Kirk *have* to be at Tarsus IV to be Jim Kirk? I’m not convinced of that (especially since – like so many elements of TOS – it is never referenced outside the episode where it drives the story). Could it not be that witnessing wanton death and destruction at the hands of Nero provides a similar lesson/motivation for James T Kirk, just later in life? Does Uhura have to have her memory erased by Nomad in order to be the Uhura we’ve come to know before? Or are we more than simply a collection of experiences? ”

Good post.

There can be more than a single road leading to a single destination.

I anticipate a “nature vs. nurture” story, in which the hero becomes the hero despite the altered environment and circumstances.

This isn’t reality. This is fiction. These characters can be written to evolve any way in which the creative team sees fit. I think it needs to be a coherent evolution, but there is certainly more than one way to get from point A to point B.

555. sean - April 9, 2009

#552

I understand where you’re coming from, but I suppose that in my view those original characters *had* their adventures. TUC, for me, was an appropriate goodbye, not only because we’d had so many visits with those characters, but because the actors had aged to the point that it was difficult to believe A)they’d still be serving on the same ship or B)they’d still be out on the frontier, swinging from left to right with every torpedo hit.

Yes, there were gaps that could be filled in as is evidenced by the general premise of this film, but any gaps would have to fall in line with what’s been established in ‘canon’ (or fanon, in some cases).

Hey, I’ve got this great idea for a story where Kirk meets B, and they have this adventure together on planet Q where they meet J.

Oh, you can’t do that. Kirk shouldn’t meet B for another 5 years, and no one has seen planet Q until 3 years later. And Kirk would never act that way around J, because he made an offhand remark in episode 22 about her never seeing him misbehave.

This is obviously a very generalized example, but I think it illustrates the point. Even now, you have people saying ‘Kirk wouldn’t do that!’ or ‘Kirk would never say that!’. So how do you get around that, as a writer, without making a direct contradiction (as many other Trek writers have done in the past)? You present those same characters, but you change the circumstances. You say ‘this is the same Kirk, but slightly different’. You free yourself up to say ‘maybe Kirk isn’t safe now. Maybe Scotty could be in real jeapordy’, etc. The same people at the core, but circumstances have changed.

I personally find that very interesting and am excited to see how they’re the same, and how they’re different. But I also understand why that’s unappealing for you.

556. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 9, 2009

#551 … Difficult question to answer. As much of a cliche as it is to say it, the older films and this one really are apples & oranges. This one is different from all the others, not just because of the fresh faces and huge budget, but also tonally. It is VERY fast paced. Not Transformers fast paced, but close. So much information is thrown at you so fast, that I fear non-fans are going to miss out on a lot. I can just hear them now, ‘Wait a minute, why were there two Spocks again? What did the bad guy want?’ In a film like Khan, by contrast, anyone could jump in and easily follow along.

And the old films (not counting TNG stuff) are so dear to my heart, each one having been watched probably 100 times, it’s just hard to compare.

557. sean - April 9, 2009

#553

I suspect the same thing will bother me. I don’t like the idea of immediate promotion, but in the grand scheme of things it may not be that important.

558. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 9, 2009

#553 “I have a feeling that there will be some things I do not like about the film”

#557 “I don’t like the idea of immediate promotion”

Yeah, consider me bothered by that. There’s also a pretty edgy Vulcan and a few jokes that would be right at home in Closet’s favorite Trek movie (the one released exactly 20 years ago). :-)

But really, I don’t want to dampen anyone’s enthusiasm. As I said, I am looking forward to seeing it again. It’s fun, and there are some elements of it that are very well done.

559. Alex Rosenzweig - April 9, 2009

#550 – “#547—”And Vulcan is a core part of the Star Trek setting…”

Really?”

I’d say so. But, of course, I’m looking beyond just film, and looking beyond just number of times visualized. I’m looking at the role Vulcan has been described as playing in galactic affairs over a variety of media, and over an extended period of time (in-universe, of course). And in the aggregate, it is absolutely part of the core of Star Trek.

“To me, the “core” of the Star Trek setting is made up of the various ships (or space station, in the case of DS9) upon which the principle characters serve, and of course (and perhaps more simply)—”the final frontier”.”

Well, I’d agree about “the final frontier”, but my view of the setting isn’t remotely limited to 5 ships and a space station. (That’s undoubtedly influenced by the fact that I’ve been doing my own storytelling in the Trekverse for a couple of decades, focused on a different ship than any of the 5, and my current favorite Trek series is set on a space station that’s not the one we saw on-screen, but either way, my view of Trek is decidedly big-picture.) But considering that this film isn’t even consistent about the Enterprise, it hardly makes a difference. Retaining consistency of setting was not a significant part of the thought process; they deliberately created a circumstance to avoid having to do so.

“In terms of significance, you may choose to equate whatever you wish with Spock (who has himself appeared 86 times)—-but I cannot accept that comparison as being even close.”

What you accept or not isn’t really my business. :) It’s close for *me*, and it absolutely colors how I look at this film.

“In fairness, I have to agree that I think—at least on the surface—destroying Vulcan in the first installment of Trek adventures in this timeline seems to be a questionable decision. But I have to believe its destruction must serve some purpose to the story, rather than being of mere gratuitous shock value. I cannot say that I am in any sort of position to fairly evaluate it at all.”

I’m assuming that the destruction of Vulcan isn’t gratuitous, as well. I don’t think we’ll know for sure about the execution of the idea ’til we see the film. Who knows? Maybe it’ll even change my mind, though the odds of that are exceedingly low.

“It doesn’t seem to have ruined the story for anyone who has seen it yet. In fact, it really hasn’t been dwelled upon thusfar in any reviews—by fans or non-fans who have already experienced it.”

As may be. They may not share my view of the relative importance of the macro-setting.

FWIW, what I’ve seen so far of the performances impresses the heck out of me. I think the cast are awesome. In a way, that makes me even more sad that the broad conceits of the film’s story and overall direction sit so poorly with me. I think there’ll be parts of this film that I’ll really enjoy, and parts that I will absolutely despise. And I’ll likely always be torn by that.

560. Jay - April 9, 2009

BAA!!! BAA!!! BAA!!! BAA!!!

561. sean - April 9, 2009

#558

Hmm…JJ would have to try awfully hard to match the ‘humor’ in THAT movie ;)
I’ll have to wait and see I suppose. The idea of an edgy Spock doesn’t bother me, we’ve seen him rather edgy before and this is his youth so he’d likely not be balanced out. THE WOMEN!

562. Dude - April 10, 2009

Without Vulcan, Earth will be destroyed in Star Trek 4. Because Kirk will not be able to take refuge on Vulcan, and then the Whale Probe will succeed in destroying Earth.

563. Dude - April 10, 2009

Without Vulcan, the galaxy will be destroyed by that Hobus star from the comics. Bob Orci, are you with me? Red Matter, only to be produced by Vulcans on Vulcan? Well, there it goes, that alternate reality.

564. Dude - April 10, 2009

What happens to “Amok Time” without Vulcan?

Where will Spock be attaining Kolinahr without Vulcan?
And will they succeed in stopping V’Ger without a Spock that seeks total logic?

565. Closettrekker - April 10, 2009

#562—“Without Vulcan, Earth will be destroyed in Star Trek 4. Because Kirk will not be able to take refuge on Vulcan, and then the Whale Probe will succeed in destroying Earth.”

Why would Kirk need to take refuge on Vulcan? Given the changes to the timeline, why assume that Spock is ever killed and the Enterprise is ever stolen (or the Genesis device is ever detonated, for that matter)?

#565–“Without Vulcan, the galaxy will be destroyed by that Hobus star from the comics. Bob Orci, are you with me? Red Matter, only to be produced by Vulcans on Vulcan? Well, there it goes, that alternate reality.”

It appears that decalithium is the key to that door, and I think you are *underestimating* Spock. If Spock Prime melds with his younger self, then he has over 12 decades to solve the problem, doesn’t he?

That Hobus star doesn’t stand a chance…

#564—“What happens to “Amok Time” without Vulcan?”

Obviously, certain elements of that story wouldn’t play out in the altered timeline, although Spock would *still* no doubt experience the Pon Farr at some point.

“Where will Spock be attaining Kolinahr without Vulcan?”

Spock never attains the Kolinahr.

“And will they succeed in stopping V’Ger without a Spock that seeks total logic?”

I think you missed the point. Seeking “total logic” was never the *right* path for Spock to begin with. Following the V’Ger incident, he begins to be more comfortable with his human half—and everything that goes with it.

566. Dude - April 10, 2009

If Kirk doesn’t steal the Enterprise, he stays as an Admiral on Earth. Which means when the Whale Probe comes, he will not be able to save Earth. Or he is somewhere else, on another 5 year mission perhaps, far far away from Earth, which means he will also not be able to save Earth.

>>I think you missed the point. Seeking “total logic” was never the *right* path for Spock to begin with. Following the V’Ger incident, he begins to be more comfortable with his human half—and everything that goes with it.<<

Nono, closettrekker, that IS the point. The only one who could understand V’Ger was Spock, BECAUSE he was seeking Total Logic at that point. Spock’s character development was the key to solving the problem.

Of course yeah, now they have old Spock helping them. He only needs to say: “That’s Voyager 6.” or “Yeah you need whales.”, and when they encounter Khan he could say “Yeah just lock him up in a Starfleet prison.”

Nonsense, that alternate universe. We already know what happens, because there are major events that are still happening.

Orci & Co locked themselves up in the ‘canon’ even worse now.

567. Dude - April 10, 2009

They should have either rebooted completely, like Batman Begins, or made a proper sequel or a proper prequel. But no mirror universe shyte.

568. Closettrekker - April 10, 2009

#566—“If Kirk doesn’t steal the Enterprise, he stays as an Admiral on Earth.”

That’s assuming he ever accepts promotion. Given the fact that his path to Starfleet has been altered, there is no reason to assume that his career will not be as well.

“…when the Whale Probe comes, he will not be able to save Earth. ”

That’s unlikely, especially since Spock already has the necessary information. The same goes for the V’Ger incident.

“The only one who could understand V’Ger was Spock, BECAUSE he was seeking Total Logic at that point. Spock’s character development was the key to solving the problem.”

Again, Spock already knows what V’Ger is all about.

” We already know what happens, because there are major events that are still happening.”

But who says that those events ever actually have to be *depicted* again onscreen? They can simply be “referenced”, and the story can move along in another direction.

“Orci & Co locked themselves up in the ‘canon’ even worse now.”

Why?

While some major events common to both timelines will still occur, it is also reasonable to assume that the changes to this timeline will cause *new* events, and even some common events may this time unfold differently.

For example, who knows how the destruction of Vulcan will affect the rest of the Federation, the physical presence of people and starships when key events take place, etc., etc.?

569. Closettrekker - April 10, 2009

#567—That’s your opinion. I like the tie-in within the Star Trek Universe.

I like the fact that everything we’ve seen thusfar (ENT-NEM) is what leads the story to this point.

No matter what direction they took, it wasn’t going to please everyone.

If they have completely ignored what came before (like “Batman Begins” did), I would have been displeased. They didn’t, and so someone else is displeased.

If they had continued in the timeline with a TNG-era sequel, I wouldn’t care about it—just like I haven’t for any of those movies.

If they had done a SW-like prequel, it would have been hampered by the same problems as the ones Lucas did—-we’d already know the fates of everyone involved!

There was no way to please everyone.

But I think that re-introducing the characters in an environment that presents *new* challenges to them is an intriguing prospect. There are things I don’t like about the creative direction of this movie—but the use of the quite canonical “altered timeline” isn’t one of them.

570. Dantela - April 10, 2009

Reboot? Hmmm after all the talk of keeping to the established canon – after all the talk of not ignoring the last 40 years they actually did decide to forget it. I know I will love the film (I even saw things to like about Star Trek 5) by why in the name of the maker did they try to “reboot” the series – effectively saying oh, you know all the episodes and movies you love – well they never happened. I understand that they are trying to extend the fan base but there must have been a way to do this and keep what has all ready happened true. Many have suggested that this worked for Bond, well yes and no. Bond was really rebooted every time a new actor put on the tux. Each was really a different Bond. Some have said this worked for Batman, again yes and no. It is now assumed that every few years comics will reboot. Batman changed from his inception to something campy in the 60s, to dark in the 70s, to even darker in the 80s. The movies seemed to follow this pattern too.
What they are doing with Trek in different. I will leave my final opinion to all of this after I see the movie but I hope that it fits in with what has already been established otherwise if other movies are made you might as forget the last 40 years – they never happened.

571. Alex Rosenzweig - April 10, 2009

#565 – “It appears that decalithium is the key to that door, and I think you are *underestimating* Spock. If Spock Prime melds with his younger self, then he has over 12 decades to solve the problem, doesn’t he?”

Ahh, but if you’re going to go down that road, then why might Spock Prime also share some of his understanding of time travel with his younger self, so as to potentially prevent the destruction of their homeworld? I just can’t see Spock–older or younger–just letting that go, if he had the power to do something about it, and Prime Spock knows quite a lot about how to do something about it.

‘Course, that could be part of the story for ST 2011… [g,d, rlh]

572. Mr. Spork - April 11, 2009

Awesome work, Shane! You go man!

573. Edualc - April 14, 2009

Remember in “I, Mudd” when Spock looked at one female android and said, “I love you…” and looked at an identical female android and said “But, I hate you.”

Yeah. That’s how it is now.

574. Star Trek - Pagina 2 - 9lives - April 23, 2009

[...] en verschijnt Spock/Nimoy met de melding of je niet liever de nieuwste film wilt zien. EPIC. Austin, TX Fans Get Surprise Showing of Star Trek Movie [UPDATE 2: First Reviews In] | TrekMovie.com __________________ QR [...]

575. Movies, Process, and Brands « - July 6, 2009

[...] –           Audience members are live-tweeting at preview screenings, getting WOM going for movies like Star Trek. [...]

576. Star Trek advance screening Austin Texas - July 7, 2009

[...] to be thinking on its feet again from a marketing standpoint, as this coup has erupted all the Trek Blogs and fan sites across the quadrant, adding fuel to the already highly anticipated general release [...]

577. Bodly…final…seek out…etc | Savage Critics - March 9, 2010

[...] not as interesting as what happened in Austin, [...]

578. samanta - August 30, 2010

d4NiDD http://djb3jDdmjckow30cnjcmd61l0dy.com

579. Carey Gunnarson - October 31, 2010

I’d come to give the go-ahead with you here. Which is not something I typically do! I enjoy reading a post that will make people think. Also, thanks for allowing me to comment!

580. Anastasia Paynes - April 21, 2011

Have you ever considered writing an ebook or guest authoring on other websites? I have a blog centered on the same information you discuss and would really like to have you share some stories/information. I know my subscribers would value your work. If you’re even remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an e mail.

581. Kerrie Tossie - September 13, 2011

I like blogs like this one short and straight to the point without any unnecessary filler Please continue this way

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.