TrekMovie.com Review of JJ Abrams’ ‘Star Trek’ | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

TrekMovie.com Review of JJ Abrams’ ‘Star Trek’ April 12, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Review,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Although TrekMovie has grown to be the most popular general Trek news site and we now cover all aspects of the franchise, it was born in 2006 in the wake of the Paramount announcement of bringing Star Trek back to the big screen. JJ Abrams’ Star Trek movie represents what could be a make or break moment for the franchise, at a time when it has seen better days. So it was with much excitement and trepidation that I sat down to finally see the film a couple of days ago. My full review is below. [Review is almost entirely SPOILER FREE]

 

NOTE: This review does not give away any major plot details, but if you want to remain 100% spoiler free (if you still don’t know the background of the villain for example), then you should not read it and  just skip to the ‘bottom line’ at the bottom of the article.  

 

My experience of seeing the new Star Trek film was different than those at the various events over the last few days. No star-studded red carpets and no theater packed with fanboys being surprised by Leonard Nimoy. For this viewing it was just me in the Sherry Lansing Theater on the Paramount lot. This created a much more serious feeling atmosphere, but perhaps that is best as this was a serious event. This would be the first viewing of something I have been writing about for over two years and a critical component in the franchise to which I have devoted this site.

Before getting into the film itself it is appropriate to discuss some context (and personal perspective). It was only a few years ago that the Star Trek franchise was on life-support and things were not looking good for the future. The last two films were disappointments, with the 2002 outing of Nemesis being the first actual bomb of the ten film series going back to 1979. The last two TV series (Voyager and Enterprise) were mixed bags, with neither show truly living up to its full potential, culminating in the cancellation of the latter show in 2005. On top of that, licensees were dropping out and things were bleak. So I was as shocked as everyone else when in 2006 it was announced that Paramount was going with the full tent pole treatment for Trek and they were assigning it to their new A Team of JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Bryan Burk, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. It was a bold and risky move and I hoped that the change in team would give Trek a much needed kick in the pants, while still keeping true to the spirit of the 40+ year saga that I loved so much.

And after seeing the finished product, in short, that is exactly what they have done. Star Trek is amazing.


Nimoy was right when he said these guys knew their Trek

A new Trek future – which honors Trek past
The plot of Star Trek follows the origin story format, with the focus here being on the path Kirk and Spock take to get to the bridge of the USS Enterprise. For Trek fans, this part of the film will probably feel like it went by too quickly, but we do get to see some key moments… [MINOR SPOILERS] with Kirk’s solution to the Kobayashi Maru and a very young Spock dealing with bullies at school being highlights. [END SPOILERS] The rest of the plot focuses on the Romulan villain Nero and the threat he presents to the Federation and to some characters in particular. Nero and his thirst for vengeance combined with his powerful ship create ‘save the world’ stakes that is at the heart of all the best Star Trek films.

This new Star Trek movie certainly looks like none you have seen before. It has a very modern sensibility. Director JJ Abrams frenetic style combined with almost non-stop action, make this film into what is certainly the best ‘summer popcorn’ movie of the Trek franchise. He has also delivered big time on his promise to make this film ‘feel realer’ than any Trek before it, manifesting in a wide array of real locations, modern dialog and more (some of which may be a bit ‘too real’). Star Trek is also the most ‘epic’ feeling Trek film ever (including Star Trek The Motion Picture). Abrams has certainly evolved as a director since his first feature film, Mission Impossible III. While MI3 felt a bit trapped in a TV sensibility, he has has now opened up his palette to take advantage of what you can do with film (and a huge budget). Star Trek is a bit over two-hours long, but it goes by in a flash. The camera is constantly in motion (complete with frequent lens flares), the editing is rapid-fire, and the script hardly ever leaves you with a moment to catch your breath. Star Trek is a quintessential ‘thrill ride’ event movie, that should certainly appeal to that elusive wider audience that have avoided many Trek films in the past.

The big question for us fans is, even with all that feels different, is this film still a ‘Star Trek’ film? Or it just a good summer action movie called "Star Trek." One thing is for certain, this film does not ‘fit’ right between the TOS pilots "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before". However the filmmakers have been clear since the beginning that this Star Trek is not a traditional prequel and so that standard does not really apply.  [MINOR SPOILER] And being that this film involves time-travel, there is a very traditional Star Trek-ian reasoning behind the apparent changes in look and character/universe continuity (which is openly discussed by the characters in the film). [END SPOILER]

In my new interview with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (in the May issue of Geek Monthly Magazine) I asked the pair what they saw as the fundamental elements of a Star Trek movie. They agreed for something to be Star Trek it firstly must have hope and optimism, and secondly, it must have a bridge crew with a sense of family with a ship as their home. Without a doubt, those two goals have been met with this Star Trek. Even though we live in the post-9/11 world, where genre TV and films and ‘dark’ have almost become synonymous, this new Star Trek exudes the kind of optimistic themes that would make Gene Roddenberry proud. From the literally ‘bright and shiny’ bridge of the new USS Enterprise, to Pike lecturing Kirk about the importance of the peacekeeping and humanitarian mission of Starfleet, to the multi-cultural (and multi-world) Federation working together – you get a vision that there is much hope in our future (and this is clearly our future, and not some galaxy, far, far, away). As for the sense of family, the relationships on display here hearken back to some of the best character moments of The Original Series, TNG and the rest of the Trek franchise. As this is an origin story, this sense of family is something that you can see evolve throughout the film, especially with the relationship between Kirk and Spock, including what could be seen as some serious sibling rivalry growing pains.


Spock and Kirk go through a lot to get to this point

Beyond thematics, there is still much here for the Star Trek continuity lover to enjoy. There are nods to past Trek both subtle (like look closely or you might miss the Tribble), to the profound, such as moments between Amanda and Spock on Vulcan discussing Kolinahr. The film also fills in many blanks, in some cases borrowing from non-canon sources (like with Uhura’s first name), and in other cases they come up with new bits of back-story (as in the origin of McCoy’s nickname ‘Bones’). In fact there are so many fun little elements in this film that at one point I realized I was focusing too closely on the details and would start missing what was going on in the movie. It is recommended that you see this film a couple of times, and make your second pass the one to focus on the continuity nuggets, new bits of canon (and of course, note the stuff for future nitpicking).

There are a few things that will be noticeably different to Trek fans. For example stardates are handled differently, with the new convention being more like modern dates to make them easier to understand for a general audience. It is certain that these kinds of details will be the source of many fan debates for years to come. However, if you think of how far a ‘true reboot’ of the franchise could stray, there is much less of this kind of thing then may have been done in less caring hands.

There are also a few contrivances in the film that may be hard for some fans to buy. The biggest thing will be the series of coincidence meetings and extremely rapid promotions to get this crew to go from junior officers and cadets to the bridge crew of Starfleet’s flagship. It is obvious that the Abrams team didn’t want to take three movies to get there (like the Star Wars prequels did to take Anakin from kid to Vader). The upside is that they get their crew into their chairs and ready to go for the sequel, but you may have to let a few eyrolling ‘that was convenient’ moments pass to get there. [MINOR SPOILER] There is also some playing fast and loose with the location of the planet Delta Vega relative to planet Vulcan that is certain to be controversial with fans. Again this was done to both create a nod to continuity as well as serve a dramatic moment in the plot. However, I look forward to debating with Bob Orci whether it meets his standards for scientific accuracy, something Trek fans do value. [END MINOR SPOILER]


Where exactly is this planet?

It’s all about character
For me, I have always felt the most important things to make a Trek film are the characters, both how they are written and portrayed by the actors. I really don’t get worked up over the size of the nacelles, but if they turned Kirk into Han Solo I would be calling for the torches and the pitchforks. The good news is that on this front, the new Star Trek movie delivers. Interspersed with the cool space battles, Corvette driving and sword fights, are a series of impactful character moments that prove that Orci and Kurtzman understand and love this crew as much as we all do.

First off, the three most important characters remain Kirk, Spock and McCoy. In JJ Abrams’ Star Trek, James T. Kirk is going through a long arc and certainly does not start out as the Captain Kirk that we know. His confidence starts off as cockiness, to the extreme, but as the film progresses you see that Kirk grow into his destiny. This transformation is not easy to pull of, but Chris Pine performs it perfectly. So too does Karl Urban brilliantly inhabit Doctor McCoy. Although Urban comes closest to doing an impersonation to the original actor, it never seems like mimicry. Both Bones’ friendship with Kirk and head-butting with Spock are classic elements that feel just right. As for Zachary Quinto’s Spock, we also get a layered performance and an arc for the character. The irony here is that he starts off feeling more Vulcan and serene, but due to the events of the film, his emotional control is put to the test. Quinto nails the Vulcan side of Spock, right down to the mannerisms. However, at times when he is struggling with the emotional control, it is less effective, with perhaps too much of his Heroes Sylar character coming through. As for the performance of Leonard Nimoy, I am not worthy to judge it, but just you try and not get welled-up when you see his Spock in what are a few very key character moments, which ring true for where we see him on his arc, so many years after "Unification."

The rest of the cast fit well into their roles, and in this film each one of them gets at least one ‘moment’ that befits their character. Sulu (John Cho) gets to show off his sword-fighting chops, Uhura (Zoe Saldana) her linguistic expertise, Scotty (Simon Pegg) who is here mostly for comic-relief, still gets to take it one step beyond ‘giving it all she’s got’ in engineering and Chekov (Anton Yelchin) actually saves the day a couple times. All the actors put in good performances, with the standout for me being Zoe Saldana who shows off how Uhura is both strong and capable, as well as romantic and compassionate (with a rather surprising love interest). In this viewing Yelchin’s choice to go heavy on the ‘wery Russian’ accent was not as annoying as it was when I saw a preview last Fall, but it still was too much. However, the young actor was quite effective in this new role as a bit of an overly-enthusiastic boy genius.


The new crew works

The supporting cast is also to be commended, and in many cases you wish this film wasn’t trying to pack so much into two hours and you can learn more about them and see more of the performances. I just couldn’t get enough of the all-to-brief scenes of Spock’s upbringing, with Ben Cross as Sarek, Winona Ryder as Amanda and the excellent Jacob Kogan as young Spock. Bruce Greenwood’s Pike brings a whole new depth to the character seen in only one episode of The Original Series, and Pike should go down now as a worthy captain in Trek movie history (not named Kirk or Picard), and Faran Tahir’s all-to-brief time seen as Capt Robau goes on that list as well. Another standout was Chris Hemsworth as ‘Captain of the USS Kelvin for twelve minutes’ George Kirk who isn’t in the film for long, but will not be easily forgotten. There were also a few performances that didn’t work for me, notably the cameo of Tyler Perry had the actor/writer/producer very obviously not in his own element and feeling out of place as the head of Starfleet Academy. And veteran genre actor William Morgan Sheppard was disappointingly not very believable as the head of the Vulcan Science Council, as he played the role exactly as he played the Klingon Commandant in Star Trek VI.

One of the more interesting performances and characters in the film is the Romulan villain Nero. Alex Kurtzman once stated that their goal for Nero was to create a memorable bad guy like Khan. But Nero is nothing like Khan, nor Chang, nor Darth Vader, nor any other well-known bad guys. It is hard to know if he will be as memorable, because Nero is really the opposite all of those over-the-top antagonists. There is no larger-than-life Shakespearean proclamations from this Romulan, who is just a miner that through some back-story turns out to be really really angry and on a path of vengeance. But the way he is portrayed by Eric Bana is surprising and very interesting. For example when Nero calls over to the USS Enterprise shortly after a brutal attack, instead of the usual bombast he just says ‘Helloooo’ as if he popped by for a chat and to borrow some sugar, that is kind of refreshing. As for the rest of the Romulan crew, there really isn’t much to report. Ayel played by Clifton Collins isn’t given enough to do to really get any read, and there are a few others who bark out a few reports or get into fights, but in the end they will just be remembered as various minions of Nero.

What is perhaps lacking in this film is a full understanding of Nero and his motivation beyond revenge. There are a couple of exposition moments, but definitely not long enough for Trek fans who want to be ‘fully briefed.’ Although this will not take away from enjoying the film, especially for a general audience, Trek fans are likely to feel wanting for more details. It is for this reason that I highly recommend Trek fans read the "Star Trek Countdown" comic series (which is based on a story written by the Star Trek movie screenwriters).  This is especially important if you want to fully understand how this new Star Trek film ties into all the past Trek continuity.

 
Countdown should be required reading for Trek fans 

The new look and feel
Two areas with the clearest differences from past Trek are the production design and effects. There is a lot to take in here as everything about this film is new. I am actually a fan (mostly) of look of the new USS Enterprise, but it certainly is something that works better when seen in motion, both inside and out. And with the help of ILM, this new Enterprise really gets around. It doesn’t maneuver like a Star Wars fighter, but the ‘space lake’ 2-D sensibility of past Trek films is gone. When we are in space, ILM have surpassed all their previous work on Trek (and even that of their work on the Star Wars prequels). On the interiors, the bridge is also something that really works when you see (and hear) it in action.  This bridge is the hub of activity that a starship should be, with the constantly moving graphics and outstanding array of sounds, both new and familiar to fans (thanks to Academy award-winner Ben Burtt). And the same is true for the bridge of the earlier era USS Kelvin, but with a much more TOS sensibility. The big letdown for the Enterprise (and the USS Kelvin) are the ‘bowels’ of the ships. The theory of making these seem more functional is sound, however the execution of using barely redressed industrial locations just didn’t work. It is one thing for these parts of the ship to seem ‘real’ and another for them to be ‘recognizable.’ It just doesn’t seem believable for a 23rd century warp-capable starship to have an engineering room full of 20th century valves, pipes and light fixtures.

However, when you go inside Nero’s Narada, you will find what is probably the most unique Star Trek alien ship ever. Without obviously resorting to CGI, the Romulan ship is made out to be gigantic and confusing (in a good way) and downright creepy. The ‘alien-ness’ of it is made even better with a whole different kind of sound and the use of unique technologies within the ship, some quite contradictory. The Romulans have very cool 3D displays that can be literally thrown around the room, but yet for some reason parts of the ship appear flooded with water. Beyond the ships, Scott Chambliss and his team do an excellent job redressing other real world locations to make them believable 23rd century locales, notably the Vulcan Science Council and an Assembly in Starfleet Academy.


The Narada sets are creepy and truly alien

Many other aspects of the production are noteworthy for raising the bar for Trek production. The make-up is best in class. There are not a lot of aliens in the film, but the few who are there are done with a very clever combination of real world make-up and CGI. It is just unfortunate that almost all of these aliens are just for show and in the background, with very little dialog coming from aliens who aren’t Vulcan, Orion or Romulan. The variety of costumes is also a delight, with the TOS era bridge designs being a big favorite. But Michael Kaplan did a fantastic job on the Romulans with their varied ‘space pirate’ outfits, the TOS & TMP inspired Vulcan costumes and even the slightly future-ized real-world folks in an Iowa bar. The most disappointing uniforms for me were those of the USS Kelvin. It isn’t that they were not well designed, it was that they strangely seemed more of an homage to Next Generation designs, instead of those from "The Cage" or "Where No Man Has Gone Before" which would have been more appropriate. Also the Kelvin crew are equipped with what seem to be perfect examples of TOS era communicators and phasers. The communicator flips open and makes the same sound as TOS, but again you wonder why not match "The Cage" if you are going to go out of the way to make a link to Trek history.

The last bit of the production to discuss is the score. Michael Giacchino’s music may be the most different thing about this new Star Trek film when compared to the scores from Horner or Goldsmith, although fans of his soundtracks from Lost, The Incredibles, Ratatouille will certainly recognize his signature stylings. His main theme is beautiful and uplifting and woven throughout the film. Also his almost tribal percussive themes for the Romulan sections of the film add to their menace and creepiness. And there is also a long portion in the opening sequence for the movie where Abrams essentially hands the storytelling over to Giacchino and the score, which is very emotional and unforgettable. Overall I like the score, but as a fanboy I was really hoping that Giacchino would have incorporated more stings from some of the great moments of The Original Series or the TOS era movies. He had done this with his past scores, like for Speed Racer and Mission: Impossible: III, but it seems here that he (and Abrams) wanted this score to have its own voice.


This music from the official site is an edit of "Hella Bar Talk" from the Giacchino Score for ‘Star Trek’

A new era has begun
In the end I believe that JJ Abrams and his team have done what they set out to do, which is the seemingly impossible task of creating a ‘realer’, more accessible and more action-oriented Star Trek for a new generation — while at the same time honoring the Star Trek that has come before it. This film is not ‘your father’s Star Trek‘ and it will certainly be difficult for some Trek fans to accept all of the change this film represents, but in my mind it still is Star Trek. This Star Trek is a fun (and often funny) entertaining film with a lot of emotional impact, especially for a Trek fan. This is certainly a film that every Trek fan should want to see in theaters at least once (I know that I very much look forward to multiple viewings, especially IMAX). Even if you are the most hardened canonista, it would be worth it just to see what a $150 Million Star Trek film looks like (and how else will you know what to nitpick later?)

I for one loved it, Star Trek made me feel like a kid again. Is it the best Star Trek film ever? Possibly. In some aspects, there can be no doubt. The scale, the effects, the sound, and much more are at a level never before seen in Star Trek and on par with the best films of the day. Every Star Trek film gets compared to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, which is my favorite as it is with many other fans. It will take a few more viewings to make the final call, but for me, it is certainly in that top tier of great Star Trek films.

It is truly 1982 again. We have a new team, with a new sensibility, who have come in and shook things up. And like with The Wrath of Khan, they have set up a platform to create additional films for years to come. JJ Abrams’ Star Trek is a very worthy addition to the Star Trek family, just when it needed one, and I eagerly look forward to what comes next.


Mr. Abrams, take us out

NOTE: A FULL-ON SPOILERY version of this review will be published closer to the film’s release 

Comments

1. Pat - April 12, 2009

This is gonna be Mint!

2. FEDCONMC - April 12, 2009

I get to scream in front of 5000 fans from 30 countries at the best TREK con in the world: FEDCON!!! I have some serious speeches planned and this movie will help with the re issuance of the STAR TREK franchise amongst fans who never abandoned it!!!! Wish you could be there Anthony.

IT WILL BE GLORIOUS!!!!

3. Son of Sarek - April 12, 2009

Very comprehensive and honest review. Thank you for this review and for conceiving of this site dedicated to tracking this film from zygote stage, to premiere day, and beyond!

4. KennyB - April 12, 2009

Almost there…………………….

5. ManBearPig - April 12, 2009

…can’t wait for this next voyage. Thanks for the great review and thanks for all the work on the site over the past few years!

6. Noga - April 12, 2009

OMG I CANT WAIT!!

7. RedShark - April 12, 2009

Thanks! I can’t wait till May 8th!

8. Stanky McFibberich - April 12, 2009

I would expect a more glowing review from the head honcho of the website that has glorified all things Abrams for the past couple years. So I will give Mr. Pascale credit for trying to be fair and somewhat objective in his analysis.

As for the movie, I will pass. It will still make buckets of money and they will make more like it in the same style.

Oh well, at least we have a faithful adaptation of “Land of the Lost” to look forward to.

9. Matt K - April 12, 2009

Thank you, Anthony. That was a very well written review. I am very much looking forward to introducing my non-Trekkie friends to this movie.

10. wash - April 12, 2009

NOOOOOOO! Stardates are different. TREK IS RUINED!

Thanks for the review.

11. Father Robert Lyons - April 12, 2009

Thanks for the review, Anthony… Ugh! I wish it was time to hit the theater!

12. jotin - April 12, 2009

Interesting indeed. Only thing I’m upset with is the interior of the ship with its pipes and valves.

13. Geodesic - April 12, 2009

The music here sounds a bit like the opening to Nemesis. The drum part could be a Romulan theme or something.

14. sean - April 12, 2009

Very nice review, Anthony! And thanks for making it spoiler free!

15. Aucka Lukaum - April 12, 2009

Can’t wait for the fanboys to begin debating how much you were paid to like it :)

16. sean - April 12, 2009

#8

So Stanky, I’m curious – will you be sticking around the site, despite making it very clear you won’t even watch the movie? I guess I’m wondering what you might get out of it, at this point.

I’m not looking for you to leave, by the way. Not at all. Just curious.

17. Me - April 12, 2009

I’ve been a trek fan for forty years. And it wasn’t until this movie was being made that I found out how many trek fans are frakking idiots.

Get a life indeed. That famous SNL skit has never been more spot on.

18. Valenti - April 12, 2009

Great! Can’t wait for the film.

19. Megg - April 12, 2009

That was a fun read! Thanks for putting so much time into this. I hope you had a nice birthday party.

:D

20. Riptr - April 12, 2009

Good review. Now we only have to wait 24 days in order to see what this new Star Trek film has brought to the table.

21. Sotirios Moshonas - April 12, 2009

For Mr. Pascale:

Sir, I am honoured and in debt to you for creating and bringing your website to life. You have accomplished your big feat.

I see this as if you were Mr. Gene Roddenberry creating your first episode of the unknown space series – Star Trek – .

Sir, this is your “wagon to the stars”.

You put a lot of effort and hard work into it. This is the only website where all star trek fans (and other sci-fi fans i.e.: Doctor Who) come together and chat about almost anything related to science fiction to science fact.
(Friday Science, now known as Saturday Science, rocks!!!!)

Yes, we do get some bad apples on the chat room from time to time but
that is part of life. There are also fan-creations that made to this wonderful website to show of their skills and use their imagination to create a canon or non-canon episodes of their favourite tv or movie series.

I rarely see any discussion on Captain Scarlet, Thunderbirds, Joe 90, UFO or any other popular series from the past.

Mr. Pascale, my hats to you. You deserve a major credit and respect from all of us sci-fi fans around the world.

Long Live and Happiness, Sir.

Take Care.

Sam

P.S., as for Star Trek 11, I might as well leave it alone. This is not the star trek I know.

22. MatthewNotMatt - April 12, 2009

Great review!

Absolutely perfect, lots of info on the film, lots of questions on if the gamble of the re-boot would pay off, AND all answered without spoiling the plot!

Thank you for a truly professional review!

23. Jimmy - April 12, 2009

Let me get this out there from the beginning: I am not trolling nor am I trying to start any sort of arguments about “Trek-purists”, etc. So please don’t misconstrue my comments… (I’m not very optimistic about this movie, but I’m just as anxious to see it as the next person).

But, was anyone else reading this getting the idea that there isn’t exactly a 50-50 mix of stuff for Trek fans and newcomers in this movie? It seems to me (I could be wrong, I haven’t seen the movie) that they were going out of their way to change things to make it more accessible to the general audience? Things that could just as easily have stayed in and the film would’ve remained even more Trek-like?

24. Maximus - April 12, 2009

One of my few concerns about this film is that it won’t have one of the most important components that make Star Trek what it is : an allegory tale. Star Trek was (generally) at its best when it was telling a story that made people think about something happening in the present (social injustice, intolerance, etc.) so I hope there is something of that nature in the film, though I suspect the most we’ll see of that is the multi-cultural crew (mostly Kirk and Spock though) learning to get along and work with each other toward a common goal.

25. Harry Ballz - April 12, 2009

Here’s the problem……after most of us coming to this site for the last couple of years, I guess no film could meet our expectations of it! All the reviews we’re reading say it’s a good movie with some great moments.

Some of us were hoping for, say, something along the lines of the following:

Remember when Raiders Of The Lost Ark first came out and some of us went to see it without any warning of how good it was? Leaving the theatre we were practically skipping along the sidewalk and screaming, “THAT WAS FAN-FRIGGIN-TASTIC!!!” We were all blown away by the experience.

I guess I was hoping for that kind of a film in the relaunch of our beloved Trek franchise…..oh, well.

26. George - April 12, 2009

Thank you for your review of the film. It makes me want to see it more now than I did a few minutes ago. I look forward to the changes and fresh start. As you said it holds true to Robbenberry vision and in the end all the changes to the sets and look of the film are not as important as to keeping Gene’s vision of a hopeful future alive.

27. KevinA Melbourne Australia - April 12, 2009

IMAX ALERT FOR AUSSIES!

IMAX Melbourne and Sydney have now confirmed a season of STAR TREK: THE IMAX EXPERIENCE will commence on May 7. In Melbourne there is a special 5mins. past midnite showing of the Movie on May 7.

It would seem that many Aussies and contributors to TREKMOVIE.com emailed and called IMAX after my initial post here a few weeks ago. IMAX downunder were not originally showing the movie.

Good work everybody! They were swayed by the inundation of requests they got. (Oh…and I suppose they might have realised ST09’s potential after the Opera House World launch)

You can book online now!

28. ThePhaige - April 12, 2009

Well written review and so much appreciated, I’m refreshed its firing on most all cylinders. I just have to wait now…

29. CarlG - April 12, 2009

Thanks for the comprehensive, yet unspoiler-y, review.

I’m glad to hear that every character gets a moment; some Trek films turned into the Kirk and Spock (or Picard and Data) show and marginalized everyone else. Very happy that they avoided this.

The only thing I’m a bit worried about is Nero’s backstory. From your review, it sounds as if it’s left kind of vague unless you’ve read Countdown. And as good as Countdown was, you shouldn’t have to read a comic book to get the full story about your antagonist.

Maybe they’ll revamp Engineering in #2. Narada sounds creepily cool, though.

Can’t wait to see this film!

@8: Starring Will Ferrell? You may be more disappointed in that than in Trek. Go see Trek once, at least . Do you honestly think it will be as bad as the bete noir that you’ve built it up to be in your mind? And at the very worst, you’ll have plenty of ammo to roast it alive afterwards.

30. The Last Maquis - April 12, 2009

I think I’m gonna refer this and everything else they come up with from this point on having to do with Trek, “New Trek”
I just hope it isn’t like “New Coke” though.

31. Ciaran - April 12, 2009

Thank you for this! It’s nice to hear from someone within the fandom give such a comprehensive review.

Not gonna lie, though; I’m sort of worried about Quinto’s portrayal of Spock. I love ZQ, but I was unsure from the beginning whether or not he’d be able to nail the character with quite the same subtlety and complexity as Nimoy. Oh well. It sounds like it’s going to be a pretty decent movie, regardless!

32. Rick - April 12, 2009

Stardates are different? Like with comma’s and not periods?

You know, they never got to develop anything around the Enterprise story which had the device that could create stardates.

33. The Governator - April 12, 2009

Very good review, but interestingly done. It is very mathematical and to the point, addressing one issue after another that tend to bother Trekkies (some more than others). I imagine some will bicker and fight and whatever, but your honesty is welcome. I suppose, however, I was expecting a little more of “Wow” or “Holy Christ Crispies”, but I still get the feeling that you genuinely liked this film, which makes me happy to no end. As for your opinions on production design and what not, I will reserve my own judgement until i have seen the film, as I think I should. The water pipes seemed a little too out of place for me, and I get the feeling other sets are the same way, but we’ll see. Thank you for your review. It was a pleasure to read.

34. Blowback - April 12, 2009

Personally, I look forward to Stanky’s comments to help keep us all grounded… Can’t say I agree with him but he presents a clear and concise skepticism that is needed amid all the hoopla…

35. Nep - April 12, 2009

Sounds cool. I’m looking forward to it, and that was a good review, but there’s ONE thing I must take issues with:

“…standards for scientific accuracy, something Trek fans do value.”

Really? I disagree. Some Trek fans might think they value scientific accuracy, but c’mon… Star Trek is literally no more scientifically accurate than Lee & Kirby’s Fantastic Four. It’s pure fantasy wrapped up in technobabble so as to provide the illusory flavor of well-thought-out science fiction.

One Example Among Too Many To List: Aliens that look just like people but with pointy ears or lumpy foreheads. Totally, inarguably, 100% unbelievable. As scientifically inaccurate as you can be.

Scientific accuracy and plausibility have nothing to do with it.

What Star Trek fans value is immersing themselves in the minutiae and details of the Trek universe as presented to them. It’s the level of detail they’re interested in, not the quality of those details.

Star Trek is not, nor has ever been anything like “scientifically accurate”, which is totally fine with me. Let’s not kid ourselves, though.

36. Stanky McFibberich - April 12, 2009

re:16
I suppose continued curiosity will keep me around somewhat.
From the review above, I can see that, for me, I have been right about everything. Despite my misgivings, a part of me held out hope that maybe somehow it might turn out watchable. More than anything else about it, I cannot stomach the Abrams “style.”
To be kind, I will just let it go at that.

37. OneBuckFilms - April 12, 2009

Anthony, thank you so much for this.

And thanks for the site as well.

Two thumbs up !!!

38. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - April 12, 2009

Anthony

How big is the new E?????????????

THe big industrial pipe factory sets could not fit into the Old E secondary hull.

So is this New E much bigger or did they fudge the interior size of sets compared with the actual spaces to hold them???

I need ANSWERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

39. fwise3 - April 12, 2009

Just saw a new Star Trek commercial on SPIKE. I’ll try to upload it to youtube asap.

40. Darryl - April 12, 2009

*squirt*

41. Voltaire - April 12, 2009

36 – continued curiosity about what?

42. The Governator - April 12, 2009

25. Harry Ballz

Funny, cause all the reviews I have read said it was absolutely friggin’ fantastic. One person from AICN even invented new phrases of praise, such as “Holy Christ Crispies”, which I think I quoted above. In fact, I have never seen such high praise for a film put into words, and the rotten tomatoes tomatoemeter currently has Star Trek at a 100%. Granted there are few reviews to go by to get those results, but its a good place to start.

43. Stanky McFibberich - April 12, 2009

re:29. CarlG – April 12, 2009
“@8: Starring Will Ferrell? You may be more disappointed in that than in Trek.”

The Land of the Lost statement was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek. I have no plans to see that either.

44. Go Spock! - April 12, 2009

thanks for the review and everything – can’t wait for May 8! :)

45. Xai - April 12, 2009

25. Harry Ballz – April 12, 2009
Hey Harry,
“I guess I was hoping for that kind of a film in the relaunch of our beloved Trek franchise…..oh, well.”

Just remember this is one man’s opinion and you and I may have a different view.

46. Schultz - April 12, 2009

Very good review! Thank you! I quote: “They have set up a platform to create additional films for years to come”. I may not like certain things in the film, and I already don’t like some of the premises, but I’ll be eternally grateful for the creation of that platform. Star Trek is one of my homes and has surely influenced me more than I’m willing/able to admit. It must never die.

And Matt K (#9): Same here… I’m openly promoting this film to all those non-Trekkie friends of mine. The film is finished, and now it’s our turn to embrace it and keep Trek alive.

47. SWandTrekFan - April 12, 2009

Great review, but are all of the Star Wars stabs really necessary? I am a fan of both series and I can’t understand why the die hard Trek fans always have to compare everything to Star Wars. Just let both series live on their own, we should all be thankful that both series have continued on after all of these years.
I’m really looking forward to Star Trek and hope that it does bring Trek back to a better level then it has been in the last decade.

48. New Horizon - April 12, 2009

I find it rather humorous that even after all the positive ‘trekkie/trekker’ hands on reviews of the movie, there are still those who stubbornly refuse to even give it a chance.

I started out very doubtful that this type of thing could work, but the more I see and hear from fans who have seen it….fans who had gone out expecting to see Trek 2 nonetheless, the more I trust that this is a great Trek movie.

I can understand though, I used to be that way, but time, life, experience has taught me how to let go and let the things I love continue to grow…even if they end up growing away from me. Everything must take on a life of its own. I trust that if JJ’s team are as passionate about this film as they appear to be, that it will be something quite wonderful for us all. A positive film amidst a rather bleak landscape. Sounds like the 60’s again…maybe Trek will point the way for us once more?

49. Stanky McFibberich - April 12, 2009

re:41. Voltaire – April 12, 2009
“36 – continued curiosity about what?”

To see if the “ga-ga” crowd will still be going ga-ga in a month. I suspect a large numberr of them will since that’s their business…and some won’t.

And if there are any articles about the series from the sixties.

I really miss the days of Remastered features…Still haven’t seen the review of “The Cage.”

50. Aragorn189 - April 12, 2009

All reviews have been positive. I’m glad. Although I have read spoilers that have made it clear that there is no possible way to connect it to TOS, I still believe that this will be an awesome film. A reboot that acknowledges the 40 years of continuity definitely is a good thing. Everything that happend previous happened before and can sort of happen again in this new continuity. Either way, I cannot wait for this new film. Come on May 8th, my mind can’t take the strain of suspense.

51. NimoyDog - April 12, 2009

The one thing I’m wondering the most:

Do we get to hear Pine recite “Space, the Final Frontier….”???

52. Sean4000 - April 12, 2009

I am looking forward to these FX the most. From the first teaser trailer I knew we would have something special on our hands as far as FX go. May can’t come fast enough.

But come the hell on, how hard would it have been to make Cage phasers and a simple plastic Cage communicator? I mean Really? It’s the little things.

53. Driver - April 12, 2009

Sounds like it will have great replay ability. That is a hallmark of great Star Trek film.

54. Anthony Pascale - April 12, 2009

RE; SW v ST
for the record I love Star Wars, but ST is not SW. There was a lot of talk during the production of this film about how they were ‘turning trek in SW’ and i wanted to make it clear that they did not do that, but they did make it a exciting as star wars. By saying i don’t want Kirk to be Solo does not mean I don’t like Solo, i just don’t think they are the same.

RE: effusive
well i am not sure how much more effusive i can be. It is fantastic

55. sean - April 12, 2009

#36

Fair enough buddy, an answer was really all I was looking for. For me, if I don’t care for something, I just avoid it. I hated Indy 4 with a passion, and will never, ever watch it again, but I would also never visit a site devoted to Indy 4 because it might accidentally cause a flashback to the film! In fact, I think I’m having one now…Shia swinging on CGI vines with monkeys…the horror, the horror.

56. NotThatJJ - April 12, 2009

Anthony, you say the “editing is rapid-fire.” This worries me, as I feel the “shaky-cam” trend of editing has ruined many recent action films (Transformers, Quantum of Solace, etc.). I want to be able to see what is going on when I shell out ten dollars, not strain to piece it together from dozens of sixteenth-of-a-second shots of things whipping around, just out of sight. The sooner this trend ends and directors pull their cameras back and use shots that last longer than a fraction of a second, the happier I’ll be. Can you tell me please if Star Trek uses the dreaded “shaky-cam?”

57. Christine - April 12, 2009

Sweet! Very good review. It showed that the movie wasn’t perfect, but that it wasn’t completely God-awful either (well, definitely not. xD) I can’t wait to hit the theatres May 8th!

58. 750 Mang - April 12, 2009

Kind of luke warm. In short, they did what they meant to do, not this is the movie I’ve been waiting for.

I wonder how it will hold up after multiple viewings.

59. Rekkert - April 12, 2009

Great review, thank for everything Anthony!

I’m 15 years old and I’ve been a trekkie/trekker since I was born. However here in Argentina there are very few fans, and every friend of mine think I’m some sort of lifeless nerd, only because I like Star Trek (althrough some of them don’t even know what Star Trek is). Hopefuly after this movie some things will change…

60. Steven - April 12, 2009

Great review! I can’t wait to see it myself,

God bless!

61. Crusade2267 - April 12, 2009

Looking forward to it so very much!

62. New Horizon - April 12, 2009

Shaky cam and quit editing are different things. I can deal with quick edits, but Michael Bay style ‘tight and close’ shaky cam is blarrrgh.

63. jonboc - April 12, 2009

You’re not supposed to understand stardates. They are unfamiliar, that’s what’s makes them futuristic weird and alien and that’s the whole point. However, it’s sure not a dealbreaker. I couldn’t care less one way or the other, it’s just not really a needed change. And yes, I’ll still be in line day one…and I’m sure again on day two!

And yeah, sorry to hear they didn’t go the MI3 route where some familiar cues were used.

64. sean - April 12, 2009

#58

I’ll say this for you – you’re consistent. ;)

65. Mr. Zoom - April 12, 2009

Anthony,
Excellent review. Thanks for all your hard work in running this site.

I look forward to seeing the movie on May 8th – possibly in IMAX as I have found out that Phoenix (where I will be on that date) has several IMAX theaters.

And nice to see that Uhura will finally have her first name ‘canonized’ :)

66. Christine - April 12, 2009

#59 :: “…I’m 15 years old and I’ve been a trekkie/trekker since I was born….”

Oh, my God, someone my age! :D This is fantastic!
I’m Christine, and I’m 16. xD I believe we’re two of the youngest Trekkies here, hahaaaa. It’s really neat you’re from Argentina, considering I’m just from… Midwestern United States. Heh.

67. TonyD - April 12, 2009

Very fair and balanced review Anthony. In reading it, my expectations, assumptions and fears behind the movie to this point were pretty much confirmed.

While I personally don’t have a problem with playing loose and fast with hard sci-fi concepts (like the location of Delta Vega) or certain Trek conventions like the format for stardates, some of the decisions regarding characters and movie sets will probably be harder for me to get past. The whole cocky, young, rebellious Kirk thing will probably lead to some cringe-inducing moments and the “boiler room” style lower decks of the Enterprise is a real bummer. The sets in ST:TMP were pure futuristic eye candy and I’m sad to hear Abrams has largely abandoned that kind of eye-catching aesthetic in favor of something so unimaginative, so pedestrian and quite-frankly, so Sci-Fi Channel.

After reading this review, I also have a feeling mainstream critics will not be as kind with this movie as the genre websites have so far. Nero’s lack of on-screen motivation will be probably be a sticking point as I doubt most reviewers will bother to read Countdown. The hoops and convenient coincidences the story goes thru to get everybody together will likewise probably draw derision from the more snobby critics who turn their nose on science fiction. Lastly, the concept of time travel and parallel realities will probably go right over the head of the average moviegoer.

I’m looking forward to seeing Star Trek for myself once and for all, but in reading this, I remain unconvinced that the film will successfully appeal to mainstream audiences to the extent that Paramount and the producers hope it will. It sounds to me like they’re trying to do things to appease both fans and non-fans but could very easily end up missing the mark with both camps as well; the changes mentioned could easily turn off a lot of old time fans while mainstream moviegoers may still write it all off as “just another Star Trek movie”.

68. Harry Ballz - April 12, 2009

#42+45

Governator+Xai

I appreciate your valuable feedback and I will try to keep an open mind! :>)

69. NCC-73515 - April 12, 2009

Now I have Family Guy Sulu in my ear…
‘Hellooooooo’

70. Darrksan - April 12, 2009

Thanks for the review

All white Enterprise sets,
pointy ears bad guy,
Hull of the ship with pipes,
A Scotty who is here mostly for comic-relief

Seems like ST: V TFF

71. Dave - April 12, 2009

Anthony – thanks for the review and for the site. You have made a lot of us feel like we were on board as this film came together.

72. Jef - April 12, 2009

I’m 59 and have seen everything Star Trek through the years. I’m ready with an open mind. Bring it on.

And as far as I’m concerned, thank God Shatner is NOT in the film.

73. Joel - April 12, 2009

When you said in the review that the film, “…excludes the kind of optimistic themes that should make Gene Roddenberry proud”, did you mean to say that it ‘exudes’ that kind of optimistic theme because if not then I’m worried. I’m guessing that was a typo. If so, you may want to change it.

74. sean - April 12, 2009

#67

None of the reviews up on Rotten Tomatoes are from genre/scifi rags. In fact, many of the positive reviews that have come out have not come from genre websites.

75. khwj1 - April 12, 2009

Anthony, please don’t post the spoiler-full review until well after the film comes out :D, I have final-year university exams at the same time!

76. Anthony Pascale - April 12, 2009

i find it intesting that people are reading their own biases into the review.

let me be clear…l loved this movie. I just wrote it out in such detail because I assumed people wanted to read more than:

It was the shiznat and you must go a zillion times, it will totally own Wolverine’s hairy butt

RE: Nero’s motivation
As i noted in the review, my concern is solely for Trek fans. I think there is plenty for mainstream critics. But Trek fans will want to know how the film fits with the overall continuity of Trek and more about Nero. And we are used to those long talky ‘board room’ scenes, especially on TNG. There are a couple of those kind of scenes, but I think that Trek fans will want more back-story…hence recommendation for COUNTDOWN. Also the novelization should help.

77. Kyle Cawley - April 12, 2009

Great news… this will be epic.

78. Harry Ballz - April 12, 2009

#54 Anthony Pascale “It is fantastic”

There, now, you see, was that so hard? :>)

79. pock speared - April 12, 2009

many thanks anthony! gee whiz, you were really ALONE in the theatre? please go again with a bunch of fans!!

#8 stanky

“As for the movie, I will pass. ”

right. and if this is your “last word” i’ll build a TOS bridge in your basement.
i know you won’t enjoy the film, stanks, but please try and have a good time despising it when you do go see it. and we all know you will.

80. Matt Wright - April 12, 2009

Tony, thanks for the really well written, carefully thought out (so as to not spoil tons) review :-)

81. Matt Wright - April 12, 2009

#75 — I hear that, I will be graduating in May too. It’s a terrible time to be distracted by the new movie ;-)

82. mateonyc - April 12, 2009

yeah, the water pipes thing has me a little confused and disappointed, but that’s okay.

83. OneBuckFilms - April 12, 2009

76 – Anthony, I got your enthusiasm, don’t worry.

84. Sean4000 - April 12, 2009

80, you’re getting a master’s Matt? Way to go!

85. Catie - April 12, 2009

Thanks for the review. I can’t wait for this movie!!!! I have the patience of a two year old so I have to ask, do you know when you will post the review with spoilers? Thanks :-)

86. Weerd1 - April 12, 2009

You give me hope, Anthony. Thanks.

87. JimJ - April 12, 2009

I can’t wait…I just can’t wait. This is gonna be so much fun!

88. Dennis Bailey - April 12, 2009

#36:”I suppose continued curiosity will keep me around somewhat.”

What you mean is “continued desire to see who I can annoy.”

89. Darfyn - April 12, 2009

Is it wrong to say that Trekmovie is Pro-STXI ? Or that there are only two Types of Trekkers – Action Fans and Thinkers ? I have followed Trek since it’s start ! I have a room filled with collectibles ! I get very angry when critics say that Voyager and Enterprise are incomplete Series , or that the Production teams were incompetent ! It is true there were differences between members , but both Series are good and thoughtful work ! I think there is a greater problem here , and probably has more to do with the Studio franchisers than the producer or director . I suspect this film is the result of studio economists going for the thrill for the public . Real trek will continue through real fans and not a failing commercial venture ! Hark my words !

90. The Governator - April 12, 2009

Just my opinion Anthony, but I don’t agree with the whole “coincidence meeting” thing. I think, to us Trek fans, well, we have seen these characters working together for so long. The fact that one meets another on a shuttlecraft or one runs into another on an ice-planet isn’t really coincidental, because in this movie, these characters are new. They don’t know each other. One could have met the other while pissing in urinals next to each other and it would be perfectly plausible. This would work even more-so for the general audience. To them, these characters are in this movie alone. They’ve never seen them before. So where they meet each other is in no way whatsoever coincidental, its just how they met. Just my two cents.

91. robbysteve64 - April 12, 2009

thx for the review now i want to see it more than ever it will be a thrill ride and to embrace it we must not judge it before it comes out besides good or bad i will probably see it 5 or 6 times anyway just to support the effort consider that ple and so we can get a sequel to see the direction it will go
nice review tho let star trek live long and prosper

92. Voltaire - April 12, 2009

@ 67:

“The whole cocky, young, rebellious Kirk thing will probably lead to some cringe-inducing moments…”

Again, people change. People grow up. Just five years ago I was so shy that I could not make eye contact with strangers (eg waiters) in public. Now I’m one of the most outgoing people I know.

Yes, it is possible to poorly handle a young Kirk with a different personality. But a different personality is not inherently implausible.

93. Nelson - April 12, 2009

Anthony, can you explain how you came to have this privilege? That’s a great opportunity! Nice review, I didn’t read the whole thing to remain spoiler free. But what I read, sounded good!

94. Ian - April 12, 2009

Ah! I can’t stand the wait any longer! Thank you so much Anthony, that was a great review and I thank you for all that you do for us in the TrekMovie community!

Live long and prosper.

95. Smitty™ - April 12, 2009

Thank you for the review Anthony…

As an aside…

May I ask Mr. Pascale, does Uhura’s first name start with N and end with a with 3 letters in between?

-cs™

96. Captain Quail Hunter - April 12, 2009

Anthpny, did you see James Cawley of Phase2 in the film? He was suppose to have a small part in the film as a crewmember.

97. Elysium - April 12, 2009

Great review!

98. Dennis Bailey - April 12, 2009

I want to use post #76 as a sig at TrekBBS. It would read:

“It was the shiznat and you must go a zillion times, it will totally own Wolverine’s hairy butt” – Anthony Pascale.

LOL

99. Jose Kuhn - April 12, 2009

With all this talk of a new thread of Canon, if this is a reboot then the “canon” from Star Trek Enterprise is still holds

100. Katie G. - April 12, 2009

Re: #76. Anthony Pascale

LMBO!!!!!!!!

kg

101. Rainbucket - April 12, 2009

Trill ride?

I mean, yeah I had that thought about Ezri all the time, but could we describe the film more politely?

102. GarySeven - April 12, 2009

Anthony,
I am wondering if Alexander Courage’s original score makes its way into this film at all, like it did in ST:TMP. Can you tell us? I hope it does, because it is a core part of Star Trek. Thanks.

103. Dennis Bailey - April 12, 2009

Anything that appears on screen is “canon” automatically, no matter how much it contradicts something else that has appeared on screen.

That’s what “canon” means with reference to “Star Trek.” It does not mean “consistent.”

104. robbysteve64 - April 12, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAot3sC2xjE
heres tv spot 6 in hd
title
this isnt your fathers star trek
consider that and then go watch the film

105. Tracy - April 12, 2009

I cannot promise not to be irritated, but I will promise to love this movie regardless. It will be the start up of the franchise again. I didn’t watch star trek until about 5 or6 years ago. Since then, I’ve watched every series except for most of TOS. Honestly, I didn’t want to see the original after seeing better graphics on the newer ones, but I sat myself down and watched a few of the enhanced episodes just to get a feel for the characters. All this so I can be prepared for this movie. I am open minded enough to disregard any trivial details that might not be included in this movie. Being a Lost fan, I trust JJ. And being a Heroes fan, I’m excited for Zach. This will be a wonderous movie no matter what!

106. mr. mugato - April 12, 2009

“The camera is constantly in motion (complete with frequent lens flares) . . . .

I despise that kind of camera work. All it does is remind me there is someone with a camera taking pictures.

107. pock speared - April 12, 2009

#88.
well said. well-translated.

108. Bill Peters - April 12, 2009

Wish May 8th would come quicker, the more I hear the more I like this film!

109. The Original Spock's Brain - April 12, 2009

# 8. Stanky McFibberich – April 12, 2009
“As for the movie, I will pass.”

Stanky, is this your bon voyage to Trekmovie.com? We barely knew you…

110. trekkerguy - April 12, 2009

I love the comments of those who have already decided not to even see it… LOL

111. Will - April 12, 2009

I am saddened by the use of the “ever moving camera” style as I really feel that it is over used and often totally not needed in a scene(almost a cover for a lack of drama in the dialogue/acting).

I’m sold on Urban, not so much on Quinto, a little on Pine, a little on Pegg, not at all on Uhura or Yelchin(though, the latter is purely for lack of seeing him do anything other than sit or stand in the trailers).

I’m not sold on the production design of the Enterprise as a whole(inside and out), but I love the idea of a 3d spacial movement… All in all? I have to see this movie in the theater to determine just how I feel about it.

Damn you, JJ. You are a marketing genius.

112. Admiral_BlackCat - April 12, 2009

D@mn Anthony, for starting this site in 2006 you’ve done pretty good for yourself. Interviews with the major players involved with Trek ’09 and even a special showing. How did this private showing/early review come about? Part of Paramount connecting with the fanbase or Orci and Kurtzman doing you a favor? Just curious.

BTW, very well thought out and written review. You used a fair and even hand judging this movie, I appreciate you honest opinion on the pros and cons. Can’t wait to see/nitpick this blockbuster for myself!

113. The Original Spock's Brain - April 12, 2009

Thanks AP for your thoughtful review. People do read their own biases into most things. It’s a funny observation of human nature.

#59 :: “…I’m 15 years old and I’ve been a trekkie/trekker since I was born….”
#66. Christine
“Oh, my God, someone my age! :D This is fantastic!
I’m Christine, and I’m 16.”

May you Trek through life with the rest of us and live long and prosper. :)

114. USS TRINOMA NCC-0278 - April 12, 2009

How I wish that somehow this movie would be faithful to the original in every detail, but that is not going to happen! However, Mr. Orci and the rest of the gang were very considerate of the die hard fans’ feelings. Star Trek 6 was really the last hurrah for me. The Next Generation and their movies, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise were just mere copies of the “Originals”. The Star Trek “Prime” universe is intact according to Quantum Mechanics. But, I personally want to see Kirk and Co. That is why I loved Star Trek in the first place. Kirk and Co. is Star Trek. And with this “reboot, reimagination, reintroduction, rewhatever,” all of us die hard fans are given an opportunity to see the new adventures of Kirk and Co.!!! The torch has been passed. But, it is a different torch. It is not a torch from one crew to another crew. It is a torch that symbolizes from one universe to another universe, but with the SAME crew, and the SAME ship (Not A, B, C, D, E or J) from the very beginning. Personally, that is awesome! What a way to restart a franchise, yet not destroying the prime canon. Mr. Orci explains it through quantum mechanics. The crew discussed it through the movie. Spock “Alpha” was there to witness and experience Spock “Beta” and the entire crew. Paramount knows that the only way to save Star Trek was to go to the real reason why we all loved Star Trek… it was Kirk and Co. The original crew can proceed to a different direction, without hurting canon. Real Star Trek is back!!! And I am talking about the Original crew. As Mr. Scott would say to the computer, “No A, B, C, or even D.”

115. Charles! - April 12, 2009

59. Rekkert

I live in Argentina to, and have the same “problem”. I hope they show this movie in theaters here, since all the last werent.

116. JML9999 - April 12, 2009

111. re 3D TWoK-Spock: He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking.

117. Smitty™ - April 12, 2009

@101 I was thinking more like Jadzia, but that me I likes tall ladies!

-cs™

118. Mike Ten - April 12, 2009

Well, I guess Paramount gave Anthony a early Birthday present!

Two things I don’t understand:
One, in one of the movie clips there was steam rising off of one of the pipes Simon Pegg was going thru. Please tell me that wasn’t on the Enterprise?

Two, why is it that people can’t accept change? This is something meant to breathe new life into Star Trek. We still have our original 79 episodes and six TOS movies on video tape, DVD, or Blueray. I would have liked to have seen something new done in the future beyond TNG but I don’t own the rights to Star Trek so it’s not my call. I would have rather seen the Countdown comic made into a movie first and then make this movie second but again, I don’t own the rights to Trek.
But I will tell you one thing, I will be in the movie theater watching this movie if not the opening day I’ll be there the opening week. Why? Because I’m a Trek fan and a Sci-Fi fan. I’m so starved for new Trek I would watch Star Trek shadow puppet episodes on my wall. I’m so starved for Trek I’ve been watching the horrible first season of Enterprise on Sci-Fi (SyFy?) when Jolene Balock didn’t have Vulcan eyebrows.

119. Will_H - April 12, 2009

So now I’m pretty stoked, not gonna lie. Ive been critical of this movie since just about day 1 back in 06 when it was said that it was going to be a pre-TOS movie and all, but with this review and everything else Ive read, I think its time to just chill and start getting all excited for may. Cant wait now.

120. Jeff Bond - April 12, 2009

Great review, Anthony. I just hope that for the sake of our country and our forefathers that Navy is happy now.

It is truly amazing to me how this movie has polarized fans completely to the point where someone is now getting an ugly suspicion that trekmovie.com might be, you know, one of those PRO-Star Trek XI sites! Maybe we should get Michelle Bachmann in here to root out which of us Trek fans are actually ANTI-Trek fans living among us! Truly, people…it is only a TV series or five, and only a series of movies–human destiny will not be affected if they don’t get a laser pistol from “The Cage” into the movie. If you go back through the various shows and movies you will find the kind of continuity errors and scientific flubs that fans will be debating about Abrams Trek film in ALL of them–because it is not REAL, it is only an entertainment produced with limited time and money. The only thing that matters, and in particular the only thing that mattered to the makers of the original Star Trek, was, does the story engage you–are you invested in the story? I can flatly say the answer is ‘NO’ for most of the last five Star Trek movies and at least the last two Star Trek series. Anything that can be done to remedy that problem is good news in my opinion.

121. Hector - April 12, 2009

Stanky,
I would have loved to see the old-school style of Trek but the reality is that style of movies are no longer wanted by the people who pay to go see movies. For Trek to come back it had to adapt and I accept that. Besides, as I age, my memory isn’t what it used to be. Those 800 hours worth of Trek DVD’s on my shelf are more than enough to satisfy me until my days are done because I can’t remember all the plots.
You are passing on this movie? Give-Me-A-Break!!! I think that is utter B.S. and it comes across that we are a bunch of lemmings while you are the high-brow know it all that feels like he is above all of this nonsense. You will see this movie because you are a Star Trek fan – and because you will be curious to see what all the buzz is about when this movie hits the screens.
Get real, bud.

122. dcm - April 12, 2009

I agree with ManBearPig! THANKS for everything! On May 8th the 42 st IMAX theater will be calling me and I will respond!!!

123. wash - April 12, 2009

Thanks for the new commercial link!

124. starfleetmom - April 12, 2009

#112 Ditto!

Thank for this site Anthony. It’s the bomb!!
See you in Vegas!

125. The Governator - April 12, 2009

Jeez, I love this website. :)

126. Anthony Pascale - April 12, 2009

Jeff, thanks for the comments, coming from you, that means a lot. I look forward to putting up your review later.

RE: the proSTXI thing

To be clear, this site is pro Trek franchise. All that is good for the franchise is good, but not all things with the name Trek on them are good. When I sat down in that theater I was truly worried that it was all smoke and mirrors and the final product would suck. If it did i would truly tell you all, it sucks.

Let me say for the record that I believ INS, TFF and NEM all ‘sucked’.

If I felt that Abrams and team were about to damage the franchise, I would immediately begin the campaign for bringing in new fresh blood. but i dont, so i guess I am not ‘pro stxi’ …sue me

that being said, i think they need to turn down the lights on the bridge, rethink engineering and I have a few other ideas for improvements, but I also think the genesis cave scene could be fixed in TWOK and there are a few other things that I would tweak there too.

127. Hat Rick - April 12, 2009

I didn’t read most of the review, but I did read, as Anthony suggested, only the last paragraph. (I don’t want to read any more spoilers, however mild.) I’m delighted to know Anthony’s opinion that this new film compares with the top rank of Trek movies.

One minor typo: $150 million, not $150.

Back to substance: I’ve always believed that if a reimagining is what it takes to reinvigorate interest in Trek, then by all means, reimagination is what is called for. I do believe, however, that Trek has been “real” in many respects, and to say that the current version is “more real” makes sense only in a certain point of view. In science fiction, it is difficult to make a decision as to what kind of realism is actually appropriate.

My thoughts on this are still evolving. There is a sense in which the “Blade Runner” kind of realism, for example, and all its dystopianism aside, is somehow closer to what most people would consider “real.” But much of Trek assumes that the future is not quite like the present, so this kind of mundane realism (smoke in the air, dust and dirt on starships, etc.) is not really the point. Someone here on TrekMovie even made the point that to say that even today’s naval ships are “grittier” than the sensibility seen in Trek is to do a disservice to the present: They are not.

Aesthetics aside, the language used in the movie seems very 21st Century, and perhaps there is that aspect of “realism” to consider. But, then again, Trek is 23d Century, not 21st.

I’d need to reflect a lot more on this question of realism before I can really judge.

But, regardless, it’s good to know that this new Star Trek has struck on in a promising direction, giving hope to those who would like to see this franchise thrive and, once again, live long and prosper.

128. Dennis Bailey - April 12, 2009

I’d guess that one reason for using modern Trek uniforms and TOS communicators as their “early era” counterparts is because these designs are widely recognized as representing Trek-That-Was and thus ground the Kelvin sequences somewhat in pre-Reboot continuity. The “Cage” designs, particularly the communicators, were a good deal cruder and even less likely to look good in a movie than other traditional Trek gear.

Now, if the Kelvin crew were wearing TNG badge-communicators, *that* would be annoying…

129. GarySeven - April 12, 2009

#121:
As Khan said in ST II, “Save your strength.” If only we could all live in a world as clear -cut as Stanky.
Oh well, it will fall on the rest of us, sans Stanky, to boldly go exploring strange new worlds and seek out new life…for our beloved Star Trek. Not such a bad thing, after all.

130. Curt - April 12, 2009

No way, there’s a NEW Star Trek movie coming out?!

When was this announced?

131. fs9/sarah - April 12, 2009

I’ll be buying my tickets the day they go on sale.

132. The Governator - April 12, 2009

120. Jeff Bond

“Great review, Anthony. I just hope that for the sake of our country and our forefathers that Navy is happy now.”

Oh dear God in heaven, I laughed my ass completely off when I read that. LOL :-)

note: inside joke

133. Andy Patterson - April 12, 2009

“but as a fanboy I was really hoping that Giacchino would have incorporated more stings from some of the great moments of The Original Series”

Haven’t heard it yet but that was really what I hoped for. Just seems a no brainer. Brings everybody together. Great material to draw from and a way to pull together the old and new fans. Disappointing.

Also,…and again I haven’t seen it but reboot or no reboot it seems he misses the characterization of the cast. Scotty seems so silly and he was such a serious worker in the show I know. Another notch on the miscalculation post. But we’ll see.

Before seeing it I still think…what would have been wrong with doing an early days at the academy movie without changing so much?

As I always say….We’ll wait and see. I’ll judge for myself when I see it.

134. Lazar - April 12, 2009

Do we see the warp core?

135. Tim Lade - April 12, 2009

Anthony,

What do you mean by Sylar seeping through in the performance. How so? Is the dialogue similar, the way in which he characterizes his anger, or in the way he holds himself, or even the inflection of his voice?

I’m curious to know as I am a big heroes fan.

136. Val Jean - April 12, 2009

people dont accept change because they fear the unknown! lol

I for one have hope in what anthony has said, it is his site after all, and if he approves, ill give it a chance before making my own judgment.

Also Anthony, im sure many of us want a clue, not a reveal, of where we might start looking for the tribble when we go and see the film? =)

137. The Governator - April 12, 2009

133. Andy Patterson

I share and understand your disappointment over the lack of familiar Trek overtones, however, I wouldn’t get too disappointed. All my sources say that it is a very good and Trek worthy score.

As for Scotty seeming to silly in this new Trek, I must remind you that Scotty was often used for comic relief in TOS as well. Granted, he had many serious moments, he always stands out to me as being the fun. scotch-drinking, Scottish engineer who beamed the tribbles into the Klingon’s engineering room. :)

138. Fast Attax - April 12, 2009

Thank you. Great review. Through your words, I am seeing Star Trek 09 through the eyes of a fan and a movie goer. For me, there are really 4 main characters all with a distinct personality and vital to the sense of ‘family’ on the show and movie: Kirk, Spock, Bones and the Enterprise herself. I am looking forward to this Star Trek film. Thanks again.

ps. I didnt think Nemesis was all that bad. two scenes we could have done without 1. Wedding scene/Data singing. 2. the lengthy dinner scene with Picard and Shinzon.

139. Adam Cohen - April 12, 2009

Anthony,

Congratulations on a long journey towards this moment. I commend you and the team for the amazing job you’ve done reporting on this project and on everything else. I am so truly happy for you- to get to meet legends from every era of this franchise and now to have the chance to tell us about “Star Trek” (2009) in advance of its premiere.

You’re a living example that there always are possibilities, especially with hard work and perseverance.

-Adam Cohen

140. Colonel West - April 12, 2009

Cheers Anthony, we know you took your time so you could get everything down as you wanted, a very well written unbiased piece, kudos.

To be honest, not one of us can hand on heart say we’re definitely not going to go see this. Even those such as Stanky (not calling you out by name mate, just as an example) from the other side of the debate, those on the JJ side for want of a better term and people like me who are willing to give it a shot and give the guys the benefit of the doubt so to speak, all want this film to succeed and be everything we want it to be.

The debates that have been going for the past two and a bit years remind me a lot of the troicha. We’ve got the McCoy’s who are passionate for what they believe in, the Spock’s who believe that there are always possibilities and the Kirk’s who see both sides and that’s exactly what Gene Roddenberry saw in the human condition that got us all interested in the first place, let’s not forget that.

It may not be everyones cup of tea but at least we’re here discussing a new Trek which is something we thought would be a long way off, if ever, just a few short years ago and that’s something we all can take pride in no matter what side of the debate we’re on.

Apologies about the tangent, it’s 5.15am over here and i was about to hit the hay when I saw the review was up, let the Lens Flame Wars continue!!!!

Also, Anthony, about that promised spoilerific review, get writing!!! ;D

141. Locke for President - April 12, 2009

My guess is that it will take a second or third viewing before some people will be able to watch the movie and judge it on its own merits.

Because right now the people who are overly excited about the movie have a good chance of being let down; and those who have a negative attitude will find something right away to ruin the rest of the viewing experience.

In the end, it’s just a movie. Watch the movie on its own merits, don’t compare it to 40 prior years of Star Trek. And don’t compare it to your own expectations. Just watch it for what it is, not what you want it to be.

I do find it interesting, the people who say this is a lukewarm or negative review. Like the author said, these people are transferring their own feelings into the review.

142. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - April 12, 2009

Bailey – Anthony

Any answer to my post in #38

Please

143. Raphael Salgado - April 12, 2009

Imagine what more this new Star Trek would have been had they spent $200 instead of $150. I would have coughed up the extra fifty bucks.

;)

Great review. Call me a little off, but I was hoping you could mention the cameos, if you saw them or not, how well they were integrated into the story, the background, the scene, etc.

We all know that Majel’s voice is probably scattered all over the 126 minutes, but I’d be interested to know how James Cawley, Chris Doohan, and Randy Pausch, among others, were in the film.

Thanks and looking forward to the release. I think I’ll hit up the IMAX or midnight version, but like you mentioned in the review, I’ll likely see it more than once that weekend.

144. Jack - April 12, 2009

thanks! too bad about the Kelvin – would have been a great chance to get updated The Cage-esque uniforms, props and sets… perhaps those jumpsuits that were around first season.

145. Anthony Pascale - April 12, 2009

RE: size of engineering/bowells of ship
big….real big. DIdn’t measure it

RE: cameos
spotted Doohan, not Cawley, or Pausch. As I noted I stopped looking for stuff like that as it was becoming distracting from the movie. Will try to spot more on second viewing

Please ask more questions. I will try and answer as many as possible in the SPOILERY review, which will likely follow my second viewing which will be in a couple of week.

We will also be running additional reviews the week the film comes out. Reviews we should have:
– Jeff Bond
– Mark Altman (assuming he wants to do one)
– John Tenuto (focusing on the sociological and narrative themes)
– James T. (kid’s point of view)
– Kayla (scientific accuracy fact checking review)

And probably some more. Looking to get a ‘newbie’ review from someone who knows jack about Trek. And I have even talked to a blind trek fan who may review it from his unique perspective.

It is going to be reviewapalooza around here.

146. Matt Wright - April 12, 2009

To Stanky — even if you don’t like the new movie, don’t be bullied off the site. Also, we’ll have more TOS-R and ST:I-VI coverage for the Blu-ray releases soon. Tony has had a Cage review sitting on the backburner for a while now, supposedly CBS will send The Cage remastered in May for broadcast, but I have no idea if it’s still happening. In theory we wanted to wait and review it then. Tony will know better what the plans are for his Cage review.

#84 — Heya Sean, no not a masters yet. I returned to school in 2006 to finish my BA after a 3 year hiatus, so I’ll be getting my BA in May. However I did just my acceptance letter (e-mail) to grad. school, so I will indeed be working on my Master’s in Sociology in the fall :-)

147. dyaleleon - April 12, 2009

Thanks for the review! I enjoyed reading it. I am so looking forward to this movie!

148. Christian - April 12, 2009

NEW TV SPOT!!!!!!

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/star-trek-xi/spot-going-down

Interesting tagline too…..

149. Sean4000 - April 12, 2009

#146 — Matt that’s awesome news! Let me assure you that you will feel atop the world when walking across the graduation stage. I did it a year ago this May. Let me tell you it’s awesome. I envy your strength to continue your education. After two BA’s with double concentrations (my college stiffed me out of 4 degrees) and three minors, my warp core is burned out. lol.

You know as well as Tony that I was NOT a fan of TOS-R. But let me tell you I will be enjoying this film 150million times more!

Bring on May! Not just for Trek but for you as well!

150. Skagen - April 12, 2009

Great review! thank you Anthony. Looking forward to this movie more and more each day.

151. The Governator - April 12, 2009

Question for Anthony:

How much screen time does Nimoy have in the movie? In comparison to other characters, such as Nero? Obviously he’s not #1 in the new movie, but from what I know, he is very central to the story, so he should get more than one scene.

152. Daniel Broadway - April 12, 2009

Thanks for that review Anthony. I look forward to it.

The only thing that worries me is you said “non-stop action” there might not be alot of substance character wise.

I’m sure my worry is unfounded, but I’ll have to wait until I see the film to be sure.

153. Matt Wright - April 12, 2009

Sean — woah double degrees with double concetrations! what were they?

Glad the movie works for you, as you said, I rememeber your TOS-R criticisms (many of which I agree with).

154. Iowagirl - April 12, 2009

- Star Trek is also the most ‘epic’ feeling Trek film ever (including Star Trek The Motion Picture). –

– The camera is constantly in motion (complete with frequent lens flares), the editing is rapid-fire, and the script hardly ever leaves you with a moment to catch your breath. –

Well, that’s just the contrary of “epic” in my book… A big budged doesn’t make a film epic.

Nevertheless, Anthony, thanks for a comprehensive and well-balanced review!

155. Navy - April 12, 2009

Is there a warp core as we understand it? TOS style, Enterprise, or “conventional” tower core?

Even though the bussard collectors are blue, do they at least appear to function like the originals?

Do you get to see the shuttle bay / inside pylon supports?

156. Adam C - April 12, 2009

one kind of spoiler that i really want to know is does this star trek have a proper musical score intro like undiscovered country, generations, first contact & inserection?

or more of a lost straight to it with flast-backs deal?

157. Mirror Mirror - April 12, 2009

ANTHONY: Could you give a little more detail on the score? I know you said you were “really hoping that Giacchino would have incorporated more stings from some of the great moments of The Original Series or the TOS era movies”

Does this mean we will not see any of the work of Courage, Horner etc…incorporated?

If so, that’s a major turn off to me…

158. Thomas - April 12, 2009

23. Jimmy
Personally, I never got the impression that this movie would be 50-50 in favor of old fans. I always got the distinct impression this was being skewed towards a new audience, maybe 70-30 or even 80-20. They were shaping this movie toward the audience that wouldn’t turn out otherwise, while keeping enough to appeal to existing fans.

This has never dampened my interest in this movie, by the way. Once I knew J.J. Abrams was involved, the first thing I thought was “Wow, he might make Trek popular. That’s great.”

159. spockatatic - April 12, 2009

re:59, 66
two youngest Trekkies? I just turned 13!!!! I’m barely
old enough to legally watch this film!!
Meh… It comes from being a nerd to begin with and having old parents. I’ve been a die-hard Trek-fan since I was eleven. My friends have no idea… And my family thinks I’m an obsessed maniac. Oh,well.

160. The Governator - April 12, 2009

157. Mirror Mirror

Although I have not yet seen the film, it has been stated before that Alexander Courage’s theme is used in the movie, so have no fear. But they did say it is used sparingly.

161. GarySeven - April 12, 2009

#159- You sound like a very promising young man. Godspeed!

162. braxus - April 12, 2009

Anthony- I look forward to your comments on seeing this in IMAX. I’ve decided to make the first viewing in that theater, so your comments will be welcomed.

163. Ben IV - April 12, 2009

What did you mean by “too real?”

can’t you hear the portions from the original theme that have been worked in to the new music? I can hear them, at the end of each musical phrase, there are two notes corresponding to the original theme. seriously, it says “original trek” to me…

164. senwod - April 12, 2009

TMP=epic?

Please tell me they don’t circle the freakin’ ship for three and a half minutes…

165. The Original Spock's Brain - April 12, 2009

AP, I also want to congratulate you on the site. I can recall the other fans sites I was frequenting prior to 2006, and none of them brought it all together as you’ve been able to do here. Trekmovie.com is the success it is because of you and the team you’ve put together. It has become the HQ for all things Trek.

BTW: That “not your father’s ST” trailer shows some amazing detail to the action scenes. This Trek is truly EPIC!
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/star-trek-xi/spot-going-down

166. Sean4000 - April 12, 2009

153: Matt

It’s always good to see someone finish a college education! It makes me happy.

I attended the University of New Orleans down here in Louisiana.

Minors:
Computer Science,
Anthropology (Primatology),
Hypermedia

Majors:
Film Theater and Communications Arts (FTCA):
Concentration I: Post Production/Editing,
Concentration II: Film/TV Production

Fine Arts (FA): Classic Film Photography
Concentration I: Classical Fine Art Photography
Concentration II: Digital Imaging (Digital Photography)

Now, I am concentrating on computer certs, I already have A+, Linux +, Network +. I am onto the CCxx certs.

Damn, someone higher up actually agreed with me about TOS-R! That makes me feel good. Max Gabl deserves a medal for his mattes. I guess it boiled down to the lack of cohesiveness of the over all result. I thought EdenFX should have been given the whole enchilada. But realistically, at least the ship shots. CBS-D handled the minor things pretty well. But I suppose there was always something more that could have been done. At least the Blu-rays will have the cleaned original versions in the set. Quite a few of those shots look better than the remasters. lol. But that’s a debate that should be relegated to history.

Send me an email sometime, i think you can see my address being that you are an admin.

167. The Authenticator - April 12, 2009

I for one am appalled by the fact that Simon Pegg is English faking a Scottish accent instead of a Canadian of Irish descent faking a Scottish accent. I am thoroughly disgusted that Zoe Saldana is from New Jersey and not Illinois. And dear god, was it too much to ask that the studio bring back Mark Lenard to play Sarek…What do you mean he’s dead? Well Paramount should have just resurrected him. Or cloned. We have cloning now don’t we?

And what’s up with the uniforms? Doesn’t JJ Abrams know or care that in Pike’s era the crew’s shirts were bulky and more like bulky sweaters and not the tight fitting shirts seen and the regular broadcasts? The colors are wrong too. The shades are too dark and they are made of the wrong fabrics. And how come the skirts on the female uniforms are so long? They should be several inches shorter. JJ Abrams has made a terrible, inauthentic film and I urge all authentic Star Trek fans to boycott this film…because boycotts work dangit.

168. Sean4000 - April 12, 2009

But i though t this was before Pike’s era? I am thinking about this as TOS traits coming out of the final stage of ENT era design. I never expected it to be a dead ringer. But the phasers and communicators are too easy to not get right.

169. The Original Spock's Brain - April 12, 2009

167. The Authenticator – April 12, 2009
“I urge all authentic Star Trek fans to boycott this film…because boycotts work dangit.”

LOL

170. Christian - April 12, 2009

To all these college people:

I graduate May 8 (which is going to force me to see the new movie Saturday instead) with a BBA in Managerial Finance and a Minor in Political Science here at the University of Mississippi (where Dr. McCoy graduates…).

And I’ll start grad school for a Masters in Pol Sci this fall…

171. Nep - April 12, 2009

The music reminds me of Halo.

Was Master Chief in this movie? Did Cortana pop out of any of the bridge consoles?

172. Luke - April 12, 2009

Can’t Wait bring on May 8th

173. Matt Wright - April 12, 2009

Congrats Christian! I’ll be doing my graduation walk on May 23rd. Sucks that you have to choose between Trek and your graduation ceremony.

174. jj_roddenberry - April 12, 2009

I’m expecting some real, dog ugly crappy moments in the script. The whole nine yards… “It’s been an honour to serve with you…” “You risked everyone’s lives with that stunt! … but by God you did a great job”. Etcetera. I’m betting the script will be terrible in an “Attack of the Clones” way.

I’m very much looking forward to Spock, both Quinto and Nimoy. Nimoy’s never let me down, ever, and I have full faith in Quinto because I liked his work on Heroes.

Pine looks like a pervert, there’s no way to say that politely… I’m hoping he grows in the inevitable sequel, and looks less like he’s engaged in a circle-jerk for the whole movie.

I can’t wait to see it because I know that it’ll be interesting. It’s very unlikely to be any better than 5th on the Trek Film ladder, but I know it’ll get people talking and spending their money, which is never a bad thing.

175. Christian - April 12, 2009

173

There is a plus side…I’ve got lots of family coming in and we’re going to all go see ST on Saturday. So I’ll make up for my no show on Friday with lots of ticket sales on Saturday. Plus, I’m sure I’ll see it more than once…

176. AJ - April 12, 2009

Anthony:

Thanks for the review. I realize it’s a tough call to critique something like this. What if it had sucked?

Thank God it doesn’t. Now, let’s go clean Wolverine’s chronometers and get our show back.

177. The Governator - April 12, 2009

167. The Authenticator

Either you are trolling, or you’re just trying to be funny. I can’t tell which.

178. Harry Ballz - April 12, 2009

Here they are….Governator vs. Authenticator……LET’S GET READY TO GRUMBLE!

179. BP - April 12, 2009

@170 – damn you Christian, you and McCoy’s school ruined my football season
that cotton bowl was horrible, I go to Texas Tech btw

seriously though, congrats on graduating

180. The Governator - April 12, 2009

174. jj_roddenberry

Well there’s an intelligent post.

Let me paraphrase:

“I can’t wait for this film,….. because I know its going to suck and be great. Duh Duh a Duh Duh …….”

181. Aragorn189 - April 12, 2009

Just a heads up for everyone there is a new tv spot. Here’s the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQB2EZZuRVE&fmt=22

Enjoy.

182. Christian - April 12, 2009

@179

Thanks for the congrats BP. And I was at that game. Loved every minute of it…

183. Kyle Cawley - April 12, 2009

#145: A BLIND trek review??? What is this Spinal Tap!?! I don’t recall reading any updates on when the audiobook for the movie gets released, but maybe I missed the update that week. Presumably we’d have to wait until the novelization is released first, which I guess is soon. A “unique” perspective?

“A little too much f*cking perspective!” – David St. Hubbins

184. Michael - April 12, 2009

#96 James Cawley was an extra. No lines….nada. He begged JJ to be in the film so JJ made him an extra. I really wish people including James would stop telling people he had a part in the movie as if he were an actor.

185. MC1 Doug - April 12, 2009

#164: TMP? epic?

Yeah. Epic. Period.

I don’t think any other TREK movie even came close to the scope and feel of TMP. It shot for a 2001 feel and while far from perfect, the first of the big screen movies was a true honest to goodness labor of love; a movie that wanted to pay homage to the fans (those of us) who dreamed of a rebirth from the day the series was canceled in 1969… let’s face it, not one single facet of the post TMP series/movies does not owe something to the first film.

Everything after that was, for better or worse, merely a continuation of the franchise. Two criticisms I have had for every single TREK movie (except ST: TMP STIII and ST: Insurrection) is that the films were nothing but big battles without the notion of being about something “big,” about morality, about lofty ideals.

That isn’t to say that I haven’t liked the others for what they are.

The other thing I have always disliked about TREK films (and this is all of them) is that they seem to discard the ensemble feel of their respective series. While each of the movies have made some attempt at giving each cast member their moment, I feel it was largely lip service.

The TOS movies all primarily focused on the Kirk, Spock McCoy triad, almost to the point that the other cast members seemed incidental. The same can be said of the TNG movies: their four movies focus almost completely on Data and Picard, with the same comments regarding TOS.

Once again, I have a feeling this film is a strong attempt at paying homage to we fans, all the while trying to revitalize what seemed a tired franchise by attracting non-fans to the fray.

Orci, Kurtzman, Abrams et al seem to realize that the franchise’s success is balanced on the success of this film. Everything I have seen and read thus far leads me to think they will succeed (even though I do think they are going to destroy some aspects of the accepted canon that has been established over the past 43 years).

In three weeks, we all shall see!

All that said and finally, Anthony, thanks for this most illuminating review. I look forward to the movie and this site has been a big lightning rod providing we fans a means to voice our thoughts, concerns and hopes for the future of TREK! Keep up the great work!

186. Captain Spock - April 12, 2009

The Authenticator is obviously satirizing those super fans who’ve been griping about this movie since it was announced. Anyone who takes that kind of post seriously has had their brain taken out by those aliens from Spock’s Brain. Don’t you people know a put-on when you see one or has that style of humor over your head?

187. Clay "Why oh why can't there be red nacelle caps" Farrow - April 12, 2009

167: Authenticator, I completely agree with you on the skirt length thing. At least for Zoe Saldana, that is…

188. Nine Dragons - April 12, 2009

Observation. Anthony’s setup to his review made it painfully clear that the franchise had fallen on hard times. Translation for me is that the faithful withdrew support from the thing we all love most – 40+ years of Star Trek.

Not supporting this version of what sounds like a respectfully crafted movie might put everything back at square one, the Star Trek franchise shuttered. Personally I’ve enjoyed the ride thus far, both ‘good and bad’ and I fully acknowledge that for some the current score is advantage ‘bad’.

If it’s branded Star Trek, I trust that the keepers of the franchise flame are trying to hold to what I perceive to be Star Trek’s legacy – Journeys and adventure that feature strength of character, bravery in the face of adversity and purpose of life. For me, that’s enough of a promise to make me invest a few hours and less than a twenty on a ticket.

For those who somehow think fan loyalty means we don’t have a life, understand that I can exercise moderation when needed but I fully embrace the fact I can be passionate about something that brings joy to my life.

After a bag of popcorn, a soda and eye popping colors on the big screen, I’m pretty sure I’ll feel good about taking this journey and experiencing this version of the future. Good or bad.

Seems appropriate for me to end with “Live long and prosper”

189. MC1 Doug - April 12, 2009

#167: authentic fans?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

as opposed wanna bes, phony fans or unauthentic ones???

you’re hilarious!!!

I just hope you were just trying to be facetious.

190. Jimmy - April 12, 2009

#158 – Thomas

I kind of had that feeling, too, but i was hoping that it would at least be near 50/50… I don’t know, I’m going to see the movie, so I’ll reserve my judgment until May 8th. I don’t particularly care for what I’ve heard so far, but damn it I’ll give it a shot. :-P

As for the “style” J.J. seems to have gone for with this movie… well, I don’t want Trek to die, that’s for sure… but I also didn’t want to have it given it’s “new life” as a generic sci-fi-pic. I mean, non-stop action, quick cuts, jerky hand-cams, lense flares until your eyes start to bleed? Just my opinion, but that’s not what makes a good film to me. What happened to stories where the character interaction and plot were more important than the special effects and action sequences?

I guess what I’m trying to say is I’m 23 years old (young by comparison to a lot of Star Trek fans) and I don’t even understand why the attention span of kids today is so short that film editing has to be massacred down into 1/16-second snippets that are are so short the brain can barely keep up with what the eye is trying to see. I’d happily have the special effects shots done with spit-and-tin-foil if it meant we’d have a solid, character-driven, thought-provoking film worthy of carrying the moniker of “Star Trek”

191. Harry Ballz - April 12, 2009

“spit-and-tin-foil”

LMAO! Good one!

192. Michael M - April 13, 2009

To #183:

That was uncalled for. Shame on you.

193. Michael M - April 13, 2009

Anthony,

Was there a warp core in engineering? That’s all I care about. If there’s a warp core, I can live with the rest of the stuff.

194. OLLEY OLLEY OLEY - April 13, 2009

lol @ fan-boys arguing

great review and looking forward to seeing it

195. Berti Semmler - April 13, 2009

Welcome back, ‘Star Trek’!
Well, you never really left us…

196. Darfyn - April 13, 2009

#126 I should say in regards to star trek movie or otherwise , and I’m sure many would agree with what should be mentioned , here or elsewhere about serial tv , that critical expectations are always too high !
And generally , besides Trekmovie being proStXI (franchise) , it is a greatly appreciated site by all trekkers ! Looks to be an exciting Movie and will lift the spirits of the Trek community ! And besides , it’s 2009 and it’s Good We can Trek On !

197. News briefs: Nanny nabs Gyllenhaal; Trek reviewed; Year gets PG-13 | DragonWorld.TV | Blog - April 13, 2009

[…] TrekMovie.com offers up a mainly spoiler-free and glowingly positive review of J.J. Abrams’ upcoming Star Trek movie. … […]

198. Paulaner - April 13, 2009

A fair and honest review. No fanboyism. Well done, Mr. Pascale.
As for my opinion, there is no perfect Trek show in the world. Every writer/director have its own sensibility. I will keep this in mind and I will surely enjoy this new, exciting adventure!

199. Uwe - April 13, 2009

What is it with Fans that can not bring their point across in short and info-packed articles?

I could read the novel and watch the movie twice during the time I need to read this (and no, not because I am a slow reader).

Reminds me of the book-long Trek-article at AICN the other day.

You indeed have to live long (and probably prosper) to be able to read that much.

200. Kolejny spot | trekkie.pl - April 13, 2009

[…] oczekiwaniu na 8 maja warto przeczytać dość obszerną recenzję Anthony’ego Pascale z TrekMovie.com (bez […]

201. Jonathan Macpherson - April 13, 2009

new tv spot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQB2EZZuRVE&fmt=22

202. Trekee - April 13, 2009

ah, that’s a shame about the Kelvin uniforms, would have loved Cage uniforms for that out and out geekness factor.

I’m expecting to be dissapointed really in all that canon stuff, the Mirror Enterprise episode nailed it and it was such a thrill to see that done properly but since most audiences are going to think TNG is “old” Trek, I guess we have to dumb the film down lest we confuse the poor lambs. I’m not minding the whole reboot thing at all though, but in order to buy into that, the rest of the bits that are firmly in canon territory MUST be accurate for the whole thing work. For me.

Glad it’s a good movie overall in Anthony’s opinion though. Will go see it and expect a better than average summer blockbuster.

203. Ben - April 13, 2009

thanks for the review.

Good work for trying to write a balanced view.

I for one, can’t wait till May 8th…

204. Commodore Redshirt - April 13, 2009

nice review and thanks, Anthony for this site and all of the amazing work here at trekmoviedotcom!

205. captain_neill - April 13, 2009

He has changed the stardates?

He has dumbed down the stardates? Does something like this need to be dumbed down.

Oh I hoping Scotty would be more than just comic relief. Scotty was more than that.

It sounds fantastic but I am getting the feeling that this will not be the best Star Trek film ever. It sound like he has turned this wonderful franchise into a dumbed down version to appeal to kids with short attention spans.

ANd god it seems Kirk is going to go from cadet to captain, this is silly.

I

206. captain_neill - April 13, 2009

I am really looking forward to this film and believe it will be good.

But I feel the Star Trek I loved has gone, been dumbed down to appeal to people who don’t get Trek

207. captain_neill - April 13, 2009

I really am looking forward to this movie but why did JJ Abrams have to change so much?

I am looking forward to seeing Karl urban as McCoy.

It is because of these changes and some reviews are indicating he has gone for a Michael Bay style action piece, a guy I never want involved in Trek.

Guess we have to dumb down our favourite show to make it popular.

208. Brad - April 13, 2009

Anthony,

I’d like to thank you for your review of the movie, even though I do lust for more spoilers. I think for me, the spoilery stuff makes me want to see the movie even more! I’d also like to thank you for putting up a website that joins the fans with some of the people who brought this movie to life. It really makes me feel more a “part” of the movie. It’s great to have feedback from those who helped create this new journey into the world of Trek.

I, for one, love the canon that has come before, and I’m happy that the writers were respectful of the Treks that have come before, but I’m honestly open for a change. While I’ve always enjoyed Star Trek in the past, I am also one who welcomes change, especially if that change is respectful to what has come before. I have much anticipation for every drop of action and excitement that this new film offers. I think this film is going to breathe new life into this franchise, and from what I’ve seen so far, I believe I’m right. Trek has always been very two dimensional. Seeing some of the shots from the trailer of the Enterprise at different angles (like the one shot from below as the E flies over through a field of debris) is just breathtaking. It’s something we’ve not seen before, and that adds so much more realism and life that I feel Trek has been lacking.

I’ve not seen a lot of the new Battlestar Galactica, but some of the space scenes from that series had a kind of gritty realism that I had always wanted from Star Trek. This new film seems to deliver that kind of filmmaking and brings Trek into a new light, at least for me. That excites me to no end.

Regardless of what the naysayers say, I’m sure I’m going to enjoy this film for what it is, and I’ll probably be first in line to pick up my copy on Blue-Ray so that I can watch it a zillion times in the comfort of my home on my 52″ HDTV!!

I love Star Trek and the hope and positive outlook on the future that it holds. And while we might not get there in 300 or 400 years, I believe that eventually we will, and that give me hope for the present. As long as these values are represented in ANY Star Trek, no matter how grim the plot, then it IS Star Trek.

To those who will compare this movie to Star Wars or other sci-fi films, I’m not here to say you’re right or wrong, but I’m here to say that this is Star Trek. Regardless of the action, or lack-thereof, the universe is STILL Star Trek, and I invite everyone to sit back and enjoy this movie for what it is. The anticipation of this film is nothing less than the same anticipation I felt before seeing the Lord of the Rings films in recent years. It’s something that I feel we have all been waiting for, and I’m hoping to be kicked in the seat of my pants when I go to the theater on April 8th!!!

*** Now, if I can only get into a serious discussion with Bob Orci over my thoughts on some future Star Trek plots, I’ll be set!! ;)

Thanks again Anthony and I look forward to more news!!

209. Mr Phil - April 13, 2009

Good review, nicely balanced and spoilers avoidable!
The human adventure is just beginning…?

210. Paulaner - April 13, 2009

As for dumbing down things, you know, I hear this statement a lot of times talking about videogames, movies, TV shows and so on. Is the whole world really dumber? Or maybe we are becoming old and we are affected by the “when I was young things were better” syndrome? :D

211. Daoud - April 13, 2009

Interesting review, AP. Thanks! Also, your hard work has paid off, as you really set up a bright, iBridgey kind of place that in comparison to the very dark black and blue of trekbbs.com, and with your constant updates and new *unique* articles has nailed your #1 position.

My son (16) told me today how he was looking forward to the movie, and usually he couldn’t care less. JJ, O&K and the gang are really making this work… finally the Trek we’ll pass on to our children….

212. Quarksbartender - April 13, 2009

I have a question about the movie are the Borg mentioned at all or even eluded to? for consideration in the spoilery review. Oh and thanks for the great review.

213. Thomas - April 13, 2009

190. Jimmy

I’m 24, and I don’t particularly care for that type of fast-cutting either. But then, I don’t usually see those types of movies either. I hardly ever go to the movies, myself. I haven’t been to the movies since last July 26th, to see The X-Files: I Want to Believe.

It’s strange, though. We’ve lived with this movie for almost three years, and it’s finally almost here. Only within the last couple of days have I begun to wonder if I’ve been setting myself up for disappointment. I’ve been looking forward to this movie from the very first moment I heard about it on the radio.

214. badtrek - April 13, 2009

Despite the incredible amount of HYPE, the TOS fans will hate this stupid version of star trek.

First of all it breaks so many stuff from TOS. Then need to use the parallel universe theory in order to get around stupid problems like KIRK never had ever driven a CAR…..

Hilarious and bad writing, superficial characters, a spock that looks like Sylor with fake ears and a horrid wig… that comes across like EVIL…. a bridge that has more lights than a Christmas tree, badly designed iBRIDGE less economical than a sumbarine.. and not to mention the poor Enterprises exterior design…

Built in the wrong location in a garage… lol on earth…. the shape itself makes me want to puke…. I would gladly shove a model up the designers rear for such sacrilege….

Is there anything that I have seen about this movie that I like?

No… no one thing inspires me…. its blaaaahhhhhhhh

JJ Abrams was the wrong person to direct this. he isnt even a trekie…

Although I love Trek, i would gladly see this movie flop… and be rejected by most trekies (not trekers who dont understand what TOS was).

Im sure Roddenberry will be doing somersaults in his grave with so many bad and stupid ugly mistakes in this move.

Buckle up!!!! GOD! that was a phrase Jim Carey used to MAKE FUN of star trek 15 years ago… and I cant believe they used it….

I might watch the movie to laugh… but im sure it will make me wanna too…

215. AJ - April 13, 2009

185: MC Doug

“I don’t think any other TREK movie even came close to the scope and feel of TMP. It shot for a 2001 feel and while far from perfect, the first of the big screen movies was a true honest to goodness labor of love; a movie that wanted to pay homage to the fans (those of us) who dreamed of a rebirth from the day the series was canceled in 1969… let’s face it, not one single facet of the post TMP series/movies does not owe something to the first film.”

While I agree about the ‘epic scale’ of TMP, it was handed to a master non-Trek director from being a TV series reboot only after Star Wars showed that that was cash in cinematic sci-fi. I don’t see the “labor of love” except in the detail of the D7’s and Scott’s tour of the E. The characters are wooden, and the pacing is death-defyingly slow, I love it to death, but even the Director;s Cut is a rough ride.

216. Paulaner - April 13, 2009

#214 “the TOS fans will hate this stupid version of star trek. ”

As a hard-core TOS fan, I am loving the new cut and the whole reboot idea.

217. Valar1 - April 13, 2009

128

Good point about the phaser/communicator designs. I think the new sleek designs evoke Probert’s “technology unchained” philosophy- that technology had evolved to the point where aesthetics were an equal consideration along with function.

218. AJ - April 13, 2009

214: badtrek

WHY are you here?

WHY do people like you need to see their own downbeat messages on Trek boards? Is it some kind of ego-boost?

At least you say you are going to see the film, which is more than I can say for other, more “seasoned” negative-nelly posters here.

Go see the film, and then come back.

219. AJ - April 13, 2009

I know there was a one-day tribute to Captain Robau a while back.

I propose we do a shout-out to Cadet ‘Cupcake’ as well.

220. Paul B. - April 13, 2009

Anthony,

Great job on the review! You managed a lot of detail with almost no real spoilers (all well warned of), and you’re fair enough to admit the film might not be so great on repeat viewings…or might be better. I grok that.

I can almost imagine you as you wrote some of those lines, trying to pick just the right wording to say enough without saying too much…or to sound positive but not fanboyish…hehe. Great job!

Oh, and to 201 – Jonathan: Thanks for that TV spot link! There’s a moment in there that I love, when Kirk shouts “Sulu!” and dives after him. THAT is classic Trek to me–Kirk leaping headfirst to save someone!

221. Berti Semmler - April 13, 2009

@ 214 [badtrek]

As a TOS fan of the very first hour, I have only one thing to say to you…

DO NOT EVER AGAIN SPEAK FOR ME!

222. Commodore Kor'Tar - April 13, 2009

Thank you for the heartfelt review Anthony . It’s only a few weeks away now and I am very much looking forward to seeing this film in all her modernized , action-packed, canon violating , too big nacelles , whiz-bang glory!

badtrek – here’s an idea , if you have decided you hate the film so much , I’ve got a wild idea. Don’t see it .

223. Gary - April 13, 2009

EXPECT A FEW SURPRISES IN THE MOVIE WHEN IT FINALLY OPENS. Let’s just say that there’s a couple of things that were intentionally left out of the preview screenings that were shown. ;-)

224. Don Johnson - April 13, 2009

Do you think that or do you know that?

225. AJ - April 13, 2009

223:

Gary, that’s big news. Can you tell us why you know this?

226. Kenneth Of Borg - April 13, 2009

See you at the LA premiere. ; -)

227. G - April 13, 2009

Sounds great! (except for “the pipes”) We all knew that the industrial pipes was a bad idea.

I’m not nit-picking (It’s okay, it’s okay!) LOL We’ll let it slide for now. Just fix it in the next movie, that’s all. Because, they should have seen this coming. Everyone else did. That was just a bad idea.

228. TK - April 13, 2009

i haven’t read your review anthony, apart from the final paragraph. I’m congratulating myself for remaining almost spoiler free. I can’t even bare the thought of reading “Coundown”. I’ll read it just before going to the movie.

But just from your last paragraph, and the sheer length of your review (boy is it long!!), I can see that it is a positive review (I hope). Ooooo, I can’t wait!!! less than a month now? I am so looking forward to this!!!

I want to come back to the reviews and every article with a spoiler in it after I’ve seent the movie. Is there any chance that you’d be able to bundle all the articles with spoilers in it under one tag at the top for later reading?

229. Jimmy - April 13, 2009

213. Thomas

Well, a fellow Trekkie/-er my age who agrees with me about modern movie styling? Whoda thunk? I should poke around these boards more often! haha.

As for the looking forward to this movie, It’s been an up-and-down sort of rollercoaster for me. Right now I’m to the point where I just want to finally see the damned thing to put all my speculation to rest and judge it on what it really is, not a hodgepodge of comments taken from reviews, snippets of clips, pictures and whatnot.

P.S. I RARELY see movies either. I’m just not keen on shelling out $10 to see some of the drivel they’ve been putting out there. The last movie I saw in a theater was “Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story” in late 2007…

230. Paulaner - April 13, 2009

That’s the good thing about being fair, honest and open-minded. It’s a new take on Trek, and I love seeing new things; I don’t care too much about changes but I am ready to criticize. No fanboyism from me. I know this movie will not be perfect. Going for a wider audience will have its cost in terms of pace, canon, continuity, look and feel and so on. (pipes and valves? umh… I don’t think I’m going to like that)
*But* I am excited, thrilled and grateful to Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman for bringing Trek back on the big screen. Thank you, guys!

231. Third Remata'Klan - April 13, 2009

Anthony, you lucky sod. ;)

Thanks so much for sharing this.

232. Selor - April 13, 2009

Great review and it confirmed me in my task to watch this movie at least 5 Times in Normal Cinema and hopefully at least one time in an IMAX!

233. Nick - April 13, 2009

Been a proud lurker for 2 years.

Enjoyed the voyage!

Look forward to dis-embarking for a short cinema visit in early May, and visiting this great (& most ‘facinating’) wébsite again for further discussion (at least in some context).

Great review. Thanks Anthony & team!

234. Janeways Knickers - April 13, 2009

I’m going to have to take a break from this site for the next 3 weeks or I will ruin what is to be a great movie and fantastic event.

Great review. Well done on running a great site all this time.

Have my IMAX booked for the Saturday and a smoke rolled for the car park.

Cheers!

235. thereare4lights - April 13, 2009

This doesn’t sound too good.

236. Mitch - April 13, 2009

Unfortunately, there’s absolutely nothing about this review that can be taken seriously. This website has been in bed with the Abrams team since the beginning, and this is no different than Abrams writing a review of the movie himself.

If Anthony writes a lousy review, the Abrams team simply won’t talk to him anymore, and that hurts the website. This is not objective.

That said, the movie could very well BE excellent. However, any review from this website is tainted at best.

237. Don Johnson - April 13, 2009

Well, that is the Harry Knowles syndrome alright.

238. Don Johnson - April 13, 2009

This is not your father’s Star Trek.

For arrogant slogans like that, I hope this movie bombs badly.

239. Don Johnson - April 13, 2009

And I’m 18, for the record.

240. Paulaner - April 13, 2009

#236 “However, any review from this website is tainted at best.”

This is not fair. An unjustified and gratuitous judgement towards a devoted fan that loves Trek and his fellow trekkers.

241. AJ - April 13, 2009

Mitch:

Anthony’s review is actually quite well-balanced compared to some of the trektacular ones that have surfaced on the net. I’ve just read two which mourn the passing of the great Mark Lenard, and which wish Ben Cross had portrayed the same gravitas in his role as Sarek.

242. CanuckLou - April 13, 2009

Anthony gives a balanced review, says Trek is back, and people focus on a few quibbles?

As someone who grew up watching the series in its original network run, Anthony’s review makes me even more pumped to see this movie.

Thanks again Anthony et al for the great work this site has provided us.

243. captain_neill - April 13, 2009

I hate the saying this is not your dad’s star trek

It makes me feel old

Why is it dumbed down

244. CaptainRickover - April 13, 2009

# 236

That comment is so stuipid and insulting, I won’t say any more words about it. Mitch, you really should use your brain and remind the manners you were once teached, before you write something!

245. Don Johnson - April 13, 2009

Why is that stupid and insulting? It’s perfectly clear that nobody bites in the hand that is feeding you. No fan site does that.

246. captain_neill - April 13, 2009

it sounds like they have turned Chekov into Wesley Crusher in this movie

247. New Horizon - April 13, 2009

214. badtrek – April 13, 2009
“Despite the incredible amount of HYPE, the TOS fans will hate this stupid version of star trek. ”

You’ve seen it then have you? Grow up.

248. JB - April 13, 2009

So am I hearing this correctly, that Kirk goes from cadet/midshipman to captain in the Enterprise’s encounter with Nero? If that’s how it plays out, that’s really hard to swallow, even in an alternate universe where 23rd century engineering consists of 20th century manual flywheel valves.

I’m looking forward to the movie and it sounds like it will do great things for the franchise. But in their desire to “make the future look real,” I was hoping Abrams & co. would also make Starfleet look like a credible future successor to NASA and the military. Even in TOS, Kirk’s meteoric rise to Captain of one of the Federation’s most expensive vessels by age 31/34 was hard to believe.

To be fair to the writers, I don’t know how anyone could chronicle Kirk’s story from childhood to Captain in a 2-hour movie without either leaving a lot out or sacrificing credibility for convenience, or both.

249. lwr - April 13, 2009

as long as there is a toss away line somewhere is the film explaining why the techknowlodgy, ship, Pike no wheelchair, Gary less Mitchell, et all is so radically different here as oppossed to TOS i will be ready to dig in and enjoy the ride.

250. Jimmy - April 13, 2009

yeah, I hate that slogan, “this isn’t your father’s star trek”. I KNOW it’s a figure of speech, saying it’s a completely new trek, by I can’t help but feel like they meant it another way, too. I took it to also mean that all the fans of the “old style” trek are old enough to have children who are old enough to be interested in this type of movie. so, apparantly there arent any teen or twenty something trek fans? another attempt to appeal to the young, uninitiated viewers

251. Al Hartman - April 13, 2009

#184.

Having heard this straight from his mouth, James Cawley didn’t beg to be in the movie. When JJ heard he was in Los Angeles, JJ invited James to the set, and offered him a cameo. No begging was involved.

NV/P2 is one of the things that convinced Paramount that Star Trek wasn’t dead, so this movie owes something to James and crew who showed that Star Trek was still a valuable property.

I believe that New Voyages original Spock, Jeff appears as a Romulan in the film making that two cast members of NV/P2 who appear in the film.

Also, several production staff members of NV/P2 are also involved in this movie.

Brandon Stacey who was Zachary Quintos stand in is now playing Spock in the Phase II production.

There are a LOT of links between the new movie and James Cawley’s production.

I think an apology to James Cawley is in order.

I think Phase II gets it right, and this new movie is all wrong. Phase II proves that the classic production design is fully capable of telling compelling stories. Changing things that are perfect fine, that do not drive the actual plot or story is just gratuitous.

Why there are many of us who have a dislike of all the changes is simple…

Imagine you went to a restaurant for over 40 years and loved their recipe for Chicken Soup. One day, you go back and find that the chicken soup no longer contains chicken and is entirely different. It may be good soup, it may be called chicken soup, but it isn’t the chicken soup you’ve loved for 40 years.

When you have an expectation of great chicken soup, substituting another soup, no matter how good… doesn’t cut it.

TOS fans want to see TOS on the big screen. Unchanged. Obviously re-cast… But, that’s what we want. Naturally giving us something else isn’t satisfactory to us.

Insulting those of us who love TOS is intolerant and out of character for true followers of the Roddenberry vision.

I’ll see this movie, and may even like it for what it is. But my dislike for the gratuitous changes in production design will remain.

252. Starship Conductor - April 13, 2009

I’ve been a fan of the TOS for over 40 years! Star Trek TOS helped me get through the 1960’s a little easier (along with my hobby of trains).

As to the TOS engineering section, that has always been one of my favorite parts of the Enterprise. However, if this new movie wants to add pipes, valves, 20th century lighting and water pipes – let it be done, I’ve always known that the USS Enterprise had a hidden brewery in main engineering (Budweiser Plant, Van Nuys, Ca.)! LOL

253. captain_neill - April 13, 2009

It seems this movie will bring Trek back and I hope new fans will go back and watch the Treks we love

I will always love Trek

236- I don’t get any bias here as I think Anthony’s review is fair and concise, I am glad the reviews are positive but they confirm there will be things that I will not be happy with.

Damn he even had to change the star dates but I still hope for a great film, although it is not going to be canon.

I don’t finsd the site bias, I only hate it when people say that you are not a true Trek fan when you point out your concerns over what JJ Abrams is doing to Star Trek.

We are all fans and we have to accept that not everyone is happy with what JJ Abrams is doing.

254. SPOCKBOY - April 13, 2009

#146
If you want to see the Cage Remastered, here is the effects reel…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmEuXsa4z_Q

255. Valar1 - April 13, 2009

“remind the manners you were once teached”

“nobody bites in the hand that is feeding you”

lol, you guys are hilarious, here’s a few suggestions for next time:

“you don’t have a pot to piss off”

“two birds in the hand beats 3 in the doghouse”

“the early bird gets the newspaper”

“a stitch in time saves you getting ripped a new one”

256. Jimmy - April 13, 2009

251: Al Hartman

thank you for so perfectly stating what i’ve been trying to get across for a year; only getting comments of “things change, get used to it”, etc. I couldn’t have phrased my own thoughts any better. granted, it’s been 20 years for me, not 40, but the feeling is the same.

also, thanks for the kind words about Mr. Cawley ad phase ii. I’ve alwas loved his production and it shows to me that trek needn’t be drastically different visually to tell a great, new story.

257. Xai - April 13, 2009

243. captain_neill – April 13, 2009

“Why is it dumbed down”

Forgive me for saying this, but…. You have a comment like this about once a week. We know you love Trek, we do too.

WHO said it was dumbed down?

258. falcon - April 13, 2009

@24 – Perhaps the allegory in this instance is the desire to “lash out” when things go south. Let’s face it, who hasn’t wanted to resort to violence when things don’t go their way? Granted, the destruction of a planet would probably even make Gandhi go for his AK-47, but when someone loses their job, or their spouse, or their family, or something near and dear to them, in many instances the thought of violence does occur (and thank God the actual violent acts don’t occur more often).

Nero’s not a “villain” in the traditional sense – he’s a person to whom life has given lemons, and he’s in no mood to make lemonade.

259. 750 Mang - April 13, 2009

I just saw the latest trailer.

Again, it looks cool until the actors open their mouths… “Either we’re going down or they are.” That’s the best dialogue they could come up with? That’s not clever or Kirk-like. Script writing by lowest common denominator; just write in cliches and then no-one will have to think about what you’re saying.

Did they write the thing in a single sitting? Whatever happening to editing and polishing?

It must be because of the Writer’s Strike. It has to be.

260. S. John Ross - April 13, 2009

“The big question for us fans is, even with all that feels different, is this film still a ‘Star Trek’ film? Or it just a good summer action movie called “Star Trek.””

That is, entirely, the big question.

261. Stanky McFibberich - April 13, 2009

re:254 Spockboy and 146 Matt Wright
….”If you want to see the Cage Remastered, here is the effects reel…”

Thanks, I have seen that effects reel, but just had wondered if I had somehow missed the review. Guess we are waiting until it has been broadcast.

262. 750 Mang - April 13, 2009

259. 750 Mang – April 13, 2009

“Whatever happenING to editing and polishing?”

See what happens when you don’t review your work. Shame on me.

263. Mitch - April 13, 2009

241–whether you find it insulting or not doesn’t change a thing. It’s absolutely impossible to take a review seriously from someone who has such a close relationship with the people who worked on the movie. I do believe it’s possible for the movie to be very good. But there is absolutely no possible objectivity in any review coming from this site because there is no neutrality. There was no way the review wouldn’t be positive. If Anthony trashes the movie, he burns the bridges and that can’t happen.

It’s not in the best interests of this site. The reviews that will mean more will be those who don’t have an interest in this movie which is not the case with this site.

That’s not a knock on Anthony at all. It’s just a statement on how to weigh a review when it comes from someone who is not and cannot be neutral.

264. The Angry Klingon - April 13, 2009

Anthony…well done!
I was concerned this would be another gushing review from a website in exchange for insider ‘status’ (AICN). Instead I found an even handed review that echoes many of my concerns and critiques.
With this movie some of my favorite stories (Cage and WNMHGB) cant happen, both from a story standpoint AND and astrological one. The decision to call that planet Delta Vega was not a nod but IMHO mere pandering that was poorly thought out and unnecessary. The name was irrelevant to the story but the writers made it relevant to fans (in a bad way) by its inclusion. That sort of gratuitous fan baiting annoys me.
I also agree with the contrived nature of the film and some of the Saturday Morning Television writing that enables this film to move forward. It struck me as, “Well, lets just get this out of the way…if we throw in enough lens flares no one will notice.” Ive been very vocal about the brewery scenes and the other 21st century set pieces that I find distracting and out of place and I was pleased to see those concerns acknowledged and agreed with.
This may be an enjoyable film but it may actually suffer from repeated viewings. The frantic action, SFX and fast paced story camouflage quite a few things that when viewed a second or third time will become more apparent.
Again, Im pleased to see that this wasnt a blind gush. Its been hard watching AICN slip in to studio sponsored nonsense and Im glad to see a review that was objective and well thought out.

265. Jonny - April 13, 2009

After reading this review it saddens me even more. The Star Trek I knew and loved is vanishing. replaced by some form of action movie drama. The human adventure is over. Why?? Why change so much? For what purpose? Why the need for an alternative timeline? Why change the Enterprise? The uniforms? the Star dates …. We have been sold out friends. SOLD OUT I will not see this movie. I will continue to watch my star trek. And my father’s star trek!! Shame on those others!!!!!!

266. S. John Ross - April 13, 2009

#263 says: “It’s absolutely impossible to take a review seriously from someone who has such a close relationship with the people who worked on the movie.”

I agree. I’m very, very grateful to all the work Anthony puts into this site and I do NOT doubt his integrity or honesty (he’s demonstrated both far too often), but as you say, there’s no chance of objectivity; his relationship to the movie has become personal.

I have no doubt that any review Anthony posts will be an _honest_ review done to the best of his ability … but I also have no doubt that any review Anthony posts will be of no personal use to me in deciding to see the film. It’s exactly like a Harry Knowles review: fun to read, exciting to think about, but ultimately, something to pass the time while waiting for reviews from critics whose standards of judgement I trust, and from friends who saw the movie at midnight the night before and who know my tastes.

267. SaphronGirl - April 13, 2009

There is so much emotional, illogical behavior on this site.

Spock would be disappointed.

268. Selor - April 13, 2009

@263 So we can say you have been paid by another Company with other movies to smash Star Trek, because you just show how much you dislike everything here or rather how much “they” want you to say you dislike it?

269. 750 Mang - April 13, 2009

Hey SaphronGirl,

You’re a writer. What do you think about “Either we’re going down or they are.” Choice scripting or hackneyed cliche?

Is it just me that feels like this movie was written for third graders?

270. Mitch - April 13, 2009

266–I’m not smashing Trek at all, and I don’t have a 2 year relationship with Abrams. Again, not trashing Anthony at all. Try reading comment 266. The guy gets it. This movie is very personal to the guy, and there’s simply no way he would trash it, even if it was the worst Trek movie ever.

271. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#263: “241–whether you find it insulting or not doesn’t change a thing. It’s absolutely impossible to take a review seriously from someone who has such a close relationship with the people who worked on the movie. I do believe it’s possible for the movie to be very good. But there is absolutely no possible objectivity in any review coming from this site because there is no neutrality. There was no way the review wouldn’t be positive. If Anthony trashes the movie, he burns the bridges and that can’t happen.”

Well – aside from the fact that human beings don’t do “objectivity” at all (closest we get is physical measurements taken in a laboratory setting) and what you actually *want* there is the concept of detached judgment – the essence of critical reading is to be sensitive to what one understands to be the biases of the writer and weigh statements of fact and opinion against that. There is no black-and-white world in which the opinions of people friendly to a project are worthless and the opinions of people who are skeptical of it are of intrinsically greater value – particularly when the skeptics are for the most part operating with a great deal less direct information about a project than are the “friendlies.”

Carrying your reasoning a bit farther, no one should ever take the opinion of any Trek fan seriously with regard to “Star Trek,” simply because we like it too much to be (ahem) “objective.”

Anthony’s review is quite well-balanced – and yeah, friendly to the movie. He sure wanted to like it. I sure want to like it. That said, he points out some problems with the movie that I’d been aware were potential problems but hoped would not be. They’re relatively trivial, but will be a bigger deal to some viewers than to others.

272. Denise de Arman - April 13, 2009

I have been waiting for your review for a long time, Anthony. Thank you – glad you got to see the movie.

273. boomer13 - April 13, 2009

Excellent review Anthony! Just want to thank you for all your work you have done for this site. Bringing an interesting perspective, insightful interviews and a whole lotta news.
As for the critics of this movie, it is interesting that people pick apart 2 second dialogue, the movie blasmophy the Roddenberry God and only sees what they want to see. It is like we have 1000 more people who have seen the film in their minds.
It is funny that Star Trek only became the Star Trek we know with out Roddenberry’s influence. He can thank the likes of Gene L. Coon, Nicholas Meyer, Harve Bennett, Michael Piller, Ira Steven Behr and now JJ Abrams for carrying out his vision and expanding it.
To make him Godlike disrespects the man he is. If it was up to Gene we would of had more Star Trek The Motion Pictures, the first two seasons of Star Trek The Next Generation. He had a vision but other talented people expanded it and never get the credit for it. I just wish people would be realistic on their reality of the man instead of making him a Bajoran Prophet.

274. 750 Mang - April 13, 2009

273. boomer13 – April 13, 2009

It’s a shame that Nicholas Meyer or Harve Bennett didn’t have a crack at fixing this script.

275. Chuck Fu - April 13, 2009

I’m very relieved by this review after the seemingly grim future (or lack of) Trek that seemed inevitable in the early 2000’s.

So WTFrak if it’s different? I started watching TOS in 1968 when I was 6 years old and had to adjust to TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and managed to acclimate & enjoy all of them.

Glad to here it’s not a bomb…

276. boomer13 - April 13, 2009

#274 Honestly, how do you the script sucks? Maybe it fits in the context of the film. If they showed a commercial Kirk yelling KHAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNN! in Star Trek 2 wouldn’t it look cheesy and dumb?

All I am saying is watch the film and then judge it, I just don’t understand the hate. Star Trek fans are a spoiled bunch.

277. Star Trackie - April 13, 2009

Thank for the spoiler free review Anthony! Can’t wait to see Trek’s big return to the imaginative, fun, action/adventure formula that drove the classic series to classic status 40 years ago! After years of pretentious, mediocrity infested Trek, the sleeping giant has been awakened.

# 185 “The TOS movies all primarily focused on the Kirk, Spock McCoy triad, almost to the point that the other cast members seemed incidental. ”

That’s because those characters WERE incidental. TOS is and always was about Kirk, Spock and McCoy. And was all the better for it, IMO.

#214 “Despite the incredible amount of HYPE, the TOS fans will hate this stupid version of star trek. ”

This TOS fan disagrees.

#259 Again, it looks cool until the actors open their mouths… “Either we’re going down or they are.” That’s the best dialogue they could come up with? That’s not clever or Kirk-like.”

You haven’t watched much original Trek I’m guessing.

#269 “Is it just me that feels like this movie was written for third graders?”

It’s just you.

And this movie IS my father’s Star Trek, thank you very much. He watched TOS in its first run-1966-69. Nice to have it back.

278. Clinton - April 13, 2009

Great review, Anthony.

I’ll be interested in seeing this one, and will try not to worry too much about changes/inconsistencies/conveniences. I recall letting LOTS of things like this slide in the past. For instance, Spock speaking about his parents in the past tense in an episode, the number of levels on the Enterprise in Star Trek V, engaging warp drive right outside spacedock in Trek III, the complete change in uniform style between TMP and Trek II, the fact that the Enterprise always seemed to be the only ship available to handle problem X, engaging in conversations while beaming, etc. If the new movie is good and holds true to the core essence of Trek, these issues can be handled.

279. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#274: “It’s a shame that Nicholas Meyer or Harve Bennett didn’t have a crack at fixing this script.”

Why? Neither of them has done anything significant in movies for nearly twenty years. They made one-and-a-half good “Star Trek” movies. Meyer’s cinematic resume apart from Trek is pretty thin, though it does exist (have you actually *seen* “The Day After?” Not actually very good. “Time After Time” is cleverly written, clumsily directed, well-played and…a so-so movie).

People will always be able to go watch TWOK again if they’re actually convinced that the early 1980s represent the pinnacle of “Star Trek.” There’s no reason that the rest of us should stay stuck there.

280. Author of The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers - April 13, 2009

Hey, whatever it is, however it turns out, it looks to be a fun ride.

281. Gabriel Bell - April 13, 2009

@251. You do not speak for me. I am a lifelong TOS fan (and fan of all Trek) and your postulations do not come close to representing my opinions.

Feel free to bleat and bray on this site all you want, but don’t be so arrogant as to think you speak for all TOS fans.

282. 750 Mang - April 13, 2009

276. boomer13 – April 13, 2009

“#274 Honestly, how do you the script sucks?”

From the clips that have been shown and the scenes that have been screened. AP himself said inhis review that the way our heroes come to their new positions and ranks will warrent eye rolling. So…

However you may be right. Those clips might be the only weak links. But it seems improbable.

Off to work.

You guys have a good one!

283. boomer13 - April 13, 2009

#279

LOL!

284. boomer13 - April 13, 2009

#282

It is true perhaps you might not like the film. I might not like it myself but I will keep an open mind and see what the film is all about.

Have a great day at work!

285. Admiral Waugh - April 13, 2009

Guys I have an urgent request:

Hong Kong does not get Trek until May 28. I was just about to buy a plane ticket to Indonesia to see it for May 8, but some Indonesian friends just told me they think it is delayed until June 10. Do you know where I can verify this? Do any of you know? I would be most appreciative. Otherwise, I will have to go to Singapore… argh.

286. 750 Mang - April 13, 2009

279. Dennis Bailey – April 13, 2009

“#274: “It’s a shame that Nicholas Meyer or Harve Bennett didn’t have a crack at fixing this script.”

Why? Neither of them has done anything significant in movies for nearly twenty years.”

I would say that both Meyer and Bennett are pretty successful guys even without their participation in Trek.

However, success and talent frequently have little to do with each other in showbiz.

Michael Bay, George Lucas, whoever it is that keeps making those Alien/Predator movies. The list goes on.

Seriously, off to work now. I love talking about Star Trek. You guys rock, especially when we don’t agree.

287. Author of The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers - April 13, 2009

To #273. Brilliantly stated.

This notion that no one other than Roddenberry could handle “this vision thing” borders on the absurd, evolving almost to urban legend. He had a workable, entertaining concept. He sold it. And with the help of myriad other writers, actors, and directors, that concept was flushed out into the franchise we all know. And in many cases, those very people *saved* Trek from Roddenberry’s own hand. People need to get beyond this borderline deification of Roddenberry; over the years, I’ve read plenty of accounts that explain him to have been great at concepts, but not nearly so skilled at realizing them, either in writing or exposition. Hence the myriad supporting creative cast that made Trek a reality.

As far as this reboot goes, let’s keep in mind, everyone, that after Nemesis and “Enterprise,” Trek was dead, an afterthough, an also-ran in the heap of pop-culture. And I’m delighted the franchise was put in the hands of someone other than the Berman crew, who drove it directly into the abyss.

Yeah, its gonna be different, and there will be things even I will nitpick, but for the mere fact that Trek is getting the red-carpet treatment we’ve always wanted, I plan to kick back and enjoy it.

288. sean - April 13, 2009

#274

With all respect Mang, you don’t know what’s in the script. You’ve seen a few snippets of dialog that might account for 1/2 of 1/10th of a percent of the entire film. I could pick apart Trek’s dialog for the last 40 years, pull it out of context and give you plenty of cheesy, 3rd grader banter.

289. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#287:”This notion that no one other than Roddenberry could handle “this vision thing” borders on the absurd, evolving almost to urban legend. He had a workable, entertaining concept. He sold it. And with the help of myriad other writers, actors, and directors, that concept was flushed out into the franchise we all know. And in many cases, those very people *saved* Trek from Roddenberry’s own hand. ”

Absolutely Right™.

290. ByGeorge - April 13, 2009

I have always been amazed by Trek’s, particularly TOS Trek’s ability to do so many differing genres of stories. There were serious stories, spoofs, romance stories, war stories, spy stories, cerebral stories, social commentary stories (my least favorite), pure fantasies, family drama’s, science stories, and tragedies. Shouldn’t TOS Star Trek loan itself out as an action story movie just as well as it loaned itself out to these other types of stories?

TOS worked so well because of the characters, the format, the writing, acting and the willingness to try new things, change it a little, and throw in the unexpected. This film keeps the characters, format and the Trek universe so why not add something new. This is science fiction after all.

If Trekkies are supposed to be progressive, open minded, forward thinking and open to charge why are so many complaining about a movie that they haven’t yet seen, and because it is not exactly like Trek was in the past. There are some changes — horrors. Where would Trek be if they were afraid to try some new ideas? I’m looking forward to watching TOS’s attempt at doing an action flick. If it doesn’t work, I’ll whine for something different for the next installment.

291. JB - April 13, 2009

If there is cheesy dialogue in this film, IMO that wouldn’t be anything new in the ST movies. I always thought the line, “I’ve had enough of you” from STIII was pretty cheesy, as was Data’s “lock and load” line (Generations?).

292. SaphronGirl - April 13, 2009

269. (750 Mang)

I’ll be honest, it made me wince. But then again, I just watched “A Lion in Winter”, so that line didn’t really stand much of a chance. ;)
I don’t want to be an apologist, but I’m willing to watch the film with an open mind and see if dialogue like that is prevalent throughout… and whether or not it ruins the experience for me. In all honestly, there were some stinker lines in the old ST movies, but on the whole, I was able to appreciate the films for what they were. I’m going to try to put on my “Spock goggles” and judge this movie with as little pre-formed bias as possible.

293. sean - April 13, 2009

And for everyone referencing TMP – THANK GOD this isn’t TMP. That was the absolute last thing that Trek needed. I say that as a fan of the film. It’s full of wooden acting, tedious pacing and is far too in love with its own special effects reel. If JJ had created another TMP, Trek really would be dead and buried.

294. Randy H. - April 13, 2009

Some of the “problems” identified by Anthony are the same things that bothered me back in 1982 (and still do a bit) with TWOK.

– Anachronistic looking engineering section. Why, oh why, would people have to *manually* pull floor grates up to load and fire a photon torpedo?
– Unfamiliar uniforms and equipment. Why did Starfleet adopt the bellhop design? Why are the communicators so LARGE and bulky?
– Short explanation for the “villain’s” anger. It was clear that Kahn was put on the planet by Kirk, but the circumstances of that were only touched on. Unless you saw the prequel (“Space Seed”) you might have been justified in saying “Huh”?
– Funky interiors. I’m thinking Spock’s cabin, the “no smoking” signs.
– Potentially revised history. Where did Kahn get the “new” Starfleet belt buckle around his neck? When did he see Chekov?

Yet TWOK is viewed with affection by many despite these things. I have a feeling that this new film will either be good enough for people to ignore the oddities (in hopes they are fixed in later movies), or it won’t quite be sufficient a cinema experience and people will blame the little things for its failure. We’ll just have to see, as these issues become more or less important within the context of the film as a whole.

295. pock speared - April 13, 2009

if these raging “bad trek” types who continue to trash a film they haven’t seen don’t stop the whining, then we’ll just have to turn this shuttle around and go right back to bermanville, where everything is cheap, condescending and boring.

on the other hand, if this film finally trims away the neurotic, obsessive and arrogant hyperfans away from star trek forever, how wonderful that would be.

one wonder’s if it’s not so much a question of “childhood’s being raped” as it is people who were raped in childhood (likely by drunk alien uncles) and are unable to emerge into maturity long enough to form some sort of distance from their rage.

btw, i know i’ll be in the minority here, but i really dig the idea of industrial lower decks. it works on many levels to me, not least the freudian “bowels/unconscience” of the ship juxtaposed to the cleaner, shinier “intellect /conscience” of the bridge. cool new stuff to ponder.

296. Admiral Waugh - April 13, 2009

Actually, giving Meyer the helm for the next movie sounds like a GREAT idea. He knows how to balance gravitas with great plots and action. Imagine what he could do with this reborn franchise?

297. The Truth - April 13, 2009

295. pock speared – April 13, 2009

“one wonder’s if it’s not so much a question of “childhood’s being raped” as it is people who were raped in childhood (likely by drunk alien uncles) and are unable to emerge into maturity long enough to form some sort of distance from their rage.”

A testament to your own maturity.

298. Tango - April 13, 2009

What is meant by “space lake”?

299. urbandk - April 13, 2009

great review.

300. Whatsinaname - April 13, 2009

First time poster here. I have read many of the positive and negative comments about the new trek movie both here and other sites. What i cannot understand is this: We have all seen Trek evolve from TOS to NG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. I was a bg fan of TOS and grew up watching re-runs of it. It’s disappointing to see so many people dismiss this film before you have even seen it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but how can anyone call it horrible or rubbish or whatever without having seen it? How close minded. I don’t know it it will be great, good, bad, or otherwise but I can’t wait to find out. To all those that hate it and won’t give it a chance, you’re all probably just afraid that you might actually enjoy it.

301. sean - April 13, 2009

#296

Hmm. Has he even directed in 20 years? Love the guy’s work, but I’m not sure we should be pulling out the old guard at this point.

302. S. John Ross - April 13, 2009

#294 sez: “Yet TWOK is viewed with affection by many despite these things. I have a feeling that this new film will either be good enough for people to ignore the oddities (in hopes they are fixed in later movies), or it won’t quite be sufficient a cinema experience and people will blame the little things for its failure.”

It does, in the end, simply come down to the film’s quality in a broader sense. If this is a truly good, _enduring_ film, all will be forgiven or rationalized away (the nitpickers will still nitpick, but nothing stops that). If this is, instead, a vapid summer thrill-ride, then the vultures will descend and strip the bones clean (and that’ll be okay, because the rest of the world will have forgotten the movie exists by October).

Seen that way, it’s basically a win-win :)

303. RAH - April 13, 2009

Wow

304. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#296: “Actually, giving Meyer the helm for the next movie sounds like a GREAT idea. He knows how to balance gravitas with great plots and action. Imagine what he could do with this reborn franchise?”

Make a superficial and quickly-dated political allegory with nothing to say that would impress anyone other than a predisposed-to-be-friendly Trek fan?

Oops – he did that already with “The Undiscovered Country.”

Well, he might dress it up by lifting as much stuff as possible from some other current film…

Uh, no, that would be “The Undiscovered Country” again, senselessly borrowing from “The Hunt For Red October.”

305. McCoy - April 13, 2009

AP, thanks for what appears to be a toned-down honest impression of the film.

From your review, I can see that nothing has changed my impression and I will not be there the first few weeks of release (if at all). There are directors in the world who have a certain style that I have no taste for (including Tim Burton) and I will be moving JJ into that group. The initial premise that Trek should be altered to reach a larger, different, group was false and therefore all decisions based on that premise have killed the film for me. I also do not agree that Trek was on life support.

If the 150 million dollar budget meant “make changes” then it was an unwelcome crutch. The idea of Trek was sound prior to the changes and I believe if it was built right, many would have come and I would gladly have taken my children and buzzed to my friends.

I have no care for altered crew who now not only look different, but i fact are very different. There is not enough glue in the film to place it next to the other Trek films on the shelf.

In my opinion, with enough information in, this film is a combination of Speed Racer and Phantom Menace. Where the director’s style overwhelms the content and too many changes are made for the sake of change.

306. Star Trackie - April 13, 2009

#290 – ByGeorge- I think he’ s got it!

307. McCoy - April 13, 2009

Star Trek: Speed Menace

308. sean - April 13, 2009

#304

Ouch Dennis! I’m normally with ya, but I think you’re being far too harsh. How does TUC rip off HFRO? If anything, it rips off ‘Balance of Terror’, which ripped off The Enemy Below.

309. 750 Mang - April 13, 2009

305. McCoy – April 13, 2009
“the director’s style overwhelms the content and too many changes are made for the sake of change.”

It seemed you were making a good point but I couldn’t read it because of all the lens flare! lol.

310. sean - April 13, 2009

#305

“I also do not agree that Trek was on life support. ”

Then with all respect brother, you’re kidding yourself. It was dead, buried and sprouting flowers. Worms were feeding on that sucker.

311. DGill - April 13, 2009

I read a rumor that the Beastie Boys’ “Sabotage” was going to play during the infamous car chase sequence. If that’s true, that has me a little scared. I’m praying that this movie doesn’t have the same vibe as “Terminator 3″ (then again, that movie was chalk-full of ‘WTF’ moments). :O God, we need to see this movie now!

312. boomer13 - April 13, 2009

#305

Sorry you won’t be there. I, however will have an awesome time with alot of friends.

Even the films that have not been on par with other Trek films I found something to like about them,

Instead of going in feeling that you will be disapointed, go in and just sit down. Shut your trek brain off and watch the film. You might actually enjoy it.

313. jj_roddenberry - April 13, 2009

180,
ie. “Close Minded Prat-inator”

It’s not beyond the realms of possibility to find a movie generally likeable, despite the fact that you know it’s cheesy, predictable nonsense. It merely appeals to a different part of the brain that goes for classier stuff.

I know for the purposes of your silly post that it’d be easier if we all fit into two categories – people who’ll like the movie, people who won’t – but it’s really not all that simple.

Grab a brain…..

314. Don Johnson - April 13, 2009

Haha, Dennis, now if that’s your honest opinion on TUC…

315. New Horizon - April 13, 2009

305. McCoy – April 13, 2009
“There are directors in the world who have a certain style that I have no taste for (including Tim Burton) and I will be moving JJ into that group.”

It’s a shame you can’t appreciate such style, as Tim Burton is surely one of the most talented directors out there. His work is so distinctive, and creative. He’s an artist. His films have always been so visually interesting…even so far back as Pee Wees Big Adventure, where he had no budget at all. :)

“The initial premise that Trek should be altered to reach a larger, different, group was false and therefore all decisions based on that premise have killed the film for me.”

That the premise was false is YOUR opinion…that does not make it false.

“I also do not agree that Trek was on life support.”

Then you really weren’t paying attention now, were you? Trek as an idea, was alive and thriving…Trek as a profitable Paramount franchise, was dying a slow and very obvious death over the course of several years. Enterprise started off pretty strong in the ratings, but again…it dropped to all time lows. The franchise was dying….Trek as an idea, will always live so long as there is someone to imagine it. Two distinctly different things. For commercial Trek to exist, it has to make money. That’s just the way it goes.

316. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#308: ” How does TUC rip off HFRO?”

Just two examples for starts:

Watch the sequence where Red October turns the Konovalov’s torpedo back on it. Then watch the TUC sequence where Enterprise sends a torpedo up the “tailpipe” of Chang’s ship.

Watch the shift from Russian to English aboard Red October. Watch the shift from Klingon to English during Kirk and McCoy’s trial.

This kind of thing isn’t simply (and in some cases, isn’t primarily) narrative resemblance but goes into the directorial and editing choices made – not to mention set dressing and design (why does Enterprise suddenly have big, anachronistic red LED displays on it? Only because Red October did). Watch the two movies back to back. It’s almost brazen.

317. S. John Ross - April 13, 2009

#312 magically portends: “I, however will have an awesome time with alot of friends.”

How do you know? You haven’t seen it yet. Seems insane to have such a clear opinion of a film you haven’t seen.

#265 psychically predicts: “The Star Trek I knew and loved is vanishing.”

How do you know? You haven’t seen it yet. Seems insane to have such a clear opinion of a film you haven’t seen.

Once again, kids: it doesn’t matter if you love this film or if you hate it. if you haven’t seen it yet, you’re insane either way.

318. Don Johnson - April 13, 2009

Yeah, Dennis, and your point being? The Dark Knight was almost a carbon copy of Heat if you really want to see it like that.

319. pock speared - April 13, 2009

no way of knowing what i dead man thinks, but i do feel GR would have approved of the production design of the film (it is very much a similar departure that TMP attempted).

and i’ve said it before, but dennis bailey always gets it right. his posts keep me here when the weasels are howling.

#297 “the truth” (?)
gee thanks! had a few ice water enemas back in the day, did you?

320. Don Johnson - April 13, 2009

And what big anachronistic red LED displays? Do you mean the red lighning during Red Alert? Dude, that was already in TWOK. And the huge RED ALERT symbol was introduced in TMP.

321. boomer13 - April 13, 2009

317 I am with you man, I have not seen the film but I will have a great time with my friends, I always do.

322. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#318: “Yeah, Dennis, and your point being?”

If you decline to see the point, continue to hum loudly with your fingers in your ears.

323. New Horizon - April 13, 2009

318. Don Johnson – April 13, 2009

Dennis is right though. Like it or not. I’ve seen that in TUC for many years myself and even though it was better than TFF, I never really cared for it as a Trek movie.

324. The Real Kobayashi_Maru - April 13, 2009

So, what about us that WANT spoilers??? where can i go to find them????

325. Stiftl - April 13, 2009

Great Review, I liked it especially as it is almost spoiler free.

One remark to the “Flagship” Enterprise. I thought that Enterprise became the flagship because of our beloved crew, not before? Or is it stated in the movie that Enterprise *is* Starfleets flagship?

326. Mr. X - April 13, 2009

And that the story of this new movie is a big rip off of Star Wars is better than TUC borrowing elements from HFRO?

327. pock speared - April 13, 2009

#316 dennis
check that on HFRO/TUC. i noticed long ago. the translation device actually goes back to the nuremberg trials film (with william shatner).

328. Raphael Salgado - April 13, 2009

I think Cawley pulled it off, too, in keeping Trek alive and well enough to get the attention of the powers-that-be in Paramount, and keeping it fun, challenging, and interesting in the eyes of the fans.

So, as far as I’m concerned (and since Phase II/New Voyages came out before Star Trek 2009), James Cawley established himself as the second Kirk, and Chris Pine as the third. While I obviously haven’t seen Pine in full form, I think it’s safe to assume that each interpretation of Kirk was brought to life very well by all of these actors.

By Grabthar’s hammer, I’m definitely watching it more than once in May – but I do hope I don’t miss all the cameos and other nuances they threw in there at my first viewing.

I can’t believe it’s almost here!!!

329. Darker - April 13, 2009

- ..I like the review but it doesn’t change my impressions about the movie ..maybe because i’m one of the fans who thinks that the best trek movie was F.C….

330. Mr. X - April 13, 2009

328. Which means that Chris Pine follows in the foot steps of a fanfilm Kirk actor?

331. Admiral Waugh - April 13, 2009

304 — there are several movies that have that red LED effect. It didn’t start with Hunt for Red October. And it is used because it is effective. There are lots of movie techniques that are adopted for that reason — why does borrowing that even remotely matter?

Furthermore, the allegory isn’t dated at all. The broader story is about prejudice and new beginnings, not just the USA/USSR, although admittedly in the director’s commentary it was frustrating to listen to someone heap praise on Gorbachev, who did his level best to keep the USSR together, and none on others much more richly deserving (Thatcher, Reagan, JPII, Walesa, even Deng).

Star Trek VI certainly stands on its own, but of course, when I say that Meyer deserves the helm, you should also consider Star Trek II. He worked very well with the actors and got them to deliver fine performances in both his movies, especially Star Trek II: Shatner, Nimoy at their finest. His background in literature, I think, allows him to channel more powerful expressions and ideas through the actors.

332. P Technobabble - April 13, 2009

Anthony, my hat’s off to you for a fine, balanced review, and for all the work you and your team have done with this site. This Trek-fan is forever in your debt.
It is obvious that even if this film became one of the biggest box-office hits in movie history, there will still be nay-sayers and nit-pickers. So be it. Not one word from any of these people has altered my interest, enthusiasm and excitement about the new film, and I will certainly make my own judgment about the movie when I see it with my own 4 eyes. I do not mind people saying things like, “I, PERSONALLY, do not care for (_________ fill in the blank),” because they are taking personal responsibility for their own feeling and attitude. But when people make blanket statements like, “This sucks,” or “That sucks,” I must shrug them off as inconsequential… I’m really happy about all the positive “pre-reviews” this film is getting, and I hope it’s the start of a new wave of Trek-popularity.

333. James Cawley - April 13, 2009

#184. I did not beg to be in this movie. Get your facts correct Please. Yes, I was an extra and on the set for 4 days. If I made it to the final cut, I am on the bridge. Period. I have never claimed anything otherwise.
J.J. Abrams was and is a most gracious man, and invited me on the set after a chance meeting. Marc Zicree actually introduced New Voyages and Me to J.J., that is how J.J. New of Me and My project.
The last email I received from J.J. was a couple months ago and at that time, He indicated I was in the film. I understand that things change and perhaps I am not, I can not say until I see it. Either way, I have the experience of it all and that is enough.

334. DesiluTrek - April 13, 2009

Thanks for the well-thought-out review, Anthony. Even though Paramount was trying to buy a flat-out rave, you still manage to be tactfully honest
about some of the things that didn’t work to you.

I may not be a frequent poster (only when I feel I can add a new perspective or something else of substance) but I visit the site at least 3-4 times a day. Anytime I visit my old favorite Trek sites, they seem to be linking back to you!

Grrrr … I am waiting for Fandango or other ticket sites to post IMAX locations — I want my first viewing on opening day to be in IMAX!!!
Wherever it is, my virgin viewing will be purely for fun, just absorbing the excitement of (and here’s hoping very entertained by) a new “original” Star Trek story involving my old friends after all these years. I will save any possible eye-rolling and nit-picks for the second viewing, which likely will be back-to-back with the first, just as I did Dec. 7, 1979.

335. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#320: “And what big anachronistic red LED displays? Do you mean the red lighning during Red Alert?”

No, I do not. I mean the big red LED numeral displays (frequently out-of-sync from one shot to the next) which had never appeared on the bridge before.

Don’t work from memory; watch the movie.

336. Mr. X - April 13, 2009

Those clocks are bothering you? I found they were a nice addition. You know, makes things feel “more real”.

337. LT1701E - April 13, 2009

Im curious, why do so many people care about weather this movie will fit into old trek cannon. i am as big as a fan as they come. i love my trek. i have 5 uniforms in my closet every dvd, waiting on blu ray, 1000’s of dollars in collectibles all around my house. I admit when i first heard that the movie wasnt going to follow cannon i was disappointed, however i came to realize that its better if it doesnt, if it did then non of the old trek would make sense. the charaters are differnent with different style. not to mention it would probably not be as exciting. This movie cant follow cannon or it would bomb. I liked nemesis even though i cryed when the movie was over because data died. i dont want to leave the theatre disapointed. i want to leave thinking that movie rocked. if its just another star trek movie with the same old story then whats the point. star trek needs this REBOOT to make it fun and exciting again. This movie will not go into my star trek dvd collection but it will be on my shelf of dvd’s when it comes out as one of my favorite movies.
Just remember for those who refuse to accept change or dissaprove of difference or stir things up. If everyone thought like that we would still be under british rule.

338. LT1701E - April 13, 2009

no offense to the british, U guys rock. my point is as an american.Things have to change to grow to become better.

339. Julio - April 13, 2009

Some of the little things like water pipes, etc. I can get past. But the shaky-cam and lens flare stuff has me worried. Hopefully it won’t look too much like BSG…

340. Dom - April 13, 2009

Thanks for the review Anthony. Thoroughly looking forward to seeing the film. Interesting some of the ‘negatives’ you found. I have to say that, for me, an engine room containing old-school pipes and so on makes sense. No matter how advances our technology, we’re likely still to need pipes and so on to pump water and fluids around the ship.

For all our advances in technology, designs like this haven’t really changed in decades. Perhaps we’re already close to optimum efficiency with something like that. As for the Kelvin and its uniforms, I’m willing to accept a little artistic licence. The Kelvin’s internal similarities to the TOS designs and the uniforms’ similarity to TNG strike me as a nice kiss to series’ past: an out with the old, in with the new gesture.

And as for people trying to liken Anthony to Harry Knowles, lighten up! Yes, Anthony’s had contact with the production team, but he’s a level-headed guy and has every right to comment if he chooses to. It’s up to you if you want to take what he says seriously, as with anyone who publishes a critique.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to seeing the movie in less than a month. My feeling right now is best summed up by Kirk’s line in Star Trek IV: ‘My friends, we’ve come home!’

341. Jeff Bond - April 13, 2009

It’s obvious this board is divided between people who view Star Trek as an entertainment which can evolve and change and those for whom it is an inviolate religion. Oh, the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth!

I’ll say one thing regarding Anthony’s objectivity, and you can take it with a grain of salt as people may regard me as much “in JJ’s pocket” as Anthony. But I spoke on the phone to Anthony after he saw the film to get his reaction and there’s basically no difference between what he said to me and what he wrote in the review, and he had no need to tailor his remarks when he was speaking to me. I haven’t seen the whole film yet but it’s clear that this is going to be a very exciting and involving film that nevertheless will have some elements that will drive hardcore fans crazy. But anyone who can watch that scene of Karl Urban’s McCoy getting on the shuttlecraft and not think that this movie was made by people who LOVE the original Star Trek is just deaf and blind. Oh, and “This is not your father’s Star Trek”…that’s not an official tag line as far as I know–if it is I agree it’s idiotic, mainly because it’s a dumb riff on a 10-year-old car commercial. But I’ve never heard that employed in any official capacity for this movie so people screaming about that is pretty silly…

342. Dom - April 13, 2009

339. Julio ‘ Some of the little things like water pipes, etc. I can get past. But the shaky-cam and lens flare stuff has me worried. Hopefully it won’t look too much like BSG…’

BSG has set new standards for sci fi on TV and in cinema. Anything new is likely to be influenced by something cutting edge!

343. GaryS - April 13, 2009

Thanks for the balanced review Anthony.
much appreaciated .

344. Darker - April 13, 2009

- Maybe Anthony can tell us if mr. CAWLEY is in the movie…

345. Author of The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers - April 13, 2009

#294: Re TWOK grates, “No Smoking” signs, etc.

I think those were a *direct* consequence of Nicholas Meyer’s influence. I think he pushed hard to make the battle scenes to have a submarine-war feel to them, and I admit the grates were a bit much. But I also remember reading of the cost pressures TWOK was under, and that torpedo room was a reuse of the TMP Klingon bridge, and the rails of the torpedoes were also the dolly tracks for the cameras on that set. The communicators were set pieces put together from existing Paramount props – to save money. Remember, too, that if TWOK hadn’t been successful, Trek would have quite probably died there back in 1982, so Meyer has to be given quite a bit of credit for saving the ship as it were…although the Spock/torpedo coffin “reincarnation” shot at the end nearly pushed Meyer to have his name taken off the film and led him to flaty refuse to direct Trek III….he had to be talked into coming back for VI…

But I digress..

Beyond all this silly detail, however, something else has to be mentioned. If anyone, *anyone* truly peceives that the changes in the Trek “world” in this movie to be tantamount to “a rape of their childhood,” I respectfully submit that someone desperately, desperately needs a life.

I mean, yeah, I’ve enjoyed Trek for a long time in most of its versions….but “rape of my childhood?” Geez, give us all a physical break.

346. Daoud - April 13, 2009

#320,335 In Wrath of Khan, always assumed the big LED numeral displays (clocks) had something to do with Enterprise being a training vessel for Starfleet Academy…. Improbable, but remotely plausible. Of course, Nick Meyer put them there, and they’ve always looked ridiculous, just like his “joke” of putting the No Smoking signs in.

Just like we’ll be assuming the same for Pike’s Enterprise, that his Bar Code Scanners are actually serving some training/record purpose, and that the pipes in Engineering are temporary water processing because they were in a hurry, and we’ll upgrade them next Tuesday.

347. Paulaner - April 13, 2009

Many opinions, many points of view. I respect them all. But one thing must be taken for sure: Anthony Pascale being fair, honest and objective. Please, stop insulting our host, a trekker who is working very hard to bring us news about our favorite sci-fi show in a non-fanboyish way. We owe him respect and gratitude. We are entitlted to personal opinions, but every other gratuitous insinuations… please, be civil and keep them for yourselves.

348. Closettrekker - April 13, 2009

I’m a little disappointed in hearing that my fears about the implausibility of certain things like Kirk’s ascension to command are confirmed (that has been the one thing which really bothered me in what I had heard about the story), but I can’t say that it is all that surprising at this point.

I can’t say there is a single Star Trek movie that doesn’t bother me to some degree in a similar way…There has always been *something* (or things) about each that really just didn’t add up.

I am thrilled to hear that Anthony feels that ST09 is fantastic, and I have yet to read any review that doesn’t include the implication (or outright proclamation) that he/she cannot wait to see it again—and I think that’s the best compliment that can be paid to a Star Trek movie.

Let’s face it. None of the ST films have ever been all that profound. The television series and the franchise’s best films have always been two totally different animals.

And I agree with Anthony—TFF, INS, and NEM *do* “suck”, although I would throw in GEN as well.

I think that TSFS, FC, and TUC were decent.

There are really three of the ten previous films which stand out to me—and fittingly, each of them is far different from the other two—TMP, TWOK, and TVH. As far as the phrase can be used to describe a Star Trek movie—I think of these as “the great ones”.

I have the feeling that I will indeed be adding ST09 to that list as well. If it doesn’t fit there for me, then I will be disappointed. There was far too much ammunition available to the filmmakers to do anything less.

349. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#341:”“This is not your father’s Star Trek”…that’s not an official tag line as far as I know–if it is I agree it’s idiotic, mainly because it’s a dumb riff on a 10-year-old car commercial.”

A whole Oldsmobile campaign, in fact, was built around that tag line – and one of the TV ads notably featured William Shatner and one of his daughters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTsF57cuq8

“He’s everywhere! He’s everywhere!”

350. Paulaner - April 13, 2009

#348 “Let’s face it. None of the ST films have ever been all that profound.”

Totally agreed. Someone is worried about cheesy lines in ST09? Please watch again TFF, INS, NEM or GEN. And now, let me forget again those abominations ;)

351. Spanish Brock - April 13, 2009

#294 – Randy H.

Hey man, great post. You make a really good point.

352. John from Cincinnati - April 13, 2009

I still want to see a young Kirk dealing with a catastrophe on Tarsus IV, and a young officer dealing with the death of his Captiain on the USS Farragut.

353. Closettrekker - April 13, 2009

#352—Sounds like a Star Trek *novel* to me…not a $150 million blockbuster.

354. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 13, 2009

“instead of the usual bombast he just says ‘Helloooo’ as if he popped by for a chat and to borrow some sugar, that is kind of refreshing.”
-AP

Agreed. He delivered the line, “Hi, I’m Nero” so nonchalantly the whole audience laughed. It was intended to be ironic and funny and it worked. At other times, he came off as pretty scary. Bana clearly has acting chops.

355. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

I don’t, unless the writers can make better stories out of that then out of other ideas they have. Those incidents were trivial backstory, invented on a weekly basis to provide Kirk with a reason for doing things in a one-hour story for which the present-day events did not provide him a strong motivation.

356. John from Cincinnati - April 13, 2009

No Kool aid drinker can answer this simple question honestly,

Could this movie, franchise have been re-made WITHOUT destroying Kirk’s backstory?

Of course it could, which is why everyone dances around the issue.

357. John from Cincinnati - April 13, 2009

Scotty shooting through the “water pipes” of the Enterprise is the comic equivalent of C3PO going through the droid factory in SWII.

Did they really have to go there?

358. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 13, 2009

#356 … Since the whole point of the movie is that this is an altered timeline, “destroying” Kirk’s backstory didn’t bother me. But the aforementioned and already much discussed ‘Presto, you’re now Captain!’ aspect is not so good.

359. Paulaner - April 13, 2009

#356 “Could this movie, franchise have been re-made WITHOUT destroying Kirk’s backstory?”

Why do you say that Kirk’s backstory has been destroyed? Watching the TV series and the movies, Kirk’s backstory is confused and less than clear. Just nods to this or that planet, or this or that person. Am I missing something or are you talking about books, novels, encyclopedias, manuals and so on? That material is non-canon, right? ;)

360. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#356: “Could this movie, franchise have been re-made WITHOUT destroying Kirk’s backstory?”

Rick could have run away with Ilsa, too. So?

That would have been a different movie.

You’d like for these folks to have made a different Trek movie. That’s fine, but not what they chose. And all indications are that the movie they chose to make is good and entertaining.

361. Spanish Brock - April 13, 2009

#356 – I agree with Dennis Bailey. I think his backstory was always too convoluted and haphazardly invented to fit into a motion picture narrative. In my opinion, it had to be jettisoned or they risked weighing down everything else.

In the real world, all of the traumas that TOS Kirk faced in his life would have made for intense drama but not exciting space opera.

362. McCoy - April 13, 2009

310: Sean; “It was dead, buried and sprouting flowers. Worms were feeding on that sucker.”

Voyager and Enterprise were dead. I was busy watching TOS re-mastered and still buying TOS toys. After this film, we are at same place. This film has names associated with TOS, but is not the same characters we grew up with—and everything looks different anyway. Therefore, if the Trek you knew prior to this film was dead for you, it’s still dead—cuz this aint it.

315. New Horizon

Except for Nightmare before Christmas, Burton’s work and style suck. And dude, there’s just no way around it, everything I say here is my opinion.

363. Raphael Salgado - April 13, 2009

@330: I’m only referring to the timeline when things were released to the public, not necessarily that Chris Pine is following in the footsteps of a fan film actor. Not that there should be anything wrong with that either. In my eyes, Shatner portrayed Kirk first, then Cawley did, now Pine. I’m not sure there’s anyone between the three, since these are the biggest productions, fan or commercial, that I can recall.

I just hope 126 minutes is enough – I wouldn’t care if it was 156 minutes. I’m already crossing my fingers for an extended version when it comes out on Blu-Ray and DVD. Only this year, I watched the extended version of The Wrath of Khan, and while I understand why they cut out some of the scenes, they were fun and fresh to watch.

I took my wife and kids to see Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D on an IMAX screen (real fun movie, btw) and we saw the full trailer of Star Trek. Now, I’m wondering if it makes much difference to watch Star Trek on an IMAX screen. Considering that the closest IMAX theatre is a good 40 minutes away my home, I don’t know if it’s worth it, especially if I’m gonna try to watch a midnight showing (might be too tired to drive home afterwards). I forget, did JJ make any special accommodations for IMAX?

364. Closettrekker - April 13, 2009

#356—The premise of the question itself is flawed, as it suggests that Kirk’s nackstory has actually *been* destroyed.

Kirk (Prime) still is born, lives on Tarsus, enters the Academy with the aid of a man whose son would later serve and die under Kirk’s command, serves aboard the USS Republic with Finney, serves aboard the USS Farragut under Capt. Garrovick, command his first planetary mission on Neural, serves as an instructor at SFA where he meets and befriends Gary Mitchell, cheats on a command test, and fathers an illegitimate child with Carol Marcus.

That backstory is there—and still very much an intregal part of the timeline which leads the broader story to this point, where obviously, the timeline has been tampered with.

As to your question itself, whether or not it *could* isn’t the most relevant quiry, IMO. That would be whether or not such a story would have made a better movie, and you’re no more qualified to answer that at this point than those you absurdly and perjoratively refer to as “Kool-aid drinkers”…

365. The Governator - April 13, 2009

Do some people not have the ability to go watch a good movie and enjoy it?

366. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 13, 2009

251. Al Hartman

Your chicken soup analogy is flawed and purposely skewed to reflect your bias. A more proper analogy would be that the chicken soup that you have enjoyed at the restaurant for so long has been altered with a new recipe. It is still chicken soup but with some different ingredients and spices. Now you may well not enjoy the new soup but others just may well love it. We can only find out by tasting it.

Mang: As much as I love the films by Bennett and Meyer, there are plenty of examples of clunky dialogue in those movies. Especially some of the maudlin and melodramatic purple prose.

305. McCoy: The key thing for me is not that they are just changing it, but that in the process they are changing it back from what the TNG/Mod Trek era had turned it into. Thank the stars!

Randy H and S. Jon Ross: Words of Iron fellas.

291. SaphronGirl: Spock Goggles. Love it. ;)

JMN

367. Closettrekker - April 13, 2009

#366—“The key thing for me is not that they are just changing it, but that in the process they are changing it back from what the TNG/Mod Trek era had turned it into. Thank the stars!”

Without having actually seen the film personally, it seems to me that you’re absolutely right—-and I agree.

368. John from Cincinnati - April 13, 2009

360. 264.

How does anyone know, by acknowleding his backstory, would’ve changed the movie? Everyone assumes his backstory would’ve made a worse movie. What do you base that on? Opinion and not fact.

This movie could’ve been written, with miniscule changes in what we see on film and still be the same movie.

Case in point, Kirk’s parents still could’ve gotten killed, but like in parallel universes, still have led to orphan Kirk going to live on planet Tarsus IV. It would’ve explained how this Kirk got there and also help explain why he is such a rebellious nut when he’s on Earth, and lost his way. He would’ve lost all respect for authority after seeing his Governnor murder thousand of people.

I don’t care about changing Pike from not knowing Kirk to becoming his mentor, I don’t care about changing Spock and Uhura’s relationship, or rapid promotion or a hundred things. Those things are alright but I do think they blew it on this Kirk thing and it really is not this overwhelming plot problem they claim it is.

369. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#365:”Do some people not have the ability to go watch a good movie and enjoy it?”

Not unless it is *guaranteed* in advance that nothing in a movie will disturb or disappoint them in any way, no matter how trivial.

370. McCoy - April 13, 2009

If being “entertained” for 2 hours is the sole judgement of this film, then it just won’t cut it as classic Trek. You can get popcorn entertainment in lots of films that cost less than $150 million.

Trek should be more than that.

And be careful…because many of you thought you were getting that this time around (and only at the this point are saying it’s ok to only be “entertained”). The new Trek team is going to play that card again for the sequel saying that the next time around they can get into the parables or “true” science fiction stories now that the characters have been introduced. But wait….without the “popcorn mentality” no one will see the thing. Oh, yeah….well, for the third film….

371. Harry Ballz - April 13, 2009

Tim Burton couldn’t direct TRAFFIC!

372. pock speared - April 13, 2009

#333 james cawley
mr. c., just so i can say it to you directly; i have always believed this film would never have been made if not for your efforts (and similarly brilliant fan productions) to highlight a global, cultural passion for TOS. enterprise’s “in a mirror…” was clearly an effort (manny said so!) to emulate your work, and paramount followed the lead. without you guys there would be no film to hack apart right now.

373. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#370:”If being “entertained” for 2 hours is the sole judgement of this film, then it just won’t cut it as classic Trek. ”

Well, considering the percentage of “classic Trek” that doesn’t even meet that standard, I’d disagree. ;-)

374. John from Cincinnati - April 13, 2009

I remember back in 1994 when ‘Generations” came out, the feeling among some of the fan base was that Kirk had to die. People hated Kirk and he had to go. I was asking questions then like I am now. Why? Why did Kirk HAVE to die? Then, they wrote such a dumb way for him to die, falling off scaffolding, which just inflamed the fans even more.

Now, we MUST jettison Kirk’s backstory. It’s trivial (I’m told). None of the new fans care or know about it anyways. Big Deal (I’m told), Get over it (I’m told).

I just gave you a simple way to incorporate his backstory in my post 368. The scene doesn’t even had to be filmed. Just one line, after young Kirk was arrested for driving the Corvette, all someone had to say was, “Yeah, he’s been a little upset since his time on Tarsus IV”. Done. Easy. Clean. Intact.

But Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. That’s too “convoluted”, “trivial”, “canonista”, even though I understand this new movie spends PLENTY of time on Spock’s backstory (which remains intact I might add) with his relationships with his parents Sarek and Amanda.

So go ahead and keep taking shots at me if it makes you feel better. I’ll be the lone voice on here mourning Kirk’s backstory, a boat missed.

375. TJ Trek - April 13, 2009

Thanks to the head honcho of this site for giving a pretty fair review of the movie. Ouf of the ten points he threw out about the film, at least two to three were slight or total negatives about the movie. I am more positive about a film review that is willing to take the negative with the positive.

I will definatly be one of those rolling my eyes at the rapid promotions of the crew. However if the overall plot is “feesable” at least in a star trek manor, then I will go with it. and if the little nodes to the fans are pretty cool then it will all be good.

The one thing that this movie will have going for it is that it will have a much bigger feel then any other trek movie to this point. However, it make have a run for it’s money when trying to beat W.O.K (ST II) for it handling of character. I think W.O.K handled kirk’s aging character and spock’s contribution to story, and his death very, very, very well and will be hard to beat as bits of character handling.

376. John from Cincinnati - April 13, 2009

364.

My premise is not flawed thank you very much. Unless the producers plan on going back to the prime universe for all future movies and series, then essentially his backstory is destroyed since we won’t be seeing or talking about it in any future projects of the franchise.

377. Closettrekker - April 13, 2009

#370—“The new Trek team is going to play that card again for the sequel saying that the next time around they can get into the parables or “true” science fiction stories now that the characters have been introduced. ”

I don’t think they’ll say that. I think they’ll just make more Star Trek movies.

You’re asking them to make movies like the episodes of the series upon which the franchise was originally based—-and that has never been a part of the Star Trek *movie* formula.

The series and films have always been, creatively, quite seperate entities.

Where or why you come up with some of this stuff is a mystery to me.

This is a Star Trek movie—not “The Godfather Part II”—and it was never going to be.

The reviews are good, what *is* problematic about it is not altogether unexpected, and so far—audiences (fans and non-fans alike) are left wanting more.

Sorry, “McCoy”—but it looks like this will be a success, plot-holes and deficiencies prevalent throughout the film series be damned…Star Trek lives, whether you’re aboard or not.

378. Harry Ballz - April 13, 2009

Dennis

I asked you a few months ago for your opinion on The Illusionist starring Edward Norton. I enjoyed the film and wondered what your take on it was….

379. boomer13 - April 13, 2009

#370 Listen you don’t have to see the film. I was just saying go into with an open mind. I think no matter what they put on screen it wouldn’t please you. Oh well, atleast you still have fanfiction.

380. Michael - April 13, 2009

#333 James, you have told everyone that you had a part. If you now say you were an extra then stop telling your forum and different conventions, IMDB and Wikipedia that you had a part in the film. Be honest James and set the record straight.

381. Closettrekker - April 13, 2009

#376—Of course it is flawed.

Kirk (Prime)’s backstory is still intact. It’s there. Contending that the “altered” Kirk doesn’t share the same environmental upbringing is not the same thing as suggesting that Kirk Prime’s backstory was destroyed. It isn’t, and is in fact as essential to the broader mythos today as it was 10 years ago. This story couldn’t canonically exist without it.

But, in fairness, I agree that a brief mention of some time spent on Tarsus wouldn’t seem to harm the story in ST09 at all—-but that seems a whole lot different than what you’ve suggested before to be your wish:

“I still want to see a young Kirk dealing with a catastrophe on Tarsus IV, and a young officer dealing with the death of his Captiain on the USS Farragut.” (post #352)

There is a big difference between that (an additional subplot), and a throwaway line in the dialogue.

382. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#378: “I asked you a few months ago for your opinion on The Illusionist starring Edward Norton. I enjoyed the film and wondered what your take on it was….”

I’m sorry to say that I haven’t gotten to it, yet. I’ll keep it in mind next time I’m at Hollywood video. Thanks. :-)

383. Harry Ballz - April 13, 2009

Dennis, thanks for letting me know. I look forward to your feedback!

384. Captain Hackett - April 13, 2009

Anthony –

First of all, I want to thank you very much for your great review and hard work here.

I have a simple yes/no question to ask you:

Is this new movie the best Trek movie that you had ever watched?

385. captain_neill - April 13, 2009

It says that the dialogue is more modern, would this not date the film quicker?

386. Penhall99 - April 13, 2009

Sounds lame to me. Sorry.

387. TOG - April 13, 2009

1. For the most part my spouse hates trek episodes that involve time travel and Holo-decks, therefor JJ & company have already lost her. In her words “Star Trek has abused the time line synopsis” why do it again with an entire universe at your disposal? The Borg and Khan were real and present threat to the crew, not a what if type of sorti. Maybe ?

2. Of this movie, I was excepting many of the changes in appearance and nuances and that’s fine, but what I was hoping for was more sophistication, intrigue; from latest review and JJ’s pledge to make it real, I’m not sure what I’m getting. 20 years ago a thrill ride was fine, now I want substance. Anthony does the movie challenge your thinking as well as your senses; is this Trek a compelling story for long time fan?

3. Don’t like that score, I wouldn’t recommend it be used for background music to little league video, hope the rest is better… Oh and Countdown back story is boring and amateurish and only reads well if have the absolute need to know about Nero!

4. Perhaps the studio should give 200 mill to James Cawley for the sequel, than we have a genuine TOS type movie. (Yep I’m a fan)

Am I going to the movie? “Hell Ya” ————but alone

388. captain_neill - April 13, 2009

This will be a great movie but I don’t think it will be the best.

Can I ask do you like your films fast paced or do you like the action films which have loads of action yet slow down and have great character moments.

Or do you prefer the Michael bay style of fast cuts incase audiences sleep when the action stops?

389. Donn - April 13, 2009

Not having seen the film (obviously), I have a couple of ideas regarding points made in the review.

I’ve posted this before, on the idea of “convenience.” In hindsight, it always seems when viewing an origin story for established characters that it is convenient how they happen to be in the right place at the right time to come together. Well, DUH! That’s how they got together. That’s like if, as a kid, you only ever say Empire and ROTJ, and then when you finally saw Star Wars, you thought, “Well, isn’t that just /convenient/ that Han Solo /happened/ to be in the bar when Obi-Wan and Luke were looking for a ride.” It sounds ridiculous to say that. But for some reason it doesn’t sound ridiculous to say, “Well, wasn’t it convenient that Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan had to divert to Tatooine.”

In all cases, I would simply say that’s how it happened, end of story. They had to get together somehow–how it happens is no more contrived than the story of how your parents met. And sorry for the Star Wars references to those who don’t like that sort of thing on a Trek site, just using a universal frame of reference.

On to the second thing, the fact that the Kelvin equipment looks and sounds exactly like TOS-era stuff. Here’s my take on that, and on the redesign of everything in general: Take early pirate movies. Hell, take current pirate movies, or another period genre like the western, the samurai movie, and the like. They are not necessarily historically accurate in the depiction of technology or costume. Often, they are a best guess combined with what’s in the budget, combined with what looks good on screen. Now, imagine that Star Trek is really a “history,” a period piece. The first version we got, TOS, was a best guess at the technology, combined with budget (certainly true) and what was nifty at the time. We have seen the interpretation evolve though the films and series. Now, we have a new film, and new research has revealed that actually, /that/ communicator is actually from a pre-Enterprise era, and the Enterprise stuff should look like /this/. It requires that you look at the film as a documentation of events, as storytelling (which it is), not as you actually witnessing the events.

I don’t know if that makes any sense, but really it’s just a long winded way to say, it doesn’t matter so much what it looks like, what matters is the story, the characters, and that by and large Star Trek conventions are being adhered to. I am delighted that they saw fit to pay homage to the original designs, however they chose to do so.

390. captain_neill - April 13, 2009

I am looking forward to this film, I just have concerns over what is being changed.

Although new set design and actors will never be as good as the originals if it is a good film I can get past them and still love the film for respecting Trek.

I just don’t want Star Trek to lose its heart to get that mainstream audience.

391. McCoy - April 13, 2009

377 Closet “Sorry, “McCoy”—but it looks like this will be a success, plot-holes and deficiencies prevalent throughout the film series be damned…Star Trek lives, whether you’re aboard or not.”

If “success” is defined by money intake and new bread of “popcorn” fan that comes to see the film (and flare fan) then I imagine it will be successful. Trek lives because it never died (for me). This film does not help Trek…it is not Trek. It is something quite different with some Trek names mixed in. If you like this film, then that’s all the Trek you require—with your popcorn. So congrats on such a low threshold.

You and I have always been on different pages. Just because these characters have the same names and they put Trek music at the end, does not mean it adds up to Trek.

392. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 13, 2009

#391 … “You and I have always been on different pages.”

I wish I could turn that page already…

393. Anthony Pascale - April 13, 2009

Hartman: this is BS

TOS fans want to see TOS on the big screen. Unchanged. Obviously re-cast… But, that’s what we want. Naturally giving us something else isn’t satisfactory to us.

Insulting those of us who love TOS is intolerant and out of character for true followers of the Roddenberry vision.

you are entitled to your own opinion is fine. But you do not speak for all TOS fans or ‘lovers of TOS’.

394. CmdrR - April 13, 2009

Excellent review, Anthony.

Gonna have to think twice about spoilerizing myself, but I’m glad you gave us all ample warnings.

I tend to think if enough fanboys blast the Titanic boilerroom sensibilities of the ship’s bowels, they’ll simply refit E for the sequel. Lord knows, TOS and TNG era movies gave us enough redresses of the two bridge sets.

But, will it be trek without the DOS ship displays?? Who knows…

Can’t wait. SO glad it’s getting close.

395. ger - April 13, 2009

I find it funny when some of these optimists like Dennis Bailey try to defend Star Trek 2009 by bad-mouthing everything that came before.

396. ger - April 13, 2009

“352. I still want to see a young Kirk dealing with a catastrophe on Tarsus IV, and a young officer dealing with the death of his Captiain on the USS Farragut.”

“355. I don’t, unless the writers can make better stories out of that then out of other ideas they have. Those incidents were trivial backstory, invented on a weekly basis to provide Kirk with a reason for doing things in a one-hour story for which the present-day events did not provide him a strong motivation.”

You mean trivial backstory like the Kobayashi Maru test, which is featured in this movie?Tarsus IV and the Farragut incident would have been much better material for the big screen.

397. sean - April 13, 2009

#362

“Voyager and Enterprise were dead. I was busy watching TOS re-mastered and still buying TOS toys. After this film, we are at same place. This film has names associated with TOS, but is not the same characters we grew up with—and everything looks different anyway. Therefore, if the Trek you knew prior to this film was dead for you, it’s still dead—cuz this aint it.”

So, you enjoyed watching reruns and that means Trek was alive and well? Come on. We’re talking about the public consciousness and popular culture. Hell, even among Trek fans the franchise was hurting. I recently bought the Countdown comic, and that’s the first piece of Star Trek memorabilia that I’ve purchased since 1993 (DS9 cups from I think Taco Bell). Many in fandom were in a similar position. It wasn’t that we didn’t care about Trek, but Trek had become stale. The Remasters were interesting (if not uneven), but even then the big complaint was that CBS barely put the effort in. The effects and cleanups varied widely from episode to episode, and on the whole it was a mixed result. So if you want to make that argument, Trek died in 1991 with TUC. At the very least, TOS was concluded.

I didn’t care that TMP didn’t look like TOS, and I didn’t care that TWOK didn’t look like TOS (in fact, I was thankful). So that this Trek takes aesthetic liberties is totally irrelevant, to me. It features Kirk, Spock & Co. Same characters, different setting. Doesn’t bother me, as long as it’s a good flick. That I can’t get into until May 10th.

398. Stiff Necked Thistlehead - April 13, 2009

Just the fact that we all are “engaged” enough to be this passionate about a TV show and it’s characters from 43 years ago is amazing. I would like to send out a HUGE thank you to Bjo Trimble and ALL of the letter writers who saved the show in the beginning. Your dedication allowed the series to be picked up for syndication, where I first started watching, and to go on and flourish!

399. New Horizon - April 13, 2009

380. Michael – April 13, 2009

Being an extra IS having a part in the film. James never said he had a speaking role, and has made references to it in the past as ‘non-speaking’. You misinterpreted it yourself, that’s not James fault.

400. sean - April 13, 2009

#371

Why Harry, if you mean the brilliant 2000 drama directed by Stephen Soderbergh, then yes, I agree that’s not up Tim’s alley! ;)

401. McCoy - April 13, 2009

251

Well said. I like the original chicken soup.

402. sean - April 13, 2009

Oh and I still say The Prestige wipes the floor with the Illusionist! ;)

403. James Cawley - April 13, 2009

Sorry Micheal, I have never said anything other than what I did. I played a background guy on the bridge and in a corridor scene. Call it a part, call me an extra, whatever. It is all just terminology. I don’t write for WIKI, or Imdb. I have nothing to do with any of that nonsense. I have never said anything else on my forums or in public. Get your facts straight.

404. Star Trackie - April 13, 2009

#398 “I would like to send out a HUGE thank you to Bjo Trimble and ALL of the letter writers who saved the show in the beginning. Your dedication allowed the series to be picked up for syndication, where I first started watching, and to go on and flourish!”

I’ll second that!

Would be interesting, Anthony, to perhaps interview Bjo and get her opinion of the film after it opens.

405. Stiff Necked Thistlehead - April 13, 2009

Mr. Cawley, you are correct. You did post that you had a background role after Mr. Abrams invited you to the set…nothing more. I remember that post from long ago. I was so jealous :). Thanks for keeping the Trek spirit alive with your productions. I’ve really enjoyed them.

406. McCoy - April 13, 2009

397 “Come on. We’re talking about the public consciousness and popular culture. Hell, even among Trek fans the franchise was hurting. I recently bought the Countdown comic, and that’s the first piece of Star Trek memorabilia that I’ve purchased since 1993 (DS9 cups from I think Taco Bell). Many in fandom were in a similar position. It wasn’t that we didn’t care about Trek, but Trek had become stale.”

Well, was is dead or stale? You have been saying “dead.” Stale seems like a better word to me. However, I also think that since Trek has been around so long, it’s bound to need a break—not refresh. ‘Enterprise’ sounded good until they got on another starship…and then went back to the same “old” formula. That starship formula needed a break. Now, actually, we are probably still in that “need a break” zone. But they still want to get people to the theaters to see the same old formula. In order to do this, they’ve theorized, they need to freshen it up with youth, sex, teen dialog, fast edits, shaky camera (cuz, ya know, that’s so real) and flares. They quickly run through the history to get everyone on board the ship for the same formula. They know the formula is stale…hence the tricks.

Welcome to popcorn.

” didn’t care that TMP didn’t look like TOS, and I didn’t care that TWOK didn’t look like TOS (in fact, I was thankful). So that this Trek takes aesthetic liberties is totally irrelevant, to me. It features Kirk, Spock & Co. Same characters, different setting. Doesn’t bother me, as long as it’s a good flick. That I can’t get into until May 10th.”

It didn’t matter that TMP (or any other film) didn’t match TOS—they were moving forward in the timeline. But if you make a film in the TOS era, it needs to look like TOS. If you don’t like the look, don’t do TOS era. Why is this so hard to grasp?

407. Harry Ballz - April 13, 2009

#402

sean, sean, ya big galoot, The Prestige had plot loopholes big enough to drive a starship through them! Blecchh!! :>)

408. U.F.P. - April 13, 2009

289? Ithink space lake is refering to how all ships seem to be on the same plane … like two boats facing each other other on a lake istead of taking full advatage of three dimensions.
380. If hes on screen hes in the movie…sour grapes?
390. Its alittle early to judge the new actors isn’t it?
402. agreed

IM HO… I think the best way to get pressurized liquid or gas from point a to point b is in a tube. I dont have any flow charts or anything but maybe an engineer can confirm. I like this ship… its got pipes !

409. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#391:”If “success” is defined by money intake and new bread [sic] of “popcorn” fan that comes to see the film (and flare fan) then I imagine it will be successful.”

Yeah, it’s ridiculous to measure a movie’s success by how many people see and like it, as opposed to whether it checks off all of the boxes necessary for a single “true fan” to stamp the presumptuous imprimatur of “true Trek” on it. ;-)

#395:”I find it funny when some of these optimists like Dennis Bailey try to defend Star Trek 2009 by bad-mouthing everything that came before.”

I find it funnier when fans like you consider anything other than uncritical gushing over past Trek to be “bad-mouthing.” LOL

410. New Horizon - April 13, 2009

391. McCoy – April 13, 2009
“If “success” is defined by money intake and new bread of “popcorn” fan that comes to see the film (and flare fan) then I imagine it will be successful.”

That’s highly insulting…not only to new fans, but to fans like me who started watching TOS when they were kids. I started when I was 4 years old…1979…and I took a lot of flack for it. Seems my vocabulary grew substantially faster than my peers and they found that ‘weird’. No bother to me.

I think it is more accurate to gauge the potential success of this film on the reactions of TREK FANS who have actually seen it. The surprise screening in Texas is a perfect example McCoy. The first large group of fans to see the film were brought out of their homes under the guise of seeing Trek 2, they WANTED to see Star Trek 2 on the big screen. That was a carefully planned tactic….why….to get a reaction from the core fan base. What was the reaction? Overall, it was positive. If the movie had sucked, we sure would have heard about it by now. That’s the measure of success, not the money it will potentially make, but have they done their job and made a film that the core fan base will be happy with. For those who have seen it…the answer certainly appears to be yes.

“Trek lives because it never died (for me). This film does not help Trek…it is not Trek. It is something quite different with some Trek names mixed in. If you like this film, then that’s all the Trek you require—with your popcorn. So congrats on such a low threshold.

Again, this is completely insulting and rude. As I said earlier, Trek is an idea and you can’t kill an idea, but you sure can kill a franchise…and despite how we fans might fantasize that Trek is high above all of that, it isn’t. It is and always has been a business. The ‘idea’ of Star Trek lived within us all…but the franchise, the business that kept that part of it alive was dying. As I said before, two separate things…but not mutually exclusive. If Trek had not been born from the fires of commercial television, none of us would be here today appreciating it.

I’m not debating you, because you’re obviously a bitter, angry, lost cause. I simply felt that someone needed to speak out against your arrogance. I’m as true a Trek fan as you. Just because you can’t accept that this is going to be different, does not make it stupid…or a lower threshold. With the high regard in which you hold yourself, I can only assume that you’re very close friends with Kanye West.

411. Tom - April 13, 2009

I just read the sci fi sat article. it seems like McG pushed for an arnold cameo in Terminator 4. I wish the guys would have tried harder for Shatner. I wonder if Anthony or anyone who has seen the film saw a window for Shatner. Or was it the lack of practicality that they claim prevented it true. Or did the new film open up possibilities that this film did not have? Can that be answered without spoilers?

412. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#396:”You mean trivial backstory like the Kobayashi Maru test, which is featured in this movie?Tarsus IV and the Farragut incident would have been much better material for the big screen.”

The KM test works for the movie, which is why it’s there – it’s also a much more popular and widely-speculated upon bit of Kirk trivia, BTW, than his time aboard the Farragut.

And you’re wrong about Tarsus IV and the Farragut being better material. They’re nothing but pooh-bah that some obsessive fans have taken too much to heart.

413. Selor - April 13, 2009

@410 Hear ye!

414. Al Hartman - April 13, 2009

366. Sorry, it’s my analogy and it fits my opinion.

380. James Cawley has NEVER said he had a part in the movie. What I have haeard him say IN PERSON, DIRECTLY… Is that he had a non-speaking walk on cameo role. No lines. He has never said differently. He was there, he should know what his part was.

James is not a liar. You imagined that James said he had a speaking part. None of the articles here on trekmovie.com or the other stories of James’ participation in the movie quoted James as having a speaking role.

Anthony: I certainly DO speak for all classic TOS fans that want a classic TOS movie a la In a Mirror Darkly. That is by definition. We are the ones getting attacked and belittled for having our own opinion and desire for how a TOS movie should be made.

There are many of us who love the original production design and find the gratuitous redesign of things that didn’t need redesign to be awful. TOS wasn’t broke, and we didn’t need JJ to “fix” it.

I spoke for those who wanted acknowledgement that TOS existed, and was the basis for everything thereafter. We aren’t embarrassed by it. We don’t think it needs to be improved on. We just want new stories told in the same universe.

Those are who I spoke for, and no one else…

415. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#414:”Those are who I spoke for, and no one else…”

Sorry, you’re qualified to speak for one person and one person only.

416. New Horizon - April 13, 2009

“But if you make a film in the TOS era, it needs to look like TOS. If you don’t like the look, don’t do TOS era. Why is this so hard to grasp?”

That’s just it, there is no REAL TOS era, it was an interpretation of what the 23rd century might look like on a 60’s TV show budget. Why is THIS so hard to grasp? It goes both ways McCoy. You’re not some genius who sees something the rest of us don’t…we’re simply able to accept that what was filmed in a 60’s television series is not necessarily what that world looked like. It’s what they were able to present to us on a weekly 60’s series, but it does not define how it might be represented today. There is plenty of inspiration from TOS in this movie. The costumes are very true to the series. It’s a movie. Get over it. Jesus. How old are you anyway? You come across like a spoiled child.

417. James Cawley - April 13, 2009

All this endless debating is just lame.
Star Trek TOS is still here and always will be.
Star Trek 09′ is here also and can be enjoyed as well.
They are not the same, but both can be enjoyed!

Making an film is a monstrous task, getting it done is even harder to do.
I respect J.J. for having the balls to stand by his convictions and make the movie, the way He wanted to.
James Cawley

418. Open Maw Productions - April 13, 2009

How am I supposed to appreciate tribbles from a canon perspective? They shouldnt even be known about yet according to TOS.

…and “Bones” was derived from an oldschool medical term “Saw Bones.” That better be the explination, or it’s going to be really contrived.

Other then that it’s pretty much what I expected, and it’ll probably be pretty good.

419. Cafe 5 - April 13, 2009

As a fan of Star Trek I want this film to be a success. I can over look design flaws…I have in many of the films and still found them to be entertaining. I prefer to have the films I watch to be edited in more than seven frame cuts, sometimes I wish the story telling in newer films would linger long enough to actually view some of the film that I’m watching. I go to a theater to see a picture not a collection of blurs. Transformers and the new James Bond film are examples that were mentioned earlier. Just because the technology allows one to move a camera all over hell-and-gone doesn’t mean they should. I’ll wait and see the film before I judge it. If it is a success and makes oodles of profit for Paramount then there will be more films and maybe a new television series, and as a fan …that will make me very happy.

420. The Angry Klingon - April 13, 2009

304 Dennis Bailey
Your ‘observations’ just pretty much invalidated TOS as a WHOLE> Did you WATCH TOS???? The whole SHOW was based around current political situations framed in a science fiction environment! Knocking TUC for that is ludicrous. Borrowing from the ‘Hunt for Red October”???? Do you remember another submarine based episode called ‘Balance of Terror’ that was not only one of the most popular but a redress of ‘Run Silent Run Deep”.
By your criteria you couldnt POSSIBLY be a fan of TOS which begs the question, “:why are you here”.

421. Harry Ballz - April 13, 2009

James

like your efforts and work! In your post regarding JJ, you say, “the way He wanted to”

Capitalizing the “he” ………a subconscious slip reflecting god-like worship?
:>)

422. The Governator - April 13, 2009

420. The Angry Klingon

Perhaps we should add a few more angrys to your name.

423. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#420:”Your ‘observations’ just pretty much invalidated TOS as a WHOLE> Did you WATCH TOS???? The whole SHOW was based around current political situations framed in a science fiction environment!”

Yes, I watched TOS – all of it, more times than you’ve had dates – and if that’s all you got out of it I’d say *you* need to go back and watch it some more. There’s a lot more to “Star Trek” than the heavy-handed, literal (“oh, he’s based on Gorbachev, so we’ll call him ‘Gorkon'”) and unimaginative treatment of then-current/now-dated politics that Meyer and others brought to “The Undiscovered Country.”

424. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#417: “All this endless debating is just lame.
Star Trek TOS is still here and always will be.
Star Trek 09′ is here also and can be enjoyed as well.
They are not the same, but both can be enjoyed!”

Exactly so.

425. Admiral_BlackCat - April 13, 2009

All i know is that ST’09 has given the fanbase something completely new to enjoy, discuss, debate, bicker and nitpick over. thank you jj for at least giving us all something new. and thank you trekmovie for being a sounding board for all these “discussions”.

426. sean - April 13, 2009

#406

It had become stale by the time Voyager was wrapping up and Enterprise was beginning. By the time Nemesis was out and Enterprise was canceled, I’d consider it dead. Star Trek was a punchline in a bad joke, even for fans.

“It didn’t matter that TMP (or any other film) didn’t match TOS—they were moving forward in the timeline. But if you make a film in the TOS era, it needs to look like TOS. If you don’t like the look, don’t do TOS era. Why is this so hard to grasp?”

It’s hard to grasp because it isn’t true. Why would I want a movie made in 2009 to look like production design in 1964? Sorry, not for me. I’d rather a film maker use the new technologies developed over the last 45 years, especially in a science fiction movie. And I don’t think the future history of Star Trek is so immutable that it can’t be practically adapted, in terms of visuals and design elements.

Star Trek’s original design elements were designed to take advantage of color televisions, not because that was what the future was ‘supposed’ to look like. Did I admire the fact that they used colored light bulbs to make Spock’s quarters look like Uhura’s? Yes. But they did it because they had to preserve the budget, not because it’s what they would have deliberately chosen to do. Much like Rodenberry’s infamous remarks about the Klingons.

It’s great that some can use the ‘but it’s moving forward’ excuse to explain away obvious design inconsistencies and major changes. I just happen to be able to overlook them even when visiting the past, especially when we’ve been given a totally plausible Star Trek-ian explanation as to why they are there.

427. R DeSoto - April 13, 2009

Anthony, thank you for the review and guidance concerning this new version of Star Trek. As you stated a new era has begun. For those of us with a strong sense of Star Trek continuum it seems more like a new error has begun. However we may be the minority of Trekdom and regardless have to accpet and recognize that a different vision for this great mythos has now been established. I too will see this as a New Trek maybe for the next generation and I hope that it brings to them as much fun and inspiration as the Original and others brought to me. What does sadden me is that for some of us, Star Trek will remain stagnant (other than novels, etc.) and we will always ask ourselves “did they have to change it that much in order for it to continue?” Alas we do not have the luxury of an alternate timeline to find out. For those open to this new frontier I hope your journey is fantastic and this film brings you all you hoped for in a new Star Trek, for those who believe any Star Trek is better than no Star Trek rejoice, and for those who are now staying (not left) behind in the old Star Trek continuum “Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the end of Star Trek as we knew it.”

428. Star Trackie - April 13, 2009

#423 “There’s a lot more to “Star Trek” than the heavy-handed, literal (”oh, he’s based on Gorbachev, so we’ll call him ‘Gorkon’”) and unimaginative treatment of then-current/now-dated politics ”

It’s only dated if you play the “allegory” game. If you take it as simply a story element happening within the StarTrek timeline, it is just that. The Federation and Klingon Empire try to achieve a peaceful diplomatic relationship. But there are those threatened by the idea therefore they try to de-rail the process. As a story that furthers the political evolution in the Star trek timeline, you don’t have to like it, but there is nothing wrong with it.

429. sean - April 13, 2009

#407

I’m curious Harry – what plot holes? To me, The Illusionist was far guiltier of that as little-to-no explanation was offered for most of the ‘illusions’.

430. J W Wright - April 13, 2009

“as in the origin of McCoy’s nickname ‘Bones’’

“Sawbones” is slang for doctor or physician, ” ‘bones” is a shortening of that expression.

That’s the backstory. My goodness, what whimsical li’l sitcom moment have they come up with for this movie, regarding that?

“but you may have to let a few eyrolling ‘that was convenient’ moments pass” Loins girded.

I liked the evolution of Anakin Skywalker over the course of 3 movies. Vader is arguably the most important character of the SW series.

And in Trek’s case, Kirk is, too. How he gets command should have been interesting enough to cover a career arc, instead of “fortunate coincidences.”

This movie could easily have been a Chris Pike story, with a “Kirk at academy” backstory / sub-plot.

The next movie a Chris Pike; Enterprise and Lt Cmdr Kirk; Farragut mission story… with a third rounding out the trilogy where the torch is passed and the stage set for “Where no man has gone before”.

With much more believable assembling of Kirks senior staff. Talented writers can always wrap a believable arc with exciting adventure storytelling. This movie feels hurried and desperate.

This excellent review is frank and honest. One of the more interesting reads I’ve found in a long time, thank you Anthony.

I’m a critical, old school Trek fan. I’ve been concerned about plenty from what has been revealed about this production so far.

But I still can’t wait to see this at Imax.

431. The Angry Klingon - April 13, 2009

423.
Dennis Bailey
Well, Mr Blow Hard, for all your pompous overblown sense of self importance all youve done is prove your ignorance. I like your infantil attempt at bashing by the dates comment too. It shows your ignorance and basement dwelling sensibilities. I work here in Hollywood Big Mouth and Id put my dating history up against your hold the Magazine in one hand while your other hand is occupied lifestyle any day of the week. Youve only proven teh point that youre a blow hard douche bag whose ONLY means of expression is bravely hiding behind a keyboard. The fact you say youve seen TOS countless times and STILL present yourself as a clueless twit whose learning curve bottomed out years ago.
Youre actually pretty pathetic. My guess is your here because nobody will give you the time of day in ‘real’ life and like a spoiled, neglected little misanthrope you have to come here and be a douche just to get people to pay attention to you. Well, it worked. Now youre just as unpopular ONLINE as you are OFFLINE. Now, pull your head out of your fourth point of contact before it swells so big youll never get it out. We can play personal attacks online all day. Youll lose online just like youd lose in person.
Now show us on the action figure where the bad man touched you and turned you in to such an ass.

432. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 13, 2009

376. John from Cincinnati: Not true. I am certain there will be more novels, comics, and et al that deal with Kirk Prime and his back story. I think you are being a bit over the top.

380. Michael: Dude, do you have a vendetta or what?

388. captain_neill: It’s not as cut and dried as that. There are fast paced mile a minute movies that aren’t Bay like. It isn’t like he invented it. Raiders and Temple of Doom were like that. Not to mention the old serials they were based on.

389. Donn: I agree utterly. It all depends on how they handle it of course. But why not Kirk meeting McCoy on a shuttle? Anywhere else he meets him would be just as valid or invalid.

391. McCoy: Nice and insulting. So anyone who doesn’t have the purified view of what Trekdom is are just popcorn loving empty headed psuedo fans. Nice. Well I love Trek. I have all my life and it hasn’t been a short life. I love nothing more than Trek other than my family, friends, food and my state and country. And I think I might like this movie just fine. Get over yourself. Honestly, I have a house full of Trek stuff, watch the show all the time and the world stops for me if I even HEAR the words Star Trek and I honestly think there are folks like you who take it all FAR too seriously. Oh and you’re damn right money counts. You don’t have to like it but it is foolish to ignore it.

395: I can’t speak for Dennis but I know for my part that it isn’t an attempt to bad mouth anything but an attempt to remind everyone that all of the Trek movies have had flaws and have changed premises and changed looks and changed all sorts of things. And had bad dialogue, bad music, bad acting and bad all sorts of things. It’s just facts. Let this movie stand as it is. Warts and all and decide when you SEE it if is something you can enjoy or not. Which brings me to this:

Hartman:

“TOS fans want to see TOS on the big screen. Unchanged. Obviously re-cast… But, that’s what we want. Naturally giving us something else isn’t satisfactory to us.

Insulting those of us who love TOS is intolerant and out of character for true followers of the Roddenberry vision.”

And this is the heart of the problem I think, and all the mentions over the last couple of years about Cawley’s stuff underlines it.

Guys, this is a pipe dream. TOS stands as it is. From TMP to Nemesis to TNG to Enterprise, they have tried to capture what made that show the classic and legend it is and have for the most part failed. That isn’t to say however that they didn’t produce good stuff or even good Trek stuff. But none of it is TOS. And that is because it truly was “lightning in a bottle” It is BEYOND unfair to expect the current folks to recreate show exactly. As it is BEYOND unfair to compare Pine, Quinto and Urban to Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly. That was then, this is now. Thankfully we have all the greatness that was TOS on the best available format for preserving those shows and can enjoy them anytime we want. Which for me is very very often. And thankfully we have a crew of folks who respect that old show and some loved that old show and are attempting to bring SOME of that back to us in an entertaining, exciting and nifty package.

398. Stiff Necked Thistlehead & 404. Star Trackie: I third the attatgirl for Bjo and would love to hear from her about the new movie.

433. New Horizon - April 13, 2009

431. The Angry Klingon – April 13, 2009

Well, Dennis Bailey has written for Next Gen…have you?

434. ElrondL - April 13, 2009

Anthony, thank you for the honest, detailed review — this was an immensely entertaining read. I can’t imagine what it felt like to finally see the finished film after devoting so much time & energy to its coverage.

I’ve been preaching the Trek gospel for a while and people around here (central California) seem genuinely excited. I think you’re right that a new & exciting era is beginning. It’s about time! :-)

435. The Angry Klingon - April 13, 2009

I made props for the show and also have an IMDB page. Do you? I worked for Paramount/UPN as well doing promotions as well. Pretty much everyone I know has worked on Trek and that doesnt give ANY of us the reign to be an overbearing borderline troll. Now, run along and let Dennis fight his own fights.

436. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#431:”Well, Mr Blow Hard, for all your pompous overblown sense of self importance all youve done is prove your ignorance”

Damn, you *are* an “angry Klingon.” Does the bluster make up for not knowing what you’re talking about? ;-)

437. Harry Ballz - April 13, 2009

#429

sean, I admit it’s been a couple of years since seeing the movie. I’d have to go back and watch it again (not likely) to refresh my memory for details, since I tend to wash bad memories from my mind. I just remember the whole thing being farfetched…

438. AJ - April 13, 2009

431

Angry Klingon:

He didn’t deserve that.

439. The Governator - April 13, 2009

I see man of you guys are really over-worrying over certain aspects of this film. I thought to calm some worries, I should cite from a new review from Dark Horizons. While I find many aspects of the review to be unfair and over-critical, the reviewer does address some of the issues some of us seem to be wondering whilst remaining completely spoiler-free.

“he [J.J. Abrams] reintroduces critical elements the franchise has not seen in years – cultural relevance, suspense, and a fresh sense of wonder missing from a mythology so heavily explored and exploited over the years.”

“Notably improving on the job he did with the well-filmed but bland “M:I-3″, ‘Trek’ really gets to show off Abrams’ superb directorial proficiency. For most of its runtime the film sets a slick pace that Michael Bay or Paul Greengrass would be proud of. Unlike them however, the camera operators and editors here have normal attention spans so jittery close-ups are kept to a minimum while cutting is fast but never confusing. Several sequences, notably a lengthy one involving three officers trying to land on, sabotage and then escape an atmospheric drill platform are thrillingly executed.”

“it simply can not be stated enough how effectively Abrams and his crew have revived and repositioned not just the franchise but the ‘space opera’ genre itself. After the painfully stilted “Star Wars” prequels and the last few lackluster ‘Trek’ films, this ‘Trek’ at last brings back a sense of fun adventure to the space epic which has not really been seen since the 80’s. By the end of this film when the crew is in place, the cast has settled into their roles, and this once familiar universe now feels wide open and new – you can not help but be aching to go on another Trek – a feeling many of us Trekkers haven’t felt in a long time.”

So there. I hope that helps calm some of you people’s worst fears, although I doubt some of you could ever be convinced.

440. The Governator - April 13, 2009

Can we get a permaban for the Angry Klingon?

441. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#438: “Angry Klingon:

He didn’t deserve that.”

Thanks, but I probably do – just not for anything that I’ve posted here today. LOL

442. The Angry Klingon - April 13, 2009

The previous post was directed at 433. and PS youd be surprised at how many people who post and lurk here have worked in the industry and who and what we know. Again, this isnt a convention where a writing credit or an IMDB page gives you carte blanche. As to his being a writer then I guess he should hold himself to a higher standard when making the (flawed) statements he does and even more so that his juvenile antagonistic nature is far more in evidence then any writing skills he may posses. The snide condescending nature of his posts does nothing to endear him or his status as a ‘TNG’ writer. There are a lot of jerks who have written for Trek including Harlan Ellison and Dennis Bailey isnt even in the same league.

443. badtrek - April 13, 2009

417. James Cawley

Hey James, nice to see you post here…!!!

I dont get any “spirit” of trek from anything I have seen in the trailers and images.

Dont underestimate the power of science fiction and especially the kind star trek gives us, which is a possible real envisioning of our future. Remember that most things are FIRST a DREAM and an IDEA and then become reality.

So making a movie like this, is much more important than making a movie. Its envisioning our possible future, and this is how star trek should be handled.. will care respect understanding and love.

This JJ abrams guy was never a trekie.. I dont care much about CGI effects.. lets have the movie give us an optimistic view of the future…. with new fresh ideas, as new and as fresh as Roddenberry had in his own times…

This new movie is nothing else but a bad action movie .. empty and void that will soon be forgotten. Everythng looks fake.. more fake than the shoestring productions of TOS! NO spirit…

Star Trek has the potential to SHAPE OUR FUTURE THROUGH the dreams of generations! Its what it has done for millions of people already and for many technologies. The areas it has effected are countless.

This is TOO important to just be shrugged off… and thats why I utterly hate the new star trek…

it could be so much more…

but you see geniuses exist.. but it seems they were not put to work on this star trek.
AND THIS IS WHY I say that it will be hated by TOS fans. I dont mean any person that just likes TOS and knows the episodes. I mean the TOS Fans that really understand the implications of star trek in civilization.

-K

444. Star Trek is back!(first trekmovie.com review) - April 13, 2009

[…] only spoilers are minor ones(having some backstory knowledge before reading this is a plus though).TrekMovie.com Review of JJ Abrams’ ‘Star Trek’ | TrekMovie.com __________________ My Games: NR2K3(patched;300+ tracks;2000+ cars)online name-086goinfast […]

445. Raphael Salgado - April 13, 2009

Anthony, if I didn’t mention it previously, thanks for a great review.

It must feel a great sense of relief and pride to go from registering the domain and making your first post, all the way to an actual review and critique of the final cut of the film.

Talk about coming from a long way. The rest of the world has yet to see what you’ve seen, but you’ve really taken us from before the beginning, and that really means a lot to me and many others here, I’m sure.

Live long and prosper!

446. Kyle Cawley - April 13, 2009

#417 – ok, we all love Star Trek here, but referring to JJ as “He” rather than “he” might be pushing it. The man is not God!!! That’s Kirk.

447. yakbite - April 13, 2009

Thank you so much for that thoughtful review. I’m now looking forward to it more than ever, and if they do indeed rush a bit, or try to fit too much in, I think I’ll be forgiving. This is the set-up. The sequel will be even better. It’s to be hoped.
And I’ll definitely go check out Countdown if it’s that integral to a Trekkie’s full understanding of Nero. Thanks!

448. McCoy - April 13, 2009

For all who provided discussion based on my reaction to Closettrekker:

The fact remains that this new film has been marketed and reviewed as being “not your father’s Star Trek” and “popcorn movie”. If you are seriously happy with the result of that…then enjoy.

As I have mentioned, this movie is not for me. To me, the new vision is not a vision of the 23rd century or classic Trek. The characters are only alternates so I really have no care for their fictional lives. The designs are terrible. JJ’s idea of “real” actually means “how it works in 2008″ mixed with handheld camcorder.

From alternate universe script to set design, handheld cameras to lens flares, they have done everything to keep me from liking this. The reviews are in. It is “popcorn”.

Have fun….I would not.

449. Chris Doohan - April 13, 2009

333. James Cawley

“Either way, I have the experience of it all and that is enough”.

I couldn’t agree more.

450. pock speared - April 13, 2009

#443 badtrek
“I mean the TOS Fans that really understand the implications of star trek in civilization.”

i would count myself as someone who “understands” trek in culture, and your rant seems tedious. zero objectivity. so please god stop speaking for others. please.

p.s. the angry klingon has lost it. somebody please hose his arrogant, klingon-pimpled, loose-from-flatulence ass down.

451. sean - April 13, 2009

#441

Dennis, I always meant to tell you that ‘Tin Man’ was easily one my favorite TNG episodes, ever.

#437

Harry, there was definitely a science-fiction element to The Prestige, but some of the illusions in The Illusionist might as well have been sci-fi, IMO. I just enjoyed the interactions and darker/macabre undertones in The Prestige.

One thing both films shared were supporting roles for iffy actresses – S Jo in the Prestige and Jessica Biel in Illusionist. Both films would have been better without them!

452. James Cawley - April 13, 2009

WOW! it was just a typo guys!

453. Pat Payne - April 13, 2009

@ 360.
“Rick could have run away with Ilsa, too. So?

That would have been a different movie.

You’d like for these folks to have made a different Trek movie. That’s fine, but not what they chose. And all indications are that the movie they chose to make is good and entertaining.”

Two more examples after your quotes:

In the original play version of Casablanca (“Everybody Comes to Rick’s”), Rick stays in the bar and it’s implied that he surrenders to the Nazis after shooting Maj. Strasser. Is that any less valid than the ending finally shown on screen, with Rick and Lois contemplating their “beautiful friendship” on the way to Brazzaville (or the unshot further ending which would have seen the two in active combat, only unshot because Claude Raines was unavailable)?

And:

The Super Dimension Fortress Macross (better known here as the first third of the Robotech TV series) had its own “continuity reboot/alternate universe” a bare 2 years after the last episode of the TV series had aired. The motion picture “Chohjikuu Yosai Macross: Ai Oboeteimasuka” (The Super Dimension Fortress Macross: Do You Remember Love?) changed a large number of plot points and character arc points from the TV series (as well as redesigning darn near everything but the iconic “Valkyrie” fighter), while keeping the characters themselves intact. Shoji Kawamori, the show’s creator has always answered continuity questions between the two with the response “choose the version you like best.”

Why can’t we just do that with Trek?

454. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#451:”Dennis, I always meant to tell you that ‘Tin Man’ was easily one my favorite TNG episodes, ever.”

Thanks for the kind words. And in regard to that I have to go along with James as well: I had the experience of it all and that is enough. :-)

455. Harry Ballz - April 13, 2009

Ah, yes, but what a typo!!

(it’s just fun bustin’ your chops, James!)

456. Dr. Image - April 13, 2009

Very balanced review, Anthony. Thanks.
And thanks for pointing out the incongruities.
Interesting debates should no doubt result.
Star Trek, simply said, is more alive than ever!

#402 sean- I agree totally. The Prestige is a brilliantly structured and amazing film, whereas The Illusionist is predictable and simplistic and, well, boring.

457. New Horizon - April 13, 2009

449. McCoy – April 13, 2009

In your opinion.

458. Review of J.J. Abrams Star Trek | the SciFried - April 13, 2009

[…] Click here for remainder of review […]

459. U.F.P. - April 13, 2009

439. =/\= Thanks for posting that , I was beginning to worry. There is little I dislike more when watching a movie than seeing two actors in close-up with the camera moving with no discernable motivation. Your other posts seem right in line with my thinking so I don’t often have to reply to some of the more offensive or idiotic comments posted. Keep up the good work !

Badtrek. You are fun to read, you’re also wrong, but thats Ok. Keeps things interesting…

460. Larry - April 13, 2009

First to make a few points. From what it sounds, you do not have to a fan to see it. It looks to me that it will create new fans and then in turn they will go back to look at all the previous Treks. Also all fans of Trek should make the Countdown comic books required ready to fully understand what JJ, Roberto and Alex is bringing to the table. My opinion is that they took the Star Trek Universe and ask themselves what can we do to “twist” it and remain in cannon. This is where the time travel fits in perfect. SPOILER– Nero did not go back into time by design but by accident. And with him being bent on destroying everything in his path, this brings him to a point in the past that he can destroy the Federation and the Vulcans with a technically advanced ship from the future and quite possibly avoid Romulus’ destruction. When Nero attacked the Kevin and destroyed it, this all created a Alternate Time Line. Kirk did not originally came from a broken house like this film portrays it. What happened to Kirk’s brother Sam ( TOS — Operation: Annihilate! )? Because of this Alternate Time Line this explains all the differences in the film. Like for example the fast promoting of the cadets and the difference of technology like the bridge. And even the Enterprise being built on land instead of space.

461. Ensign Ro- (short for Roland) - April 13, 2009

Now I wouldn’t normally post with this many postings already showing, but I just now got around to reading this and I must say….Anthony, excellent bit of writing here. You gave an honest Trek Fan review without spoiling it for those of us who have to wait till May 8th. VERY well done. I am soooooo looking forward to multiple viewings at the theater. Thank you again for a great review and a wonderful site.

462. McCoy - April 13, 2009

457: “In your opinion.”

As always….

463. Smitty™ - April 13, 2009

As May 8th gets closer certain commenters will get louder!

Ya know the ones I is referring to…>_>

-cs™

464. WolfTrek - April 13, 2009

This movie can be good. It can equally be bad. I’ll know AFTER I watch it and not before. And I think this applies to everyone else, as well.

465. Quarksbartender - April 13, 2009

James Cawley
I appreciate your work and have said so many times before, in my eyes you dont have to defend yourself here you do your own thing which is awesome TOS will never be gone because of you and your crews hard work, thank you and I agree JJ version will be a great fresh take on Trek just like DS9 was also a fresh take on the Star Trek universe.

466. U.F.P. - April 13, 2009

Can anyone tell me what the Ice Monster is ? I’ve never seen a Denebian Slime Devil….

467. Imrahil - April 13, 2009

“Impactful” is not a word, goddammit. It just isn’t. It makes you look amateurish to use it.

468. Lousy_Canadian - April 13, 2009

Thanks you very much! Great review! Can’t wait for the spoilerly one!

469. David P - April 13, 2009

Great review!

470. Kyle Cawley - April 13, 2009

#452 – totally, just jokes ;) how could we not jump on one like that?!

471. Illogical - April 13, 2009

467. Imrahil – April 13, 2009
“Impactful” is not a word, goddammit. It just isn’t. It makes you look amateurish to use it.

Wrong…..
Main Entry: impactful
Part of Speech: adj
Definition: having a great impact or effect

472. CaptainRickover - April 13, 2009

The more I read, hear or watch, the more I don’t want to see this movie. Not because everyone says it’s good (it would be an idiotic reason not to watch it BECAUSE it’s good ;) ).

But I lost my entire faith for the new movies, because it confirmes me more and more that this Trek is no part of the old Trek universe (please, spare me with that quantum-physics-theory or with the phrase “everything that had come before is important to that story”. Thats honestly BS! Look at the USS Kelvin and you know how “faithfull” the TPTB treated the old universe).

But the change of designs, ships, phasers and uniforms are one thing. I could live with it and to be honest, it would have been a strange thing to see the old TOS-phasers on the big screen. (what do we know about the years between 2254 and 2265? NOTHING!). And remember. The design of the handphasers changend between TWOK and TSFS and there were just some weeks between the movies – in the universe of course. Or look and the two entirely different bridges of the Bounty in TSFS and TVH. What happend with the TSFS one in TVH?

But what makes me really sad is, that the writers thought it was necessary to change the entire character background we know. For a non fan it is meaningless if Kirk was on the Farragut or not. So, it wouldn’t have hurt the story to incorporate that (as long as there is no Farragut-storyline. Just a few words about it would have been enough) but it would have satisfied many fans of TOS. The entire movie could have been incorporated in the existing canon, with only some minor plot changes. All that changes are not necessary and that’s the fact that made me sad and angry too.

This movie maybe is about Kirk and Spock, but they are not THE Kirk and Spock, just some guys from an alternate timeline. The TRUE origin-story, how THE Kirk and Spock meets for the first time, will never be told (perhaps James Cawley could do it with his Phase-II-guys?) But that’s not enough: They (Orci, JJ & Co) ignored The Cage and the history of the Starship Enterprise. Another step, that was not necessary (and maybe a lost opportunity as well, if you consider the possibility of a Captain Pike and his five-year-mission tv-show in the style of the new movie) and angers me much.

To top that, there are all that ridicolous moments how the crew come together. The flaggship of starfleet will be manned with cadets, as if the best ship in the fleet would not have allready a crew out of starfleet’s finest officers. That’s so unbelievable and everything but not real (wasn’t it the goal of TPTB to make that movie more realistic?)
One of the previous posters was right: It would have been far, far better to split the storyline of Kirk-in-command over several movies (how Kirk becomes captain) and end that movie with Captain Pike back on the bridge and Kirk heading back for Starfleet Academy and manipulating the KM-test.

The simple-minded dialogs and the goofy comic moments seems to be tributes to the younger audience, the producers and mostly Paramount, want to drag in. I wonder, if it would have been not more clever (in long term thinking) to create a movie, that aimed for an older audience, like Warner Brothers did with Lord of the rings, or Batman, or Harry Potter (excluding the first two) or MGM with James Bond. As far as I remember, that are the four most sucessfull movie-franchises besides Star Wars.

Im not very exited a the moment.

At least, the new Star Trek has extra good SFX, a superb sound design an finally some real good action sequenzes. And the acting, as far as I can see, is very good too. Perhaps it’s a fun evening, but this movie will certainly not become my no.1 Trekmovie (hope it’s better than TFF, NEM or GEN, that would be satisfying enough for the moment)!

473. The Governator - April 13, 2009

Shatner_Fan_Prime

Question:

Is Kirk’s “presto captain” suppose to be temporary or permanent? Obviously he becomes the captain eventually, but this is really the only thing that is confusing me. Any hints?

474. Dr. Image - April 13, 2009

James Cawley-
Please tell us you did not end up on the CRF! (Cutting Room Floor.)
PS- Did you get to keep the uniform and was the tunic really
spandex? Yeech!

475. MC1701B - April 13, 2009

35. You sound like Carl Sagan. Please refer back to the running thread in TOS regarding “The Preservers” and the TNG episode “The Chase,” which directly address the issue of the preponderance of humanoid aliens in the galaxy.

TOS had every script reviewed by the Rand Corporation, even the ones written by real SF writers. TMP and TWOK had input by NASA. The scientific adviser on the FF is…?

476. DesiluTrek - April 13, 2009

Leave any snarkiness, arrogance or elitism in your quarters!
You must control your passions, they will be your undoing!

477. MC1701B - April 13, 2009

251. Could not have said it better myself. Thank you.

478. Randy H. - April 13, 2009

There is one other thing we should consider with the film: by my calculations this two hour movie represents at best only 0.3% of canon. That’s all. Fans will accept it and embrace it as part of the wonderful tapestry that is Trek through the years, or will reject it (like, say, many fans do the fifth film).

If the spirit of Trek that many here aspire to is IDIC, then allow the diversity of this new film to be judged on its OWN merits, to see if in combination with the other 99.7% of Star Trek it is a beaufiful addition to be loved or a crazy uncle to be embarrassed by.

But at least wait to see the damned thing before shouting how amazing it will be or how it is the ruination of all that is beautiful in life!

479. Jefferies Tuber - April 13, 2009

Mr. Pascale,

Are the Klingons on-screen without their Rura Penthe face masks?

Do we see TOS era Romulan ships? TOS era Klingon ships?

480. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 13, 2009

#473 … Governator

Let’s just say I find it implausible that the greatest Starfleet Captain of all-time rose to command of the flagship vessel mere days after leaving the academy. That seriously is my biggest gripe.

481. cinemadeus - April 13, 2009

“What is perhaps lacking in this film is a full understanding of Nero and his motivation beyond revenge. There are a couple of exposition moments, but definitely not long enough for Trek fans who want to be ‘fully briefed.’”

Doesn’t matter whether you’re a Trek fan or not. Since “it’s all about charakter”, motivation is essential.

I read COUNTDOWN a few days ago. It was okay. Nevertheless it shouldn’t be necessary to read a comic or novel to understand what’s going on with Nero.

482. Canon Schmanon - April 13, 2009

Ya’ll can nitpick the film to death if you want. I just watched Wrath of Khan, and could list quite a few mistakes/implausibilities or just plain dumb things about it. But it’s still a hell of a film. I would suggest that those of you who’ve been willing all these years to give a pass to the best Trek films should also look at this new film with similar judgment.

Or is yours the inferior intellect?

483. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 13, 2009

The movie’s now opening a day earlier! Come on, May 7!

:-)

484. Jeyl - April 13, 2009

Anthony- “It just doesn’t seem believable for a 23rd century warp-capable starship to have an engineering room full of 20th century valves, pipes and light fixtures.”

But Anthony! Haven’t you ever watched “Space Mutiny”? They not only used those types of sets on board their futuristic space ship, but also bricks, toilet outlets, receptic tanks, boilers and methane storage.

This might actually be a step up!

485. The Governator - April 13, 2009

Shatner_Fan_Prime

Well, I suppose that could be considered a major or minor flaw, so I guess now the ultimate question for me is:

Overall, did you really, truly, and honestly like the film? Everyone so far has to at least some extent if not absolutely adored it, and the more that like it the better.

486. Selor - April 13, 2009

@483 At least Wuppertal in Germany is getting it already on May 6th, 8 PM with the “Männerabend” (Mens Evening or Stag night) Event in our CinemaXX (yeah the x’s are in the name of our grand cinema here in town)

487. U.F.P. - April 13, 2009

can 5/7/09 be verified ?

488. Christine - April 13, 2009

#480 :: It was destiny. He’s Kirk, for Pete’s sake. x3 He’s supposed to be unbelieveably awesome.

489. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 13, 2009

#485 … I did! I wish certain things had been done differently (such as the issue we already discussed), but there is also a lot to like in it and I’m planning to see it at least twice more with friends and family. I still prefer my TOS, of course, but I accept that the original creators & actors have aged or passed on, and it was time for a fresh start. And I’m very pleased to have *these characters* I love back again, as opposed to another set of totally new ones.

490. Bradley1701 - April 13, 2009

Some of you guys need to get a life and enjoy the movie for what it is…

Also, I am absolutely tired of people speaking for the entire fan base. If you don’t like what you see or don’t want to see the movie then that is fine, speak for yourself and why you don’t want to see the movie….but don’t EVER say that fans are not going to like it for the reasons you have provided which are entirely your own individual opinion. There are as many, if not more, TOS fans that are also hyped and excited about this movie…myself included.

There are a few guilty parties here for speaking on behalf of “TOS fans” and it needs to stop…all you’re trying to do is throw support for your opinion out there on behalf of a group of people who may not have the same opinion or haven’t given you permission to speak on their behalf.

491. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#443: “I mean the TOS Fans that really understand the implications of star trek in civilization.”

And that wins the award for pompous nonsense in this topic. LOL

492. Anthony Pascale - April 13, 2009

Hartman
you speak for yourself. and you certainly do not speak for ‘tos fans’

I am a TOS fan, and I know many other TOS fans who are pretty ‘hardcore’ and none of them would agree with you. You have your view and that is fine….but you do not speak for the fans, and by the way, nor do I.

493. The Governator - April 13, 2009

Shatner_Fan_Prime

Just thought of another question (sorry, I’ll try not to ask to much more)

Were there many surprises? Other than a certain unexpected relationship which I unfortunately stumbled across, did anything stick out to the point where you were like, “Oh, that’s interesting.”? No need to spoil, but I am curious.

Not to be annoying.

494. S. John Ross - April 13, 2009

#321: Ah, well, that does make sense. You already know your friends, after all!

495. cagmar - April 13, 2009

Hm. Well, I’m not happy about the stardates being changed. No point in that. Purely change for the sake of change. It’s sort of mean to fans, but whatever.

Also, really disappointed in what I’m hearing about Nero. ST villains at their best were never 2D, never simple “bad guys”. In TMP, the alien wanted to understand existence and its place in the universe. In TWOK, even Khan was a solider, banished first and then defeated by Kirk, and now looking for purpose, for a focal point for his unresolved aggression – an attempt to be who he was designed to be. In TVH, the probe was trying to say Hello to the whales. … the list goes on. Real villains, the ones that matter, are ones that have some realistic purpose behind them. Being bad is the dumbest reason for villainy ever. Maybe the writers never really understood Khan beyond – He want revenge. And that’s sad to see. It’s sad, too, to think they said they thought Nero would be up there with the complex motivations of Khan….

496. The Governator - April 13, 2009

495. cagmar

I don’t think he’s really all that 2D. He has motivations, and very good ones at that, IMHO. He’s not bad for the sake of bad, and I think the film makers understood that wouldn’t cut it. I think the biggest compliant so far has been that he was underdeveloped. Then again, I haven’t seen the movie, so I don’t know, but I do know that he does have motivations.

497. Maltz - April 13, 2009

Anthony- can you please give us a sense of the new main theme music?

James- hope you’re visible in the movie!

Stanly- please stick around for ST 2011 !

498. Closettrekker - April 13, 2009

I am a 30+ year fan of TOS and the original films, and ‘Hartman’ doesn’t speak for me.

Like Shatner_Fan_Prime, I really wish that Kirk’s ascension to command would have been a more plausible route—-but if that’s about the gist of what is annoying about the plot—-I’ll live.

*Nothing* could be more annoying than all of this “true fan” nonsense.

And as far as there being something wrong with Star Trek “popcorn movies”—–it’s been 30 years since one of them wasn’t. The only difference is, this one isn’t a “B” movie.

Still counting the days…

499. crone - April 13, 2009

Hi. I am an old ( 58) Trekkie who was watching eagerly when the first TOS episode aired and I will be seeing this movie on opening day.

I think it is gonna be great. Thanks for an exciting preview/review!

500. sean - April 13, 2009

#495

“Hm. Well, I’m not happy about the stardates being changed. No point in that. Purely change for the sake of change. It’s sort of mean to fans, but whatever.”

Changing a fictional, never-explained and frequently inconsistent futuristic timekeeping system is ‘mean’? Really?

501. Critch - April 13, 2009

Dear god, people, there is no room for Kirk’s backstory because IT IS NOT THIS KIRK’S BACKSTORY. THIS Kirk never was on Tarsus IV or whatever, THIS Kirk never was on the Farragut. The entire Federation history changed.

I swear, the people that are bitching about ‘their trek’ sound like the insane original Battlestar Galactica fans. Completely out of touch with reality. We had several movies and shows in the original universe. Voyager and Insurrection were disappointments, and Nemesis and Enterprise were failures.

If Trek is to survive, this was the only way to do it. And it’s very telling that everyone that has seen it is singing it’s praises, and everyone that hasn’t is bitching.

502. boborci - April 13, 2009

over 500

way to go, Anthony!

503. 750 Mang - April 13, 2009

291. SaphronGirl – April 13, 2009

“269. (750 Mang)

I’ll be honest, it made me wince. But then again, I just watched “A Lion in Winter””

Great film! James Goldman screenplay, O’Toole, Hepburn, a young Tony Hopkins. What could go wrong?

I need to bump it to the top of the ol’ Netflix queue.

rtf

504. McCoy - April 13, 2009

I’m a 43 year old fan and Hartman DOES speak for me.

505. TomBot3000 - April 13, 2009

Ummm, yikes… I mean YIKES!!! Well, certaintly there’s enough passion blowing around… but what it means in the long run, I’m not sure. Sure, when I was a kid, I wanted Star Trek to be more like Star Wars, and I’d even romanticized that notion like most kids do. I wanted more ship to ship bombast, combat, and action! As an adult, I appreciate TOS more for what it was, and not what it wasn’t. I can see what the new movie is going for; mix Star Trek with Star Wars and you might get MASS APPEAL. Some lessons in life aren’t the most obvious, most common denominator… and maybe, some are, I guess! LOL! I think I’ll just stay out of the bickering, and wait and see.

506. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

I’m a fifty-five year old TOS fan and Hartman not only doesn’t speak for me but in fact has said just about nothing I can agree with.

#501: “I swear, the people that are bitching about ‘their trek’ sound like the insane original Battlestar Galactica fans.”

My god, I wouldn’t go that far. Those people threatened violence against Bonnie Hammer and Ron Moore.

507. Batfan - April 13, 2009

TrekMovie loved ST09?

shocker.

508. New Horizon - April 13, 2009

Hartman does NOT speak for me. 34 years old and a fan since I was 4. They were my heroes…Kirk was the father figure my dad never was, but all things change and I embrace this fresh new perspective on Trek.

509. Darfyn - April 13, 2009

Calling Bill , Emergency !! Red Alert !! Calling Bill and Leonard , Nichelle and George , Walter and Grace !! The Alpha and Beta quadrants are being torn apart in a Time Vortex !! We need You back !! The Federation is asking You to come out of Retirement !! We need You in Command again ! ! I can only say that I have a friend working on some special balmic pro-juice to help ! And am synthesising some botox as well ! Hoping to hear from you soon !!
(datalog: – I hear Commodore James Cawley is working on the New Voyages Phase II Project too !)

510. captain_neill - April 13, 2009

417

I agree with your remark.

I am looking forward to the film but I will be enjoying it as a separate entity from the rest of Star Trek which I have been enjoying forever.

If it captures the spirit of Trek then I will be happy but it is clear that the movie is setting up a new canon withthe new timeline.

Also James, I love your work on Phase II. The work you have done is fantastic and wanted to thank you for bringing back the spirit of TOS in your productions.

511. Harry Ballz - April 13, 2009

#500

sean, I think he meant that if nobody could figure out the stardate system to begin with, and by changing it nothing was accomplished to improve the situation, then why not leave it alone……as Austin Powers would say on behalf of a TOS fan, “throw me a frikkin’ bone here!”

512. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

Well, specifically how is the stardate system changed?

513. sean - April 13, 2009

#511

I know Harry, and I stand by my comment :)

514. boborci - April 13, 2009

511. Harry Ballz – April 13, 2009

Changing it did improve the situation.

515. Anthony Pascale - April 13, 2009

RE: Countdown
let me be clear, there is some exposition in this film, but as Trek fans we are used to a lot of exposition. That is why I recommend COUNTDOWN. This is especially important if you want to see how this ties into the TNG era, which is not really covered in the film.

oh bob, over 500
wait until the movie comes out….your movie will get many 1k threads….your last interview went to 1k i think

516. New Horizon - April 13, 2009

Can we get a poll on the side bar? one that says…”Does hartman speak for you? Yes or no? lol

517. captain_neill - April 13, 2009

cadet to captain. dammit this is so contrived

518. The Governator - April 13, 2009

514. boborci

fascinating. I’m sure this was a supreme court decision, which was done for a reason. I guess I’ll have to pay close attention to see how this “improves the situation”

P.S. Congrats Bob! So far, everyone seems to love the movie. I’m sure your as glad as anyone.

519. Harry Ballz - April 13, 2009

#514

Hey, Bob, thanks for the “frikkin’ bone”!!

Your tone in answering reminded me of Kirk’s response to V’ger’s probe in TMP: “the examination IS a normal function” LOL

520. Christine - April 13, 2009

Mr. Roberto Orci:
I think the reason they go this far is because of the fact that you come here, heh. I don’t know a lot of movie directors that actually go onto the sites where the fans are going and show their face (er, their pixels).
So I think it really means a lot to all of us. :)

521. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#517: “cadet to captain. dammit this is so contrived”

So is pulling almost the entire original cast – I mean “crew” – of the TOS-era Enterprise together decades to supervise a group of cadets on a training cruise while eaching serving at their original position.

Even more contrived is having the single crewperson who somehow went on to have a career that – quite plausibly – saw them assigned on another vessel pulled right into being central to the plot (and, by the climax of the film, being back serving at their old position as well).

Yet I’m told that TWOK was one of the most tightly-plotted movies in history! LOL

522. Jon - April 13, 2009

Oh the tears taste so sweet.

523. Christine - April 13, 2009

#518 :: “..So far, everyone seems to love the movie. …”

Just don’t let him see the “Going Down” thread.
Frankly, I think half the comments are downright ignorant and insulting. =/

524. ger - April 13, 2009

So Mr. Bailey is special because he co-wrote two teleplays for TNG. Fine. But that doesn’t mean he’s not arrogant.

525. Harry Ballz - April 13, 2009

#520

No, Christine, Bob is one of the writers, which as we know is FAR more important than a mere director!

526. 750 Mang - April 13, 2009

514. boborci – April 13, 2009

“511. Harry Ballz – April 13, 2009

Changing it did improve the situation.”

Indeed. Everything needed improvement!

Kirk’s Backstory – Improved.
Big E’s History – Improved.
Federation History – Improved.
Stardates – Improved.
Heck, the whole thing’s been improved. Ain’t it?

With all these improvements it’s almost like it’s a completely different thing.

527. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 13, 2009

493. The Governator …

No problem. Yes, there were several suprises for me, as I managed to stay pretty spoiler free. There was one character death I wasn’t expecting. Not one of the main characters, so don’t panic, but it did surprise me.

528. Christine - April 13, 2009

#525 :: Oh, gawd, I feel completely mortified now. Mr. Orci, if you read this, sorry for getting your position mixed up!!!!

And, yes, I must agree with you, Harry. Writers are really the heart and soul of the movies. WIthout them, there IS no movie!

(And he also does “Fringe”, which is really, really, really awesome. xD)

529. sean - April 13, 2009

Ya know, ‘The Icarus Factor’ is on right now, and I wonder if Bob and Alex drew any inspiration from Riker’s relationship with his father for Kirk’s backstory in this film?

530. khwj1 - April 13, 2009

boborci:

its early but any ideas for what you’re gonna call the sequel? Star Trek 01?

531. ger - April 13, 2009

Yeah Bob Orci, let’s improve everything. Let’s turn a cadet into a captain in almost no time, because that improves Kirk’s backstory soooo much.

532. Harry Ballz - April 13, 2009

#530

Sequel? That’s easy:

Star Trek: The Search For More Money*

*(with thanks to Mel Brooks)

533. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#524: “So Mr. Bailey is special because he co-wrote two teleplays for TNG. Fine. But that doesn’t mean he’s not arrogant.”

1) I am not special.
2) I am arrogant. Tough, huh?
3) I am right.

LOL

534. Trekkiefan16 - April 13, 2009

Thanks for the review. Very detailed and thorough without any major spoilers. You are the “Roger Ebert” of Star Trek reviews!

I read Countdown (just got my copy from amazon.com) and I recommend reading it prior to seeing the movie. It does help set up the backstory and I plan on reading it again prior to seeing the movie.

Yes us ST fans tend to like details but that is what make the ST universe so unique. It has a rich 40+ year history of characters and planets and alien races and relationships and wars that we all feel we know. It is like watching a Ken Burns documentary played out over 4 decades.

I can’t wait until May 8th!!!

535. ger - April 13, 2009

Who exactly did come up with the “supernova threatening the entire universe” plot in the Countdown comics? That’s the biggest shyte I’ve ever read. Seriously. Even if it’s just a mindless comic.

536. sean - April 13, 2009

#535

It’s not goofier than half the other things that have threatened the universe before.

537. ger - April 13, 2009

sean, are you really trying to tell me that because ridiculous stuff has been written before, it’s good to keep writing ridiculous stuff?

bad + bad = good?

538. RD - April 13, 2009

#381 – “This story couldn’t canonically exist without it.”

That is an opinion. Here’s mine. From everything I’ve heard, this movie could totally exist without previous canon.

I’ve said it over and over and I will say it again. THIS MOVIE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CANON except that it is now linearly part of Paramount’s “official” canon, embedded there by artificial means.

However, NONE of that previous canon will EVER play a part in a Trek Movie set in this alternate re-booted universe. It can’t, the characters have completely different pasts, presents and an unwritten future.

This is a flat-out re-boot designed in such a way as to not totally alienate the existing fanbase. It completely ignores the substance of that canon while retaining some of the trivial details.

In fact that pre-existing canon is likely what makes this movie worse than it needed to be. BOTTOM LINE: Paramount is dusting off an old property and looking for a way to make it appealing to a new generation of fans. But they want to eat their cake too, so they make sure they can artificially tie it into the successful franchise they had before in hopes of taking as many of them along for the new ride as possible too. New audiences don’t care about any of the canon involvement, for them it is an ORIGIN STORY for a cast of characters they never knew in the first place, for them it is ALL NEW. For the pre-existing fan, it is an origin story for the next series of Trek films and TV spinoffs which will have NOTHING to do with anything you previously knew about Star Trek except trivial similarities they chose to include: like Saurian brandy bottles. The real substance of Trek has been stripped away and re-made in a more appealing skin. Abrams did it with Alias, he’s doing it with Lost and now Star Trek – re-package sci-fi/fantasy for mass consumption by whatever means necessary.

539. ger - April 13, 2009

Now that’s the perfect excuse for any writer!!!

540. boborci - April 13, 2009

535. ger – April 13, 2009

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~gekko/press/wr104_Mar08/Sydney_press_release.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320972,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2008-03-10-death-star-earth_N.htm

541. Kirk's Girdle - April 13, 2009

You know, instead of Delta Vega, they could have used the planet Dr Corby was stationed on.

542. ger - April 13, 2009

Bob, a gamma ray burst is NOT what happens in that comic. And gamma ray bursts certainly do not endanger the whole galaxy, let alone the entire universe.

543. sean - April 13, 2009

#537

No, but I don’t see why a mysterious stellar phenomenon is suddenly mindless or stupid. We accept a lot of preposterous events in Star Trek on a regular basis, were we to examine them based on what we know about real life science. Ultimately, whatever it is threatening the universe or the galaxy or the Earth is just a macguffin, anyway. And this one is far less insulting than say, God living in a mercury puddle in the middle of the galaxy, or an energy ribbon that makes this the best Christmas ever.

544. Kirk's Girdle - April 13, 2009

Hey there you are, Bob. Have you been asked the point blank Delta Vega question, because almost anyone in the fanbase would have reminded you that DV is the last rest stop before the barrier…. and then Andromeda. So what gives?

545. pock speared - April 13, 2009

#531 “ger”
could you please move to another site? you smell like pee. and a bad, rancid pee at that.

and b’orci: this changing of stardates is gonna mess me up. how am i supposed to date my checks now?

546. Anthony Pascale - April 13, 2009

i have an interview with Bob and Alex coming up that will cover the Delta Vega thing….look for that soon

547. ger - April 13, 2009

pock speared, why don’t you just stop reading my posts?

548. FMiller - April 13, 2009

I’m still somewhat interested in seeing the movie, however, some of the elements really don’t not seem stale to me. The basic story with, apparently, some kind of time travel element and a villain whose motivation isn’t anything more complex than revenge reeks of “old Trek” to me, honestly. Somewhat cringe-worthy coincidences to put all of the characters onto Enterprise and into the middle of an epic adventure also happened before.

For me, that major stuff are the kinds of elements that could have been changed to give the whole thing a new, creative, fresh touch. I agree with those who say that frequent moviegoers not that familiar with or passionate about Trek won’t be upset about the Enterprise explicitly being built on Earth, Kirk driving a car or “an engineering room full of 20th century valves, pipes and light fixtures”, but if you assume that part of the audience weren’t familiar with Trek at those levels of details, I also can’t imagine they would’ve screamed “Same old, same old”, had the so-called “Supreme Court” not decided for continuity to defer to their specific visions and intentions on those topics.

549. The Governator - April 13, 2009

538. RD

Not to spoil you to much, but the characters in this film even talk about it occurring in an alternate reality. Its a part of the film. Actually, its the whole theme of the movie. The fact that even when you screw with Kirk’s history, in the end, he still becomes Captain James T. Kirk of the starship Enterprise. I think you’re right in that this movie is suppose to appeal to a wider audience because its a new beginning, but it does address IN the movie what makes it different, which to me, makes it acceptable. And to be honest, if all Star Trek ever was to you was its perfectly coherent canon, than you need a kick in the pants as much as Star Trek did before this movie. Star Trek is about the relationships, the adventure, and the optimistic view of the future. And if repackaging Trek is what must be done to make it more accessible to a mainstream audience, then by all means, let it be done.

550. pock speared - April 13, 2009

#547 “ger, the outraged”
baby, those aren’t “posts”. now just settle down and maybe later we’ll get ice cream.

…and by the way, if you don’t stop scratching it it won’t ever heal.

551. pock speared - April 13, 2009

i tried to get in to delta vega but everyone in the fraternity were too hung up on canon to have any fun. i pledged delta epsilon psi, where the chicks were green and from orion. good times.

552. Jefferies Tuber - April 13, 2009

It seems like the closer we get to the release, the more dead-enders there are posting on this site… as if they know ST09 will be accepted and successful, so they’re preemptively trying to delegitimize it. Hartman’s “We’re the ones getting attacked” is a gutbuster.

Hasn’t anyone here ever grown roses? You have to dead-head the faded roses so that new ones will grow. It’s still the same plant and it doesn’t mean that you disrespect the older roses.

I’ll challenge anyone to a Star Trek drinking game… and I still cry like a schoolgirl at the end of TWOK. But the original production design is almost indistinguishable from FORBIDDEN PLANET and SANTA CLAUS VS. THE MARTIANS. As excited as I am to see the Kelvin and its TOS aesthetics, there is absolutely nothing futuristic about those sets.

Take a look at this TED lecture, demonstrating a kick ass wearable computer that was built with $350 in off the shelf parts.
ted.com/index.php/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html
The notion that the 24th Century will look anything like TOS is not just naive, it’s like a cancer on Star Trek.

553. Christine - April 13, 2009

#530 :: I know you’re being sarcastic, but it makes sense. After all, I believe it was said in a TOS episode that Kirk was one of the youngest to ever be promoted to the captaincy. However that may conflict with canon (we know he was a Lieutenant at some point), again, we’ve got Nero screwing up the timline really bad.

#548 “…I agree with those who say that frequent moviegoers not that familiar with or passionate about Trek won’t be upset about the Enterprise explicitly being built on Earth, Kirk driving a car or “an engineering room full of 20th century valves, pipes and light fixtures …”

I don’t know, I consider myself pretty passionate about Trek, but I’m not bothered by these new elements. I find them fascinating.

554. BLFSisko - April 13, 2009

I am a hardcore fan for nearly 20 year. I grew up with TNG, but I also love TOS, DS9 and ENT (and I even tolerate VOY ;-) From all the things I saw and heard so far, I think I´m going to like some and some not. I can judge after I will have seen the movie. But the most important: RELAX FOLKS! STAR TREK, as big as it is, it is still a set of TV-Series and Movies. IT IS NO RELIGION !!!

555. Jonny - April 13, 2009

The back ground story is already there!!! No need to change it!! Just add to it!! They have got it SO wrong!! By doing so they have effectively taken our star trek away! And for that I will never forgive them!!

556. Trekkie16 - April 13, 2009

Bob – Thanks for the links.

I liked the supernova storyline and think it will make a nice lead in to the movie.

#542 Ger – How do you know that for sure?? There are still many unknown unexplained phenomonons in the universe. Our knowledge is in the infancy stage and there is much we don’t know. So if Bob says there is a supernova that can destroy the universe and that is how Romulus gets vaporized and sets up the Nero story, then I am going to just sit back and enjoy.

557. Canon Schmanon - April 13, 2009

Wow, there are a lot of diapers here that need changing.

Canon never existed in Star Trek. Things were often changed up for the convenience of the story. It is only some fans who created the concept of canon around Star Trek.

That’s what happens when something fictional becomes too real to some people. Once it mingles with their own reality, they create their own canon to better integrate the fantasy into their lives. When something happens that doesn’t conform to their personal canon, they react as if their actual lives are being altered.

Thus, the belligerent overreaction to this new vision.

I grew up with TOS, I’m a big Trek fan, but nothing I’ve seen so far is upsetting to me. I am a little disappointed by Quinto’s weak little voice in comparison to Nimoy’s wonderful baritone. I think it will rob this version of Spock of much of his presence. Maybe I’m wrong, but I ain’t gonna get all poopy in my diaper over it.

558. Xai, holding a jumbo Coke and a huge bag of Iowa-grown popcorn - April 13, 2009

Wow, people get strange over trivial stuff.

Let’s try this, and feel free to prove me wrong.

1. This movie doesn’t replace anything that has come before. It’s a new universe as a result from Nero and/or old Spock’s presence in the original TOS past.

2. Anthony wrote a very concise review based on what he saw and his opinion of it. Your mileage may vary.

3. You need canon to get here. Old Spock came from somewhere…right?… Think about it.

4. James Cawley make a typo…. OMG! How can that be? I won’t sleep tonight…… well… yes, I will. Get oevr it. LOL

5. NO one speaks for me on any subject. I may agree with someone on a subject, but I’ll never need a proxy to forward my opinion. Allowing that is dangerous on any level. Hartman is one person and that equals one opinion.

6.You cannot judge a movie by it’s trailers. Not the plot, not the writing, not the acting. THAT is my opinion. It’s like eating raw flour and proclaiming the cake was too dry and the frosting sucked. You aren’t seeing the whole product.

7. Lastly, if you are just not feeling the love and have already decided this is not the movie for you…. it’s a very simple solution.
Don’t go.
But, if you do go, don’t rain on the parade of the movie goer next to you with snide comments or “told-you-so’s” during the flick. I’ve already given warning in here that if you sit next to me and nit-pick or hiss while I am watching the movie you will receive a Coke bath with popcorn topping.
Please dress accordingly.

559. Canon Schmanon - April 13, 2009

Xai – Your last paragraph is exactly why I’m not going to this film for a week or two after it opens. I don’t want to have some Canonite sitting near me, whining about things he doesn’t like. Considering the behavior of some of them here, I don’t trust them to be mature and considerate enough to shut up during the movie.

560. RAMA - April 13, 2009

Wow I’m surprised this commentary turned ugly. It seems as the movie gets closer, the close-minded, Nazi Trekkies are getting agitated. They can’t seem to stand the fact the JJ actually may have produced something that’s different but really worthwhile.

For the record, no one speaks for TOS or TOS fans anymore, at least not on this site. I’m 38 and a long time fan of TOS. I LOVE the show but I’m willing to admit STNG was a better show and that the old, legendary series is imperfect. I’m equally willing to admit that JJ has probably outdone every ST producer, writer and creative contributor on the old series of 10 movies, and has produced something everyone is talking about and wants to see and will apparently be more ENTERTAINING than anything before it.

RAMA

561. Xai, holding a jumbo Coke and a huge bag of Iowa-grown popcorn - April 13, 2009

559. Canon Schmanon – April 13, 2009
“Xai – Your last paragraph is exactly why I’m not going to this film for a week or two after it opens. I don’t want to have some Canonite sitting near me, whining about things he doesn’t like. Considering the behavior of some of them here, I don’t trust them to be mature and considerate enough to shut up during the movie.”

Then, fellow Trekker/Trekie/General Movie-goer, Let me buy you a Coke. It may come in handy.
LOL.

562. sean - April 13, 2009

I’m not letting anyone decide when I see a movie. If someone disrupts my moviegoing experience, they’re getting the boot. That’s what theatre managers are for.

563. Canon Schmanon - April 13, 2009

Sean – Apparently theatre managers in your area are tougher than mine. I’d have to remove the offender myself, and I’d wind up in jail, thus missing the movie.

564. AC - April 13, 2009

i wish there was familiarity with the old musical score. just a little. that score doesn’t sound like trek somehow. oh well, maybe it’ll grow on me.

565. sean - April 13, 2009

#563

Theatre managers in Arizona wear spurs and frequently keep a six shooter at their side.

566. RAMA - April 13, 2009

564-The clip I heard sounds like a scene from STIII. I think there’s a lot of familiarity.

RAMA

567. fizzben - April 13, 2009

Wow, you must have put a lot of time into that review Anthony. Thanks! I’m going to try to sit back and enjoy the movie the first time, analyze and nit pic the second maybe third times. I’m eager to see if dispositions change with some folks after the film opens. So far everything I’m hearing is very encouraging. Been visiting the site since it started and just want to say it’s been a daily visit and always look forward to coming here. Thanks again.

568. Matias47 - April 13, 2009

Wow.

Feelings are getting quite intense in here (out there?).

For me it comes down to this:

Ever since I was a kid, I’ve watched and enjoyed Star Trek. In that time I’ve also put up with bad/cheesy design,some poor stories, plot holes, happy coincidences — but with all that some damn fine work.

Some of the things I’ve heard about this new incarnation make me cringe. BUT, if in the end it’s a good story with something of a brain (not just fluff and action) and GET’S THE CHARACTERS RIGHT — I’ll be content.

A little.

569. BesterGirl - April 13, 2009

Overall a positive review. Looking forward to the film, even with many of the coincidences and the fast rise in Starfleet of certain characters.

As for Chekov’s accent, I have heard one of our local professional hockey stars who is Russian say “wery” and “eweryone” on plenty of occasions in interviews.

570. Matias47 - April 13, 2009

By the way — well done review.

571. RAMA - April 13, 2009

Oh yes, I like the review too. :-)

RAMA

572. colin - April 13, 2009

Anthony : Great review.

The “Hella Bar Talk” clip : at 0:57 (for the next five seconds) there’s a definite James Horner moment…

573. The Governator - April 13, 2009

Found another review from Nuke The Fridge:

http://www.nukethefridge.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1484:early-review-star-trek&catid=11:reviews&Itemid=38

The usual “Oh my God, you’ve gotta see it” reaction.

574. Gabriel Bell - April 13, 2009

554. It’s my religion! =/\=

575. Author of The Vulcan Neck PInch for Fathers - April 13, 2009

At this point, amidst the vitriol and angst shown here, I’m not sure anyone else is going to post something of great value.

That doesn’t mean I’m not gonna try…because I think there’s an important dynamic going on here between “Classic Trek” fans who are having trouble figurig out quite what to do with this new movie. Some are delighted with it, some are perplexed, and obviously some are angry. Here’s one way to think of it.

I find it more than a bit interestng to read so many here who characterize “Wrath of Khan” as their Trek theatrical lynchpin, not “The Motion Picture.” Pick your favorite detail reason; lethargic story, boring production values, too much freaking BLUE everywhere, whatever..you can amend the list as you see fit; but these *detail* notions might be well summarized with a simple sentiment; that despite it serving as the vehicle that brought Trek back, didn’t really *feel* like Trek.

For many, “Wrath of Khan” did, and as a result a pretty decent cross-section of Trek fandom felt simultaneously relieved and frustrated that the franchise was reborn, but only in a one-off sense; the Trek we grew to love never *really* made it to the big screen except in afterthought, in flashback, in hindsight. TWOK “shoulda” been Trek’s cinematic rebirth, and who knows how the franchise might have turned had that been the case.

So how does this apply to Trek 2009?

Because Trek 2009 it is the big screen treatment many believe Trek Classic never received, at least not in an authentic sense. And now that Trek *is* getting “the treatment,” now its with iconic characters recast, a story retold, a timeline reset, a ship redesigned, but a reality that’s everyone’s, *except* Trek Classic. Yes, Trek Classic went to the big screen five times, but in a story that was born of what was perceived as the failure(s) of TMP, and gilded by the “death” of Spock. It was Trek Classic, but with one arm behind its back.

Now, here comes a whole new generation of characters is going to rewrite the proverbial Trek history book almost from the ground up. For some, that’s too much of an upset of the applecart. We’re taking Trek back to the big screen, where some believe its never really gone in an authentic sense, despite the movies on the shelf that suggest otherwise.

Ultimately, it boils down to a choice. Beyond everything else, every debatable nuance, every contrivance, every Trekism, every Wesley-saving-the-ship moment, every defiance of canon, every element that defies even what we think we know about physics itself, boils down to a choice.

We either accept what’s being presented as Trek, or we don’t. We can celebrate what seems to be a good faith effort to reinvigorate a marketable franchise into something palatable to 21st century tastes, or we can mourn the passing of what it aspired to be. We can wish it became more than it did, and condemn what it has become, and rationalize either side. In all honesty, neither side has a monopoly on virtue. You can like it, you can not like it. But at some point, it is a curioius contradiction of the Trek mythos for either side to bash the other.

In the end, its two hours of reived escapist entertainment, a trip to the stars with unfamiliar faces. In a world where some people are reeling in the face of an economic storm not of their own doing, where families are stressing over how to make the next month’s bills, exactly where this reincarnation of Trek falls doesn’t seem so important. Maybe the best advice is to enjoy the moment, pay the price for the ticket, and just let the Enterprise, flawed as she may or may not be, take you on a great ride on the strength of its own merits, recognizing just how astonishing it is that a 40-year-old TV show is still, somehow, bearing fruit, and justifying a $150 million movie budget in the minds of a major movie studio.

And that lets everyone, canonistas or casuals, stand on the bridge for a moment, and just have a good time. In the end, that’s all entertainment can do for us.

Live Long and Prosper.

576. Jonny - April 13, 2009

Alternative timeline….. It’s not real, it’s not the true history…. when this movie is through at the cinema, then it should be forgotten and not place in Star trek canon.

The next movie should take up with Kirk in the academy with Gary Mitichell, then the vampire cloud. Let’s get back to true history !! true star trek canon. Forget about making up alternative timelines to rewrite history! A history I might add that is SO RICH and full of great potental.

577. Dennis Bailey - April 13, 2009

#576: “It’s not real, it’s not the true history”

None of Star Trek is real. There is no “true history” of Kirk and Spock. And this film *is* part of the canon.

578. RAMA - April 13, 2009

576: Actually THIS movie is the real continuing history. The other one is just an alternative one at the moment.

RAMA

579. Harry Ballz - April 13, 2009

RAMA, is there any particular reason you don’t post by your full name which, of course, is…….

RAMA DAMA DING DONG!

(runs and hides)

580. trekboi - April 13, 2009

I look forward to the new era.
I saw the redressed boiler room scenes a mile away- guess they needed 160 mil to pull off the enterprise fully…
This film will bring in a new generation of fans but i do fear for the new fans intereacting with the stanky old fans…
we will see- in a few months it will all be done.

581. HesDeadJim - April 13, 2009

I have thought long and hard about this, and as a huge Trek fan, I can only say that despite whatever reservations I had about the direction this movie might take, I’ve come to the conclusion that if the franchise is to be “revived” or (holding back vomit) “re-booted”, this is the best way to do it…

I was born too late to see The Motion Sickness or KHHAAAAANNNN!!! in theatres, so standing in line in my “Set Phaser to Disco” t-shirt is something I am definitely looking forward to!

582. Alex Rosenzweig - April 13, 2009

So… I’ve read the review, and I skimmed a lot of the comments here. Honestly, there’s not much I feel I can say about the film itself until I see it. Right now, I can *guess* how I’m going to feel, based on what I know. I *suspect* that I am going to love the cast, based on the clips I’ve seen. I *suspect* that I’m going to hate the premise, because it runs contrary to everything I was prepared to embrace and accept in a new Trek movie.

Beyond that, I’m going to have to go see the movie to see how it plays out on screen, and what parts I appreciate the most and least. I may find that it’s an entertaining movie in its own right, or I may find it not to be so. The reality is, I don’t know.

I do know this. Love the movie or hate it, as a fan of not merely TOS, and not merely Kirk and Spock, but of the whole Star Trek world, from TOS to TNG/DS9/VOY to ENT to Titan to Vanguard and all the other myriads of tales told within that world, it will always be a disappointment to me that the writers felt that they couldn’t revitalize Star Trek without walking away from its world. As someone who’s been storytelling in that world for many years, I think that the claim that it’s inherently limiting is utterly false, and there was great potential to tell the TOS origin story within its world and do it justice. Perhaps the story of the next film, though, could be structured in such a way that it could take place in either continuity, without doing them any disservice. I can hope, at least.

So now I shall wait the last few weeks, bereft of the enthusiasm that drove me when I thought this would be a true prequel, leading new audiences into the world to which we were first introduced in TOS, and giving them the chance to look at that world through new eyes and see what we loved about it. But I remain hopeful that, if nothing else, even if I treat it like I did the stories in the Myriad Universes anthologies, which I read, enjoyed, and then set aside to go back to the continuity that I love so much, I’ll be able to say of the film that it was an entertaining couple of hours, about which I can at least say, “That was fun.” And I’ll let you know that after I see the film. :)

583. Alex Rosenzweig - April 13, 2009

#578 – ‘576: Actually THIS movie is the real continuing history. The other one is just an alternative one at the moment.”

I suppose it depends on one’s point of view, doesn’t it? In some senses, allowing that it is, after all, a fictional construct from where we sit as viewers/readers, both worlds are equally “real” to the characters living within them.

But it’s comments like RAMA’s that, for me, underscore everything that’s wrong about this sort of premise.

584. RAMA - April 13, 2009

583. Or everything that is right…because instead of eliminating the franchise’s beloved and legendary status, they have kept it and still leave room for their own creativity within the ST universe (or multiverse) that expands the fanbase. Whether I agree with it or not, the facts show the old Trek was no longer what people wanted. We as fans can still enjoy it, and if we’re not to rigid and intractable in our thinking, we can enjoy the new Trek too.

RAMA

585. RAMA - April 13, 2009

579. Well I guess its slightly more dignified than “Ballz”.

586. THX-1138 - April 13, 2009

Sorry for not reading all 500 plus posts, but I do have a question, and I swear I am not trolling.

As pertaining to the bar-code scanners: what purpose do they serve? Are they used in some fashion during the course of the movie or are they some piece of set decoration? If they are a purposeful piece of equipment, I think I could be happier than if they were a gee-gaw stuck to the helm just to be all future-y.

587. Harry Ballz - April 13, 2009

#585

Actually, I shortened it…..the original family name was Ballzablazin!

588. RAMA - April 13, 2009

586. One word: Merchandising! Its for all the Trek tie-ins they’re selling.

RAMA

589. S. John Ross - April 13, 2009

#575: “We either accept what’s being presented as Trek, or we don’t.”

True, but right now is a bit premature … (unless you’re one of the lucky sods in Austin or Sydney, or one of those who’ve been given a private screening, etc).

“You can like it, you can not like it.”

A separate decision … but also one that can’t sensibly be made in advance. I think it’s possible that I could love this movie but still not accept it as Star Trek. It’s entirely possible I could dislike this movie but _definitely_ accept it as Star Trek. Or, I could reject it as Trek and dislike it, or I could accept it as Trek and love it … Finally, I could be convinced by enough bad reviews from people I trust to simply skip it, as I skipped the last two Trek films (as the generally-positive early reviews roll in, this seems less likely with each passing day, but given that the people writing the current reviews all have reason to be extra-excited by the _conditions_ under which they viewed the film, a grain of salt is in order for each one … private screenings, gala premieres and the sudden appearance of Leonard. Frickin’. Nimoy. can seriously preclude reflective judgement and drown a well-meaning fanboy in excitement unrelated to the actual movie).

The combinations, for me, are neither Infinite nor particularly Diverse, but there are 5 main flavors with gradations between 4 of them :) Honestly, the gradations worry me most. I think the outcome I’d enjoy _least_ is kinda-sorta liking the film while kinda-sorta accepting it as Trek …

Here’s hoping, though, as ever, that I see it, that I love it, and that I embrace it as Trek. Here’s hoping … but here’s not predicting, yet, either way.

590. Canon Schmanon - April 13, 2009

Alex Rosenzweig – I wish others who felt the way you do could say it like you did. I understand your perspective, thought I don’t share it. Your feelings are quite valid.

My guess is that no matter how rich the established history of Trek is, the writers felt it was too restricting. I can understand that they would want to tell their own stories, and not have to live up to “canon” expectations. I mean, look how many people are coming down on them already. Imagine if they had actually tried to adhere to canon.

It would do nothing to silence the critics. In fact, it would make the canonites howl even more, I suspect. They’d pick everything apart. In the end, there was no way to satisfy those people, so they chose the best way out, I think.

And based on the number of haters I see out there, it is understandable why they would want to attract a newer, less hostile crowd. I swear, some Trek fans just love to cut off their proverbial noses to spite their proverbial faces.

591. Randy H. - April 13, 2009

[POTENTIAL MINOR SPOILERS]

If the Kelvin looks as it does when Kirk is an infant, then it is clear that the universe that Nero and Spock travel back to in time is not the same as that in which the past 40 years of Trek have taken place. The designs are just too different. They have similar but not identical histories. Both universes will continue to exist – as noted in the prequel comic (lightweight in many respects, but interesting nonetheless for a background briefing). We now just have two to play in instead of one. And think of the fun novels that will eventually intermix the two!

This movie is a “sideboot” rather than a “reboot”. As someone above pointed out, it allows Paramount to have its cake and eat it too – it allows growth and new stories, but does not in any way invalidate those stories that came before. So relax and either enjoy or ignore the movie. Quietly and respectfully. Thank you. : )

592. S. John Ross - April 13, 2009

#590: “… I can understand that they would want to tell their own stories …”

But this does, in fairness, beg the question: why not simply do so? Nobody’s stopping them from writing a movie that _isn’t_ dependent on an existing franchise. If they have a truly new story to tell, one strong enough to _begin_ something, it seems like folly to shackle it to stigma and expecation when you could just give it it’s own name, it’s own identity, and not have to worry about anything but the film’s own awesomeness. We’ve seen large numbers of new, successful Sci-Fi and Fantasy franchises be born in the years since Star Trek went on the air; it’s not like it can’t be done.

I do agree that there’s no way to satisfy a canonista. But the world isn’t divided into casual filmgoers and canonistas; the vast body of Trek fandom is, I think, very much open to change – provided the changes are groovy and fun and fit the spirit of the thing … And maybe these changes are, and maybe these changes do. Anyone who hasn’t seen the film yet has no way, yet, of knowing …

593. Thomas - April 13, 2009

552. Jefferies Tuber

I myself was considering a similar plant analogy regarding this movie. I like to think of it as being like a cutting from a tree. It’s connected to the old tree (or previous canon) by growing out of it, but has been “cut away” so to speak, replanted in fresh soil and fertilized (new creative team) so that it may grow and flourish on its’ own. Something new, grown out of what has come before. I probably could describe it better if I were more eloquent, but you get the idea.

594. NOTBOB - April 13, 2009

Every time I see a new add–or even one I have seen before–for this new Star Trek, I seem to stop whatever it is I’m doing and watch the add.

This movie looks really cool to me. And for every little nit pick change there seems to be, there seems to be four or five things that overshadow the nitpicks, for me.

And I’m glad that Pike is back. I hope that he lives and I hope he shows up in the sequel–in some form. Maybe even talking instead of beeping.

595. Canon Schmanon - April 13, 2009

592 S. John Ross – It is still safer to tie your story to an existing franchise. The vast majority of science fictions movies have been failures. It’s easier to take an existing fan base and build on that. Sure, you’re gonna shake off some of the old guard who can’t deal with change, but many will come with you.

But I also think they really wanted to tell a Star Trek story, and do it their way, and I completely respect that. I’d like my own stab at it, and I sure as heck wouldn’t let “canon” get in the way of telling the best story I can. And it’s pretty obvious that trying to please the whining minority was impossible. And thus, my thoughts have gone full circle.

596. markk - April 13, 2009

I think they went with Delta Vega as a tribute to the original series, since that was the planet from the 2nd pilot. Really, who cares where Delta Vega really is?

597. Paul - April 13, 2009

Mmm, hopefully they tune the sequels to fit better with original Star Trek design sensiblity – like, redressing the bridge to be less cluttered and more comfortable, and giving Enterprise more functional, less retro-industrial engine room.

Come on, it shouldn’t be a problem to make it cool -AND- sensible at the same time. Would any of you want to work at the bridge as it currently looks? I certainly wouldn’t, because it’d give me constant headaches from the lighting and I’d keep tripping over all those needless workstations…

598. Alex Rosenzweig - April 13, 2009

#590 – “Alex Rosenzweig – I wish others who felt the way you do could say it like you did.”

Thanks. :)

“I understand your perspective, thought I don’t share it. Your feelings are quite valid.”

I can’t make a claim to some absolute truth, of course. I can only speak to how I feel, personally.

“My guess is that no matter how rich the established history of Trek is, the writers felt it was too restricting.”

I think that much is obvious, but it’s a feeling I have to admit to not comprehending. I’ll be curious to see how they express their own feelings on the subject, when they feel it’s time to discuss it.

“I can understand that they would want to tell their own stories, and not have to live up to “canon” expectations. I mean, look how many people are coming down on them already. Imagine if they had actually tried to adhere to canon.”

I think they’d’ve had a much easier road if they’d gone for an in-continuity story, rather than some of the major divergences from prior continuity. (I’ll leave the specifics out so as not to spoil.) Oh, they still wouldn’t have pleased everybody, but based on the postings on this site, I think a number of folks who are angry or disappointed with them now would have been more on their side if they’d made the attempt, even if they weren’t perfect.

“And based on the number of haters I see out there, it is understandable why they would want to attract a newer, less hostile crowd. I swear, some Trek fans just love to cut off their proverbial noses to spite their proverbial faces.”

I think, though, that they earned some of the hostility. It’s not just about the new sets or costumes, or whether a particular portrayal of a beloved character is on the money or not, or whatever people will argue about. As you note, people will argue about that anyway. But by just saying, in effect, that 40 years of Star Trek is no longer worth continuing, it feels like a slap in the face, whether intended or otherwise. Also, the fact that for months they promised us that wouldn’t be happening, couching it in terms just vague enough that they could claim to still have been true once the actual story of the movie was revealed, certainly felt like a bait-and-switch, and I suspect that some folks may be additionally hostile because of that, too.

It’s become very much in vogue to blame continuity for all of Star Trek’s ills, but I think that’s a red herring. I think the things that had caused the most problems for Trek could have been fixed without ever having to break fictional continuity. But that’s just MHO, and obviously the film’s writers felt otherwise. Still, while I have every intention of seeing the movie, I’m no longer planning the couple of dozen viewings I’d originally imagined, because the reality is that while the writers have every right to make whatever creative choice they feel is best, there’s no other way in practical terms (chattering on a website might be cathartic, but it won’t mean anything if that’s all I do ;) ) for me to express my disappointment in that choice than by not giving it the money I’d originally planned to when TPTB were still telling us that the movie was going to lead into TOS.

599. LodownX - April 14, 2009

Anthony… not sure if you ever read down this far…

I would just like to say… with the exception of my 3 month stint in rehab… I’ve been checking in here at Trekmovie every day since before the 2006(?) San Diego Comic Con… with the unveiling of the gold/blue ST emblem poster. On a daily basis you and your team have updated this site with information …. frankly… I needed to know. I appreciate all the work you’ve done… from standing outside casting-call lines to editing and re-editing material for publishing here….

just want to say thanks.

Mike, in Leamington ON Canda (just outside Detroit Mich.)

on a personal note… I was heartbroken when the release date was pushed back from Dec. 08 to May 09… the premiere was what I was living for at the time…. literally… but with some time to get grounded and figure myself out … I’m looking forward to a sequel (which seems almost guaranteed with the positive review and Paramount’s enthusiasm with their final cut) and I’m glad to say that I’m now living for the premiere of Star Trek (2009)’s sequel…. and dropping into Trekmovie.com everyday for my “new” fix. Thank Anthony… just wanted to know that what you’ve done here meant a little bit more than just Trekkie/Trekker shit… it was keeping people grounded too.

thanks

600. Dom - April 14, 2009

598. Alex Rosenzweig: ‘I think they’d’ve had a much easier road if they’d gone for an in-continuity story, rather than some of the major divergences from prior continuity.’

With the dwindling number of hardcore fans, perhaps. The majority of the audience didn’t know about it before and won’t care after! People who post on these boards represent a teeny weeny pinhead of wider opinion and the dissatisfied are far more likely to stamp their feet here than those who are looking forward to the film! Most people will see this film as a reboot and won’t care about its connections to the old show. Most people don’t psychologically require an explanation for the changes. A new cast and new filmmakers will be a perfectly reasonable explanation for the variances with the original shows and films!

‘But by just saying, in effect, that 40 years of Star Trek is no longer worth continuing, it feels like a slap in the face, whether intended or otherwise.’

They’re right! Star Trek was an embarrassment at the end and no one but a small bunch of fanatics cared any more. Good riddance to bad rubbish! ‘Original’ Star Trek’s over! Realistically, it was dead by 1994 when STVI had screened and TNG had ended its TV run. The next decade was revolting dance of death until someone sensible put a bullet in the dog’s brain!

‘It’s become very much in vogue to blame continuity for all of Star Trek’s ills, but I think that’s a red herring.’

It had become a straitjacket, though. Had they stuck to running just TNG for longer with a more fluid cast, then it might have been manageable, but with four spin-off shows and a movie series the whole thing had become incoherent.

Remember, outside of America, Star Trek shows are often broadcast on different channels and not in order with each other. Other than on the fledgling Sky satellite network in the UK and on VHS, for example, All Good Things . . . was widely broadcast well after Generations’ theatrical release. My brother saw Generations with a friend who assumed after the end of the film that the soon-to-be-broadcast season 7 of TNG would be about them getting a new ship. I’ve known plenty of people say of Trek ‘I lost track of it years ago!’

‘I think the things that had caused the most problems for Trek could have been fixed without ever having to break fictional continuity. But that’s just MHO, and obviously the film’s writers felt otherwise.’

It was nice of them to present an in-continuity explanation for the breaks in continuity. Most people would have simply rebooted, changed characters’ sexes and so on.

‘Still, while I have every intention of seeing the movie, I’m no longer planning the couple of dozen viewings I’d originally imagined’

My God! You’d have no eyes left if you did that! See it once or twice in the cinema, then pick up the DVD or Blu-ray in (likely) August/September!

601. LordCheeseCakeBreath - April 14, 2009

448 I mostly agree with you. The designs do appear to be terrible. I wish they attempted a more timeless approach rather than trying so so hard to be cool. As a 32 year old Trek fan should I feel rejected? I’ll watch the movie as a die hard trek fan not as a causual movie goer. From there I look forward to the folks at Phase II to make a real, prime universe Star Trek movie. How cool would that be?

602. Chris M - April 14, 2009

A very thoughtful and insightful review of Star Trek! Thanks for that Anthony. Your review has reinforced my optimism abou the movie. I had a feeling this was going to be a great movie and now I kno for sure that it will be! I even read one review that said it was one of the greatest Sci Fi movies ever made! :)

For those of you who are interested Sta Trek currently has a rating of 100% on rotten tomatoes!

http://au.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

A non-Star Trek fan mate of mine said he would see the movie if it had a rating of 90% and even he admits that the positive buzz around the movie is overwhelming!

603. Alex Rosenzweig - April 14, 2009

#600 – “Star Trek was an embarrassment at the end and no one but a small bunch of fanatics cared any more.”

I never felt that way. (‘Course, I’m in that minority that felt TNG was the nadir of Trek and everything else rebounded upward. ;) ) I loved DS9, and I thought the final season of ENT was the best single season of the four more recent shows. Frankly, I think if more people hadn’t completely tuned out on the show before that, we might still be seeing ENT eps. But it came too late.

” ‘It’s become very much in vogue to blame continuity for all of Star Trek’s ills, but I think that’s a red herring.’

It had become a straitjacket, though.”

Again, I really don’t see that at all. But, then, I look at a rich continuity as a goldmine for story possibilities, not a restriction. Maybe others see it differently, but that’s how I perceive it.

“Had they stuck to running just TNG for longer with a more fluid cast, then it might have been manageable, but with four spin-off shows and a movie series the whole thing had become incoherent.”

I was struck, actually, by how coherent it had remained. Oh, there were occasional glitches, but they were relatively minor. Some real effort went into trying to keep the overall thing straight, and it showed.

“It was nice of them to present an in-continuity explanation for the breaks in continuity. Most people would have simply rebooted, changed characters’ sexes and so on.”

With that I’ll agree. Neither approach is something I find particularly enjoyable, though.

” ‘Still, while I have every intention of seeing the movie, I’m no longer planning the couple of dozen viewings I’d originally imagined’

My God! You’d have no eyes left if you did that!”

It’s not hard if one does it over a few weeks. ;) My record for in-cinema viewings was 14, with “Trek VI”, and in those days it was a lot harder for me to *get to* a movie theater. Had this movie been a true TOS prequel, my target was 20-24 viewings. Now, it’ll be once for sure, and maybe 2-3 times if the movie itself blows me away. (I have some gift passes to a local movie theater, so I could see the thing a couple of times and not pay for it, which would be okay. ;) )

“See it once or twice in the cinema, then pick up the DVD or Blu-ray in (likely) August/September!”

A DVD or Blu-ray purchase is also now unlikely (I won’t say impossible, because the film might yet surprise me) for me, the first Trek movie about which I can even contemplate saying that.

604. Ryan - April 14, 2009

#602 – The RT community is giving it a 6.1. HOWEVER, many people are either giving it a 100 or a 0, so I wouldn’t but much into that rating.

605. Craig - April 14, 2009

The prime universe is all I care about. Do the events of the this film have an impact on the real Trek universe?

606. Closettrekker - April 14, 2009

#538—“That is an opinion. ”

Actually, no it isn’t.

The moment the film depicts the post-Nemesis era within the original timeline as the launch point for the timeline incursion—the story in ST09 is affirmed to be completely dependant upon everything we have seen depicted in 5 live action television series and 10 previous feature films.

That’s not an opinion, as both Nimoy’s Spock and the villain Nero are confirmed to be products of the original timeline.

” THIS MOVIE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CANON”

Saying it in all caps doesn’t make it any closer to being true.

The potential for an altered timeline being created as a result of interference with the past is in itself “canon”, and has been for over 4 decades.

Moreoever, everything we know as “canon”—ENT through NEM—forms the timeline (which we know as the original or ‘prime’) that leads the broader storyline to this point.

The suggestion that this film has nothing to do with canon is absurd and baseless. Canon is what gets us here, and what is depicted onscreen in ST09 will be canon as well.

You can disagree with the creative choices in this film, and that’s fine.

I don’t like everything about it either.

607. Dr. Image - April 14, 2009

#512 Dennis- And more specifically, WHY did they feel the need to change the stardate system? Seems pointless.
“Because they can” doesn’t cut it.
Boborci?

608. Zed - April 14, 2009

squeeeeee!

609. McCoy - April 14, 2009

606 Closettrekker “The suggestion that this film has nothing to do with canon is absurd and baseless. Canon is what gets us here, and what is depicted onscreen in ST09 will be canon as well.”

The intention behind this story is to create a Trek world which can give the writers freedom from 40 years on continuity (canon). To do that, they used a plot trick to bring characters back in time to alter the past.

The result is a movie based in a world which says “screw you” to continuity and canon.

610. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 14, 2009

#609 … “The result is a movie based in a world which says ‘screw you’ to continuity and canon.”

So what would you have had them do? Write a chapter of the story which we all already know the ending of? Borrring.

611. Craig - April 14, 2009

I’ll accept this film if they return to the prime universe at the end even bring alternate characters with them but if they stay in the irrelevent universe whats the point

612. McCoy - April 14, 2009

610 “So what would you have had them do? Write a chapter of the story which we all already know the ending of? Borrring.”

It’s false to think that one couldn’t find drama and excitement in a story within which we know the future.

Examples: John Adams mini series; Titanic; Every movie you have watched more than once, you already know the ending to.

613. Al Hartman - April 14, 2009

Anthony and all…

I don’t claim to speak for every TOS fan, just those who want something like “In a Mirror Darkly” or “Trials and Tribbleations” done on a feature film scale.

James Cawley and crew (I was present at the June 2008 shoot) do this quite well.

Most fans I encounter share my view. So, I speak for them.

There’s nothing wrong with saying that we were promised a TOS movie that wasn’t a reboot, and they lied. I’m not going to boycott the movie, and I’m not suggesting anyone not go to see it.

What I am saying is that all the changes weren’t necessary to tell the story being told, and are simply the ego of people who think they can improve on a classic, not having learned from the past.

IMD and TNT were three of the highest rated shows of DS9 and Enterprise, and then add Relics to the mix — a trend shows up.

We want more Star Trek, not a poorly redesigned fake.

I wasn’t happy about the new BSG originally, but at least Ron Moore had the truthfulness to say he was rebooting the show. Given that, I loved what he did.

Had JJ been truthful and said he was rebooting the show, I’d have nothing to say. He and Orci and others have said this movie isn’t a reboot. I’m not an idiot. I can see that it is. And that lie makes me and others upset.

Also that people that remake classics always think that redesigning the production design means they are making a better show than the original, and then writing a story that is crappy.

I don’t know how good or bad the story is yet. But I know that I’m seeing the lack of love and care that went into Relics, Trials and Tribbleations and In a Mirror Darkly, as well as NV/P2.

Which leads me to expect another MI disaster and other awful remakes like the 2008 Knight Rider (as well as Team Knight Rider, KR 2000, and KR 2010).

People who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

And I might or might not like the movie standing alone. But it’s not what was promised, and it I’m not excited about it.

Non-stop action, lens flares, and top notch SFX doesn’t matter to me. A good story and a return to the beloved TOS universe unchanged does.

I’m much more excited to see Blood and Fire Pt 2 and Enemy Starfleet from Phase II than I am this movie. And that’s because Phase II doesn’t insult the original show by saying that that universe isn’t good enough to tell good stories in.

You can’t hide bad stories behind production design no matter how new. And a good story with beloved characters will make 43 year old production design look like the 23rd Century.

614. GaryS - April 14, 2009

611.
It is said there is no reset at the end.

615. Anthony Pascale - April 14, 2009

wow this thing has gone over 600. Tenuto bet me it would hit 500 and i didn’t think so, as my review followed AICN and others and I chose to go spoilerfreeish.

I get why this film is debatable, there were many calls by ‘the supreme court’ and with any call there are two sides to an argument. But in the end I really feel the argument to go with a ‘purist fit’ movie vs. this approach is really moot and besides the point. I really feel that the themes and the characters of Trek are more important than strict adherence to the Trek aesthetic. The irony here is that the film’s fundamental premise actually honors canon far more than if it were to ‘fit’…then every tiny deviation from the color of the bridge railing, to any backstory elements, would be a violation.

I think if you go to this movie with a clipboard in your hand and solely view it through the prism of ‘what is different’, then you are going to miss a movie.

Also there needs to be a bit of reality and perspective here. The Star Trek franchise is not a vibrant and alive brand with a growing and demographically desirable fanbase. To cater solely to a subset of the dwindling and aging core base would have been suicide.

616. Alex Rosenzweig - April 14, 2009

#610 – “So what would you have had them do? Write a chapter of the story which we all already know the ending of? Borrring.”

In addition to the examples McCoy gave, let me add one more: “Apollo 13″. I’m a space buff as well as a Trek fan, and I obviously know the history of that flight, as well as the fact that the crew survived. All of that didn’t stop me from holding my breath right along with the characters as the Command Module made its reentry into Earth’s atmosphere. That movie wasn’t boring, but it wasn’t because I didn’t know the outcome. It was because the story was so captivatingly told on the screen that I, as a viewer, went along for the ride.

Equally, does one actually expect that in movies about Superman or Batman that the titular character is going to die? Of course not. It’s about the story being told, and how well that story is told.

Could that have been done with Star Trek? Is the story of how the original characters–especially Kirk and Spock–became the people we knew from the series any less compelling because they didn’t die along the way? It could have been done. It still could be done. (Man, I wish I had an extra $50K I could just hand to James Cawley and say, “Do it.”)

BTW, here’s another Trek example. There’s a great Star Trek novel out there called Prime Directive. Major stuff happens. The characters go through the ringer, and come out stronger. Does anyone doubt that they owuld achieve that? Of course not. But the story is so compellingly told that you just follow them on their journey, and that you know they of course will all make it back to the Enterprise is imaterial to the story of how they do it, and what they learn along the way.

617. Primogen - April 14, 2009

613. ” people that remake classics always think that redesigning the production design means they are making a better show than the original”

My impression is that film makers who remake classics don’t think they are making something better than the original, but making changes necessary to appeal to the sensibilities of current audiences. Just look at the entire history of film, and you can see how acting, story, direction, photography and production styles change in each film era. These changes are not the results of individual egos, but collective film movements.

“You can’t hide bad stories behind production design no matter how new. ”

Not one of the dozen or so reviews I’ve read of the film has said that the story of the new film is bad. In fact, most say that the script is quite good.

“And a good story with beloved characters will make 43 year old production design look like the 23rd Century.”

And you based this conclusion on… what? I’ve read many film reviews that have put down films for looking and feeling like a “TV movie.” And just about every previous Star Trek film has felt the need to update the exterior and/or interior of the Enterprise.

Based on all the trailers, clips, and reviews I’ve seen, I am looking forward to see this fresh take on an old classic.

This is coming from someone who has been a Trek fan since seeing the premiere episode in 1966.

618. Andy Patterson - April 14, 2009

615

“Also there needs to be a bit of reality and perspective here. The Star Trek franchise is not a vibrant and alive brand with a growing and demographically desirable fanbase. To cater solely to a subset of the dwindling and aging core base would have been suicide.”

Ah but imagine if he had stayed true to the original vision and characters (I mean without these changes), all the while employing the “bitchin’ “,cool, youthful, JJ Abrams approach. That would have been a win win for everyone.

619. Alex Rosenzweig - April 14, 2009

#615 – “To cater solely to a subset of the dwindling and aging core base would have been suicide.”

How is maintaining basic story continuity “catering solely to a subset” of the fan base? That’s suggesting that the only possible way to attract new fans is to throw out continuity. I cannot ascribe to that idea. I think a visually fresh, dynamic movie that followed the basic flow of the known continuity would have every single bit as much potential as the one they made. I still believe that even the story they’ve told could have been done “in continuity” with some minor changes to the plot and no changes to the visual style. As some folks have pointed out, the “new fans” wouldn’t know the difference, and the long-time fans who care about Trek’s fictional world wouldn’t feel like we’ve been heaved overboard.

620. Andrew Thomas Clifton - April 14, 2009

I am curious that if AFTER seeing the MOVIE to know if the music from Trailer 3 was indeed FROM the move?

I really liked that music (and the snippet on the site) and cant wait for the soundtrack to drop.

thanks

621. Jefferies Tuber - April 14, 2009

here’s a great example of just how cutting edge the TOS bridge aesthetics were in the 60s… and how dated they would be in 2009, let alone a few centuries from now.

Go ahead, tell yourself this doesn’t look like Spock or Uhura’s TOS duty station:

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/14/soviet-nuclear-contr.html

622. Dr. Image - April 14, 2009

#615- Anthony- “To cater solely to a subset of the dwindling and aging core base would have been suicide.’
I don’t think anyone would argue any further with that point- especially now.

The points of contention are primarily certain creative decisions that “the supreme court” made, some of which you pointed out in your review (stardate change, engineering location set, etc.) which seem overtly strange, and which I think we all would look forward to getting some answers to.

In other words, I’m talking about things a little more glaring than “the color of the bridge railing,” etc.
It will all make for stimulating discussion, that’s a certainty!

All in all, bizzare creative decisions notwithstanding, I hope this movie makes a TON of money, and brings many new fans into the fold.

623. Closettrekker - April 14, 2009

#609—“The intention behind this story is to create a Trek world which can give the writers freedom from 40 years on continuity (canon).”

I think that is a benefit to them—sure.

“To do that, they used a plot trick to bring characters back in time to alter the past…which says ‘screw you’ to continuity and canon.”

That “plot trick” is quite canon. There’s no getting around that. You can dislike that aspect of canon, but you cannot strip it from its legitimate status as part of Star Trek’s continuity and lore simply because you would have gone in another direction. Well, I suppose you can—in your own mind, but that’s as far as it matters.

Abrams Trek is not likely to gain a fan in you—I think we all get that…and you have apparently convinced yourself that the other Star Trek films (at least those since TMP) were somehow *not* “popcorn movies”…lol.

624. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 14, 2009

The people saying they’d like ST09 to fit within continuity are the same folks who’d be complaining if, say, the second film in this series took place during the final year of TOS, and Scotty wasn’t sporting that Caesar ‘do we saw on the series. Please.

I love TOS as much as anyone, but it played out over 80 episodes, 6 movies, and 25 years. That’s a lot. Now it’s 43 years later, key actors and numerous creators of the show have died, and it was finally time for a fresh start. And given that recasting and updated production design were going to be a given, why wouldn’t the writers also want to provide themselves (and the fans) with some fresh storytelling opportunities while they were at it?

As I’ve already said, I do not agree with every choice the filmmakers made. The look of the Enterprise still hasn’t grown on me (especially that dizzyingly gaudy bridge, ugh!), and Kirk’s ascension to command being just two examples. But I’m perfectly fine with the idea of a fresh start, and not trying in vain to please everyone by making a direct prequel to a pilot that was shot in 1965.

625. S. John Ross - April 14, 2009

#595 lays the smackdown on corporate bean-counter cowardice with “It is still safer to tie your story to an existing franchise.”

Owwwtch. I wasn’t gonna go there; I was going to leave that one unsaid :)

But yes. Yes, indeed. It is. Hole in one, sir.

626. Dennis Bailey - April 14, 2009

#607:”#512 Dennis- And more specifically, WHY did they feel the need to change the stardate system?”

No, actually “more specifically” I just am curious about how it differs. I don’t have an axe to grind, in this instance.

627. Andy Patterson - April 14, 2009

619

“. I think a visually fresh, dynamic movie that followed the basic flow of the known continuity would have every single bit as much potential as the one they made. I still believe that even the story they’ve told could have been done “in continuity” with some minor changes to the plot and no changes to the visual style.”

Agreed. Harve Bennet’s, Rodenbery and even Shatner’s idea of a pure story of them back at the academy seems to make more sense than what I’m hearing. Many things just seem pointless. Doesn’t make sense.

628. sean - April 14, 2009

#616

I think the problem with your examples Alex (and McCoy) are that you keep referring to historical period pieces and then comparing them to Trek. It’s apples and oranges, honestly. The appeal of seeing an historical drama play out is simply not the same.

And Batman and Superman are poor examples, as those characters/franchises have been rebooted infinite times. Both Batman and Superman *have* died, many times in many different stories.

The problem with TOS & Trek is that we’ve seen them sail off into the sunset in TUC. We know Kirk dies on Veridian III. We know Scotty gets stuck in a transporter. Not only that, but we had 80 episodes and 6 feature length films detailing their adventures. 1000’s of off hand remarks later, we have this thing called ‘canon’ and suddenly any stories that take place have to conform to what a writer plopped onto the page 39 years ago as an aside between Kirk & McCoy after a bender and 3 days without sleeping.

Take this idea that Kirk can’t drive a car, all because we have one (very ridiculous, by the way) episode where aliens develop their entire culture around bad James Cagney impressions. I’ve seen people crying foul over the new movie with Kirk driving a car as a boy. Now, say that car scene is a very important one, in terms of his character development in this story. Some fans would be up in arms, demanding it be changed (and indeed, some have) because Kirk couldn’t drive an Iotian car!

THAT is the restriction and confinement that these writers are trying to escape. The idea that a minor and meaningless detail takes precedence over a good story.

629. CaptainRickover - April 14, 2009

I think changing the stardate-system is no big deal.

There was never a system behind the TOS-stardates, only one for the TNG stardates. A year lasts exakt 1000 points (and a day 2,7392). Simple use of mathematics and you know, how many days it take from one episode to another. And how fast the Enterprise-D really was (much, much, much more than the Okudas and Rick Sternbach suggests!!) The problem is, was kind of stardates they used 41 years before Season One of TNG?

In TOS, the stardate-system with every season. Kirks five year mission starts with a number around 1000 too and season one ended with a number around 3200, but in the second season, the stardates rangend from 3000 to 4700 and in the third it was from 4300 to 5900. There is no system behind the stardates.

Even if I’m not a fan of the new movie’s premise, I say: Go on Bob, bring order in the stardate-system!

630. Julio - April 14, 2009

I can’t believe folks are complaining about the “hard science” of a movie that has faster-than-light travel and transporters. If you accept those two technologies, than the rest is pretty easy to stomach.

If I wanted a science lecture, I’d go to college. When I purchase my tix to Star Trek, I want to be entertained.

631. sean - April 14, 2009

#629

Exactly. If they can make sense of what has become the stardate mess, I say more power to ‘em! Even when they seemed to start making sense in TNG, you had Tasha Yar dying before she appeared in an episode of a later stardate, and something happening nearly 40 years before only taking place in 33000 range (Dark Page). I liked the idea that someone proposed that they had to do with the mission date.

632. CaptainRickover - April 14, 2009

# 328

Your arguments have one flaw: The mainaudience will hardly (IF EVER!!) remember the plot or Kirk’s death from GEN, Scotty’s fate in Relics or that McCoy is still in the 24th century as an very very old guy. So, who cares? Only we die-hard fans! Im for myself will watch a Star Trek movie where they killed my heroes again! (TWOK, GEN and NEM) I know that they all survive in this movie and I’ve seen just the trailers. Will it make this movie boring? I say not (after all Anthony is reporting in his review, this movie will rock).

You can say what you want, you can’t hardly argue with reasonable points against the arguments from Andy and Alex. The two of them are absolutley totaly right. “Their logic without any flaw” a Vulcan might say.

I’m looking forward for the day, when Bob & Co will reveal why they decided to make things so and not different.

633. McCoy - April 14, 2009

623. Closettrekker ” That “plot trick” is quite canon. There’s no getting around that. You can dislike that aspect of canon, but you cannot strip it from its legitimate status as part of Star Trek’s continuity and lore simply because you would have gone in another direction. Well, I suppose you can—in your own mind, but that’s as far as it matters.”

Closet dude, the plot trick is not canon unless you can show me where in any episode or Trek prior to this film it states that in the future Spock will go back in time and change things. I plan on making a fan film which shows Gary Seven going into the future to kill Nero before all this happens. I just made that part of Trek lore. So, please add that to your canon.

“Abrams Trek is not likely to gain a fan in you—I think we all get that…and you have apparently convinced yourself that the other Star Trek films (at least those since TMP) were somehow *not* “popcorn movies”…lol.”

Uh, never said that. LOL on you….Every film has popcorn. Duh. You have trouble reading between the lines or following the point don’t you? The point here is that more than one reviewer has refereed to this film as a fast popcorn movie as opposed to science fiction drama. I’ve always preferred the deeper Trek episodes. I can get popcorn action in so many places—Trek was where I went for philosophical or human condition discussions. I’m not hearing that in the reviews.

634. CaptainRickover - April 14, 2009

# 632

I realy should double check my posts, before I’m posting. So many mistakes….

# 630:
Well, that differes the “folks” from the fans. And the fans from the die-hards. ;)

# 631
Oh man, you are right! I guess that happend, when something is not figured out well before one start writing. :) I take back everything: Even the TNG-stardates made not sense – from time to time.

635. sean - April 14, 2009

#632

Of course the main audience won’t care, that IS my point. That those minor detail only matter to intense, die-hard fans (and not even all of them). Thus why changing things up with an in-universe explanation not only frees them from that, but theoretically should appease the die-hards because previous stories paved the way for that ‘out’ to be used. They’re actually being respectful – the opposite of what McCoy postulates about it being a big ‘screw you’.

So I’m not sure what your point is…? You seem to agree with me but then say they are ‘absolutely, totally right’. Huh?

636. Spock's Uncle - April 14, 2009

I just need to know: Why is the Enterprise being built in Riverside Iowa? Is there a plausible explanation for that deviation from Canon (Earth/Space, I don’t care, but the Bridge Plaque clearly states “San Francisco”).

Would I like Kirk to ascend through the ranks as imagined and implied in TOS? Yes. Will it kill me if he doesn’t? No. Crazy Romulans from the future, bent on revenge can ruin your whole day (and Canon).

And again, for the record, it’s JUST a MOVIE… Everybody relax, spent your $10, and enjoy.

637. sean - April 14, 2009

#633

“Closet dude, the plot trick is not canon unless you can show me where in any episode or Trek prior to this film it states that in the future Spock will go back in time and change things. I plan on making a fan film which shows Gary Seven going into the future to kill Nero before all this happens. I just made that part of Trek lore. So, please add that to your canon.”

Oh come on, McCoy. You know full well he means the idea of time travel and alternate timelines, not the specific plot point of Spock going back in time (though if you want that, just watch ‘Yesteryear’). If you work for Paramount and have a deal in place to write the next Trek movie, I’m sure Gary Seven killing Nero is canon. But until you do, it’s just fanfic. So-called ‘canon’ has always been what’s on the screen.

“Uh, never said that. LOL on you….Every film has popcorn. Duh. You have trouble reading between the lines or following the point don’t you? The point here is that more than one reviewer has refereed to this film as a fast popcorn movie as opposed to science fiction drama. I’ve always preferred the deeper Trek episodes. I can get popcorn action in so many places—Trek was where I went for philosophical or human condition discussions. I’m not hearing that in the reviews.”

You just said you know every Trek film had popcorn, and say that’s why you went to the deeper Trek episodes. So why do you expect the new movie to break the trend of the previous movies? This isn’t a new TV show, it’s a movie. You can still turn to 800 hours of television episodes for what you’re looking for. And hey, if this new movie is successful than you might just get a new TV show to boot.

638. Dr. Image - April 14, 2009

#632 –
“I’m looking forward for the day, when Bob & Co will reveal why they decided to make things so and not different.”

EXACTLY.

639. CaptainRickover - April 14, 2009

# 635

Perhaps you will unterstand my point (and I dare to speak for Andy and Alex on this point (the two of you could slaughter me later for it) if I return the question to you:

If the mainaudience (non-trekkers) won’t care, WHY change everything then?

640. Andy Patterson - April 14, 2009

639

Hear, here.

641. Christopher Valin - April 14, 2009

#540 boborci-

Hey, Bob. Love your work and I’m very confident I’m going to love this movie based on everything I’ve seen and read. I’ve also been behind you on everything you’ve said on this site and in interviews.

That being said, using Fox News to back youself up, ESPECIALLY when it comes to science, is not the greatest idea you’ve ever had.

I’m just sayin’…

642. CaptainRickover - April 14, 2009

# 640

Sorry, but yours and Alex’ expressions about this matter matching mine perfectly. So, I couldn’t resist…

BTW: Your assignment earth-side is great.

So… Now I’m prepared for any punishment.

643. sean - April 14, 2009

#639

Because it suits the story. Because this isn’t 1966. Because beloved characters can undergo translation and transformation and still be interesting. Because a great plot point shouldn’t have to suffer just because episode 12 in season 3 said it can’t happen. Because the original continuity became cumbersone and difficult for most to follow, so why not ditch the baggage? I mean, look how often they had to retract things in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, for goodness sake.

And again, because they DID NOT want to just discard 43 years of stories and adventures that do mean something to a great number of people, they’ve come up with an interesting (and in terms of the in-universe reality, a totally plausible) way to not do that, yet reset the clock. They’re going out of their way for fans to say ‘we’re not just wiping out everything you love’. Yet a lot of fans seem to think that’s exactly what they’re doing. It’s a bit baffling, for me.

644. Chris murphy - April 14, 2009

I don’t know why people keep saying that the Enterprise was completely built in space…and that this is “canon.” The plaque clearly states that it was built in San Francisco.

645. 750 Mang - April 14, 2009

613. Al Hartman – April 14, 2009

Bravo!

646. MC1 Doug - April 14, 2009

#579: oh.

I thought Rama was his last name, his first and middle being (are you ready for this?) Rendevous With….

also ducking behind the couch.

647. Scarpad - April 14, 2009

The thing that is so demeaning about “It’s Not your Father’s Star TreK” is that it postulates that there was something wrong with TOS. If TOS did not leave a 40 year Legacy there would be no Trek 11, so it does have a Bites the Hand that feeds you nature to it. Plus with the shakey film stuff remember he made Cloverfield

648. Alex Rosenzweig - April 14, 2009

#624 – “The people saying they’d like ST09 to fit within continuity are the same folks who’d be complaining if, say, the second film in this series took place during the final year of TOS, and Scotty wasn’t sporting that Caesar ‘do we saw on the series. Please.”

That might be true of some people, but I can tell you it’s not true of me. :)

I’m okay with the visual differences and recasting and such; I just would have preferred that the flow of the storytelling was consistent. No more, no less. There’s a difference between preferring storytelling consistency and insisting that every lock of hair, button, and switch be exactly identical. ;)

#633 – “Closet dude, the plot trick is not canon unless you can show me where in any episode or Trek prior to this film it states that in the future Spock will go back in time and change things.”

Okay, to be fair about the various arguments, saying that something isn’t canon because it wasn’t previously established doesn’t work, because then the only thing that can possibly be canon is the original cut of “The Cage”. ;) If something is added that mets the definition of what we qualify as “canon” (for Trek, it seems to be “live action filmed material as produced by Paramount), then of course it’s canon. It may not be consistent, and it may not even make much sense, but it’s still canon.

#628 – “I think the problem with your examples Alex (and McCoy) are that you keep referring to historical period pieces and then comparing them to Trek. It’s apples and oranges, honestly. The appeal of seeing an historical drama play out is simply not the same.”

The point I was trying to make was that knowing a long-term outcome for particular characters isn’t a make-or-break for a well-told story. In an ongoing series, I don’t expect the characters to die, but I might enjoy seeing how they get out of trouble that puts them at risk of death. It’s part of the story, and if the story’s told well enough, then I suspend my meta-understanding that this is part of an ongoing series and wonder if the characters are gonna make it. That’s part of the fun.

“And Batman and Superman are poor examples, as those characters/franchises have been rebooted infinite times. Both Batman and Superman *have* died, many times in many different stories.”

But they also keep coming back. Even within one or another of the serials of those characters, there’s really no expectation that those characters will die permanently, because then the story’s over. A for characters having died, Star Trek is replete with examples of major characters dying and coming back in assorted stories, too. Spock, Scotty, and McCoy all come to mind right-off.

“The problem with TOS & Trek is that we’ve seen them sail off into the sunset in TUC. We know Kirk dies on Veridian III. We know Scotty gets stuck in a transporter.”

And my argument is that knowing that doesn’t take away from a well-told story about those characters in the least. I don’t base my assessment of a story simply on whether the main characters live or die. I want to see them go through a situation and grow because of it. That’s much more important to me than artificial jeopardy to fictional characters.

“Take this idea that Kirk can’t drive a car, all because we have one (very ridiculous, by the way) episode where aliens develop their entire culture around bad James Cagney impressions. I’ve seen people crying foul over the new movie with Kirk driving a car as a boy. Now, say that car scene is a very important one, in terms of his character development in this story. Some fans would be up in arms, demanding it be changed (and indeed, some have) because Kirk couldn’t drive an Iotian car!”

Okay, I agree, that’s a silly objection. :)

“THAT is the restriction and confinement that these writers are trying to escape. The idea that a minor and meaningless detail takes precedence over a good story.”

That’s the sort of idea that good writers know can be set aside, or even explained away, to wit, that the sort of car Kirk is driving in the movie doesn’t function in the same way as the car in the episode, even if they were both Terran cars. (See, that was easy! >:) ) And so forth. There’s also a difference between overall storytelling continuity and little trivialities, and I think that most folks know that.

649. Harry Ballz - April 14, 2009

By having this film firmly establish the newborn Trek franchise in an alternate reality, I guess JJ gets his lifelong wish of setting Star Trek in “a galaxy far, far away”!

650. Harry Ballz - April 14, 2009

#646

Well, no, if his LAST name is RAMA then his first name would have to be…BANANA!

651. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 14, 2009

#650 … Harry, did you create all of the soundtrack titles for Giachinno?

652. Closettrekker - April 14, 2009

#633—“Closet dude, the plot trick is not canon unless you can show me where in any episode or Trek prior to this film it states that in the future Spock will go back in time and change things.”

That doesn’t even make any sense.

What makes it “canon” is episodes like “City On The Edge Of Forever”, “Tommorow Is Yesterday”, “Assignment: Earth”, etc. all making quite clear that interference with the past ****can****alter the timeline. Once again—there is no getting around that.

It sound as if what you are suggesting is that it will only be “canon” if Spock/Nero travelling back in time is part of some predestination paradox—and worse— onlyif it was stated in the series/films already that it happened. That’s absurd…on both counts.

In 40+ years, we’ve never seen a crewmember use a restroom. But I bet the Enterprise had a few. Would suddenly depicting one be a violation of canon?

Chekov wasn’t seen in the first season of TOS….but he was there, wasn’t he? How do we know? Because 15 years later, Khan recalled him being there. The fact that his face is not seen by the audience in any first season episode is irrelevant. The dialogue (15 years later) in TWOK places him aboard the Enterprise during the events depicted in “Space Seed”.

Your criteria for canonical legitimacy would seem to suggest that TWOK is not canon.

Well—it is, and so is ST09.

“The point here is that more than one reviewer has refereed to this film as a fast popcorn movie as opposed to science fiction drama.”

And when was the last “science fiction drama” Star Trek movie?

How about 1979? The rest of them were—-guess what? “Popcorn movies”….

“I’ve always preferred the deeper Trek episodes.”

This is not an episode. This is a feature film. And the feature film series is, and has always been, made up of “popcorn movies” (again, at least beyond TMP).

“Trek was where I went for philosophical or human condition discussions.”

Then I suggest you stay home and pick up a book.

“I’m not hearing that in the reviews.”

And where is the review of a Star Trek movie you would point to as a template for comparison?

And please. You made up your mind long before you read any reviews. We’ve all read your posts here for months.

653. Andy Patterson - April 14, 2009

642

Thanks…..maybe they can make that movie and it’ll smooth everything over. (Ok…not everything but it’d be a start)

654. Chris Murphy - April 14, 2009

As far as continuity is concerned…

It seems that Khan’s entire timeline was changed. “Late 20th Century genetic experiments?” At one point, wasn’t Khan said to have tried to conquer the world in the 1980s…then 1990s?

Continuity? Go figure.

655. Craig - April 14, 2009

Unless they return to the prime universe at the end of this movie then this movie becomes totally irrelevent and pointless. Worst still it would be like killing off Picard,Riker,Worf,Troi,Crusher,Geordi,Seven,EMH,Bashir,Dax,Kira,Odo etc offscreen! FFS That can’t be tollerated can it?

And layoff the stardates leave them alone!

656. CaptainRickover - April 14, 2009

# 643 sean

With short words: Change for the sake of change.

I can’t see any propper reason for that. I like the canon as it was and I think it was everything but not overblown or heavy.

If they want something new, why not jump forward to the 25th century? New ship, new crew, new enemies, new designs, new technologie. As long as it rocks, what’s the difference?

I for my part don’t like that quantum-theory-timetravel-alternate-universe-twist to justify all the changes. That feels like a cheap trick and not like an honorable treatment for the Star Trek universe I love so much. But that’s just me.

657. Craig - April 14, 2009

654. It’s not our future that is star trek history

658. Craig - April 14, 2009

656. Thats quite clearly what they should of done

659. MC1 Doug - April 14, 2009

I think it would presumptuous, not to mention arrogant, for any of us to make the claim “I speak for the fans…” it is just as impossible as saying I speak for all members of the Navy, or the democratic party, or for Hoosiers, my community, or… (you fill in the blank)…

If the film is a reboot, okay. David Gerrold once said that one problem facing any TV series (or in this case, a movie series) that change is difficult to achieve (or accept).

He goes on to say that things that remain static become dull. In the end, more often than not, the characters remain the same at the end of the film as they did at the beginning. *yawn* (my editorial comment)

The reason I mention this is that Star Trek must change, evolve (as V’ger must have) if the franchise is to continue. Let’s face it, over 700 hours of TREK have been filmed. Some stories were great successes, yet others not so much.. and some were poor rehashes of something already done before (some would say ST TMP is a retelling of “The Changeling”).

At the same time, accepting change is often times difficult.

In any case, this movie, if canon is totally changed, has presented an opportunity to permit new stories to be told without the fear of saying “haven’t we been here before?”

It changes nothing . What we have seen in the past *has* happened, it just means it was TREK “alpha” and now we have TREK “bravo” (if you can pardon military lingo)… which presents us a new universe/ playground to play in. “Bravo” can still have TREK’s characters, ideals, morals, outlooks and be fresh and re-invigorating! I canNOT wait!

Live long and prosper!

660. Chris Murphy - April 14, 2009

BTW…

I plan on watching this film at least 10 times in order to determine how it fits in the TREK mythology.

Regardless, I am veryyyyyy excited about it all! My wife will be with me…and she hates sci fi. However, the trailer made her excited for the film!

What a wonderful world!

661. patrick - April 14, 2009

such a FUN read – a very extensive, personal assessment of the reviewer’s film experience!

is the STAR TREK 2009 great? with his we’ll-have-to-wait-and-see-about-that suggestions, I’m concerned. also worrisome are Mr. Pascale’s honest criticisms of some of the film’s performances/science. fortunately, audiences in this genre really don’t demand great-acting in their sci-fi entertainment. um, just how enormously profitable were those MATRIX-movies & STAR WARS prequels? lol.

Additionally, don’t perceive ANY real praise for the STORY or suggestion of any profound MESSAGE. without that, it will certainly be a thrilling episode of STAR TREK 2009-starship troupers (the $150 adventure). if transformers-screenwriters Orci and Kurtzman have nothing more to impart in 2+ hours than “be the best you can be” and “good guys are loyal to their friends”, this cannot be among ST’s best in any way. however, similar ubiquitous and banal themes can routinely be enjoyed in any buddy-action movie or episode of Dr. Phil.

never quite convinced by the “star-trek-is-dead” premise, i do understand that it helps with the “jj resurrects star trek“ promotional efforts. most anyone would agree that the (always desperate) paramount pictures has spent 40+ years wringing every penny out of their star trek franchise. has this resulted in too many trek-series/films being rushed into production with less than acceptable budgets (oh MY, yes!)? however, since BOTH the last star trek film (nemesis) and the last star trek tv-series (enterprise) were universally considered the weakest of the lot, it seems impossible to distinguish whether the public (and trekfans) were tiring of ST or turned away by BAD star trek instead.

finally, one of the enduring charms of TOS (TNG to a much lesser degree) was it’s bounty of great things to see. awesome sci-fi, outstanding tv-production, incredible scripts, provocative parables about humanity, cool props fx/sets, gorgeous women, humor, action, starships, shatner, nimoy – need I go on?? during trek’s 70’s reruns, we fans developed this “cult” – each of us enjoying ST together. actually, unknown at that time, our individual tastes were quite divergent. as each new trek-series/film chose it’s own flavor to distinguish itself, it cast off the trekfans who were never drawn to ST for that reason. TNG was too immature for some, DS9 too dark and serialized, VOYAGER too derivative and ENTERPRISE too action/babe based. it may be impossible to ever recapture the “magic” of that first series in it’s cultural impact during that unique period in history – the 1960’s.

nevertheless, with my old-friends flying into town so we can all catch repeated screenings together, i am TOTALLY looking forward to seeing it at last. apparently, star trek lives…

662. Chris Murphy - April 14, 2009

It is so sad that a small group of disgruntled Trekkies who have made a religion out of every single word of a 40 year old TV show might become the stick in the mud for this new film.

What continuity are you angry at?

Have you even seen the film yet?

Can these “errors” in continuity be explained in any other way?

Besides, it seems like the entire continuity of TREK is going to change. The film sets a new continuity…because Nero goes back in time and tries to destroy the earth. Everything will change.

Unlike Obama’s hyped and empty “change” — this film can only be a good thing for this sleeping franchise! My wife is excited about it — and I never thought that such a day would come!

I am saving my final verdict until after May 8th. I will have watched this film at least three times during the first week. Nevertheless, I am stoked!

663. Chris Murphy - April 14, 2009

But, hey, Leonard Nimoy placed his seal of approval upon the franchise. What better proof of relavency?

664. New Horizon - April 14, 2009

633 McCoy –

The film has been called many things thus far. I don’t know if I’ve literally seen it called popcorn yet…I’m sure it has been, but that doesn’t mean it can’t also be smart. Trek 2 was as much a popcorn flick as anything.

Ian Cuthbertson
The Australian
“The result is a triumph, certain to be regarded as not just one Trek’s better moments, but one of the finest films made in the sci-fi genre.”

Andrew L. Urban
Urban Cinefile
“A stupendous production, Star Trek goes where no movie sequel or prequel has gone before in bringing intelligence and invention to a peak in cinematic storytelling.”

I haven’t seen it yet…but from everything I’ve read, it certainly doesn’t sound as dumbed down as you’re making it out to be.

665. Scarpad - April 14, 2009

All these fans justifying the time travel changing canon storyline are the ones that blasted Enterprise when they had a show about the borg, where the events of FC altered the timeline. Apparently 2 sets of Standards. Look it does’nt have to follow every minutia of detail, but surely a screen play could have been written that dealt with what all these characters were doing during their academy days, if the studio had confidence in trek (they did’nt) they could have given them a 3 story deal where the 1st movie dealt with Kirk, Spock et all during the academy days, You could have had Kirk as a cadet and Spock as a Young Instructor, and MCcoy a young medical doctor with no interest in Starfleet. Some Disaster brings them all together on Pike’s Enterprise, Pike could get disabled somehow, Kirk Takes over (With an Instructor Spock overseeing to generate tension) McCoy gets asked along for his expertise. After the disaster is handled they all go their own way. In film 2 Kirk could be given the command of the Enterprise after Pike is disabled, Spock is his First officer, Kirk and MCoy have become friends due to the earlier adventure and is asked to serve on Kirk’s FIrst Command, We get that Mission. One More movie cements the friendship and has an exciting adventure for the crew before journeying to their first assignment on Delta Vega, McCoy Questions joining Starfleet and returns to private duty, after the film is over.

This Story line can has the same amount of Quick Editting, Rebel antics from an Angst ridden Kirk and still follow the progression the series took.

666. Craig - April 14, 2009

663. Patrick Stewart

667. Harry Ballz - April 14, 2009

#651 “Harry, did you create all of the soundtrack titles for Giachinno?”

My secret’s out!! They wanted to go the corny route so they called the corniest guy on the planet! As Spock would say, “what do you think of my solution?”

668. Andy Patterson - April 14, 2009

648

“The problem with TOS & Trek is that we’ve seen them sail off into the sunset in TUC. We know Kirk dies on Veridian III. We know Scotty gets stuck in a transporter.”

Which I never accepted. It just felt like an ABC Holiday special using the characters. It didn’t feel like a real story to me. And I didn’t accept it as such. And the latter was TNG. I felt pretty much the same way about that particular story.

669. Closettrekker - April 14, 2009

Early reviews:

“Easily the best Trek movie since The Wrath of Khan, and a veritable feast of sight and sound….I can safely say that I already like the new Kirk more than I ever did the old. He’s still Kirk, but you understand why he’s Kirk, and there’s more humanity to him. Old Kirk was sometimes a d*ck because, well, he was. This Kirk feels a touch more pity, has a touch more pain, and actually goes out of his way to save his crew, which makes him far easier to root for. “—-Joshua Tyler, CinemaBlend

” The most exhilarating Trek to date…” —-Empire

“Star Trek goes where no movie sequel or prequel has gone before in bringing intelligence and invention to a peak in cinematic storytelling. “—Urban Cinefile, Andrew Urban

“…an extraordinary achievement and great entertainment for all “—Urban Cinefile, Louise Keller

“…cultural relevance, suspense, and a fresh sense of wonder “—Garth Franklin, Dark Horizons

Of course, this is just the reviews on RottenTomatoes (which gives it 100%), but I’ve yet to see a negative review anywhere.

Of all the people shown the film in Sydney (mostly non-established fans), Austin (mostly established fans), and elsewhere—surely someone didn’t like it, right?

:)

670. Colonel West - April 14, 2009

@644 and the other guy who was wondering about the dedication plaque saying San Fran….

The majority of ships are built at a shipyards sometimes thousands of miles away from there home port. The name on dedication plaques refer to the ship’s home port.

Examples of this include the Titanic and both Queen Mary ships off the top of my head. The Titanic was built at Harland and Wolf shipyards in Belfast and it’s home port was Liverpool which is in the ships registry.

For The Enterprise the exact same logic applies. Whether it be in the prime universe or whatever we want to call the new one the Enterprise can be built on Delta Vega, Romulus, the Breen Homeworld, Vulcan, Alpha Centauri etc.. basically anywhere but it is/was/will have (whatever way you want to phrase it) San Fran as it’s home port on the dedication plaque on the bridge.

(unless Bob and Alex are gonna let me down on this one when I have it explained perfectly!)

671. Dennis Bailey - April 14, 2009

#669: “Of all the people shown the film in Sydney (mostly non-established fans), Austin (mostly established fans), and elsewhere—surely someone didn’t like it, right?”

I’m not impressed – they only like it because they’ve *seen* it. Meh.

LOL

672. 750 Mang - April 14, 2009

663. Chris Murphy – April 14, 2009

“But, hey, Leonard Nimoy placed his seal of approval upon the franchise. What better proof of relavency?”

I cling to that fact as a drowning man would a life vest. To paraphrase a lesser space epic, it’s “my only hope.”

673. Harry Ballz - April 14, 2009

Yes, some here will have to watch it numerous times before deciding that they LOVE it!

674. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 14, 2009

#669 … Has that Joshua Tyler dork ever actually seen Trek? Shatner’s Kirk was all of those things Tyler is claiming he was not. I’m going over to that website to school that fool…

675. Harry Ballz - April 14, 2009

“school that fool” LMAO!!

676. Dom - April 14, 2009

If anyone didn’t think this film was going to be a reboot for a modern audience then they’re an idiot!

I mean, come on! You take a moribund franchise that’s become a bit of a joke and hire a sh!t-hot writer-producer-director team to recast the iconic original characters, then expect the film to be a perfect rendition of the original down to tying in with off-cuff remarks made by Neelix in the third minute of episode 26 of Voyager?!!!!

The new team has respected continuity enough to use it to create the new film’s ‘Universe 2′, which they really didn’t need to do. Star Trek’s future history was sufficient at the time to stay consistent – TOS and TNG were both created in the Cold War, DS9 riffed on Israel/Palestine and Yugoslavia, which was also an ongoing global issue, but in the 2000s, Voyager and Enterprise were a bit old-fashioned, trapped by the shows (and worn out production team behind them) of the past.

Much as we live in a completely different global climate, Star Trek has to adjust. To relaunch a franchise, best known globally for ‘He’s dead Jim!’ and ‘Beam me up, Scotty!’ they needed to go back to Kirk, Spock and McCoy, but at the same time make them modern. Thus, the new film opens with a history-changing terrorist attack which is followed several other acts of huge, brutal, planet-wrecking violence.

This is the world we live in too. This is who we are! The new Star Trek film is about what 21st century people might become in the future. TOS closed its 60s Cold War analogies with STVI and came to an end. TNG and its companion ship shows (Enterprise and Voyager) were hopeless attached to 1980s California while DS9 served as a dry-run for the best sci-fi show since TOS.

ST09 is the first of hopefully many reboots of Star Trek to come down the years. Hopefully I’ll take my grandchildren to see the new Kirk, Spock and McCoy in a new Trek film in the 2060s, starring people who won’t be born for another 20 years that’s relevant to that time!

677. boborci - April 14, 2009

what a thread… have read every post

678. Closettrekker - April 14, 2009

#674—I knew you would say something like that. Lol.

But I cannot help but think of the scene in “Lost” where Boone is explaining to Locke what a “redshirt” is (the guys who beam down to a planet with Captain Kirk and ‘the guy with the pointed ears’, who always get killed)—to which Locke replies, “Sounds like a piss-poor captain to me!”

679. Colonel West - April 14, 2009

@677

Bob, take a holiday, i think you’ve earned it!

680. Closettrekker - April 14, 2009

#677—Bob, don’t you have a new script to write? What are you doing reading 675+ posts on TM? Get to work!

Just kidding, of course. I’m glad you care.

681. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 14, 2009

#678 … Them’s fightin’ words, mister!

“Pine may do fine, but The Shat is where it’s at.”
-Shatner_Fan_Prime (2009)

:-)

682. Spanish Brock - April 14, 2009

#677 – I know. The natives are restless. I suspect its going to be more and more like this until the film opens.

Why don’t you just screen the movie for everyone on the boards and get it over with?

Nice work by the way – the reviews have to have you pretty excited (plus you made The Onion, which is the mark of having really “made it.”)

683. Harry Ballz - April 14, 2009

#677

Bob, were you forced to read all these posts under the “thread” of death?

Ouch!

684. Doktor Gonzo - April 14, 2009

Alert — lurker decloaking!
I’ve been much-fascinated by the suggestion that a more “faithful” depiction of the early days of the Crew, Kirk in particular, would (in addition to satisfying the fanbase’s demands for canon authenticity) produce a narrative “at least as good” as any yarn this film might turn out to be spinning. My problem with this assertion, in a nutshell, is that none of the scenarios known to “canon” are complete/exciting… they’re all HOOKS for action that takes place later, rendering the “prequel era” portion of the story, told in isolation, as some ludicrous little half-anecdote lacking completion. Let’s attempt to actually pin this down:
What happened on the Farragut? What essential thing shaped Kirk’s character there and goes on informing the char? Basically, the Farragut encounters a cloud creature, young Jim Kirk hesitates while manning the phaser controls, and his indecision allows the beast to kill (among others) Captain Garrovick. The incident haunted him for 10 years (until he learned that the beast was immune to phaser fire, anyway!) It’s a compelling set-up, sure…. but where is the resolution? This story thread was resolved in “Obsession,” when Kirk makes good on his earlier failure and thus resolves the lingering gap in his psyche. Nevermind, for a moment, the question of just how much of a real formative factor said gap reall WAS (did we ever hear about this dire incident before that ep? or ever again after?) ….my question is rather, how do we make a good self-contained movie story out of this? We see our hero Fail… and…. what? There CAN’T be any immediate resolution to this, or else it invalidates “Obsession”! It may be portentious to the fans, but meanwhile everyone else will basically be mumbling “wtf” at the screen!
Or, say, the thing with Finnegan (from “Shore Leave”) — Kirk was bullied, and never Got His in return… that’s why he conjured up Mr. F. on the amusement planet: so he could finally resolve things. Again, never mind for now what’s been said about this characterization conflicting with other episodes’ and movies’ depictions of Young Kirk. Purely on its own terms, how does this work as a point of cinematic narrative? We see him at the academy, and he gets taunted by Finnegan, and….what? Is this character George McFly? How is the audience to feel about this unrequited haplessness? How do you make a satisfying plot point out of that?A
Next, “Court Martial”: young Kirk is serving on the Republic, his chum Ben Finney leaves open a circuit to the Atomic Matter Pile, Kirk shuts it off, Finney pleads with his chum for clemency… but Kirk feels honor-bound to report him. Finney, busted and ruined, starts brooding on a revenge… that will take place 10 years later on a 40 year old tv episode!
What are the narrative place of these incident in isolation (and believe me, they DO need to contribute in a focused and cohesive way to the drive of the narrative– see Chekhov (Anton, not Pavel) on plotting…)? And what kind of a character are we sketching out? He’s bullied without relief, he fails without resolution, and he adheres to the Law’s letter at cost of his friend’s career. The humanizing/redemptive/satisfaction-providing second acts of these little anecdotes, such as they are, all come in the TOS timeframe. Without those, there’s no point, and the actual “historical incidents” are disjoint and unsatisfying…. thin gruel for a major motion picture! These anecdotes were set up to be resolved in *that week’s ep*. If you just go back in time and actually present them, without presenting the resolution, they leave a totally bizarre impression, and don’t work dramatically at all…. or, at least, they don’t work without violating canon in an attempt to revise them into dramatic acceptability!

Ok, piece said. Engage cloak….*

685. Harry Ballz - April 14, 2009

#681

Pine WILL be fine, and the Shat is too……..nah, I can’t say it! :>)

686. Closettrekker - April 14, 2009

#681—” Them’s fightin’ words, mister!”

Hey! Don’t shoot the messenger (I’m wearing a “white shirt” today).

By the way—My wife and I are celebrating our anniversary tonight . Just made reservations at Perry’s at Memorial City. And I told her about you going to Austin and that I was upset about missing your message.

Of course I got laughed at for being “ridiculous”…

687. Spanish Brock - April 14, 2009

#684 – Nice Doktor – thanks for decloaking. Good stuff!

688. Paul - April 14, 2009

First time on site. What a thoroughly impressive review. Seems balanced and open-minded and well researched.

689. Closettrekker - April 14, 2009

#688—Welcome, Paul. You’ve stumbled upon the best Star Trek site out there…Bar None!

690. John from Cincinnati - April 14, 2009

“To cater solely to a subset of the dwindling and aging core base would have been suicide.” – Anthony Pascale

“And you’re wrong about Tarsus IV and the Farragut being better material. They’re nothing but pooh-bah that some obsessive fans have taken too much to heart.” – Dennis Bailey

“Yes, I watched TOS – all of it, more times than you’ve had dates ” – Dennis Bailey

Just read these comments by those who run this site and then decide who the REAL Trek nazis are.

No one, not Pascale and especially the JJ Abrams ass kisser Bailey, have explained how one line of “Kirk has been a little upset since he returned from Tarsus IV” would of somehow, derailed the plot, slowed the movie down, was “pooh bah”, blah blah blah. Without a real factual reason to support your claims, you are just pandering to the people who give you exclusive access to interviews, previews etc.

At least with this one line added, it would’ve allowed fans a CHANCE to see it in a flashback down the road in a new movie or series to give some insight to the character of Kirk. Movies and series do flashbacks all the time to give insights into characters. To take this tool out of their toolbox by their own hands is just foolish.

In every franchise, their are star characters, in this one Kirk and Spock. If this movie regains itself and becomes immensely popular, I believe fans will want more. As a fan, I wanted to know more and more about the characters, planets, ships, races of Star Trek, and that includes the characters backstories. To say the new fans won’t care about such things is an insult to new fans, and the new fans will be getting ripped off by not having the opportunity to see a flashback or some snippet into Kirk’s history on Tarsus IV.

691. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 14, 2009

Happy anniversary, Closet! Let Mrs. Closet laugh all she wants now, because on May 8 she’ll be right there in the theater with you. :-)

692. Doktor Gonzo - April 14, 2009

#690 — aggressively stated. Would you care to take a stab at the question I asked on this point above (#684)?

693. Colonel West - April 14, 2009

690:

John, whose to say they won’t reference those or other moments in future films? there’s only so much you can fit into a script/ 120 mins of film. look at Lost (you’ll probably :rolleyes: at the reference but in that show after 4 plus seasons we’re still learning new things about the characters through flashbacks).

everything doesn’t have to be in this movie and if it was it would be lord of the rings in length and still not satisfy some fans who just can’t deal with the idea of IDIC even though they purport themselves to be uber fans? not that i’m aiming that point at you, more in a general sense.

694. Spanish Brock - April 14, 2009

#690 – John:

Why does this line have to be in the movie? At this point, can’t you just assume the facts as you want them to be (he is orphaned and goes to live on Tarsus IV).

It might be difficult to drop a line like that into this movie, but it’s absence doesn’t stop anyone from thinking it happened anyway.

I’m not sure I see the reason that you are so terribly angry.

695. Spanish Brock - April 14, 2009

Damnit West! You beat me again. . .

696. Harry Ballz - April 14, 2009

#688

I see JJ goes under the “alias” of Paul these days!

697. Colonel West - April 14, 2009

@695:

;D lol! Great minds and all that…..

698. Xai - April 14, 2009

690. John from Cincinnati – April 14, 2009

“Just read these comments by those who run this site and then decide who the REAL Trek nazis are.”

Have an opinion, but any term you or anyone else uses to describe a poster on this site that ends with “Nazi” is far, far out of line. In my opinion, you owe those you’ve labeled an apology. We are discussing a movie.

Truly… get a life.

699. cagmar - April 14, 2009

#669 – most of those positive quotes you’ve selected are then followed by rumblings about lacking intellect, focus on adrenaline and action over wisdom, and the generally poor job Nero does as a realistic villain. I mean, the reviews are generally good. Rotten tomatoes DOES register ST at 100%. At the same time, you have to keep in mind that the average review is only 7.3 / 10. So now JJ et al got another chance for ST 12. I really hope they take it another notch up for the next round. There IS improvement to be made. Don’t settle in quite yet, guys.

Meanwhile, I want to congratulate Orci and Kurtzman on what people are calling their best script ever! Thanks guys.

700. sean - April 14, 2009

#656

Because whatever those characters might have been, they weren’t Kirk and Spock. The characters of TOS were archetypes, and have become iconic, almost mythic. They can survive translation. New characters would not necessarily have that same appeal. I don’t see it as ‘change for the sake of change’. I see it as a natural evolution of the story. A new chapter. And it uses a method made available by other Trek writers in the past.

#665

I can only speak for myself, but I didn’t like Enterprise because it was boring. Nothing to do with continuity. If anything, it had too much continuity with TNG, in that it felt like TNG without any of the TNG characters. No thanks.

#668

Okay. I don’t really understand your issue with TUC, but to each their own. Point being, that’s the end of that story, whether you enjoyed it or not. It was filmed.

#690

John, there’s no reason for anyone to be called a ‘Nazi’. It’s just a ridiculous term to use for anyone who isn’t endorsing genocide. It’s no better than ‘they raped my childhood’.

As for your point, again, no other Trek writer felt any need to address Tarsus IV, the Farragut, Gary Mitchell, Edith Keeler or any myriad of ‘important’ events & people in single-shot episodes of TOS. Why do we want to handcuff Orci & Kurtzman with these duties? I just don’t get it. Just because it isn’t directly mentioned does not preclude it from happening.

701. sean - April 14, 2009

#699

To say those quotes are followed by ‘rumblings’ seems like a mischaracterization. They point out things they think could be improved in future installments, but so did Anthony. The first chapter in any revival usually makes sacrifices for pacing, because you’re trying to get butts in the seats and drum up excitement. I’m sure they can take their time and slow things down a bit for the next one.

702. cagmar - April 14, 2009

#701 yup. Just lookiing for a balanced assessment of the reviews. People are stunned they haven’t heard anything bad… maybe they should try reading the rest of what is said. There are a few consistently unflattering remarks made. They are quickly dismissed in favor of a good piece of entertainment, but they are there. And yes, I am definitely looking forward to the more measured approach to the next one. Here’s hoping!

703. Cafe 5 - April 14, 2009

I love to see this much passion and enthusiasm by Star Trek fans. Such dedication for several TV series and movies but especially TOS. This movie will allow Star Trek to continue. The new film unlike the last movie and series didn’t waste the potential it was handed. If it works..and I know it will, then any screw-ups can be corrected because they..meaning TPTB will seek change because they can make money by doing so. J.J. and crew are in control of a great deal of power my hope is they have the wisdom to back it up.

704. GaryS - April 14, 2009

Hasent Bob Orci indicated that Carol Marcus and other characters that were not included in this film could still show up in future installments?
There is really nothing to worry about here .

705. The Governator - April 14, 2009

This is beyond ridiculous. I’m glad, Bob, that you’ve taken the time to read all of these posts. It shows true dedication and respect to the fans. However, you should take some of these ridiculous posts for a grain of salt. Of course, I’m sure you already know that! Anyway, from what I’ve heard from nearly everyone who’s seen the movie, it is simply amazing and I can’t wait to see it myself. Each day is painfully long.

706. Chris Murphy - April 14, 2009

From everything that I read, this movie will be received by all but the most disgruntled Trekkies.

Every review is positive, with the main complaint being some of the continuity. But, hey, since when has continuity been totally followed by the various Trek franchises?

Even Harry “sellout” Knowles is praising this film! Of course, Knowles’ words (ironically) haven’t held much weight in the last four or five years.

However, even the non-geek media is praising this film. It seems like this will be THE popcorn flick of the year…and that it will reboot the Trek franchise (for better or for worse). I have a great deal of faith in Abrams. His TV shows are phenominal (Alias and, especially, LOST). Mission Impossible III was the best of the series (by far). Bob Orci and Co. have done a phenominal job in virtually everything that they have produced. And, of course, Nimoy gave his okay to the film…even showing up in Austin last week for the geek premiere.

Yeah, I am excited.

707. captain_neill - April 14, 2009

669 – I believe Pine will be a great Kirk but I don’t think he will ever take the place of William Shatner, the man who made the role iconic.

708. jonboc - April 14, 2009

#647 “The thing that is so demeaning about “It’s Not your Father’s Star TreK” is that it postulates that there was something wrong with TOS.”

Not at all. Depends on your perspective I suppose. For me, its a clear signal that this is not anything like the Trek that most people today are familiar with, and that would be TNG forward.

TOS has always had a coolness attached to it. From late night comedians to astronauts and politicians, people have always liked it. Kirk is a charmer, gets the babes and is fast with his fists. Spock is a cool customer and lets his neck pinch do the talking. McCoy is the grouch everyone loves to hate. People have always loved them, but for the past 20 years it’s been pushed so deep underground by newer ideas and episodes of what some thought Trek should be, that many are simply not familiar with TOS at all.

TOS is simply flexing it’s muscle once more, thanks to JJ and company, who get it and know why people of ALL demographics, dug TOS. My granny liked it. My sister loved Kirk. My uncle watched it in reruns every day. They weren’t die-hards, they didn’t collect plates..they just loved a well written, fun show that had endearing characters. I think JJ is going to recreate that wide spread appeal with their new movie and I couldn’t be happier.

Having witnessed the pathetic state of Star Trek, as Nemesis tanked at the box office and Enterprise was canceled, I believe JJ and company have have successfully re-inflated….not re-invented—but re-inflated the TOS wheel.

I checked out of modern Trekdom in 1991 , but by golly, on May 8th I’ll be more than ready to get pulled back into the fold.

709. Craig - April 14, 2009

Bring back TNG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

710. fwise3 - April 14, 2009

Man, I really wish I had premiere tickets…

711. Anthony Pascale - April 14, 2009

lets not throw the ‘nazi’ word around, pointed at any side of any Star Trek debate.

712. HesDeadJim - April 14, 2009

I want to say this as lightly and as inoffensively as possible, so here goes…

I love Star Trek…there are many, many of you posting who are much bigger and much more dedicated fans than I am, and that’s fine. I’m the type of kid who grew up watching TNG, had the encyclopedia and the chronology, tried to learn Klingon for fun, and so forth. I’ve never been to a convention, never really read much Trek fan fiction, and I’ve only seen one Trek film in theatres (and unfortunately that was Generations)

I know how important Star Trek is to the millions of fans who dedicate so much time and energy to it. But the nitpicking has to stop, and I hold Abrams accountable for much of it.

Enough with trying to explain away the differences between this film and TOS with “alternate universes” and “quantum mechanics”…instead of pandering to us, why not just admit what everyone knows and should accept: this is 2009, not 1969 or 1979…this is not the Motion Sickness or (unfortunately) even Wrath of Khan, you can’t use the same sets and same uniforms, things are updated to look cooler and sleeker and to reflect changes in the time…yes, Star Trek has a well-established canon and history, but a film or a TV series is merely an artistic representation of an idea…that idea is Star Trek, and it will never change…the cosmetic differences are not relevant…this is a science fiction movie, so check your brain in at the door, and immerse yourself in the Trek universe…

We are not babies, nobody needs these explanations…just watch the film and absorb the story, I’m sure that this film will be successful, that it will spawn sequels, and that whole new chapters of Trek history will open up before our eyes…

Remember that film Galaxy Quest? Where the aliens thought that the broadcasts of the TV show were “historical tapes”? TOS was a TV show, again, a depiction of what was written in a script and dreamed up of by Roddenberry and company…

I am very excited about this film, but we don’t need this patronizing crap…just give us our Trek and our Nimoy cameo and let the rest be history…

713. HesDeadJim - April 14, 2009

And to anyone who actually read my, post, I owe you 2 minutes of your life…

714. GaryS - April 14, 2009

712. We read long posts here all the time.
No problem.
Thanks for contributing.

715. Trekkie16 - April 14, 2009

WOW – if all of this over a review, what is going to happen when the movie comes out???

Anthony – I hope your server can handle 10,000 comments.

716. Chris Murphy - April 14, 2009

Prediction: STAR TREK will open to a $89 Million haul. It will eventually pull in $325 Million domestically (and about $400 Million around the world).

The sequel will get the greenlight after the opening weekend.

‘Nuff said.

717. Andy Patterson - April 14, 2009

“Guns, guns, guns”

Seems to have gotten really heated since I last got on.

718. RAMA - April 14, 2009

650. OK you guys deserve a smack now.

I haven’t read EVERY post here, but in two nights, I have read more than any other commentary ever on Trekmovie.

RAMA

719. RAMA - April 14, 2009

My gross prediction (and I’d like it to be more) is $50 million opening and $160 million US. $100 overseas.

Some thoughts:

$50 million is almost $20 million more than other other Trek opening. I know in today’s market it doesn’t seem like so much but its a great opening! Despite the new production team, a lot of people don’t care about who’s making it, they know the reputation. Trek will still be held back somewhat by this thinking.

The overseas promotion will mean ST’s biggest foreign market gross ever. I don’t see it being as popular as Terminator or Transformers though.

$260 million is a respectable tally. Almost $100 million more than any combined gross for a Trek movie.

720. Alex Rosenzweig - April 14, 2009

#654 – “It seems that Khan’s entire timeline was changed. “Late 20th Century genetic experiments?” At one point, wasn’t Khan said to have tried to conquer the world in the 1980s…then 1990s?”

Nope, it was always the ’90s. No change there.

#659 – “What we have seen in the past *has* happened, it just means it was TREK “alpha” and now we have TREK “bravo” (if you can pardon military lingo)… which presents us a new universe/ playground to play in. “Bravo” can still have TREK’s characters, ideals, morals, outlooks and be fresh and re-invigorating! I canNOT wait!”

Truthfully, if I could have faith that the studio wasn’t going to treat it as an either-or scenario, i.e., now that we have the new universe, the previous one is essentially scrapped in terms of functional support, I wouldn’t mind so much. I just don’t have that faith. Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong, though.

For that matter, if the next film’s story were to be set up in such a way that it could happen in either continuity (i.e., a straight-up starship adventure, rather than a deep exploration of how many of the familiar elements of Trek can be turned on their heads since there’s this new universe), I could also feel better about this one.

#670 – FWIW, that was my thinking about the subject, too.

#677 – “what a thread… have read every post”

Well, I hope we’re at least making for interesting reading. :) BTW, Bob, I hope you understand that I don’t think you folks are bad people or out to hurt Trek or anything like that. I’ve just always thought reboots of this sort were bad ideas, however fancifully they might be explained. Totally nothing personal. :)

721. Chris Murphy - April 14, 2009

Best Trek film so far = WRATH OF KHAN

1. The director was not a Trek fan.
2. The score was not from Goldsmith (and didn’t sound like it much)
3. James Horner was relatively new to motion pictures.
4. The continuity conflicted with the original series (Khan rememberd Chekov? Khan tried to conquer the Earth when?!?).
5. The uniforms were completely different from anything seen in TREK.
6. Nicholas Meyer was a young, idealistic director with little experience.
7. Roddenberry wasn’t too happy with the direction of TREK.

But you know what? THE WRATH OF KHAN is generally regarded as the greatest TREK movie of all time (and one of the best sci-fi films ever).

This makes me think that this film might be pretty good.

:-)

722. RAMA - April 14, 2009

I noticed earlier in the list that SOME people wanted Bennet and Meyer back….ugh, even within ST’s old “universe” they got a lot of established facts wrong. Harve Bennet was responsible for not “fixing” Shatner’s script for STV. They are not the saviors of modern Trek. As much as I respect SOME of their work they are not the end all and be all of Trek movies. Let’s not mention them again shall we?

RAMA

723. Chris Murphy - April 14, 2009

BTW, I was alive during the 1990s. I was in high school. I never remember any EUGENICS WARS having taken place during the Bush or Clinton eras.

Continuity?

Of course, I realize that the writers never assumed that we would still be dreaming of Trek in the 1990s. It seemed too far away. The writers of the original series were writing the show during the Cold War and thought that doomsday could be near. Instead, communism fell in the first couple of years of the 1990s. No eugenics wars. No communists. No World War 3 (*yet).

I suppose that in 2015 we will look back at BACK TO THE FUTURE part 2 and wonder where all of the hover boards are sold.

But PLEASE don’t whine about continuity. The Enterprise was created in San Francisco (according to the dedication plaque). Roddenberry often contradicted himself. In reality, he had less to do with the Trek franchise and its continuity than Rick Berman and co.

I can’t wait for this film! I hope that it reignites my love for TREK…and is contageous enough to attract millions of more fans! One of my first films that I ever saw was WRATH OF KHAN. I was a very little boy (4 years old when I saw it as a “rerun” at a drive-in in 1983)…and I was hooked on Trek ever since! I hope that this film can do the same for a new generation!

724. RAMA - April 14, 2009

723-Parallel worlds and alternate histories are a major theme in past SF. ST is no different. Even TOS/STNG, etc ranks as an alternate history. The new Trek is no different.

RAMA

725. Jonny - April 14, 2009

Read “To Reign In Hell: The Exile of Khan Noonien Singh: by Greg Cox and that answers to the question to how Khan remembers Chekov.

Again I go back to my point regarding alternative timelines. I simply can’t understand the need to use an alternative timeline. This movie could of offered so much – the early days of James T Kirk on Tarsus IV colony . The tragic events that occured their as Governor Kodos, who governed the Tarsus IV colony killed 4000 people. Then Kirk at the academy with Gary mitchell he meeting Pike briefly and then his time on the farragut and the vampire cloud, his meeting Spock, McCoy and taking up his position on the enterprise. What a story to tell!!!!!!!!!! WHY THE NEED TO CHANGE HISTORY??? To change the ship? I am so disappointed and angry.

726. sean - April 14, 2009

#702

Every film has unflattering angles. You make it sound like these reviewers are calling it a mixed bag, and they really aren’t. The majority clearly think it’s a good movie, regardless of whatever flaws it may have.

727. Commodore shaggy - April 14, 2009

Very good review, while I generally ignore what reviewers say about films, I have paid more attention to what fellow Trekkies are saying about this and while I was going to go see this no matter what, the good reviews have me completely excited. At the very least reading spoilers of the super-fast promotions now will leave me less annoyed than seeing it in the movie. Of course that stuff isn’t a terribly big deal and I suppose that when the next movie comes around they won’t have to worry about that stuff anymore.

BTW- Interesting to see you comment on the “2D Space” thing with Star Trek. That has never bothered me personally but I have a friend who has always been very annoyed with Star Trek because of that (he said that it was this factor that annoyed him the most about Nemesis). He’ll be happy to know how the new ST addresses this, even though it isn’t a big thing IMO. I guess it does make it feel more ‘real’ however.

728. Canon Schmanon - April 14, 2009

615. Anthony Pascale – Dang man, you said it perfectly!

Everybody go back and read Anthony’s comment.

729. Sean4000 - April 14, 2009

Chris Murphy, sequel’s been green lit brother! Under construction as we speak.

730. Alex Rosenzweig - April 14, 2009

#684 – “I’ve been much-fascinated by the suggestion that a more “faithful” depiction of the early days of the Crew, Kirk in particular, would (in addition to satisfying the fanbase’s demands for canon authenticity) produce a narrative “at least as good” as any yarn this film might turn out to be spinning. My problem with this assertion, in a nutshell, is that none of the scenarios known to “canon” are complete/exciting… they’re all HOOKS for action that takes place later, rendering the “prequel era” portion of the story, told in isolation, as some ludicrous little half-anecdote lacking completion.”

That’s a perfectly valid point. But the assumption that underlies it is that a call for an in-continuity story was equivalent to a call to simply tell those bits of backstory and nothing else. Now I can’t speak for anybody else, but in my case, that assumption would be false. I happen to agree with Doktor Gonzo that, in isolation, those references do not a story make. They are, however, not the sum-total time in the backgrounds of the characters. For example, the oft-mentioned incident aboard the Farragut took place when Kirk was a lieutenant at the age of 24. He begins the 5-year mission at the age of 32. That’s 8 years later, a span of time which remains completely unchronicled on film, and in which James Kirk rises through the ranks to become the youngest captain in StarFleet history to date. Surely he must have done a few interesting things to warrant that accomplishment. :)

“my question is rather, how do we make a good self-contained movie story out of this? We see our hero Fail… and…. what? There CAN’T be any immediate resolution to this, or else it invalidates “Obsession”! It may be portentious to the fans, but meanwhile everyone else will basically be mumbling “wtf” at the screen!”

Right. I don’t think that the Farragut incident itself would make for a movie story. I am wondering, though, what chain of events might have brought Kirk from the point of being a survivor of a terrible tragedy in deep space to the man we came to know as a ship commanding officer. What if, just as an example, Kirk in the wake of that incident was a man suffering from a combination of post-traumatic stress syndrome and survivor’s guilt? Would that make him a good candidate to go right back into space? What choices might he make? Might he consider giving up entirely on StarFleet? And if so, how might he come to find a different path, one that leads him to starship command?

I don’t think there’s an obvious answer to those questions. But it does make for an interesting starting point for a story, one that could explore who James Kirk is. It’s that sort of thing that I’m talking about when I say that there’s a great deal of potential for powerful storytelling in continuity.

“Or, say, the thing with Finnegan (from “Shore Leave”) — Kirk was bullied, and never Got His in return… that’s why he conjured up Mr. F. on the amusement planet: so he could finally resolve things. Again, never mind for now what’s been said about this characterization conflicting with other episodes’ and movies’ depictions of Young Kirk. Purely on its own terms, how does this work as a point of cinematic narrative? We see him at the academy, and he gets taunted by Finnegan, and….what? Is this character George McFly? How is the audience to feel about this unrequited haplessness? How do you make a satisfying plot point out of that?A”

I don’t think Finnegan makes for an entire plot. He could spark a scene or two, maybe ragging on Kirk in a bit of comic relief for the newbies and sparking a knowing chuckle among the experienced fans.

I skipped the others because they’re basically reiterations of the same point. If one limits one’s imagination of the character backstories to the isolated bits presented on-screen, then it’s easy to imagine that there’s no story to tell. But if one remembers that those individual incidents are simply a part of a larger continuum of the characters’ lives, much of which remains unchronicled, the perception changes radically.

#715 – “WOW – if all of this over a review, what is going to happen when the movie comes out???

Anthony – I hope your server can handle 10,000 comments.”

I suspect Anthony is (or at least will be) well–prepared for what is to come. :)

731. RAMA - April 14, 2009

There’s only so much room for plot, they can’t tell every backstory!!

732. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease, he'll be in the area all night. - April 14, 2009

Well, that took awhile, but I have read all the posts, and am all caught up.

Have to give kudos all around. You folks care!

I am as excited to see this as I can be at my 45 years, but the anticipation is bringing back fond memories of the late 70’s and early 80’s. I can’t wait to see a new Trek movie.

But, here is a big difference. I was watching American Idol with my wife and 12 year old daughter tonight (Adam must go, btw). As my wife was zapping the Tivoed commercials, I noticed a Trek spot flying by, and I said, “Oh, there’s a Star Trek commercial…”

Now. My wife and daughter know about me and Star Trek. But we don’t talk about it much. (although my daughter has seen, and likes TMP–oohrah, closettrekker!!) My wife actually said, as God as my witness, “We should go see that”. Stunned, I responded, “YOU want to see Star Trek?” She says, “Yeah, it looks like they made it young and cool.”

Mission accomplished boborci and company.

733. RAMA - April 14, 2009

The commercials were also the first time my 9 yr old nephew has been interested in Star trek. He is a Star Wars fanatic.

RAMA

734. spiked canon - April 14, 2009

amen Mr. Coon…you weren’t a band director once were you?

735. spiked canon - April 14, 2009

sory wrong Mr. Coon…

736. spiked canon - April 14, 2009

he was in the navy

737. "Star Trek" Beams In A Few Hours Early - April 14, 2009

[…] out after the post-Austin/Sydney rush last week such as my own and TrekMovie’s well-penned piece, expect a lot more in earnest next week when media screenings kick off for the general Los Angeles […]

738. Chris Murphy - April 14, 2009

Hey #732…

My experience with my wife is similar. We are a pretty young couple (newlyweds) and my wife has mentioned a desire to see the film. I can’t wait to see it with her!

BTW…thank you for your service to that nation!

:-)

And, yes, Adam must go (from American Idol)!!!

739. Chris Murphy - April 14, 2009

*oops… Thank you for your service to THIS nation!

My bad. My dad is a veteran…and he is my hero!

740. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 14, 2009

702. cagmar: Heavens to murgatroid, a movie isn’t perfect! Will wonders ever cease?

741. Mark Lynch - April 15, 2009

I am so concerned about being disappointed with this film that even now I am not sure whether I will/should go and see it. Strange I suppose, but that is how I feel about it at the moment.

But of course it may be great and then I miss out on seeing a Star Trek film on the big screen. And I have seen all of them that way since ’79 even that last turkey, Nemesis.

It’s hard being a Trekker sometimes… :)

742. AJ - April 15, 2009

615:

Anthony:

“The Star Trek franchise is not a vibrant and alive brand with a growing and demographically desirable fanbase. To cater solely to a subset of the dwindling and aging core base would have been suicide.”

That is as much the fault of those who have run Star Trek these past years as it is of the product itself. It is now taking a $150m budget and an A-list crew, plus an improved knowledge of world geography and marketing, and saying “we can finally promote this film as if it were real.”

My son was born the year “Phantom Menace” was released. He knows who Darth Maul is. He knows because SW has been an actively promoted franchise outside of film premieres and release dates. He plays SW on his Nintendo DS. He does not watch the dismal “Clone Wars.” His classmates in 1st grade all know about Star Wars as well. Same reasons.

Star Trek gets promoted on a film-by-film basis, or if a series is on the air, but, in this case, ENT was canceled, and we were told “Trek needs a breather,” and Viacom shut off the taps, except for toys aimed at 50-year olds. Great marketing ploy. “Our product sucks. Now go away.”

“Trek” needs to be treated as a going concern, and not a bi-annual event. It also has to go for the 6-year olds, and finally ignore the over-40s who gush at the thought of meeting John DeLancie at a con and pride themselves on their AMT model collections. Trek should market its strengths, which are two solid series and some good films, and avoid its weaknesses (the rest).

Get a cartoon on the air, and get some good Playstation/PC/Nintendo games into the market. Show the damn films on TV in prime time. The ‘demographic’ must be actively sought and massaged, and “Trek” has been its own worst enemy these past years in this respect.

743. Lyniseuk - April 15, 2009

Jonathon Ross of Film 2009 has said that Star Trek will be the most anticipated movie of the summer… and that’s in the UK!!!

744. Closettrekker - April 15, 2009

#702—-“Just lookiing for a balanced assessment of the reviews. People are stunned they haven’t heard anything bad… maybe they should try reading the rest of what is said. ”

I didn’t say that I hadn’t seen any criticism. What I said was that I had yet to see a ‘negative review’. And I have read each and every review I have come across, including “the rest of what is said”.

There are always “nits” to pick. What matters is that overlooking the “nits” in favor of the generally good impressions abound seems to be the uniform approach to these reviews. Despite the minor criticisms, all of the reviews are positive…at least so far.

745. MC1 Doug - April 15, 2009

This isn’t really a question revolving around Anthony’s most excellent review, but…

An interesting thought just occurred to me.

Where is Kirk’s older brother Samuel when all of this is going on? or for that matter when young Kirk was growing up (I seem to recall reading somewhere JTK in this version was raised by an abusive uncle)?

I realize Kirk’s famial back story cannot nor should be bogged down by too many details (this isn’t a miniseries, after all), but some established facts are known and too important to be ignored.

746. Colonel West - April 15, 2009

@745:

good point Doug, wasn’t Sam the older brother and would have been born long before Nero did his thing?!?!?!

747. Closettrekker - April 15, 2009

#745—“Where is Kirk’s older brother Samuel when all of this is going on? or for that matter when young Kirk was growing up (I seem to recall reading somewhere JTK in this version was raised by an abusive uncle)?”

Sam *is* portrayed in the film. That’s all I know. Since his birth is prior to the attack upon the USS Kelvin, and assuming that is the *first* of the timeline incursions, Sam Kirk’s existence is unaltered. His path in life, however, might be quite different from what it was in the original timeline.

He may never marry Aurelan. He may not die from an attack by neural parasites, either. He may never have three children. He may never see his brother Jim off at the beginning of the “5 year mission”.

None of those things will necessarily remain constants. It may be that we see him only as a young boy, and his fate is not addressed again (at least in ST09).

748. Closettrekker - April 15, 2009

George Samuel Kirk (known to his brother James as “Sam”) is played by Spencer Daniels.

749. Al Hartman - April 15, 2009

#617 – NV/P2, Starship Exeter, and Starship Farragut all do what all of you naysayers says is impossible…

Remain faithful to TOS canon and production designs and tell good stories.

If a bunch of talented amateurs (and some pros) on a shoestring budget can out do 10 years of Voyager, Enterprise and several feature films… I think it’s possible that a Paramount production can do the same.

Nothing needed to be changed to tell a good story. And it wouldn’t matter to modern fans that production designs from the 60’s were being used.

They didn’t make the Starsky and Hutch movie and use a green camaro instead of the red torino…

They didn’t make The Dukes of Hazzard County with motocross bikes instead of the General Lee.

What has been done with this movie wasn’t needed to tell a compelling story with a new cast.

All that was needed was a great story.

Trying to hide the story around new production design and snazzy SFX has never worked before.

Phase II shows that the 1966 TOS universe has a lot of life in it, and a lot of stories left to tell. They are also not hobbled by canon, no more than a WWII movie is hobbled by history (canon).

A good writer can work within any framework. The basis of a good story is the human relationships, not the background they play against.

Star Trek set compelling stories against plywood and plasterboard sets, christmas lights and cheesy costumes. Stories so compelling that the brand remains valuable after 40 years and decades of bad movies and bad stories.

To say that’s not relevant today, and that Star Trek needs JJ and crew to throw that all out and redesign it in order to tell a compelling story relevant to 2009 people is crap.

And again, In a Mirror Darkly, Phase II and Starship Farragut prove that is so.

I want to see TOS on the big screen. Period.

And there’s no reason it can’t be successful except that people have egos too big to do what the Enterprise Staff and the fan productions do… Supress their ego and desire to make it their own way and simply use the existing, beloved platform to tell new and compelling stories.

I will treasure the 10 days I spent on-set at Phase II for the rest of my life. It’s as close as I’ll ever come to being there in 1966 – 1968. And it was great to walk the decks of the original TOS Enterprise lovingly recreated.

It’s a shame Paramount is so ashamed of TOS that they won’t give the fans of their most valuable property that same gift.

Luckily, we have James Cawley and the Farragut folks who aren’t.

750. MC1 Doug - April 15, 2009

#749: “I want to see TOS on the big screen. Period.”

(smiling as I say this) I guess you’ll need to buy a big screen TV then .. or rent a theater hall with a DVD player and projector.

I don’t totally disagree with some of your suppositions… but seriously, today’s audience will not accept 1960s standards for drama, spfx, set design, etc.

and I agree, thank god for Mr. Crawley’s ST: PII, the crews of the Farragut, the Exeter, the Hidden Frontier and anyone else out there creating new webisodes.

Since this subject has been broached, I do have a question that perhaps Mr. Crawley can best answer. Do you (or the fans, for that matter) consider what transpires in the webisodes as canon?

oh. has a date been established when “Blood & Fire, Pt. II” will be aired?

751. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 15, 2009

#749 … The Dukes of Hazzard and Starsky and Hutch? Talk about bad examples. Those movies were both pretty weak, and performed accordingly at the box office. There was just never any way you were going to get “plywood and plasterboard sets, christmas lights and cheesy costumes,” as you put it, in a 2009, $150 million film. As if that really would have grabbed the technologically minded youth of today? It amazes me how unrealistic some people are.

752. FloWo - April 15, 2009

I’ve seen it yesterday in Vienna, Austria, at the premiere. It was awesome. The bester ever. Trek got a blood transfusion which it desperately needed.

753. Closettrekker - April 15, 2009

#749—Paramount is not ashamed of TOS. They just released it on blu-ray!

And please….Starsky And Hutch? The Dukes Of Hazzard?

Is that how we want Star Trek (2009) to be seen? As utterly ridiculous?

Fan productions that use the retro designs are alot of fun for long time fans. “In A Mirror, Darkly” was alot of fun for long time fans.

But those productions are not on par with *any* feature film, much less a Summer blockbuster. Even when working on TMP, the producers recognized that what worked on television in 1966 was not going to work on the big screen in 1979. The whole reason for the “refit” was to give reasoning to the fact that the “refitted” Enterprise looked nothing like the one seen in the 1960’s television series.

Given that this was deemed necessary in 1979, what sense does it make to suggest that it is *not* necessary 30 years later?

If you want retro—watch the fan flims. By all means. They are there to be enjoyed. But make no mistake. My kids don’t want to see that. They do, however, want to see Star Trek (2009). And whether you like it or not, it is they and their peers who matter most in determining whether or not Star Trek has a real viable future—-not me, and not you.

If you don’t like the creative direction of the production design—that’s one thing. But to suggest that it should have been done in the style of the 1960’s production of TOS is beyond absurd, IMO.

The only way you’ll see TOS on the big screen is if they start showing episodes of the old series at places like the Alamo Drafthouse. Paramount is not going to make a retro film just for you, for me, or the whole of the dwindling old guard fanbase—for that matter.

Forget it.

754. Chris Murphy - April 15, 2009

#742

Hi Aj…

I think that you nailed it. It seems like many Trekkies want a big budget Trek film….that will make little money.

Trek, in its 1960s – 2007 incarnation, is just boring to most people. Why? It was a slow-paced, cerebral, low-budget endeavor. From what I have read so far, it seems that Abrams & Co. have made this a high-paced, cerebral, big-budget endeavor.

As good as TREK 2 WRATH OF KHAN might be, few would argue that it is a popcorn flick. It has a limited audience. I was lucky to have seen it as a 4 yr old in a drive in…and it make me a modest Trekkie. I liked the movies, original series, some of TNG, but lost concern with the other series (even though I tried to follow Enterprise…and think that it is much better than it is given credit).

That said: I loved Battlestar Galactica (the newer sci-fi series). I watched it from beginning to end. I even had to try and not shed a tear at the finale. It was cerebral, epic, and done on a small budget. Yet it didn’t make a whole lot of money. It wouldn’t make much money at the box office, unless it was only made for a small, target audience (like Serenity).

Someone wrote a while back that Trekkies don’t want any new Trekkies…because they don’t want their close-knit fraternity to be invaded by outsiders. I don’t think that Trekkies should look at it this way. The old trivia-spouting (or trivia-ARGUING) Trekkies could become the leaders of a new generation of fans.

J.J.Abrams has been given a monstrous task. He is to make an exciting, epic motion picture that will draw new fans to an old franchise while also trying to please convention-minded Trekkies. It almost seems impossible to do. TREK has slowly faded from the public conscience. As Aj said, children know who Darth Vader is. First graders even know that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father — although this was revealed in 1980 (when I was one year old). Abrams is trying to make a Trek whose characters and plot devices will be discussed by first graders in the year 2029.

A 75 year old fat man in a red/black uniform (Kirk) and his remaining crew just won’t draw such an audience. The crew of a future Trek might not draw such an audience in a new film. However, if this film is successful, I foresee a NEXT-NEXT Generation of Trek films in the horizon. Hmmm…Star Trek: New Horizons? Sounds good to me!

The bottom line is that Paramount believes that this franchise is still valuable…in the right hands. If anyone can do it, Abrams and Co. can.

755. Doktor Gonzo - April 15, 2009

“NV/P2, Starship Exeter, and Starship Farragut all do what all of you naysayers says is impossible… Remain faithful to TOS canon and production designs and tell good stories. If a bunch of talented amateurs (and some pros) on a shoestring budget can out do 10 years of Voyager, Enterprise and several feature films… I think it’s possible that a Paramount production can do the same.”

Yes, but what MAKES for a compelling story? I’m pretty sure it’s not connect-the-dots regurgitation of “history”, and Mr. Cawley’s most excellent fan films don’t contract me, as they take place in a post-TOS timeframe that is largely unfettered by predetermined plot points. Within each of his installments, NV/P2 instead tells tightly-focused one-off stories, not stitched-together tapestries of disjoint incidents. And not to conflate storytelling with design/visuals (a separate topic, and not one I’ve addressed), but MC1 Doug and Closettrekker pretty much drove a nail into that aspect of NV/P2:

“Fan productions that use the retro designs are alot of fun for long time fans. “In A Mirror, Darkly” was alot of fun for long time fans.”
“I don’t totally disagree with some of your suppositions… but seriously, today’s audience will not accept 1960s standards for drama, spfx, set design, etc.”

Very much agree. Do you seriously envision a mainstream audience accepting a recreation of 1960s aesthetics, however loving, without (at best) a massive chip-on-shoulder or (at worst) a total disconnect from the actual narrative being told (up to and including not actually going to SEE said narrative?)

“A good writer can work within any framework. The basis of a good story is the human relationships, not the background they play against. Star Trek set compelling stories against plywood and plasterboard sets, christmas lights and cheesy costumes. Stories so compelling that the brand remains valuable after 40 years and decades of bad movies and bad stories.”

My question to you, sir is, why *this* framework? Why start with the equivalent of 3 limbs fettered at the bottom of a deep hole, by trying to produce a good story out of plot elements that were NEVER formulated to fit together to form a cohesive CHARACTER, let alone the basis for a major motion picture plot? Sure, having rules to your universe makes sense, but how does the FARRAGUT or TARSUS IV help tell a great story? Those things are not ipso facto “great”. They are not the proverbial “gun hanging on the wall in Act I”. These are the table scraps of a very old feast, the oil drops and iron filings long since fallen from the necessary plot mechanics of economical weekly storytelling!

756. Bloons - April 15, 2009

Surprise surprise, website devoted to new Star Trek film think New Star Trek film is excellent.

You need the perspective of time – people thought the Star wars prequels were good -at the time. Now anyone with a brain realises they were a bag full of poo.

757. Closettrekker - April 15, 2009

#756—-There are plenty of reviews out there on sites *not* devoted to the new Star Trek film. I have yet to see one that isn’t positive.

I’m not sure what your point is.

Of course, after its general public release, the reviews will probably come down to Earth. But this is, after all, just a Star Trek movie. It was never going to win the Academy Award for “Best Picture”.

758. Doktor Gonzo - April 15, 2009

“You need the perspective of time – people thought the Star wars prequels were good -at the time. Now anyone with a brain realises they were a bag full of poo.”

And here I quite liked/like Revenge of the Sith…. pity, always thought I had at least half a brain….

759. Bloons - April 15, 2009

@757

Let’s see what the broadsheets make of it.

760. Bloons - April 15, 2009

@758

If you like Sith, your brain to skull ratio must sadly be questioned. ;-p

‘I hate sand!’

761. Closettrekker - April 15, 2009

#759—-I’d rather see what I make of it. Nothing else really matters in the end.

But it certainly doesn’t bode poorly for it that all of the reviews have been good so far. There’s really no getting around that.

I can’t remember the last time there were good reviews for a Star Trek movie at all…and so far, I’ve seen 15-20 good ones for ST09—and not a single bad one.

762. Doktor Gonzo - April 15, 2009

@760
Wow, good job sir…. Your pithy attack quotes the *wrong film* — other than that, a work of genius.

763. Sean4000 - April 15, 2009

749: How dare you ever state that you want to see the classic 60s Trek look on the big screen. You traitor, basement dweller, fanboy, nerd, loser! I am going after your family, IMHO.

/sarcasm.

764. Chris Murphy - April 15, 2009

#749…

Phase II never made it to production. Why? Well, if the powers that be had thought that this was an efficient, economic telling of the TREK story, they would have gone with it. Rather, they knew that it wouldn’t make money…or win new fans.

Remember, the original series was cancelled after HOW MANY seasons? Even TNG was cancelled after a nice long run. However, it was cancelled because the number of viewers decreased. Film is, after all, a capitalistic venture. If no one wants to see the movie, you won’t make money.

Truth be told: If TREK was to be made for the fans, it would have a very small budget and a no name director in order to not risk a big budget flick with no one but the Trekkies watching it. Because this new film is made for a wider audience, the studio is willing to take a financial risk with a big budget, big name director, and rethinking of the plot. They realized that real money can be made with the original series and not a later incarnation of Trek.

765. Chris Murphy - April 15, 2009

EDIT:

*If TREK was to be made for EXISTING fans, it would have a small budget…

766. Matt Wright - April 15, 2009

#742 — Really great points AJ!

767. Sean4000 - April 15, 2009

765: Good, then they could concentrate on story rather than FX, i.e. Enterprise Season 4. The trick would be getting people to watch.

Not that I am putting down nice FX in any way shape or form, i.e. JJ’s Trek.

768. sean - April 15, 2009

#749

To believe anyone would pay to see Phase 2 on the silver screen would require me to take a leap of faith right into a lava pit. They are called ‘fan films’ for a reason – they appeal to hardcore fans. Those films don’t even appeal to the entire fanbase, let alone expecting them to be desirable to a general audience. Most fans I know find them a curiosity, and most casual fans I know would never give them a second glance.

Even Gene Rodenberry didn’t feel the TOS designs would hold up on the big screen. This is made clear by his own words, the making of books, etc. He redesigned everything for TMP – not because he was leaping forward in time, but because he knew they would not work. TV is a completely different medium from film, let alone internet video. While some praise NV/P2 in its current form, I assure you the criticism would be far less kind were it presented to the masses outside fan circles.

And I know they have received accolades and appreciation from TV Guide, being nominated for a Hugo, etc. But that’s because it is so impressive FOR A FAN FILM. There’s a context and caveat to that praise. For this fan – despite the impressive efforts – at the end of the day this is still fellow fans playing dress up. I don’t see James Cawley and think of James T Kirk. I see him and think he’s doing an impersonation of William Shatne as James T Kirk. Chris Pine, on the other hand, seems to be invoking Shatnerian mannerisms without appearing as a pastiche. I can’t really speak to his entire performance, as I haven’t seen the film yet. So we’ll have to wait and see if that works.

Even so, Pine could give the performance of a lifetime, but if he’s standing in front of those TOS/P2 sets, I’d be distracted. I might even let loose a giggle. It just doesn’t work. And I’m sorry, but pointing to shows that took place in a past we all experienced is not a valid comparison. Star Trek isn’t what the 23rd Century actually will look like, it is what people in the 60s guessed it might look like. In 1979, Rodenberry and Co guessed once again, through the prism of the time. Now, JJ Abrams is guessing what it might look like through an Aughts viewpoint. To me, that just shows Star Trek can evolve & change and still remain just as relevant as it ever has been.

769. sean - April 15, 2009

#764

Just to be clear Chris, TNG wasn’t canceled. It simply ended a long run. Just as DS9 & VOY went on for seven seasons. Out of the 5 Trek series, only TOS & ENT were actually canceled.

770. Chris Murphy - April 15, 2009

Thanks for the input, Sean.

Yeah, I have always thought that the original series looked unbelievably cheesey. You just have to watch it with the understanding of time and budget constraints…and that people in the 1960s didn’t even know what a real computer would look like in 2009 (let alone 2409).

Could someone help me out here…

I have always wondered how the “refit” fits into the continuity. The 1979 Enterprise for the films was much larger than the one from the original series. This wouldn’t be a “refit” — as the size difference is simply too large to have been refit. If they took the original Enterprise aircraft carrier and needed to make it like a newer Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier, they wouldn’t simply “refit” the ship. The Enterprise refit would literally be a completely different ship from the one used in the original series.

Is the difference explained simply as a refit? Or is there something missing in continuity?

771. AJ - April 15, 2009

770:

Scotty actually tells Kirk that they spent 18 months working on the Enterprise, but I believe he says it’s a “redesign.” It’s vague.

772. Closettrekker - April 15, 2009

#770—-It would seem that it was a “refit”, since it is still tagged NCC-1701.

The “new” Enterprise was NCC-1701A.

I understand where you are coming from with the appearance of the movie-era Enterprise being much larger—-but that’s obviously just the result of creative license and a much bigger budget.

#771–Some of the dialogue is less vague, and actually uses the term “refit”.

“And Captain Decker? He’s been with this ship every minute of her refitting.”—Unnamed Ensign on the bridge

“Ensign, the possibilities of our returning from this mission in one piece may have just doubled.” —-Uhura

773. Closettrekker - April 15, 2009

This is just my own personal opinion, but I don’t equate asthetic continuity with storytelling continuity.

I think that those are two different animals altogether. And asthetic continuity has never been a strongsuit of Star Trek, from the color of phaser beams, etc. to the bridge set in one film versus another, and so on.

It’s never been important to me. At some point, the audience just has to “pretend”. It’s part of the deal.

774. Harry Ballz - April 15, 2009

Ooh, I love pretending!

775. Closettrekker - April 15, 2009

Harry, I can picture you right at home on Sesame Street.

776. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 15, 2009

Harry, I don’t think is the kind of pretending you’re used to. No one will be dressed as a female police officer or a nurse. :-)

777. Harry Ballz - April 15, 2009

Well, that’s no fun!!

I’ll just stick to the fantasy that Jolene Blalock is attracted to a bunch of geeks like us!

778. Closettrekker - April 15, 2009

#777—You mean she isn’t?

What do you mean, “fantasy”????

:)

779. McCoy - April 15, 2009

773: “And asthetic continuity has never been a strongsuit of Star Trek, from the color of phaser beams, etc. to the bridge set in one film versus another, and so on.”

Every TNG series which has gone back to the TOS era, has affirmed and maintained visual continuity with that era. ‘Trials and Tribulations’, ‘Relics’ and ‘In a Mirror Darkly’, were all very true to TOS and were wonderful to see.

Any other Trek….was moving forward in the timeline and it just didn’t matter if things were modified.

Continuity is like glue. It holds things together. It can come from various places: actors, shooting/editing style, music, story, characters, sound and production design.

If you are making a movie in the TOS era, you need some TOS glue. If you are getting new actors—you need to get even more glue from the other areas.

This film’s TOS glue is very small and/or was mixed with water (from industrial pipes?). In fact, they clearly didn’t want to take much from TOS and eventually landed on the time-travel/alternate universe trick to explain away their earlier statements. You know, the ones where they say they want to “revisit TOS” or “show how the original crew came together”.

780. Chris Murphy - April 15, 2009

#779…

So you want to make a film that appeals to Trekkies and keeps to 1960s era continuity?

I really don’t know if I would buy a ticket for such a film. Maybe I would. However, my wife wouldn’t want to go with me.

Yeah…I think that the worse thing that ever happened to TREK was Trekkies who treat the film like a religious fanatic. One slight deviation = total rejection.

781. Chris Murphy - April 15, 2009

After reading this message board (and others about the film), I am beginning to think that this new film might possibly make a lot of money from non-Trek fans…but could be rejected by Trekkies.

What a strange predicament!

782. Doktor Gonzo - April 15, 2009

#779:

I’d think the time travel/alternate universe plot was in place long before they MADE those statements. And I’d say Mr. Abrams’ position on this issue has been pretty clear throughout:

J.J. Abrams: The question we asked ourselves was ’is the sixties vision of the future still relevant today?’ We asked that question for the sets, the uniforms, the communicators that look like today’s iPhones… So we didn’t want to change everything but we took a series of small decisions everyday on every aspect of the production. But technology is not the main point and, like Gene Roddenberry, we paid attention to the characters who are the most important part of Star Trek.

His notion of what is most important to Star Trek obviously differs greatly from yours, but that’s a different matter.

783. Closettrekker - April 15, 2009

#779—-“In fact, they clearly didn’t want to take much from TOS and eventually landed on the time-travel/alternate universe trick to explain away their earlier statements.”

Nope. This was the script Bob and Alex wrote all along. It’s the same script that convinced Nimoy to reprise his role as Spock, and the same one that convinced JJ Abrams to direct.

Your personal opinions on creative decisions are one thing—-but don’t re-write history to add false support to your perspective.

“‘Trials and Tribulations’, ‘Relics’ and ‘In a Mirror Darkly’, were all very true to TOS and were wonderful to see.”

Well, I didn’t like “Relics” at all, but the other two were indeed fun. In a very nostalgic way, it did work on television. Then again, the purpose behind those episodes of DS9 and ENT was not to win over new fans, and neither of them was anywhere near a Summer blockbuster production.

I enjoyed those, just like I enjoy a good rerun of TOS, despite the fact that the set looks nothing like what I would imagine the 23rd Century to be.

I also enjoy TWOK, despite the fact that Khan is dressed up like an early 80’s rockstar.

I can look beyond those issues because I am able to place them in the proper context—-the time period in which it was produced.

“Trials…” and “In A Mirror…” were a wink to fans.

Star Trek (2009) cannot be that.

784. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 15, 2009

Closet, just out of curiosity, why didn’t you like Relics?

785. MC1 Doug - April 15, 2009

#755: “And not to conflate storytelling with design/visuals (a separate topic, and not one I’ve addressed), but MC1 Doug and Closettrekker pretty much drove a nail into that aspect of NV/P2.”

I did what? um, I haven’t touched a hammer since I returned from Afghanistan last month.

Care to elaborate about “the nail I drove?”

To clarify my point in my post (#750), I will say that I am a huge fan (really huge) of Mr. Crawley’s ST: PII and some of the other webisode factories, but I do not for a second believe those incarnations would prove as successful on the big screen… nor should they… as the coming film.

BUT that doesn’t change the fact that…

I love the webisodes entertain us without fail. I love that their new stories fill in the blanks leading into the 1979 movie. I love their attention to detail and how successful they are in fulfilling a need for nostalgia–something I’ve come to appreciate since returning home from Afghanistan.

I know both versions will endure and prosper… and entertain us.

786. M - April 15, 2009

This film looks incredible! I can’t wait! I also thought the Countdown comic was a great read giving a lot of good background information going into the movie. More importantly, it helps to tie some loose strings with the TNG. With this new movie coming out with a second one already being penned, perhaps this is a good time for a new TV Star Trek series! Perhaps it can be about the Enterprise E with Captain Data at the helm. Characters and storylines from TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and even Enterprise can grace some of the episodes. Why not? They’re not going to do any more TNG era movies, so why not continue it in TV form? This idea can surely be fleshed out but I hope one of those Paramount execs do this.

Peace and see you all on May 7th IMAX baby!

787. Closettrekker - April 15, 2009

#784—“Closet, just out of curiosity, why didn’t you like Relics?”

I just thought it was very unflattering to Scotty, and a little over the top. I think that “Trials And Tribblations” and “In A Mirror, Darkly (I & II)” were great, but (even though it was one of the few TNG episodes I went out of my way to watch in its first run) there was just something I didn’t like about the tone of “Relics”. It just came off to me like a bit of a mockery of a very lovable character—in whose presence the likes of “Geordi” were hardly even worthy to stand. It’s obviously a minority opinion, and Mr. Doohan himself said that he had alot of fun with it.

Like “Encounter At Farpoint”, it was something I looked really forward to, and ended up disappointed in after all was said and done.

As you know, I was never exactly enamoured with TNG—so to be fair—I might have been okay with it if I had liked the Enterprise-D crew half as much as I did their predecessors…but nothing about them really ever endeared them to me. Perhaps that’s why I kept hoping that Scotty would put ‘condescending little Geordi’ over his knee in engineering—right there in front of everybody!

:)

#785—-“…but I do not for a second believe those incarnations would prove as successful on the big screen… nor should they… as the coming film. ”

I think that’s all he meant.

788. Mark E Clason - April 15, 2009

If you want to join some Star Trek buddies and their dates, we’ll be catching the last matinee in the Antelope Valley on 0905.08, and then going to dinner afterward to discuss the movie. This dinner will include at least 4 people who were extras in the movie. They will be telling stories and sharing their obsertvations and understandings from their experiences on set. Let me know if you want to attend.

789. Alex Rosenzweig - April 15, 2009

#750 – “Do you (or the fans, for that matter) consider what transpires in the webisodes as canon?”

I hadn’t been, but in view of what Paramount’s doing, I’m sort of re-thinking that. ‘Course, I also consider the novels authoritative until and unless contradicted by an in-universe, on-film-from-Paramount source, and since that may not happen again for the foreseeable future…. :)

#753 – “If you don’t like the creative direction of the production design—that’s one thing. But to suggest that it should have been done in the style of the 1960’s production of TOS is beyond absurd, IMO.”

I’d agree with this, to a point. But I’d also agree with the argument that it could have been made to look very modern and still be a good deal closer in style to the original. Not identical, to be sure, but closer. (Ironically, except for the gooseneck viewers, much of the bridge in “The Cage” looks much more modern than does the series version!)

#761 – “I can’t remember the last time there were good reviews for a Star Trek movie at all…”

In the mainstream press? “First Contact”. And before that, “Undiscovered Country”. Of course, all of them got some good reviews in more obscure venues.

#770 – “I have always wondered how the “refit” fits into the continuity. The 1979 Enterprise for the films was much larger than the one from the original series.”

Huh? The original ship was said to be 289 meters long, roughly, and the refit 305. Not *that* much larger. The saucer was expanded a bit, the secondary hull bulked up a bit, and the drive nacelles made a few meters longer, too, and that pretty much covers the difference.

There’s an argument to be made that the overall look is too different to be a simple refit, but various approaches have been taken to explaining it, since TMP is quite specific that it is indeed a refit.

“Is the difference explained simply as a refit? Or is there something missing in continuity?”

Yes and no, respectively. Scotty’s dialogue is quite specific: “We’ve just spent eighteen months redesigning and refitting the Enterprise…”

One thing I’ll be looking forward to is getting a feel for the size and other details of the new film’s version of the Enterprise. It’s pretty clearly in the same general ballpark as the TOS and TMP versions, but some of the details are still a bit unclear.

Ahh, here’s a non-spoilery question for Anthony… Does the film make it look like reasonable attention was paid to making the interiors look like they’d fit inside the exterior, as portrayed on screen? And not as a review question, but a behind-the-scenes question, did Scott Chambliss and Ryan Church work together at all to make things fit?

790. Doktor Gonzo - April 15, 2009

#785—-”…but I do not for a second believe those incarnations would prove as successful on the big screen… nor should they… as the coming film. ”

I think that’s all he meant.

Indeed! That’s all I meant.

791. John Sullivan - April 15, 2009

Sherry Lansing theatre? I am her biggest fan and she is responsible for getting my production company started. I was so very upset that she was forced out of Paramount back when Dawn Ostroff, not she was ruining Paramount even before Les Moonves and CBS got Borgified by Viacom and many good people at Paramount got let go. I love Sherry Lansing and am happy she has the Paramount Theatre named after her. I literally owe my whole production career to her.

792. John Sullivan - April 15, 2009

James Cawley and Chris Doohan – I thank you for your posts. To Dennis Bailey, I applaud your apologetics for a movie you have never seen, and look forward to your conversion towards Catholic Apologetics and blind faith in a God you have never seen, either.

793. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 15, 2009

#787 … That’s too bad that you didn’t like it. I thought the script was obviously written with a LOT of love for the character of Scotty, and was more satisfying than Shatner, Nimoy or Takei’s appearances in the TNG era. And the initial rough treatment of Scotty was the whole point; the plight of the elderly in society was what the story was really about…as summed up when Picard informed Geordi: “One of the most important things in any person’s life is that they feel useful. Captain Scott is a Starfleet officer, and I would like for him to feel useful again.” If Scotty had shown up knowing everything and in charge from the beginning, there would have been no drama.

If Chris Doohan reads this, I’d be interested to hear what the family thought of Relics.

794. McCoy - April 15, 2009

” 780. Chris Murphy -“So you want to make a film that appeals to Trekkies and keeps to 1960s era continuity?”

Yes. I would rephrase the statement though. I would love to see a film that maintains continuity (whoever wanted to see the film can come, those that don’t can stay home). If a modernized TOS (prime) is not for you, stay home.

“I really don’t know if I would buy a ticket for such a film. Maybe I would. However, my wife wouldn’t want to go with me.”

Yes you would. Sheesh. Duh. With a new young Kirk….your wife would too.

“Yeah…I think that the worse thing that ever happened to TREK was Trekkies who treat the film like a religious fanatic. One slight deviation = total rejection.”

OMG! I’m not a religious fanatic but with your blind faith in this new film you are certainly bordering on that yourself. I’m a graphic artist who understands the idea of “visual identity”. I’m also a particular kind of Trek fan who believes the film should have been set in the prime universe and the designs should be much closer to TOS (albeit with greater detail).

These are new characters…new ships…new..history. I just have no care for them and shall treat the film as such. For those of you who are gushing over it…be prepared for the new label….”Alt-Trekkie”.

795. McCoy - April 15, 2009

Alternate realities. The final frontier.

These are the alternate voyages of the alternate starship Enterprise.

Her alternate mission: to explore an alternate timeline

To reach out, and seek, new alternate fans.

To boldly go where the other timeline didn’t.

796. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 15, 2009

794. McCoy: I can’t speak for anyone else, but I haven’t seen a lot of “gushing” I have seen excitement which I share. What I am NOT doing is pre-judging it without having seen it.

797. Doktor Gonzo - April 15, 2009

#794.:
“Yeah…I think that the worse thing that ever happened to TREK was Trekkies who treat the film like a religious fanatic. One slight deviation = total rejection.”

OMG! I’m not a religious fanatic but with your blind faith in this new film you are certainly bordering on that yourself. I’m a graphic artist who understands the idea of “visual identity”. I’m also a particular kind of Trek fan who believes the film should have been set in the prime universe and the designs should be much closer to TOS (albeit with greater detail).

Wow, we’re busting out the big rhetorical guns– the dread ‘I Know You Are But What Am I’ gambit! Could’ve used some Agumentum Ad Hitleria, though…

798. Closettrekker - April 16, 2009

“And Captain Decker? He’s been with this ship every minute of her refitting.”—Unnamed Ensign on the bridge

“Ensign, the possibilities of our returning from this mission in one piece may have just doubled.” —-Uhura

It’s pretty clear that it was a refit, and certainly not a new ship altogether. Beyond even the dialogue, the “refitted” Enterprise is designated NCC-1701, just as she was during the 5-year mission.

Subsequent “new” starships named Enterprise were designated NCC-1701-A, B, C, D, E, etc., distinguishing them from the one destroyed in orbit around the Genesis Planet.

#794—“For those of you who are gushing over it…be prepared for the new label….”Alt-Trekkie”. ”

That’s absurd.

Assuming I deem the new film worth “gushing over”, I’ll still just be a Star Trek fan.

Being willing to embrace quite canonical timeline changes and an updated asthetic interpretation of what the 23rd Century might look like won’t make me an alternate anything.

#794—“I would love to see a film that maintains continuity (whoever wanted to see the film can come, those that don’t can stay home). If a modernized TOS (prime) is not for you, stay home.”

Then make one—or watch Mr. Cawley’s NV/PHII.

I’d rather see Star Trek (and my favorite characters) get first class treatment on the big screen for the first time in 30 years than some 60’s retro take on the TOS-era aimed at the same dwindling fanbase.

I’d prefer that my kids (and other young people like them) embrace the vision too. Remove the cheese, update the tech and asthetics, and show them a future where Humanity has not only survived—but united to conquer the social ills which plague us today and to explore the final frontier.

That **is** Star Trek, more than anything else you’re talking about. If you don’t think so—then brother, you’ve missed the forest for the trees…

I’ve got a better idea.

Why don’t *you* stay home?

799. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 16, 2009

“If you don’t think so—then brother, you’ve missed the forest for the trees…

I’ve got a better idea.

Why don’t *you* stay home?”

LOL! Closet, you have a way of making your point like none other.

:-)

800. Doktor Gonzo - April 16, 2009

I’d rather see Star Trek (and my favorite characters) get first class treatment on the big screen for the first time in 30 years than some 60’s retro take on the TOS-era aimed at the same dwindling fanbase.

I’d prefer that my kids (and other young people like them) embrace the vision too. Remove the cheese, update the tech and asthetics, and show them a future where Humanity has not only survived—but united to conquer the social ills which plague us today and to explore the final frontier.

That **is** Star Trek, more than anything else you’re talking about. If you don’t think so—then brother, you’ve missed the forest for the trees…

wow Closet, I think that excellent summa is basically /thread

801. Cafe 5 - April 16, 2009

791

Star Trek fans owe a huge debt of gratitude to Sherry Lansing, Jeffery Katzenberg, and Michael Eisner. Without their efforts Star Trek might never had been reborn as Star Trek:TMP. All theTrek history we have been part of since then, might never have existed. They helped keep the franchise alive.

802. sean - April 16, 2009

#798

As always brother, you say it better and with more pizazz! Ha!

803. Harry Ballz - April 16, 2009

Give me an order of alternate pizazz with lots of meat and hold the cheese!!

804. McCoy - April 16, 2009

800 ” I’d prefer that my kids (and other young people like them) embrace the vision too. Remove the cheese, update the tech and asthetics, and show them a future where Humanity has not only survived—but united to conquer the social ills which plague us today and to explore the final frontier.

That **is** Star Trek, more than anything else you’re talking about. If you don’t think so—then brother, you’ve missed the forest for the trees…”

No one was asking for cheese…not that’s there’s anything wrong with cheese. I know what Star Trek is and want all the things you want (“a future where Humanity has not only survived—but united to conquer the social ills which plague us today and to explore the final frontier”)—but I also want that Trek film to come much, much closer visually to what came before. I am the one asking for the Trek forrest….this film only has a few trees.

Trek is all those things you mentioned—and more. Everyone on this site would have still gone to a film whose designs were much closer to TOS. Newbies would never have know the difference in design and would also have come. You could have used the same marketing.

I could have lived with flares and faster pacing if the sets provided more a greater TOS experience (to match the uniforms).

805. Stekev - April 16, 2009

I’ve read every review, every bit of praise, and every bit of criticism that I can find. I’ve learned a lot about this movie.

One thing I’ve never heard mentioned by *anybody* is – what is the message? All Star Trek has always had a message, some moral dilemma to chew on. The Khan of “Space Seed” wasn’t just some villain that wanted revenge – his existence was a vehicle for exploring what makes Man Man, and is Man still Man when he is something else? When I think of every episode from “The Cage” through TNG – there is always some message, some issue to think about. Racism, sexism, cloning, humanity’s role in the cosmos, religion, whatever. STTMP, STIV, and even ST V had some concept or message to think about.

Does this new “Star Trek” film have any issue to debate, or is it just a roller-coaster journey of the crew against a 2-D villain?

806. Closettrekker - April 16, 2009

#804—“I also want that Trek film to come much, much closer visually to what came before.”

At the sacrifice of 40 + years of perspective altering time? Why? Why handicap the attempt to bring that vision to a new generation right off the bat?

” I am the one asking for the Trek forrest….this film only has a few trees. ”

You really need to work on your interpretation of metaphors.

The optimistic vision of the future *is* the forest….the trees (which are seeded, grow, and eventually die—only to be replaced by new trees) are the visual elements you complain endlessly about being too different from the ones that were there in the 1960’s….

“Everyone on this site would have still gone to a film whose designs were much closer to TOS.”

Probably so. And if this were just another Star Trek B-movie with far less lofty goals—the fanboys would love it, and the rest of the population would ignore it. Same old. Same old.

“Newbies would never have know the difference in design and would also have come.”

What on Earth leads you to believe that??? And more importantly, why would a 14 year old believe that the 23rd Century will look just as the producers of TOS imagined it would 40 years ago?

“I could have lived with flares and faster pacing if the sets provided more a greater TOS experience (to match the uniforms).”

But that’s just it. You were looking for a “TOS experience”. TOS is a 40+ year old television show (which, don’t get me wrong, is by far my absolute favorite). It was a look at one possible future from a 1960’s perspective.

Bad Robot is taking a “fresher” approach to everything that was great about Star Trek’s original vision for Humanity’s future, in an attempt to put the same impression upon my kids and their peers as the Original Series did upon me when I saw it in 1970’s syndication.

I realize that you have enormous difficulty putting the 1960’s production designs in the proper context—-but I don’t know what else to tell you.

TOS=1960’s take on the future

Star Trek (2009)=21st Century take on the future

Just use your imagination! It’s not that hard…Why are you so reliant upon dated production design to help you?

807. ladylarisa1123 - April 16, 2009

Just going to tack on my humble opinion… I definitely enjoyed the review! So looking forward to the movie. Now if I can find somebody to go with me! (My dad?) (I’m 18… none of my friends know about Star Trek at all and would be shocked to know that I love it…)(I mean hey, I need somebody to copare notes with, right?!?)

808. Closettrekker - April 16, 2009

#807—There’s always those of us here at TM to “compare notes with” after you’ve seen it!

809. Doktor Gonzo - April 16, 2009

Aside: I work at MTV Networks, and today am employing every method of begging, pleading and dirty-tricking I know of in an effort to finagle a ticket for next Tuesday’s preview screening at our sister company, Paramount. Wish me luck!

810. Closettrekker - April 16, 2009

#809—-Good luck!

811. pock speared - April 16, 2009

yo closettrekker
thanks for your take on “relics”. ‘could never put my finger on why it disappointed me, but i think the condescending attitude towards a beloved TOS character was the problem. you said it well.

btw, going back over the history of this site, i always thought you were rather opposed to the new film, and strongly.
did i get that wrong or did you shift a bit?

812. Closettrekker - April 17, 2009

#811—No, I’ve been excited about this since day one—being a fan of some of Abrams work on television and a fan of the TOS characters above all else.

I have an issue or two with what I know of the story, but then again, that’s been the case with nearly every ST film I’ve ever seen. Overall, I think we’re in for a treat.

And I’m glad to know that I’m not the only one who felt that way about “Relics”…

813. TrekLover - April 17, 2009

Ok so I read the review, great review. I was very excited and after reading I decided to check a few comments, I was blown away!
Now all im going to do is express my opinion here so try not to be offended…Mainly im focusing on the TOS series.

1. Star Trek was created as Cowboys in Space. It was created to be a fun space adventure based in a science fiction setting. If anyone here has seen a 1960’s cowboy show, you can automatically remember gun fights lasting 20 minutes, intense duels, plenty of action with a damsel in distress. Sure the show sometimes had some philosophical themes or politics with real word that made you think. But usually every episode I watch, kirk’s shirt gets ripped off or he has to seduce some alien to save the crew.

2. Star Trek IS NOT a religion. This is not the bible. You do not need to underline words mentioned in an episode made 40 years ago and expect everything to match up now. It is a fictional universe, based on fictional universe, created by imperfect people! Stop expecting everything to fit! Seriously go back and watch TOS. The first thing I noticed when purchasing the season’s is it really doesn’t matter what order they are watched in. For example, I dont remember the episodes name. I believe its Shore Leave. When mccoy finds alice and the rabbit. Mccoy gets a girlfriend in that episode. Never seen again.

3. Some argue that they would rather a different type of movie be made. From everything I’ve read the show is getting glowing reviews, check rottentomatoes if you don’t believe me. So what your telling me is you would rather have a movie like TMP, or TFF that follows canon but is a bad movie then a movie that sorta follows canon but is a good movie. That makes sense….wait

4. Star Trek is a business enterprise. Created to make money. When the third season of TOS grew sub par the show was canceled because of…wait for it money. After years of reruns the show booted back up again in motion picture form, which I would say barely resembled the original trek and continued on. It progressed and changed, its viewership had changed. By the time nemesis came along its viewership had changed and the show hadn’t, it flopped. We stand at the brink of a new change. Board up or not the show has to change to succeed.

814. nscates - April 17, 2009

Wow… I stay away from trekmovie.com for a couple of days and look what happens, LOL.

For what it’s worth, I come down with the trek-moderates in this (nearly endless) debate, and I am cautiously optimistic. While I don’t necessarily find every element of the production design aesthetically pleasing, it certainly won’t prevent me from enjoying the movie, particularly if the story is well crafted and the characters are well drawn. For me, that was much of the attraction of TOS when I started watching it in the early seventies in re-runs. Sure, there were cringe-worthy moments (Catspaw, anyone?) but when the show was clicking, it was utterly transporting.

I can understand some of the unease some fans feel – even where I don’t share it, I understand. I started watching the show when I was five and it was literally imprinted upon my psyche. Even now, when I watch TOS, there are echoes from my receding childhood that make even Catspaw watchable (albeit barely). When The Motion Picture came out, I remember feeling vaguely disappointed; this didn’t feel like the show I loved, but there was Kirk and McCoy and Spock and even though they acted almost like strangers, the fact that those actors were there inhabiting those roles on a ship called Enterprise, that was enough for me. Things looked different, but there was enough of the stuff I loved about TOS in TMP that I was able to give it a pass.

Now fans are being asked to make a bigger leap and without a crutch. No more familiar faces, voices, backstories. I can appreciate the unease that can bring. I felt a little dubious when I first heard that they were doing this movie (how could they re-cast these roles?). But, as time passed and more details were released, I relaxed.

Think about it this way: there was once a time when none of us had ever seen Star Trek in any form. Then we saw it (in whatever incarnation) and became fans. This is essentially an opportunity to do it all over again, to watch something with no idea whether it will be good or not and become fans… or not.

This doesn’t mean you have to stop caring for the original – quite the contrary. Love it for all the things you’ve always loved it for. Then go out and watch a new movie and, if you think it’s good, then you have TWO things to love. Although it is human nature to cling to the things we hold dear, it’s almost never a good idea, both for us and the object of our affection.

It’s worth pointing out however, that, no matter how good this movie is, it can never be to me what TOS was to me when I was 5. That’s okay and nobody’s fault. I’m a long ways from five and getting further all the time. For those fans who feel threatened by these changes, understand NONE of us are who and what we were when Star Trek made it’s big impression on us. That moment comes once, be glad that it was yours and then turn around and move forward. Life is too short to spend time lamenting what is gone forever, no matter how great it once was.

Oh, and Closet, I totally agree with you on Relics.

815. Craig - April 18, 2009

I’m not sure i this will be read by anyone but I just made a post detailing why I’m upset with this movie and I think its one of the best posts I made on the subject so I thought I’d share it here

I’m a TNG guy, I’m 26 I grew up with TNG and VOY/DS9. I’ve seen all 4 TNG movies at the cinema and own quite alot on VHS and DVD, I remember when I was at school saving my paper round money each week so I could buy the latest Voyager volume so I could see the episode a day or so before TV and without adverts.

Its all I know. Enteprise offended me for the first 3 season because it didn’t feel like it fit into the prime universe such that I stopped watching for a period during season 2 but I returned for season 3 and the excellent season 4 which I felt was the first season to actually try to fit into an almost Prime reality setting, I was soo happy it felt like Star Trek was finally making progress moving forward, ratings were improving and then TATV and cancellation…

Then exciting news that Singer was gonna direct a big budget TNG movie… wait no JJ Abrams is gonna invent another irrelevent reality, recast characters(very few instances in the past have I thought this has been a good idea) and base it arround TOS which personally I have a respect for but never really clicked with me, Kirk was too gung ho much like Archer, for me I much prefer the more cerebral Captains Picard and Janeway.

I know this is not Kirk but his parrell universe brother that goes by the same name, but if that is not going to confuse the “mainstream” audience then I’ll be surprised.

Looking to the future if Fullers new series is set between TUC and Encounter at Farpoint in the pime universe perhaps chronicaling the first Cardasian War then I see potential but I doubt that they’ll take such a risk.

Manny Coto can do no wrong IMO he salvaged a very respectable season from a series I thought was a lost cause and his and Braga’s work on this seasons 24 has been outstanding. Oh and Honerable mention to Odyssey 5 as that was a great show while it lasted. So if he gets to helm a new season I’ll support him.

I’m sorry I seem to have rambled on abit. I find the premise that Star Trek is on its last legs without this movie laughable it just needs to look at what makes it strong and that to me it the rich and detailed universe that it has to draw from, the fact that JJ doesn’t realise this and wishes to make his JJverse makes me sad. I’m willing to compromise if JJ wants his alternate crew then put them in a prime universe setting and I’ll support them but otherwise it makes me sad to say this could be the end of my 20 year relationship with Star Trek.

I won’t be seeing this movie but I’ve preordered Countdown even though I don’t like comics I hope it does TNG the justice that they deserve.

816. Alex Rosenzweig - April 18, 2009

#813 – “So what your telling me is you would rather have a movie like TMP, or TFF that follows canon but is a bad movie then a movie that sorta follows canon but is a good movie. That makes sense….wait”

There’s that either-or again… It’s still a false choice, no matter how many people repeat it.

I want the the third option, a great movie that happens in the continuity of the 5 TV series and first ten films. I don’t at all think that’s unreasonable to ask.

Maybe we’ll get it in ST 2011. I assume it’ll be explicitly set in the same continuity as the one created by ST09, but if it doesn’t dwell on the differences, and is instead a straight-up space adventure with the crew of the Enterprise, it could be something for fans of either continuum, and that would be very welcome.

817. Closettrekker - April 18, 2009

#815—“…it just needs to look at what makes it strong and that to me it the rich and detailed universe that it has to draw from, the fact that JJ doesn’t realise this and wishes to make his JJverse makes me sad.”

JJ Abrams has directed the film. The script was already written when it was handed to him by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (your fellow TNG fans).

It isn’t a “JJ-verse”.

The potential for an alternate timeline being created due to interference with the past has been a canonical element of the Star Trek Universe for over 4 decades. It is the same storytelling universe—-it’s just that some fans are reluctant to recognize that it was never really restricted by such boundaries.

“Kirk was too gung ho much like Archer, for me I much prefer the more cerebral Captains Picard and Janeway.”

Kirk was simply never one-dimensional.

The same hero who defeated Khan in engineering and the Gorn on Cestus III in “personal combat” is also the man who used his words to defeat Nomad.

And let’s not forget that the “Captain” is not the lone hero.

No hero is more “cerebral” than Spock, and I cannot think of any character with more moral courage than the humanist “Bones”, or more ingenuity than Scotty.

If this is it for you and Star Trek—then I am indeed sorry for you. The optimistic vision of a possible future in which Humanity not only survives, but unites to conquer the social ills which plague us today and to explore the final frontier is every bit as relevant today as it was in 1966—-and these (yes, more colorful) characters (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc.) have something to say to this generation as well, if only that the future of our race doesn’t have to be bleak.

Returning Star Trek to its original form—-sexy, adventurous, dramatic, humorous, romantic, etc—-only makes this vision more accessible, instead of embraced only by the “geeks only club” it pandered to in the last 20 or so years. It may not have had to venture into an altered timeline to do this—but if that allows for more endless and less restrictive storytelling for future writers of Trek—so be it. All the better.

The “canon” is intact—as everything we know of it (ENT-NEM) is what leads the Star Trek Universe to this point, and the story in ST09 is therefore dependant upon it.

Everything that happened…happened. It is a part of the course of events which got us here. Absolutely nothing is harmed or damaged.

And who knows? Some of the comics, novels, etc. may embrace the MWI of QM and continue to tell stories within the “Prime” or “original” timeline.

The rest of us can get a new superior budget film, or two, or three—-and maybe a new series down the road with some characters who are familiar, and others who are not.

There are always possibilities—and with an altered timeline in play—those possibilities become endless.

818. MARCO - April 18, 2009

‘not your fathers star trek’…..no it isn’t is it……after three years waiting for this it better be good…..

819. JT - April 18, 2009

This review made my Star Trek pants fit funny.

820. Raphael Salgado - April 19, 2009

FIRST!!!

Sorry, just had to say that.

821. Alex Rosenzweig - April 23, 2009

#817 – “The “canon” is intact—as everything we know of it (ENT-NEM) is what leads the Star Trek Universe to this point, and the story in ST09 is therefore dependant upon it.

Everything that happened…happened. It is a part of the course of events which got us here. Absolutely nothing is harmed or damaged.”

That may be true, or may not. Certainly if the storytelling ceases to continue in the “Prime” continuity (as opposed to tales continuing side-by-side in both), that would qualify as significant harm in my book.

“And who knows? Some of the comics, novels, etc. may embrace the MWI of QM and continue to tell stories within the “Prime” or “original” timeline. ”

One would hope that all the series that currently exist would continue in the “Prime” continuity, and we simply would add a new one, just as each of the previous Treks added to the whole. But this situation is different in that it is the first one to suggest that what happened before can no longer be considered part of the story when dealing in the alternate continuity. And that is a material difference, and not a positive one.

“The rest of us can get a new superior budget film, or two, or three—-”

We could have, if TPTB had chosen it, gotten that in the prime continuity, as well. There’s nothing intrinsic about it that would have prevented that.

“and maybe a new series down the road with some characters who are familiar, and others who are not.”

Sure. the Trek Universe (alternate or prime) is a big place, and there’s lots of room for new series to take us on many journeys.

“There are always possibilities—and with an altered timeline in play—those possibilities become endless.”

They were pretty darn multitudinous without an altered timeline, so, sure, alternate histories would naturally expand that. And as long as it does not come at the cost of continued exploration of the Trek world we already had, I’m okay with that. It’s that qualifier that’s key. :)

#820 – What I can actually say is “Eight hundred and twenty…first!” ;)

822. Bryan Weber - April 24, 2009

I, for one, will not go see this film. I will not support it. The cast is not, as the reviewer suggests, correct. The director has clearly stated that he did not make this film for Trekkies.
If you ignore the critical fan base of a franchise, you KILL the franchise. That lesson should have been learned from the politically correct claptrap that was Voyager.
Sadly, it seems it was not.
This film is a affront to Gene Roddenberry’s vision.

I find myself wishing for something I never thought possible, the death of Star Trek. Because if this movie fails, and I hope very much that it will, no one will ever try again. And if it succeeds, then this bastardized version of Star Trek will forever become the face of the franchise, something that makes me sick to my stomach.

Abrams has it right when he says “This is not your Father’s Star Trek.” It’s a Star Trek that was not marketed to the fans who cared. It was marketed to people who little knew or cared how great Star Trek could be, evidenced by the fact that the press releases were primarily through MTV’s website.

823. Bloons - April 27, 2009

@762 I was aware I was quoting the wrong film at the time I posted it – but it’s my favourite naff line of all the prequels.

Not an attack though, sir, just random musings, chill out.

824. Bloons - April 27, 2009

@798 Closet

” show them a future where Humanity has not only survived—but united to conquer the social ills which plague us today and to explore the final frontier.

That **is** Star Trek, more than anything else you’re talking about. If you don’t think so—then brother, you’ve missed the forest for the trees…”

-DS9?

825. Joe - April 28, 2009

I just saw the preview released tonight on the FX channel. I found it quite humorous, though saddening, to see the message, “THIS IS NOT YOUR FATHERS STAR TREK”

What? As though this is some super Trek or something????? Give me a frigg’n break! OK so they gave this movie the action of Mission Impossible, the CGI of Star Wars I, II, and III, and the character names of The One and ONLY Star Trek! But does this make it “STAR TREK”?

Star Trek is about exploration! Not about action packed battle scenes, or watching a Sulu want-a-be using bogus spin kicks some several thousand feet in the atmosphere! Nor is this a Trek where Spock has to learn to conquer his emotions by bashing a young Kirks face; as though Kirk doesn’t get bashed enough in bars! This isn’t Trek where a young rebel names James T. Kirk drives a classic Corvette, even though he never actually knew how to drive! This isn’t Trek where he’s the first to take the center seat on an Enterprise want-a-be! And it most certainly isn’t a pimp-my-ride star ship with a design that’s way off the weird-o-meter! And let’s not forget about the Lt. Ohura that seems to have no problems getting around. Yes the commercial is certainly right! THIS ISN’T YOUR FATHERS TREK! And I’m proud of that! I’m glad this isn’t “YOUR FATHERS TREK” because anything more is just wishful thinking.

The original Star Trek, to include even the Next Generation films, is about Space Exploration. To seek out new life and new civilizations! To boldly go where no man has gone before.

Yes, I’m very glad that this so called Trek is not like the Trek we knew. For this new movie is nothing more that JJ Abrams Star Wars rejected!

THIS is NOT Star Trek!

826. Joe - April 28, 2009

I also found it quite humorous that JJ Abrams is trying to make a movie without the so called “Geek” qualities. Geez, talk about peer pressure! Since when do mature adults consider any movie to be Geeky? And if I’m not mistake, isn’t is the same knuckle heads that flock to their nearest electronics store to get those I-Pods, Cell Phones, and cell-phones with texting, photos, and Internet? *rolls eyes*

Besides, I’m not sure if anyone else noticed, but has everyone seen JJ? What? Is he like some hunk or something. He’s no Prince Charming you know, especially with those glasses. *Laughs*

I’m certainly no Geek, and I’ve lived a rather dangerous life….of course I’m much older now and raising a family. But God forbid that I would succome to peer pressure, as though I watched a movie based on what the populace likes. Sure I know Paramount relies on peer pressure in order to maximize their profits. But those idiots running Paramount seem to have forgotten that it’s the Trek fans who kept Star Trek alive for a very long time. I suggest letting Star Trek die a good death, and remain a historical legacy as it currently is (thought this movie will destroy that legacy)! At least it wouldn’t be a perversion of Gene’s vision! And that vision was about space exploration, with a little coy boy actions along the way! Not sexual lusts and escapades! What JJ and his team have done is pervert Star Trek!

TWO THUMBS WAY DOWN!

827. Ash McConnell - April 29, 2009

I loved it. If your pride keeps you from seeing it, then more fool you.

Its a film, go and enjoy it.

828. Joseph - April 29, 2009

I’ll see it but I’ll await the DVD rentals. It’ll be at your nearest Block Buster one to two months after it leaves theaters. Then, I’ll add it to my list of DVD’s, and when it happens to arrive (no hurry of course), I’ll watch it. But only after I’ve watched every episode of my DVD collection of Star Trek, REMASTERED edition of course. The Enterprise has never looked better.

I suppose of Paramount would have given the original Star Trek pictures, the graphics would have looked spectacular as well. But, as you can see, we true Trek fans love Trek for it’s stories, explorations, mild comedies, and even romances. And yes, we do like the occasional battle scenes just to see O’ Gal in action. But, the stories is what appealed to me, as well as the life lessons. I could care less what belt Sulu mastered at his Martial Arts courses. I do admit that the little short skirts were cute on the original series. *laughs*

But as for this JJ Abrams film release, I’m in no hurry. Why waste money on such a low visionary?

Joe

829. modo - April 30, 2009

Thanks for your work on this site, I have been checking it often over the past year for updates on the movie.

I also appreciate your careful handling of spoilers in this review.

I hope you take a little break, and would be pleased if you continued to run the site to keep us up to date on the sequel!

830. Kevin - May 5, 2009

I am deeply concerned that this will be the indiana jones 4 of the trek universe. I really hope I am very very wrong.

Any movie named Star Trek is guaranteed to make a killing, that can be a good thing or a bad thing, I hope they don’t kill the legacy of the franchise in their pusuit of a more mainstreem following.

Can’t wait to see the movie!

831. Alicia Norman - May 6, 2009

You know–I really want to see this films but I am a peeved by some of the “screw the fans” kinda sentiments I was seeing on some of the review sites…

I agree with another poster here who stated that trek’s strongest points was its ability to underline human behavior–the good, the bad and the ugly…

I hope that isn’t sacrificed fro the sake of catering to a new crowd…

832. Tim Smith - May 7, 2009

Haven’t seen the movie yet, but encouraged by positive reviews.

The only change I still haven’t come to terms with is what they’ve done with the external look of the starship Enterprise.

IMO they should have updated the interior of the ship, but left the external look almost exactly the same as the original, just more detailed for the big screen.

Think of the Enterprise as being like a very familiar house. The house itself is 50 years old.

On this inside of this familiar house, everything’s been updated. New wallpaper, totally different colours, new curtains, new carpet, new sofa and chairs, new coffee table, new TV with Blu-Ray player, new modern lighting. The kitchen and bathroom have modern appliances.

But the physical size and shape of the rooms are the same as they were 50 years ago. The sofa and chairs are in the same place as they were 50 years ago, the TV is in the same corner, the coffee table is in the same place. The kitchen and bathroom are still in the same rooms as before and have the same layout.

And from the outside, the house looks almost exactly the same as it did 50 years ago – the shape is the same, the bricks are still brick-coloured, the roof is still slate-grey. Only the windows and the guttering are new.

So it’s all changed, it’s all modernised, but yet it’s still obviously the same place.

That’s how I would have approached updating the Enterprise, anyway.

833. Kris - May 7, 2009

Complaints that the ST movie *allegedly* plays fast and loose with Roddenberry canon–get over it. There will be no more movies or TV serieses based on that canon.

Face it. If you are more worried that a ST movie faithfully complies with a hoary set of rules rather than how incredibly successful that movie becomes that AT WORST tightly adheres to the ideals of ST and bends canon somewhat, your priorities are not based on reality.

The last movie and series both tanked. Admit it: Roddenberry’s ST is dead.

Let go of canon. Adapt.

STARK REALITY. J.J. is now the de facto ruler of ST, authority granted by the owner of the franchise, Paramount. His canon is now authoritative.

This is all for the best. Due to J.J.’s efforts, Star Trek is about to enter the annals of mainstream cinema. This is a historic moment for the franchise. Quit nitpicking it to death and judge Star Trek on its own merits.

I’ve been to spoiler sites enough to learn that J.J. brings ALL the ideals of ST to the mass market–optimism, hope, tolerance, striving to exceed one’s boundaries, etc., even if he bends canon a little. So give J.J. a break, let go of your preconceptions, and enjoy the movie.

The bottom line is by bringing ST to the masses, J.J. has saved ST. Now ST COULD LIVE ANOTHER 40 YEARS–OR MORE. Don’t you think that’s worth bending some hoary old rules for the sake of embedding ST in the annals of history?

Evolve or die. Star Trek evolved. What are you going to do?

834. Joseph - May 7, 2009

No, I don’t think that’s worth bending at all! Star Trek isn’t about Nero like characters stabbing people to death! Star Trek isn’t about a pimped out starship with a captain screwing his communication’s officer! Yes Jim Kirk (fictional character) had a history as a ladies man, but he wasn’t some pretty boy dressed in black looking to stick his pecker into everything with hair and with two legs. He was a romantic gentlemen, with a little nasty behind the scenes. But that was always kept hidden from view of the public. It’s called, “Using your imagination” THAT is why Paramount is losing so many customers! No imagination. They keep missing the mark, but come so close, only to rip the truth away from fans. Fantasy is what sells, and I don’t necessarily mean sexual fantasy, although that too has its place and time. Family movies in general is what sells, but this move isn’t for the general family.

Besides, it’s not the characters that bothers fans such as myself. It’s what JJ Abram has done to a beautiful franchise that’s lived its life! Perverting Trek into some galactic battle cry where all the bads guys get blasters pointed at them, is against what Trek is all about; space exploration and making peace with new aliens, and embarking on new adventures to discover new worlds. THAT is what Trek is all about. And if the “Main Stream” has to see a perverted Trek to keep it alive, then I say let it die. Besides, I don’t know what makes people think that the main stream will sustain Trek for 40 more years simply because they’ve added more Wrath of Kahn like action, and more sex than Debbie in Dallas! Most importantly, this Trek will not be sustained simply because they’ve insulted the true Trek fans that should be thanked for keeping a single franchise in American history alive so long. Name a movie other than Star Wars that’s even come close!

There are dozens of action packed films, but how many of them have turned into legends? Hardly any, especially with science fiction films. So considering there is no solid history, or competition of other movies that could match the standards of traditional Trek, what makes people think that creating a main-stream trek will accomplish what’s never been done? What made traditional Trek so popular, and last so long? It’s stories, life lessons, fictional universe which most can only dream of become a reality! That’s what made Trek so successful, and for a very long time. Star Trek enabled us to enjoy our childhood and look up at the stars, wondering and dreaming if life really does exist beyond the ozone layer.

Turning Star Trek into Battle Star Galactica, or Star Wars, will only result in a short term success once the newness dies down, primarily because the main stream will never come to appreciate the dreams inspired by Gene. Star Wars remained successful despite very few episodes. And Why? Because they kept the canon straight, and limited its production. Star Trek, on the other hand, has spawned many spin-offs that ultimately contributed to its declilne, primarily because the budgets were much lower than the grace Paramount provided JJ Abrams. Besides, JJ Abrams has no understanding of Trek, and his inspiration wasn’t Genes inspiration, but more Star Wars inspired. So he feels that by adding more action and sex will help Star Trek live another 40 years. Give me a frigg’n break! Name an adult movie that doesn’t already have that!

Geez, it’s bluntly obvious that Paramount is only looking for quick money (which is all they’ll get), and JJ Abrams needs to avoid Science Fiction. We’ve already seen the disaster he had wit Clover Field, and you all have seen what happened to the LOST episodes; they got too weird and fans of LOST started vanishing. That’s what will happen to JJ’s Trek.

I say, let Trek die good while it can. And if you want to blame anyone for Trek dying, don’t blame the fans. Blame the low budgets, pour graphics, to many spin-offs, a lack of true dedication to Star Trek from Paramount to fans, and finally from my perspective, the destruction of the Enterprise.

Ask any Trek fan that’s been around, and they’ll tell you the same thing I’ve been saying. Star Trek began dying when they destroyed the girl that kept it alive…the USS Enterprise. I didn’t like the design of the Next Generation, but I still enjoyed the shows. And even though my two most favorite designs are TOS Enterprise, and the Motion Picture Enterprise Refit, I do love the Enterprise “E” design. Very sleek, and has some similarities with the motion picture design. But JJ Abrams chose a very poor design.

Finally, their attempts to push Trek fans away with all of these stupid insults was nothing more than a plot to show the main stream that a Trek movie was being made in their honor, and not the Trek fans. With stupid comments like, “This isn’t your Fathers Trek” and “The Enterprise would look stupid on the big screen (comment taken from JJ’s interview)”, and “This wasn’t for fans of Trek, but fans of movies” are all indicative of a plot to turn Trek fans into outcasts in order to attract the so called “Main Populace”.

Screw JJ Abrams film and NO I am not watching it. I can’t stomach or enjoy a series that’s been perverted. He should have tried bringing in the main stream WITHOUT kicking the Trek fans to the curb!

Snow monsters, stripping communications officers, and a pimp-my-ride starship is NOT what I had in mind.

Joe

835. glenn - May 8, 2009

834. Very well said Joseph. Unfortunately, I watched the movie first before reading the reviews. I am very much suprised and shocked with the changes. I agree with you, let the canon die with dignity than be disgraced like this. I’m not watching any more Star Trek movie or series coming from this arc.

836. Joseph - May 8, 2009

Thank you Glenn.

Don’t worry about this blasphemous Trek version by JJ Abrams. I’ve been a Trek fan for a very long time, and I know enough to know for certain, and without a single ounce of doubt, that this movie will not last. The main stream populace, particularly the youth of our time, are not the type of fans that remain dedicated to a story they love, or even science fictional ideals; they only like the thrills, sex, and action. And judging by the lack of success Paramount has had this past decade, this star trek will be a temporary fad, and our beloved Star Trek will remain on top, even though it will have been retired with dignity as it should have been in the first place. And when this Trek has gone the way of the Doe, loyal fans like us will keep watching the old reruns, and the not-so-popular episodes of DS9, Enterprise, and Voyager, will gain more appreciation by the true Trek fans like us, thereby keeping the truth and legend of Trek alive…in honor of Gene’s vision.

Hang in there. Give this movie another week or two and watch the numbers drop sharply. So far the reports I’m hearing is that some of the non-treckies that watched the movie enjoyed the entertainment, but not enough to become die-hard Trek fans. Their plans are failing! *Laughs* As I knew it would. I’ve heard tickets sold out in some states such as California, but not so in the South East. Paramount will never learn. You don’t screw with the fan base!

CHEERS to my fellow loyal Trek fans of the TRUE Star Trek. *Smiles*

Joe

837. You couldn't pronounce it - May 8, 2009

I am a true Original Star Trek Series fan, and I dreaded the release of this film. The trailer showing a young Jim Tiberius Kirk driving a hot rod convinced me it would be a total loss. I admit now, I was wrong. It is a fabulous film, ranking right up there with Wrath of Khan, Star Trek 4, Generations and First Contact. It’s not perfect, but I give it an A minus. The franchise can continue to live on, thanks to this excellent effort.

838. You couldn't pronounce it - May 9, 2009

I want to elaborate a bit on what I said above. A little background. I have seen every Star Trek Original Series Episode dozens of times. Truly great episodes like City on the Edge of Forever, Amok Time, Where No Man has gone before– most of the first and second season episodes– are engraved in my heart for all time. I think the first Season Star Trek– Next Generation, was pretty lousy, but the show became outstanding by the end, and episodes like The Best of Both Worlds rivaled the original series. I’ve seen every episode of every new franchise, and I applaud the creators of “Enterprise”, who did an outstanding job, and suffered the indignity of not being allowed to go a full seven seasons. T’Pol, Archer, and Dr. Phlox were fabulous characters.

Then came the desert. Nothing since “Enterprise.” Did Abrams transmogrify the original show into something unrecognizable to fans? I say to every die hard Star Trek Fan, don’t listen to all the detractors or those who praise the film for it’s “fast-pace” and “action-filled” modern look. Ignore all that, see it and judge for yourself.

My reactions are as follows, and they are personal, but they come from a heart that loves the characters of Spock, Kirk, and McCoy and the ideals of Roddenberry, as put forth in the greatest of the original series of episodes, episodes like Errand of Mercy, Day of the Dove, Menagerie, the Corbomite Maneuver, the Ultimate Computer, Doomsday Machine, the Changeling, Court Martial, Balance of Terror, the Enterprise Incident, Arena, Shore Leave, This Side of Paradise, The Trouble with Tribbles, Charlie X, Who Mourns for Adonis, Catspaw, By Any Other Name, Amok Time, “I, Mudd,” “Mirror, Mirror,” and, What are Little Girls Made Of?

This Reviewer seems to me to be correct. The Star Trek ideals are preserved in Abrams’ film The ideals of the Federation, of a willingness to love and learn about other races, of dedication to heroism and adventures for the good of all, for “infinite diversity in infinite combinations,” are all there.

For myself personally, I will say that Star Trek inspired me to make my own Trek, to various countries: I lived in Latin America, Turkey, Sri Lanka, and China, largely inspired by the ideals of “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations,” and I believe in Star Trek, and in Roddenberry, and what he stands for, his vision for a humanity.

So what’s wrong with Abram’s film.

You might object that young Kirk is too involved in skirt chasing. I might reply he was always like that, and he was not always a gentleman; he was not above using woman for his own purposes, though it was usually in order to save the ship (as in Wink of an Eye and in Catspaw). You might answer, he was no modern day Don Giovanni. But the truth of the matter is, he was young– and that is the whole point. We see him evolve, or at least begin his evolution, from a fairly low level. He was a jerk when he was young, and sometimes continued to be jerk in his 30’s. He grows up. Remember, Kirk and McCoy basically go whoring on Argelius, only we don’t see the details. In “Shore Leave,” McCoy remembers a bar where … well, you know. It’s all implied in the original star trek, which in its day was loved by the very young, the young, and the not so young, precisely because it raised all sorts of issues, including sexuality.

Star Trek was also about breaking the “prude barrier,” as it was defined in the 1960’s. The high, high, high skirt– esp. the uniform that Uhura wore– was far more provocative for TV in those days than was the so-called “stripping” scene of Uhura in Abrams Star Trek. (Remember how Uhura was dressed in Mirror, Mirror.) Let’s get over it. Star Trek is not going to be remade make broken for ever, based on how many layers of clothing the characters wear. Many Star Trek episodes were terribly “shocking” in their day, simply because of the way characters were dressed. (Theodore Weiss’ outfits were a cause celebre in the 60’s. Android women, alien femmes fatales, Mudd’s Women, etc. ) Think of what happened since the Original Series was cancelled. I was quite shocked that people in Picard’s day seemed so Puritanical by comparison with Kirk’s contemporaries (unless they were Betazoids). Janeway was a regular Pilgrim.

So let’s not get bogged down on that issue.

It’s not that significant.

What is significant? Let’s start with McCoy, and I am addressing Star Trek purists. For no other reason than McCoy, Star Trek fans will want to see this movie. The moment McCoy sits down on that transport next to Kirk, and starts discussing the nature of space travel, he had me. That was the essence of McCoy, played as well as DeForest Kelley played him. Not just the accent, not just the intonation, not just the mannerisms, not just the sense of humor, but the very essence of McCoy. And that was true of McCoy throughout the film (though the scenes with Kirk’s hypo-induced malady were exaggerated and ridiculous). One classic moment was when Kirk, upon first meeting Spock, expresses his dislike for the Vulcan, while McCoy says he likes him; in a very, very humorous way, which only the genuine Star Trek fan will appreciate. The entire stratagem which McCoy concocts to get young Kirk on to the bridge of the Enterprise is extremely clever and believable.

The character of Kirk: I think Kirk—the Shatner Kirk– is a bit blustery, cocky and above all: lucky. And this is part and parcel of Kirk’s quintessential nature. He is often wrong, and frequently acting on pure gut instinct, that the only reason he succeeds seems to be his luck. This is true on the original show and in this film. Many people dumping on this film think that Kirk is some god, which he never was and never could be. He is not even as noble or philosophical or as wise as Picard, and we shouldn’t expect him to be anything other than a very brilliant and somewhat superficial adolescent. As he is in this film. What counts is that his instincts for action are exceptional, and he knows how to get the job done (and that he has help from the future Spock, and the confidence of Captain Pike, which is properly explained in the movie). Don’t say the makers of this film don’t care about Star Trek. If they didn’t they would not have take such great care to resurrect the character of Captain Pike, and to make him such an integral part of the plot.

I said the trailer showing the young Kirk going over the cliff was very disappointing. However, when you see Kirk’s behavior later in the film, high up in Vulcan’s atmosphere, and on the Romulan ship, you understand why this scene was filmed. Ultimately (I hate to admit it) the scene worked. I don’t like the hot rod, the bar scenes and the rock music which seems so inappropriate. (Who really thinks that our brand of rock music will prevail centuries from now? I certainly hope not.) But these are minor drawbacks.

Spock. The scenes of Spock’s youth are believable and well done, and they were sufficient to get the point across, as well as consistent with what Amanda tells us in “Journey to Babel.” Spock was teased, and his reactions defined him. Spock is portrayed very effectively in this film, and his initial over reaction to Kirk, (stranding him on Delta Vega) is understandable in light of Spock’s being “emotionally compromised” by the fate of his planet. This Spock is Spock, and it is known and understood that the actor who plays him was coached by Leonard Nimoy. (Add this: My respect for Leonard Nimoy is tremendous, and I don’t think he would be so closely involved with this if he didn’t believe in it. He did put his all into coaching his protégé, and it shows).

When Kirk returns to the Enterprise, and provokes Spock by a trail of insults, we cannot complain that this is “not star trek,” or “not consistent.” On the contrary, this is the same procedure that Kirk would have to employ later in such episodes as “This Side of Paradise,” where Kirk says, “The Vulcan never lived who had an ounce of integrity …. You’re an overgrown jack rabbit, an elf with a hyperactive thyroid.” Our only complaint might be that this has been staged before.

The Spock – Uhura “flirtation” ( I don’t call it a romance or a love affair), is perfectly comprehensible in the context. All Vulcan civilization is stricken by grave loss, emotionalism, genocide, and extreme stress. Uhura is well defined as an emotionally supportive person, and what happens—Oh, my God: Spock and Uhura kiss– doesn’t mean the sky is falling down. It’s just shocking enough to be believable, and just believable enough to push the plot along. Spock has often been attractive to women, and the close relationship between Uhura and Spock is hinted at in Charlie X and in several other original series episodes; likewise, Kirk’s and Uhura’s relationship in the original series has a certain mixture of sexual tension and genuine respect.

Even if Uhura and Spock ,or Uhura and Kirk, had made love in the film, I don’t think there would be much to complain about. They did not make love, so I don’t know what the fuss is about there.

Spock’s emotional nature is well laid out, in the film, with Winona Ryder’s performance as Amanda, and Sarek’s apparently overly warm regard for Spock on the Enterprise is explained by what happened during the rather rocky transport from Vulcan’s surface to the Enterprise. Spock is inconsolable and so is Sarek.

The Spock pinch is appropriately deployed at the right time and in the right circumstance. Any complaints there?

I had my doubts about the mind meld. (Not the one used by Older Spock on Kirk– I thought that was well done and appropriate, both for the sake of the plot, and for characterological purposes. It explains why Kirk and Spock are so close ultimately.) What I had a doubt about was Spock’s using the mind meld on an unconscious Romulan so deftly to garner intelligence. It’s not that I found it unbelievable. I just wonder why Spock never did that before in any movie or television episode. It just seemed odd.

Now, Scotty. I don’t know what to think yet. He was more of a comic prop in this film than the Scotty I knew and loved. Yet, episodes like “By any other Name,” where he gets the Kelvan drunk, just seemed to play to the notion of stereotypical Celt caught up in his love of alcohol. That was comic as well.

I have to tell this little story about seeing the film. As soon as Scotty appeared on the screen, before I knew it was Scotty, a woman behind me (obviously a true Star Trek devotee) cried out, “Scotty.” She was clearly anticipating him. And when, towards the end of the film, Scotty tries to pull them out of the black hole, and cries out “I’m giving her all she’s got,” and other Scotty-esque phrases, this woman behind me went into hysterics. I thought the scene was very funny too, because this hilarious Celt suddenly became the Scotty of Star Trek fame. Even so, he was almost too Scottish (and I say this as someone who lived in Edinburgh for a year), and he reminded me more of comic figures I have seen in many British films, rather than Scotty. Also the jokes about the little creature, and Scotty’s continuously calling him to “get down from there,” struck me as a bit juvenile. But they did not detract from the story for more than a few seconds (We are not talking about disgustingly sweet Ewoks here for what seemed hours on end in Star Wars – 9). The joke about Admiral Archer’s beagle was good, though, but maybe anachronistic.

And this concept of the anachronism gets us to the nub of our whole reaction to the new Star Trek. The essential fact is this: The Star Trek Universe of Abrams is not the Star Trek Universe, though it is similar enough to be of interest. Vulcan has been destroyed. Amanda is dead. There will be no “Amok Time.” Captain Pike has resigned, and will not go to Talos IV. There will be no “Journey to Babel” with Vulcan exercising a decisive vote.

Those of us who have lived through the years of Star Trek, from the 60’s to the present should know by now that there are countless parallel universes, and that the universe that Abrams describes is different.

Star Trek fans don’t complain about Spock with a beard (Mirror, Mirror); they don’t complain about odd behaviors and sexually forward alternate personalities (in the parallel world visited by Deep Space Nine characters), and they don’t reject that notion that there are millions of Enterprises (See Data’s explanation of this fact in the STNG episode, “Parallel’s”, where Worf must contend with seven or eight different universes, and where the barriers between said alternate quantum realities temporarily break down). We are accustomed to different universes, to alternative quantum realities, to time travel variants of realities; and audiences have come along way since the days, when Spock and Scotty discover that if you turn on the warp engines before the intermix is ready, you travel back in time (Naked Time).

Let us accept the fact that there are a million different universes, and the one depicted in Abrams film is just one more. (I refuse to believe the reality depicted in Paradise Syndrome exists, because I hate that episode. Yet I know some Trek fans think that episode is great.)

The time travel conundrums raised by Abrams’ film are complex enough, and challenging enough to make for an interesting sequel (or two). Vulcan is destroyed. I find that appalling. But that is one possibility, that must occur in an infinite multiverse, whether we like it or not.

Chekhov in this Abrams universe is a genius (and therefore, totally unlike the Chekhov who is not the brightest bulb Star Trek the Original Series).

Lt. Uhura knows three Romulan dialects, and why, I wonder? In Hoshi’s day, you had to know many dialects; in Star Trek (TOS) you didn’t have to know languages so well, because the universal translator was standard.

Well, in case you hadn’t figured it out yet, I’ll say it loudly. THIS IS NOT THE SAME UNIVERSE that Roddenberry described, and that shouldn’t be a problem. I think you have to start with that fact, and not be disheartened by it. Roddenberry himself would have been astonished if everyone who tried to make a Star Trek episode of film adhered slavishly to his vision. People are saying, Star Trek should be allowed to die. Perhaps it did die, long ago. (After the second season of Star Trek the Original Series, not after the third season, as some say. Can the “Gamesters of Triskelion” really be said to be a Star Trek Episode? It was worthless! How about “Plato’s Stepchildren?” You can read what Nimoy had to say about acting like neighing horse in such an episode, and the shame it caused him. He knew the show was dead then.)

So let us not complain about this new film which is called “Star Trek.” I am just pleased that some people with some money and film making talent, took something which has been called “Star Trek;” and I am pleased they made a movie interesting enough to watch and talk about with other people who have the ideals of Star Trek in their minds and hearts.

I say, thank you Mr. Abrams. You surpassed half of the Star Trek films (Don’t ever make me watch “Star Trek the Motion picture” again); you surpassed just about every third season episode of the Original Series (Though Day of the Dove, The Enterprise Incident, and Is there in Truth No Beauty, will remain classics in my view); and you surpassed more than half of all the episodes in Star Trek Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise. That was quite a feat. I wasn’t sure that Abrams could do it.

And if you don’t believe he did, see the film. See it in the theatre, where you can fully appreciate the special effects. And if you are a Trek Fan, and you don’t like it, just tear it to pieces, and enjoy tearing it to pieces. I was certainly prepared to do so, but could only find two or three weak points, compared with dozens of positive features which put the film over the top for me. It’s no “Errand of Mercy,” or “City on the Edge of Forever,” or Menagerie. But it will do, and no one can deny it’s about a thousand times better than the “Mark of Gideon,” or “Turnabout Intruder.”

839. Jack - May 9, 2009

It was a great action film, brilliant special effects (as everyone knew it would have), and good action. Wasn’t ground breaking in any way, it was just typical of the standards of sci-fi films we have today. For example, the space cgi reminded me of the cgi they used in Sunshine quite a bit. I also got a bit tired of the camera work at times. It seems like the director forgot what the use of shakey cam, flash lense, and quick cut editing is for, which is primarily action or battle sequences. It got a bit head achy putting up with it during calm scenes. There was a point where Spock, Kirk and Pike were all talking on the bridge, and the camera was going wild for no reason.

As far as Star Trek goes, this film was all about making money rather than pleasing the fans. Of course, it is set in the Star Trek Universe, so you’ll hear the words ‘warp engine’ etc used, and they do toss the obligotory bone to Trekkies every now and then with reference to stuff in the shows, but it was all about appealing to people who enjoy nice looking CGI, wrapped in explosions and lasers. In other words mainstream audiences that will walk out raving about how entertaining it was, maybe later even buying the DVD when it comes out, but won’t go back and watch the old shows, read any of the literature, or embrace Star Trek in any real way. This is mainly because the film doesn’t really care about any that itself. *******************SPOILERS**************Sure, it might have had a tribble, or the suicide prone ‘guy in red’, or Bones ‘loving’ Spock initially which Trek fans will appreciate. But it comprises so much more in return. Blowing up Vulcan? That was pure shock value and meant nothing more to the majority of people in the audience other than ‘That’s sad, Spock and his Mum liked living there’. To me, by destroying that world, they might as well have destroyed Earth while they were at it too. Say goodbye to the infamous Kirk vs Spock fight to the death, along with other episodes, and to the whole Voyager franchise, given that there was a more than good chance that some of Tuvok’s ancestors would be gone, and that he was one of the chief protagonists for the mission on which Voyager was flung to the Delta quandrant. Later the crew said ‘Oh, so we’re in an alternate reality’ and carried on nonplussed, like because they said that, it was a justifiable excuse for the film wrecking anything it wanted. I assumed, that since an alternate reality had been created out of the time line, that the future federation would try and correct it, as they usually do in such severe cases. I would have thought at the very least future Spock would have tried something to save the billions of lives lost both in the present and future. He seemed content to go off and lead the Vulcans somewhere else, distorting the time line even more. It was an ending to the film designed to ‘rejuvenate’ the Star Trek franchise by putting a middle finger up to all the old episodes, which are now obsolete as they might not exist, telling the audience that they are going to wipe the slate and start again clean. I didn’t want them to wipe the slate clean, I liked a lot of things on that slate. That message to a Trekkie is like going into an art gallery, lobbing a fresh white paint over a da Vinci, and telling the curator there that to make it more popular you’re going to repaint it with special 3-D effects. The film has tried to make a name for itself by stomping all over the rest of Star Trek.

When I initially reacted like this I was worried I was being a Trekkie elitist, being separatist as though that’ll make me the bigger fan, but I know a lot of true Trek fans enjoyed this too. For what it’s worth, I enjoyed the film as an action sci-fi blockbuster, but my instincts just don’t let me fit it into the cannon of Star Trek. The only way I can enjoy it is if I separate Star Trek and this new film apart as two completely different things.

If this is what the future of Star Trek is hanging its hat onto, in the hopes of reviving the franchise, then I worry for its future. At best the film will bring a ‘flash in the pan’ effect, seeing a couple of sequels pop off before being gone forever. If they had invested the money into a likeable new series, then I’d be more optimistic about it. Star Trek has always been made through the television series, not the films.

840. Joseph - May 9, 2009

Well said Jack. You have every right to be worried. As I see it now, Star Trek is done. There is no future for it. Perhaps the only way to revive Star Trek is for our generation to die off for about 20 or so years, then start up a completely new series of episodes, with new characters, a new ship, new enemies, ect. Stealing characters from Treks history, but changing their history all-together is just not right. Spider Man wasn’t changed, and it did fantastic. That movie has been rebooted twice, if I’m not mistaken, but they did not go out of their way to re-invent the wheel. They just made it better using modern special effects, which I do not have a problem with.

JJ Abrams should have used the original Enterprise but more detailed for the silver screen. He should also have used the same original series characters. THEN, add more action and CGI than the Trek programs of the past. Doing this would have had sparked love from old to modern Trek fans, while bringing in more non-trek fans in the process. Instead, JJ Abrams used TOS characters, and completely reinvented the wheel. The obvious effect would be to distance this movie from traditional Trek fans, in the hopes of gaining a more general audience. THAT was just stupid, and it’s no wonder why this film isn’t doing too well, at least in my town. There are no sold-out crowds here. *laughs* Some of my work mates are saying they’ll see it when it comes out on DVD, but like me, they are not interested in watching JJ Abrams destroy Star Trek.

Sooner or later, a pirated version will surface, and I might take a gander at it. *laughs* If I am to watch it, it will at least be for free. But I refuse to waste my money on a film directed by JJ Abrams. In fact, I’d say that JJ Abrams should personally buy a ticket for all the Trek fans if he truly wants to make peace with them. But, as his attitude seems to allude towards Trek fans, he could care less about them. But it’s not like we need him. I have my nice stack of DVD’s of the original series, and I’m still enjoying them. I also have the complete collection of Star Trek movies. Thus, I’m quite satisfied with what I have. His movie will never make it on my shelf. NEVER!

Send me a free DVD of your movie JJ, and I just might watch it. Otherwise, your movie means nothing to me.

Joe

841. Legion - May 9, 2009

Early indications are that this movie will be a huge success amongst those who knew nothing of the franchise to the point of calling it “Star Track”, and those hoping for new canon. It may take some a while to accept it, but you will be assimilated.

842. Joseph - May 9, 2009

I doubt that very much. Star Trek is Star Trek, and the so called “Main Populace” may enjoy the movie, but doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll become Trek fans.

Assimilated? NEVER! *laughs* The Next Generation Star Trek has been out for a quite some time, but I still choose the Original Series. I don’t have anything against the Next Generation Star Trek, or DS9, or even Voyager. But the original Star Trek is what does it for me. However, I’ve come to love the Next Generation movies with the New Enterprise “E”, which looks magnificent! Sorry that I can’t say anything positive about JJ Abrams drug ship. That design looks way too weird, and out-of-balance. I’ve seen a few short clips with that design in motion, and certain angles make it look good. But the overall design is just too cheesy. We need either the original Enterprise on the movie screen (More detail of course), the Refit Design (Enterprise Class), or the Enterprise “E”.

I for one would not mind seeing the next Generation crew back on the silver screen.

I will never be taken in…..not when you hate something so much, and especially my love for traditional Star Trek.

Joe

843. Joseph - May 9, 2009

Assimilated? *laughs* NEVER! Not when you hate this movie as much as I do.

Joe

844. sas - May 9, 2009

to all the morons who wrote an essay describing the pro’s and cons…grow up…nobody will read all that crap about a sci-fi!! it aint the declaration of independence …
my two cents…great movie go see it….and critique for urselves..DONT write an essay here or anywhere else..

845. Name? You couldn't pronounce it. - May 10, 2009

I think there are a great many people on here, even Genuine Star Trek Fans, who don’t understand the physics of parallel universes. Nor do they understand the fact that today, many years after Star Trek was first broadcast, the idea of alternative universes is taken very, very seriously by cosmologists and experts in quantum theory at the highest levels of our universities.

Take this quotation from a fan who wrote above, “It was an ending to the film designed to ‘rejuvenate’ the Star Trek franchise by putting a middle finger up to all the old episodes, which are now obsolete as they might not exist, telling the audience that they are going to wipe the slate and start again clean. I didn’t want them to wipe the slate clean, I liked a lot of things on that slate.”

No one is putting up a middle finger. And the slate is not being “wiped clean.”

First, the creation of an alternative reality does not erase the “original” reality. (You don’t have to be a quantum physicist to understand this, but it probably helps to read a little bit about it.) In the episode from Star Trek, Next Generation, called “Parallels,” Data very carefully explained the nature of different universes with different quantum signatures. This idea is not always connected with time travel in science fiction movies, but it was in Abrams’ film. Older Spock tells younger Spock that Kirk suffered under the delusion that if you tell people the wrong thing, you could seriously alter the future. Some people might have missed that, but he was making a very important, which seemed comic in the film; it explains why the mature Spock did not waste any efforts to go back and change the timeline again in order to save Vulcan. (The statement also represents a step forward from old thinking about time travel and temporal paradoxes)

According to one of the most highly favored theories, namely Everett’s Many Worlds Hypothesis (or Multiverse Theory), every Universe that can exist, actually does exist, in parallel with all other realities. Some people argue this is too deep, or might believe, Abrams is too superficial or intent on money making to think about this. It’s not important what Abrams thought, actually. Even Roddenberry did not understand all the implications of every episode.

The people who love Star Trek know that this subject of time travel and morality is the sort of issue that the shows and films raise. People who care about the nature of the universe– and what the latest theories have to say about time, space, and matter– are inspired by Star Trek to go into these issues more deeply. It leads them to think more philosophically and more adventurously.

The fact is, there is one universe in which Vulcan has been destroyed, and there is another universe in which Vulcan has not been destroyed. So all the story lines of the all the old episodes in Star Trek the Original Series are preserved.

Just as in Mirror, Mirror, there is one universe in which the Federation governs, and another in which a ruthless Empire based on terror rules Earth and Vulcan. As we learn in “Parallels,” there are universes in which the Borg killed Picard, universes where the Federation utterly defeated the Borg, and universes where the Borg have totally conquered and assimilated most of humanity, if not all of the Federation. In “Parallels,” the Enterprise crew encounters literally millions of universes, all with very different, or only slightly different circumstances: One with Worf and Troi married, one where they have children, one where Worf does not have Alexander and so on. Worf encounters about seven or eight universes in that episode. So, “the slate” was not “wiped clean,” as some Star Trek fans might fear. Imagine there are seven or eight different slates (or even an infinite number of slates).

And this issue of many, or even unlimited alternative universes, is one of the main issues that not only Star Trek, but many of the better future Science Fiction films and series will explore. There is indeed “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations,” and there is much more in the concept of “Infinity” than most people are willing to understand or even imagine.

Early Star Trek was originally a bit timid about exploring the notion of life from other Galaxies, much less life in other universes. (We at least had Catspaw and “By any other Name,” in the original series).

Picard explored, in a limited fashion, another “universe” – he learned something of the nature of the ‘Q continuum,’ but most people don’t understand what a continuum really is, in either mathematics or cosmology. It represents a kind of Infinity way beyond that known in ordinary space-time, where ordinary objects are only countably infinite, as opposed to uncountably infinite. (Look up “continuum” in your math books, or online, if you are interested more about that distinction. Look up terms like Georg Cantor, aleph, aleph-0 and aleph-1. A “continuum” represents an altogether “higher order” of infinity than we encounter in standard physical existence).

On the whole, the notion that there are not simply other galaxies containing life– but other dimensions, other realities, and even other universes– was only touched occasionally in the Star Trek Series, but Roddenberry and his successors need to be given credit for taking the issue up at all. (Efforts like the “Alternative Factor,” “Mirror, Mirror,” and the Deep Space Nine entry into the parallel, or mirror universe, should be applauded. Special Kudos should go to Star Trek Enterprise’s rather humorous effort to actually create “parallel Star Trek episodes, with “Parallel Enterprise Episode Credits,” an evil Archer, a rebellious good T’Pol, and insidiously iniquitous Hoshi. What is more, “alternative Enterprise” dealt with the rather tricky connection between time travel via interspace (effected by the Tholians), and the nature and destiny of alternative universes. When the Tholians of Archer’s day steal the starship Defiant from Kirk’s time period, they are actually crossing from one universe to another universe and from one time to another).

So this brings us back to the question of what really happened in Abrams Star Trek film. What did Nero really do? And of course, it raises the larger question, what is time travel, and how is it possible, in theory? I mention the TV series Enterprise, for a reason. That was where the journey left off. Star Trek writers are getting the idea that parallel or alternative realities are the way to go. Not only that, but they seem to understand, what today only a handful of serious “hard” science fiction writers are ready to understand and write about. That is, the fact that time travel to the past is really travel to an alternative reality. And travel to an alternative reality is really travel to a version of our reality, which at some point in time diverged from our own. These matters are explained in a number of well written popular physics books, such as Michio Kaku’s “Hyperspace,” and “Parallel Worlds.” It is cutting edge physics, right up there with quantum electrodynamics, string – membrane theory, and debates over the nature of dark energy and dark matter.

Abrams is tackling the issue of time travel/parallel reality (either deliberately, or just casually), as one might do in a film which both entertains and educates at the same time. All the truly great Star Trek episodes both entertain and educate, by exploring psychological, cosmological, microcosmic, temporal, philosophical, and religio-metaphysical issues. Star Trek’s greatness lies in it’s ability to create interesting and admirable characters while at the same time exploring the science fiction boundary problems.

Some people argue that this Abrams movie is just a cheap adventure, with words like “warp engine,” and “phaser” tacked on, just to make it appeal to supposed fans. But most genuine fans will not fall for that. And even if they did, most would realize that a bad movie is just a bad movie, and that there are good Star Trek movies and bad Star Trek movies; good Star Trek episodes and bad Star Trek episodes. Elaan of Troyius will probably not go down in the annals of Star Trek history as one of the great episodes, for reasons we need not go into here. (We can say that words like “Klingons,” “Dilythium Crystals,” “Tolerance,” etc were used as dressing for a poorly conceived plot and bad acting, on the parts of Shatner and Nguyen, who played Elaan. Even a good actor cannot work with such a horrible script).

If people think that nothing of real science fiction interest happens in Abrams movie, then maybe that is just a partial testament to the fact that Star Trek itself (and other Sci Fi films) have made us so familiar with time travel paradoxes, time loops, and alternative realities, that we take them for granted as part and parcel of science fiction. However, putting aside the fact that non-Trek fans won’t shed a tear for the demise of Vulcan, Star Trek fans have to think about it. What does it mean to say that in one universe there is no Vulcan and in another there is? What happens to notions of good and evil, if in one universe you save Vulcan and in another you do not? Does it mean your actions in the universe you live in are inconsequential, because in another universe, a “duplicate” of you is doing the opposite? Or does it mean that the sum total of all the actions of you and all “you’s” are what counts in the vast multiverse? These are questions that have been explored by some science fiction authors, and they are worth exploring in film and on television.

Abrams may or may not bring us up to a much higher level of thinking than he does in this film. Nevertheless, the ground work is there, and if he and his successors go forward, they can elevate us with good humor, entertaining many people, while providing them with bits and pieces of science fact and cosmology, so we might all advance step by step toward a future where the moral, scientific, and social ideals of Roddenberry are brought closer to realization.

846. Joseph - May 10, 2009

I do not agree, but you presented a great argument. Gene Roddenberry’s vision was about a western cowboy space program. Last night, I watch the 40th Anv. of Star Trek, and I broke out in tears as they auctioned off the complete sets used to make the Star Trek films. I’m so against this. That’s just what we need; some rich boy buying up all of Trek’s wonders to sit in their personal living rooms. When I saw a foreign guy purchase the USS Enterprise for roughly $240,000 thousand dollars, I broke out in tears. The Trek items should have been donated to a museum for all to see. It wasn’t the rich boys alone that made Trek a living legend; but all the fans, from the rich boy down to the simple peasant such as myself.

Paramount has destroyed everything Gene created and imagined. Nichelle (Lt. Uhura) explained that Gene was using Trek to send out life lessons. She stated that she confronted Gene on this mystery and he basically looked at her and said, “Shhhhh! Don’t tell anyone!” *laughs*

Star Trek is not about alternate universes, although it does make great entertainment. Star Trek is about seeking out new life, and new civilizations, in the hopes of making new friends to join the Federation. It’s not always about action packed phasers blasting through the shields of a great and tall ship. Yes it happens, but as one Next Generation episode states, “This is a ship of peace! Not War!”

In short, JJ Abrams is trying to turn Star Trek into Star Wars, and it won’t work! And I refuse to accept it, just like James Doohan did when the Next Generation first came out. George T. (Mr. Sulu) admitted last night that when the Next Generation concept was first rumored, the original Trek crew became infuriated with the idea of them being replaced. The only person I can think of that could care less is William Shatner. In fact, I’ll go on record and say that William Shatner is one reason why Star Trek began losing fans. I’m a huge fan of Captain Kirk, but I’m one Star Trek fan that cares very little about William Shatner. I personally don’t care who plays Captain Kirk. In fact, I think James Cawley is doing a fantastic job on his fan-based films, of which I will support to the maximum.

Let Trek end…..there’s nothing wrong with preserving a legend. Don’t let JJ Abrams destroy Star Trek for his own personal agenda, who quite frankly, is not worthy to make a Trek film that he’s never supported, or liked.

Joe

847. Robert Saint John - May 10, 2009

The level of self-delusion amongst the very vocal, very minority so-called “True Star Trek fans” is very sad. It’s a wonderful movie, very much honoring all that’s come before it, and has made so many fans old and new extremely happy. That some would cry and cling to their misconceptions and wish failure to the artists and their fellow fans… well, it’s just so sad. Best of luck to you.

848. Joseph - May 10, 2009

Who’s sad? The only thing I’m saddened about is Paramounts lack of respect for the sets that made Star Trek. The public deserves more than a simple auction to the rich boys. Then again, perhaps I’m just jealous because the original Motion Picture Enterprise isn’t sitting in my living room. *Laughs* So I suppose I’m no different from them except I don’t have the money to purchase any of the Star Trek goodies.

As for JJ Abrams movie not being great, I’ve never stated otherwise. I believe the movie is successful in that it’s filled with action, violence, and sex. My rejection is not its content, but it’s alteration of what stood for more than 40 years. Why wipe Star Trek clean in order to establish another universe? It makes no logical sense at all to even think of doing something like that. And I’m tired of fake fans pretending that JJ Abrams movie honors the Trek of the past…such BS! It does nothing of the sort.

What was wrong with the idea of JJ Abrams beginning another Star Trek, using higher technically advanced ships, systems, and characters? The answer is simple. Stealing from legends in order to use that to his advantage, thereby creating a rebooted version of Trek. Sure reboots have been done before, but Star Trek deserved more than what’s already been done to other movies. Why? Because Star Trek isn’t just another movie, which is what he turned Star Trek into….another action movie for the movie fans, and not the Trek fans. Star Trek is special in that it’s the ONLY franchise to have a universe of its own and survive for 40 years. Not a single movie has accomplished this great and awesome feat.

We’re not as much a minority as you seem to claim. I’ve got dozens of friends who feel as I do. You’re just mad because we nay sayers exist, and we refuse to support a wacky film director who’s had little to no success with anything he’s done. Oh I’ve read about the huge success with Mission Impossible III, but those who claim MO III was a success are out of their minds. That movie sucked horribly. Clover Field was perhaps his very worst film. Besides, because JJ Abrams was never a Star Trek fan, he didn’t care about canon because this film wasn’t for the Canonized Trek fans; it was for the simple minded folks who just want to see a good movie. Apparently, folks like you Robert have no genuine interest in Star Trek. You’re position is merely to support JJ Abrams. I’m not saying anything is wrong with that. I’m simply holding a position that even most of the original crew actors agree, that Star Trek is about life lessons used to communicate a message of the day. Star Trek is also about discovering new life, and new civilizations. But fans like you could care less about that. All you care about is blasters, shields, and photon torpedoes. Fans like you are obsessed with death, blood, and destruction.

Joe

849. Gene - May 10, 2009

Once again it’s was a “futile” attempt from J. J. Abrams getting some people to “role play” a Star Trek adventure then an actual Star Trek movie. They were not even a pale imitation of the original crew. Just cheap copies and one liner quotes used that made the “original crew” memorable. Even some unnecessary foul language used along with some crude behavior. You will even see, look carefully, some elements thrown in from past Star Trek movies. Look at the movie poster, distorted image, sloppily done, no details or quality much less real thought. True J. J. Abrams fashion. Like a spoiled, brat child running to you saying, “Look what I did?” And you run and scramble around to see what was torn up in your house. The neighbors screaming at you about what he did to their dog or car or the yard. You get a clue from his production company, “Bad Robot”. Running around getting into things it should know better.

This movie is full of contradictions like no one’s business as you will see. The Spock you and I know too well would say, “Most distasteful” and the greatest contradiction of all is yet to be discovered if you see this horrible flick. Something from a high school, summer project rushed to get out before the fall semester. It’s full of extremes from the insult side, all in the movie. You can predict from time to time what will happen in this movie. J. J. you suck as a director, adding this movie to your failed lists of projects should be more than enough for you to get a life.

850. motorfingaz - May 11, 2009

Yes the interior of the ship was totally wrong. It seemed like to different worlds in one ship.

851. Jennifer - May 11, 2009

I watched the original Trek with my Sci-Fi loving dad in the 60’s, played name that Trek with my roommate when it went into repeats (when most episodes open on the bridge or the “all purpose planet” it’s tricky to nail it with a few lines of dialogue) the franchises and movies, spin off paperbacks, so for Mother’s Day I told my husband I wanted to go see the movie – by myself.
It was great. Yeah, there are lots of Original Trek (said in hushed and reverant tones) nit pickers out there, but face it Shatner is/was a lousy actor, nice to see a James T Kirk who doesn’t look like he’s declaiming off cue-cards. Not to mention looks good. Uhura and Spock- why not – lots of truely yuck producing fanlit that hooked up Spock and everyone but the admiral’s beagle, so puleeze don’t say it was “out of the canon”. Even the barren “Iowa” landscape (there are no canyons in Iowa, and it’s green, southern CA just doesn’t pass) it true Trek with the same set of boulders standing in for every alien planet – or add a few plastic ferns for the tropic version. My nit – the long black leather coats on the Romulans, when are costume designers going to get over that Matrix look. Not my idea of practical wear for a spaceship littered with projecting points. Not to mention why should an allien race follow 200 BC earth naming conventions, oh yeah, that stupidity was original Trek.
The movie was non-stop thrill ride with lots of great backstory bits. I am waiting impatiently for the sequel, but until then I guess I’ll just have to see this one a few times more.

852. glenn - May 11, 2009

To #845. Name? – as Data would say “INTERESTING!!!”. Come to think of it the ENTERPRISE series would already be on a different timeline because of the BORG spacecraft that was destroyed and left by Picards team. But still I don’t like the idea (as joseph has mentioned) of destroying the canon that withstood for 40 years even though I’m more of the TNG series fan. At least the on ENTERPRISE series, we still get the idea the it will follow “almost” the same timeline with the exception of “In a mirror, darkly”.

853. Joseph - May 11, 2009

Oh, and since Action, lust, and War are the reasons these so called, New Trek Fans are pleased with JJ Abram’s movie, I wonder what they’ll do if they do decide to make a series. Are we to expect that every episode of Star Trek will be action packed, and filled with Sex in The City? Will the fans watch reruns of the same old stuff? More importantly, what will they do when the actions dies down, and JJ Abrams actually decides to make in intelligent film? He’d better be careful because making a film that required imagination, and the mind just might chase them away.

854. Carlo - May 12, 2009

I really loved the new movie. I’m not a hardcore trekie myself but I was able to watch a lot of the tv eps all the way up to deep space 9. Here’s my review of the movie on my blog as well: http://www.waukster.com/jj-abrams-star-trek-rocks/

855. Joseph - May 13, 2009

I’ve decided to watch the movie this coming weekend. Some friends of mine wanted me to go with them, so I decided to attend. We’re basically going to critique the movie, and then list the multiple mistakes this movie has made. Now I understand that this movie is a reboot, but I believe this wasn’t done because JJ Abrams wanted to bring in new fans; I believe he was just too lazy to fit Star Trek into the traditional Canon.

I will say quite confidently that this move by JJ Abrams will never fit into the Hall of Trek. This movie is more odd in that it seeks to create an entirely different universe, with the use of names only. Based on the fan inputs, this Trek doesn’t have the “Trek Feel”. The characters have the original names, and the ship has the name USS Enterprise, but it just doesn’t have the same feel. Me personally, that ship is the ugliest design I’ve ever seen! BUTT UGLY! The Original Enterprise may not look like a “Hot Rod”, but it’s motion was more graceful, and it’s technology was more realistic. The Refit model is the best there is, although I’ve come to love the Enterprise “E”.

JJ Abrams movie not only erases the original series, or the motion picture events, but also the Next Generation programs. All of what we knew about Star Trek has been lost. JJ Abrams should be ashamed of himself. I hope and pray that he comes to a Trek convention near my town. He’ll get a lot of verbal commentary directly from my lips.

Joe

856. Joseph - May 13, 2009

I figured that JJ Abrams was just a Star Wars geek trying to make his own version of Star Wars.

Take a look at this sight:

http://www.observer.com/2009/movies/george-lucas-gonna-sue-somebody-jj-abrams-star-trek-looks-oddly-familiar

Go figure! A geek trying to make a non-geek movie. Oh he added sex, and rock music to make it appealing to drug addicts, and simple minded. But he’s still nothing more than a Star Wars geek. I wonder how many light-sabers exist in his house. *laughs*

JJ Abrams sure doesn’t fool me.

Joe

857. Central Scrutinizer - May 13, 2009

I’m not a “Fanboy” by any means, but am a lifetime lover of the Star Trek Franchise (Some of you will know the difference)

I saw Star Trek this weekend, and yes, I entered the theater very skeptical, especially after reading remarks by JJ that he had never seen the previous films, and wasn’t a fan of the show, etc… For the last year, I’ve tried to avoid reading any of the ‘inside information’, to avoid developing any bias for or against this film… I wanted to go in as truly neutral as I possibly could.

approximate 2 hours and 6 minutes later, I left the auditorium, very very impressed. It’s been said before, and it’ll be said again, this is a movie for both fans, and non fans of the Original Trek, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and the entire franchise. I’m not going to discuss anything ‘specific’ in the movie here, as it’s just too early for everyone to start getting into the deep debates (IMO), plus, I want to see it a few more times so I can catch everything (which by the way, seeing a movie more than once on the big screen is not something I’ve done since “The Empire Strikes Back” in the 80s.. and now I have to drive 60 miles each way just to get to a theater…so, that’s saying something)…

This was just one of the most enjoyable films I’ve seen in years, Trek, or non-Trek.

Of course people are going to nit-pick this apart (the really hardcore fanboys especially), but I for one, give my thanks to JJ Abrams & Company for giving us something that I feel was long needed… a new start, a new beginning, with the promise of bigger and better things to come, taking an Iconic franchise off of life support, and giving it new life!

858. Joseph - May 15, 2009

Greetings “Central Scrutinizer”.

I sort of agree with what you’re saying, but not entirely. I agree that this movie has done far more than any previous movie of the past. On this, we agree. But is this movie good enough to keep them coming?

Star Trek has survived for 40 years without the sex, deep action, and non-stop monster thrillers. The only way to bring in non-trek fans is to give them what they want, and it would have to be in nearly every single episode. Think of the movie Starship Trooper. Action like that is what most non-trek fans enjoy. But how can you build seasonal episodes to satisfy such demands?

JJ Abrams complained that Star Trek had too much “talk” and not enough action. Fine, add the action, but doing so in every episode is next to impossible. And as soon as you take the sex, and thriller action away, down goes your fans.

Logically, one could not expect to bring in new fans based on a movie with Star Trek’s name, yet not have the qualities of Star Trek. This movie sets the bar graph of what future Trek programs must emulate. And if it doesn’t, there goes your fans.

To make it short and simple, Trek will have to be non-intellectual, with less character dailogue and more phaser blasters. Without that, there’s no chance in making permanent main-stream Trek fans. Besides, most of the fans (probably about 90% percent of them) will never attend Star Trek conventions; they’re just in it for the thrills and chills.

Joe

859. Voo Voo - May 15, 2009

I for one thought it sucked. It just didn’t make sense to me. One scene Kirk is a cadet and the next he’s the Capt of the Feds flag ship. Spock is a full Commander and ends up being Kirks 1st officer. None of it followed the original ST clock and I found it way to off center to be good.

Saying that, I did enjoy it for itself. If it was the 1sr ST movie I had ever scene I would have loved it.

Being an old guy who grew up with ST and enjoyed it in its different modes I think they could have done better.

860. Jennifer - May 16, 2009

Joseph, you keep talking about the sex??? Which was about as vanilla tame as you can get – a couple of fully clothed kisses and 2 minutes of 2 girls in undies (you’d think they’d have invented abetter bra by then) showing a lot less than your average prime time TV show. I did watch the original series, and Trek was considered racy in its time with the micro minis, let’s not forget first ever interacial kiss on the tube, Nurse Chapel’s unrequited affliction, and all female guest stars under 30 with T & A hanging out regardless of race/culture. YO, James T. was a horn dog with a babe on every planet. Even as a teen, I could tell he had a serious committment issues, and would have been perfectly happy hanging in the Playboy Mansion, original version. Maybe it happened off screen but it was clear the the swinging 60’s went on in space.

861. Joseph - May 16, 2009

That was one of the largest waste of money spent on a movie ticket! I should have waited for it to come out on DVD.

I saw JJ’s movie out of curiosity. Now I wish I hadn’t. Unlike some Trek fans who claim they suffered pre-anxiety for fear of disappointment, only to find that they enjoyed it, I was the exact opposite.

This movie wasn’t as exciting as some fans claimed it would be. Sure there was action, but the only action I found entertaining was the space dive scene. The rest of the movie flat out sucked.

THE GOOD

1. There was more action than prior treks, but it wasn’t necessary. Some of it was pointless; especially the monster scene.

2. Warp scenes were pretty good, but not enough to make a difference. There was nothing wrong with the warp effects as shown in the Motion Picture, or with Insurrection and Nemesis. So I saw no major improvements here.

3. CGI was pretty good, but again, not needed. The story was too weak for the CGI to make the difference.

That’s about it.

THE BAD

1. Scenes jumped around too much. The movie didn’t make much sense, while at the same time, it was too easy to understand. Obviously, the point was that time had been altered, while still enabling us to see JJ’s version of how the Enterprise Crew comes together.

2. Nero made a poor villain. It felt like I was watching Nemesis with Shinzan of Reemus (spelling).

3. Ending was too speedy, which usually contains the climax of the film. But the end was weak, which required a mere blaster attack of the drill; something that could have been done when the Federation ships first led an attack at the beginning. In all that, a small future ship (owned by future Spock) ends up taking down the Romulan ship by merely disabling the drill. Yet several Federal Star Ships were unable to do so.

4. Transwarp beaming from a very distant planet? Give me a break!

5. The Enterprise design. Even while in motion, this design looked just awful! I saw no beauty, grace, or attraction in this design. I thought perhaps other angles would fix the problem, but all angels looked way out of proportion. Thus, my opinion in this design review still remains unchanged, giving it several thumbs down.

6. Uhura in love with Spock? Geez, what is this? Young Skywalker and Padmay falling in love? Why even bother putting that in the movie? Or was this an attempt to give Uhura a larger part in the movie as she supports a half human Vulcan who witnessed his mothers death. Sure it was a touching scene, but not needed.

7. Weapons were too weak. Photon torpedo’s and Phasers (although none of their ships had phasers) are supposed to be more powerful than nuclear bombs. Yet those things seemed so weak that they would only be good for plastic surgery. And the photon’s traveled so slow that my old Ford Pinto could outrun them. So several thumbs down on th weaponry.

8. Sound effects were too weird. All the pews, pings, and wusssh’s didnt match some of the battle scenes. In fact, watching the battle scenes, and hearing the sounds, made me feel like I was watching Star Wars.

I could list more, but I don’t want the moderator’s to hack me. *laughs* In conclusion, this movie was a huge disappointment. My 7 year old daughter didn’t like it, and my wife hated it all together; then again, she hates all Star Trek. All together, there were only 13 people in the theater after one week of viewing. Most of us (not all) walked away laughing. As we walked out of the theater, I verbally made the comment that this movie was stupid, and some laughed in agreement. This movie does not deserve to be called “Star Trek’. Let’s just call it “J-Trek”.

In conclusion, I liked the graphics, and some of the action scenes. However, the weak story line, the weakness of the enemy Nero, the unnecessary monster scenes (pointless scenes), the fast climax with a weak conclusion of victory, the poor sounds, the absurd scene with Kirk on top of a green teen-bop woman only to have Uhura ruin the day, and finally the weak weaponry and poor design of the Enterprise, all leads me to conclude that this movie was hyped out to be more than what it actually was. I think Star Trek Nemesis beats this movie by a long shot.

Sorry JJ, but I broke my own rule to go see what all the hubub was about. Apparently, it was nothing more than media hype. Nobody in the theater appeared to like the movie. And I know I didn’t…….AT ALL!

If I did have a favorite part, it was the rolling credits. I enjoyed watching the movie end-credits roll as they played the original series music. I do appreciate a small touch of home. I should at least thank him for that.

Joseph

862. Capt. MiXael - May 19, 2009

Film Review : Star Trek (reboot)

I’m an avid fan of Star Trek, I read the books and manuals, I enjoyed the original series as well as Voyager and Enterprise.. I have a collection of all the movies at home.. Last week, I watched the most anticipated film of the summer, a couple of times with friends (Star Trek XI) and I would say that the new Star Trek was indeed a prized treasure amidst of all Star Trek, despite many people especially in the US are saying.. Personally, I love the film because me and my friends (purist or not alike) enjoyed every moment of it, we all agreed that the new Star Trek lives up to the essence of the original Star Trek universe..

I envy Mr. Abrams for the honor that have given to him.. The late Gene Roddenberry maybe favored him personally to entrust his legacy on Mr. Abrams’s hands.. and for that I have nothing to say more about him having the right to re-create what seems to be the greatest sci-fiction adventure in history..

Lets first kick off with the key scenes in the movie that altered the entire star trek story telling.. For me, the most pivotal key scenes in the movie happens during the prologue just before the opening credits is shown.. The incursion of the Narada in the 23rd century, the death of Kirk’s father and the birth of Kirk’s himself, doesn’t happened in the original Star Trek.. This is all transpired all because of Nero and his cold revenge for blood…

Mr. Abrams wanted us to know that technology is indeed can change the course of lives whether in the present or in the future.. Nero, the prime villain the film portrayed by Eric Bana described as mad and childish, have traveled back in time to seek revenge upon all Vulcan (symbolism we should take note because Vulcan stands for logic, purging of emotions, dogmas etc..).. Nero we all know is the Roman Emperor who executed thousand of Christians all because he wanted to stop the Christian doctrine.. I have a theory by the way that Mr. Abrams is somehow Nero in real life.. He wanted to change the course of history of Star Trek not because he wanted revenge but because he wanted to bring justice to it in his own way by destroying what Star Trek purists holds dear, the Star Trek Doctrine, they claimed that somehow shredding Star Trek and made it lurking in the dark these past couple of years.. In the film, Nero wanted to see his enemies to witness how painful it was to lose somehow dear and important to them.. Especially for the old and new Spock.. Kirk on the other hand is the antihero we love.. not because of his brilliance nor bravado but because of his counterpart which is Spock.. The old Spock, young Kirk and Nero defied the law of Star Trek physics in the film which results to major changes..

Minor details are insignificant: the visual effects, the musical score, the engineering bay specifications, Uhura and Spock etc.. What really sucks about this movie are the violation of the temporal prime directive and the prime directive itself and most of all the climax.. Kirk who supposed to be in the bridge of the Enterprise commanding the crew to perform at their best went out to a rescue mission in Narada.. I was blind shot after knowing how short and awful the supposed to be the greatest duel in Star Trek history.. and the escape of the new Enterprise out of the emerging black hole was not very thrilling or miraculous.. I think Mr. Abrams screw up these key scenes.. and ohh I forgot, Earth and Vulcan became an easy target without the defense of its fleet *critical error* I also think screwing the Stardate is really disappointing..

However, the scenes that commemorate its predecessors is great.. the marriage of Spock’s parents, home town of Kirk, Star Fleet Academy, Admiral Archer (though Zefram Cochrane is not mentioned *sucks big time*) Captain Pike all gives respect to the original universe..

I like the cast, hands down to Dr. McCoy, Sulu and Chekov.. I didn’t like the portrayal of Scott, who supposed to be the most senior officer onboard appears to be the most trivial.. Sexy Uhura I like it.. New Spock and Jim Kirk good nonetheless, and to Leonard Nimoy standing ovation.. I cried inside seeing him watching the destruction of Vulcan..

The vision and message were clear: this new Star Trek Universe is going to be much more complex and intriguing than the former.. I remembered the parting words of Nero at near the end of the film saying “I would rather die than accept your pity..” before being executed into oblivion.. This is how proud Mr. Abrams with his Star Trek Universe leaving the new generation (or may be the next director to whether continue the story or not) to start their own five year mission..

863. Joseph - May 19, 2009

In short, JJ Abrams was proud of destroying Star Trek because it was something we (the so called purists) loved, and yet he was never a fan enough to become a purists himself. Yet, I wonder if he would be stupid enough to destroy Star Wars….something he himself claims to be a huge fan of.

I do not see this movie as honoring the legacy of Gene Roddenberry. I think Gene would reject this type of Star Trek all together.

For one, from the original series, to the Next Generation, we’ve seen the Federation culture mature, and advance it’s technology. War was something avoided at all costs. Logic alone suggests that an advance culture can only achieve technical superiority when its culture has achieved a higher standard of morality, commonality, and social acceptance. Thus the saying, “To make oneself better than he/she ever was”.

JJ Abrams, on the other hand, thrives more on conflict in order to pronounce a particular identify of each character. Kirk, for example, based on his view, was an intelligent young kid, although very violent. THAT is absurd because even in our society, most who are highly educated are kind. A society that thrives on violence does not find a way to make himself better. Their lusts and interests are in conflict, whether through war or personal relationships. Look at our adultery and divorce numbers, in conjunction to our decaying society. Notice that our technological gap has also declined. See the connection?

JJ Abrams and his fans thrive on conflict. Thus, his movies do not offer intellectual inspiration for our future. Stark Trek, based on Gene’s vision, offered us life lessons. Star Trek became so much a part of our culture that most (or some) of us yearned for its existence. Who do you think developed cell phones, I-Pods, Computers, microchip technology, etc.? It wasn’t “fans of movies” but geeky geniuses that tried every way possible to make our feeble lives better.

Now, as for entertainment, what one enjoys watching can, but not always, be a direct reflection on his/her life. To those who love watching violence, their lives yearn for its reality. However, I do not propose that a person who enjoys watching violent movies is himself a violent person, but that he/she approves of its characteristics. For instance, old Bruce Lee fans loved him, and tried every way possible to mimic his fighting style.

I reject JJ Abrams attempt to alter Star Trek in every way possible. I object his error in defining the original crew in such a bad way. Uhura was never a person that sleeps around. Kirk was most certainly NOT a genius. Spoke may have had battles with emotions at the beginning, but I reject the other Vulcan children picking on him; that kind of behavior would not have been tolerated.

Most importantly, I FULLY reject his Starship design. How could the Enterprise be so advanced in the Bridge, but yet look like a Beer factory in the Engine room? None of it looked real at all. And what happened to the viewing screen? Since when did the bridge of the Enterprise have a windows as their viewing screen? How can they scan an image several sectors away?

It’s obvious that JJ Abrams was trying to make Star Trek more like Star Wars, and THAT is one of the reasons why I strongly object his final product. Besides, his past movies all failed, and this movie is not the exception. And when all of this blows over, our beloved Trek will remain on top.

Joseph

864. Capt. MiXael - May 20, 2009

Film Review : Star Trek (reboot)
I’m an avid fan of Star Trek, I read the books and manuals, I enjoyed the original series as well as Voyager and Enterprise.. I have a collection of all the movies at home.. Last week, I watched the most anticipated film of the summer, a couple of times with friends (Star Trek XI) and I would say that the new Star Trek was indeed a prized treasure amidst of all Star Trek, despite many people especially in the US are saying.. Personally, I love the film because me and my friends (purist or not alike) enjoyed every moment of it, we all agreed that the new Star Trek lives up to the essence of the original Star Trek universe..
I envy Mr. Abrams for the honor that have given to him.. The late Gene Roddenberry maybe favored him personally to entrust his legacy on Mr. Abrams’s hands.. and for that I have nothing to say more about him having the right to re-create what seems to be the greatest sci-fiction adventure in history..
Lets first kick off with the key scenes in the movie that altered the entire star trek story telling.. For me, the most pivotal key scenes in the movie happens during the prologue just before the opening credits is shown.. The incursion of the Narada in the 23rd century, the death of Kirk’s father and the birth of Kirk’s himself, doesn’t happened in the original Star Trek.. This is all transpired all because of Nero and his cold revenge for blood…
Mr. Abrams wanted us to know that technology is indeed can change the course of lives whether in the present or in the future.. Nero, the prime villain the film portrayed by Eric Bana described as mad and childish, have traveled back in time to seek revenge upon all Vulcan (symbolism we should take note because Vulcan stands for logic, purging of emotions, dogmas etc..).. Nero we all know is the Roman Emperor who executed thousand of Christians all because he wanted to stop the Christian doctrine.. I have a theory by the way that Mr. Abrams is somehow Nero in real life.. He wanted to change the course of history of Star Trek not because he wanted revenge but because he wanted to bring justice to it in his own way by destroying what Star Trek purists holds dear, the Star Trek Doctrine, they claimed that somehow shredding Star Trek and made it lurking in the dark these past couple of years.. In the film, Nero wanted to see his enemies to witness how painful it was to lose somehow dear and important to them.. Especially for the old and new Spock.. Kirk on the other hand is the antihero we love.. not because of his brilliance nor bravado but because of his counterpart which is Spock.. The old Spock, young Kirk and Nero defied the law of Star Trek physics in the film which results to major changes..
Minor details are insignificant: the visual effects, the musical score, the engineering bay specifications, Uhura and Spock etc.. What really sucks about this movie are the violation of the temporal prime directive and the prime directive itself and most of all the climax.. Kirk who supposed to be in the bridge of the Enterprise commanding the crew to perform at their best went out to a rescue mission in Narada.. I was blind shot after knowing how short and awful the supposed to be the greatest duel in Star Trek history.. and the escape of the new Enterprise out of the emerging black hole was not very thrilling or miraculous.. I think Mr. Abrams screw up these key scenes.. and ohh I forgot, Earth and Vulcan became an easy target without the defense of its fleet *critical error* I also think screwing the Stardate is really disappointing..
However, the scenes that commemorate its predecessors is great.. the marriage of Spock’s parents, home town of Kirk, Star Fleet Academy, Admiral Archer (though Zefram Cochrane is not mentioned *sucks big time*) Captain Pike all gives respect to the original universe..
I like the cast, hands down to Dr. McCoy, Sulu and Chekov.. I didn’t like the portrayal of Scott, who supposed to be the most senior officer onboard appears to be the most trivial.. Sexy Uhura I like it.. New Spock and Jim Kirk good nonetheless, and to Leonard Nimoy standing ovation.. I cried inside seeing him watching the destruction of Vulcan..
The vision and message were clear: this new Star Trek Universe is going to be much more complex and intriguing than the former.. I remembered the parting words of Nero at near the end of the film saying “I would rather die than accept your pity..” before being executed into oblivion.. This is how proud Mr. Abrams with his Star Trek Universe leaving the new generation (or may be the next director to whether continue the story or not) to start their own five year mission..
863. Joseph – May 19, 2009
In short, JJ Abrams was proud of destroying Star Trek because it was something we (the so called purists) loved, and yet he was never a fan enough to become a purists himself. Yet, I wonder if he would be stupid enough to destroy Star Wars….something he himself claims to be a huge fan of.
I do not see this movie as honoring the legacy of Gene Roddenberry. I think Gene would reject this type of Star Trek all together.
For one, from the original series, to the Next Generation, we’ve seen the Federation culture mature, and advance it’s technology. War was something avoided at all costs. Logic alone suggests that an advance culture can only achieve technical superiority when its culture has achieved a higher standard of morality, commonality, and social acceptance. Thus the saying, “To make oneself better than he/she ever was”.
JJ Abrams, on the other hand, thrives more on conflict in order to pronounce a particular identify of each character. Kirk, for example, based on his view, was an intelligent young kid, although very violent. THAT is absurd because even in our society, most who are highly educated are kind. A society that thrives on violence does not find a way to make himself better. Their lusts and interests are in conflict, whether through war or personal relationships. Look at our adultery and divorce numbers, in conjunction to our decaying society. Notice that our technological gap has also declined. See the connection?
JJ Abrams and his fans thrive on conflict. Thus, his movies do not offer intellectual inspiration for our future. Stark Trek, based on Gene’s vision, offered us life lessons. Star Trek became so much a part of our culture that most (or some) of us yearned for its existence. Who do you think developed cell phones, I-Pods, Computers, microchip technology, etc.? It wasn’t “fans of movies” but geeky geniuses that tried every way possible to make our feeble lives better.
Now, as for entertainment, what one enjoys watching can, but not always, be a direct reflection on his/her life. To those who love watching violence, their lives yearn for its reality. However, I do not propose that a person who enjoys watching violent movies is himself a violent person, but that he/she approves of its characteristics. For instance, old Bruce Lee fans loved him, and tried every way possible to mimic his fighting style.
I reject JJ Abrams attempt to alter Star Trek in every way possible. I object his error in defining the original crew in such a bad way. Uhura was never a person that sleeps around. Kirk was most certainly NOT a genius. Spoke may have had battles with emotions at the beginning, but I reject the other Vulcan children picking on him; that kind of behavior would not have been tolerated.
Most importantly, I FULLY reject his Starship design. How could the Enterprise be so advanced in the Bridge, but yet look like a Beer factory in the Engine room? None of it looked real at all. And what happened to the viewing screen? Since when did the bridge of the Enterprise have a windows as their viewing screen? How can they scan an image several sectors away?
It’s obvious that JJ Abrams was trying to make Star Trek more like Star Wars, and THAT is one of the reasons why I strongly object his final product. Besides, his past movies all failed, and this movie is not the exception. And when all of this blows over, our beloved Trek will remain on top.
Joseph

@Joseph: Star trek isn’t about Utopia or Avalon.. Gene Roddenberry’s vision of the future I believe personally, is deeply rooted on values and goodness but at the same time thoroughly understanding of human behavior and the physical universe, being at peace to one another.. Star trek universe is not about creating a perfect universe nor absolute good.. yes I believe that the thing to be consider good should be deviated from all defect quoting a classic Latin dictum.. Gene’s ST is somehow close from there.. he is trying to preach somehow, or to share his dream of making our world a better place.. yes, maybe star trek inspires some of our contemporary geniuses, the invention of flip top cellphones, ipod to name just a few, are envisioned insidiously in the early episodes of star treks.. yes I believe that.. Gene’s dream was set to make a difference in the minds of his fans to make our lives better during his time.. JJ Abrams, I believe, is also trying to be the same (you may not agree with me since you’re not open to work) people nowadays are not the same people lived in the 60s, I do not know whether you have personal vendetta about Abrams but your trying to close your mind to what Abrams is trying to present about a world full of violence, sufferings and lost.. Star trek is somewhat the light.. the answer to that.. he didn’t make Nero triumph in the end nor turned Spock to become like him.. instead he presented to us that humans and alike are capable of doing more than what the tradition, instincts or the dogma has inculcated.. this is somehow an experiment to learn from the culture we have today in order to have baseline data.. so im trying to persuade you to keep faith to the decision of many Star trek purist just like you who believes in Abrams work.. he and the cast of the new film deserves more, a series I think would be most appropriate.. then after that judge for yourself if Abrams really killed our beloved girl..

865. joseph - May 20, 2009

[Quote]: Joseph: Star trek isn’t about Utopia or Avalon.. Gene Roddenberry’s vision of the future I believe personally, is deeply rooted on values and goodness but at the same time thoroughly understanding of human behavior and the physical universe, being at peace to one another.. Star trek universe is not about creating a perfect universe nor absolute good.. yes I believe that the thing to be consider good should be deviated from all defect quoting a classic Latin dictum.. Gene’s ST is somehow close from there.. he is trying to preach somehow, or to share his dream of making our world a better place.. yes, maybe star trek inspires some of our contemporary geniuses, the invention of flip top cellphones, ipod to name just a few, are envisioned insidiously in the early episodes of star treks.. yes I believe that.. Gene’s dream was set to make a difference in the minds of his fans to make our lives better during his time.. JJ Abrams, I believe, is also trying to be the same (you may not agree with me since you’re not open to work) people nowadays are not the same people lived in the 60s, I do not know whether you have personal vendetta about Abrams but your trying to close your mind to what Abrams is trying to present about a world full of violence, sufferings and lost.. Star trek is somewhat the light.. the answer to that.. he didn’t make Nero triumph in the end nor turned Spock to become like him.. instead he presented to us that humans and alike are capable of doing more than what the tradition, instincts or the dogma has inculcated.. this is somehow an experiment to learn from the culture we have today in order to have baseline data.. so im trying to persuade you to keep faith to the decision of many Star trek purist just like you who believes in Abrams work.. he and the cast of the new film deserves more, a series I think would be most appropriate.. then after that judge for yourself if Abrams really killed our beloved girl….[End Quote]

I cannot bring myself to have faith in a person who did not, nor does not, respect the fans that held this franchise together for such a long period of time. His goal wasn’t to please anyone in love with Trek, and for obvious reasons. The Trek purists are dying off, and the modern day populace embraces the impurities of a blood bath world, non-casual sex, and violence. I feel that these impurities are a direct reflection on our inability to compete with the rest of the world. History itself shows that a corrupt and immoral society eventually crumbles when other nations gain a technological advantage. [Note: Not referring to a righteous society]

In the past, the good guy was the popular guy. But notice how Darth Vader in Star Wars became the most popular guy. Of course, Nero wasn’t the good guy in JJ Abrams film, but his title as “villain” should have been labeled as a mere trouble maker wishing revenge.

JJ Abrams cannot be a true film director (or series) of Star Trek because he doesn’t love Star Trek for what it was. He has his own agenda in helping Paramount banking more bang for the buck (and I understand of course), so his goal wasn’t to please a dying crowd, but a totally new crowd. It’s this new crowd that I object to. They will never become loyal fans of Star Trek because their interests are in cheap entertainment through violence/conflict. JJ sought to give them what they wanted. And although the initial market looked very well in the beginning, it’s not doing so well after only two weeks of showing. As I predicted, the numbers will begin to decline, and the end result will be a total push-away of the true Trek fans, and a complete passover of the “fans-of-movies” as they look for their next rush/high.

There is only one way I’ll ever watch another JJ Abrams Trek. He’s got to restore the past, and start with a new future. I refuse to watch him bastardize a franchise that lasted so long; especially as if he writes it off as though former Trek as valueless. He should have found a way to keep the existing fans, and that could only be done with a new Star Trek picking up from the Next Generation. It would have worked. But their goal was to use original series characters, and jazz them up for the modern day populace.

Lastly, I will never support his work, his dreams, and his vivid attempt to usurp a dreamed-up monster that he’s trying to turn into the American Icon, just as Godzilla was to Japan. We already have an American monster, and his name is King Kong. We don’t need to retarded looking beast with no purpose (Clover Field / Star Trek).

Joe

866. Joseph - May 20, 2009

I find it quite humorous that websites are posting articles about Trek Fans in an uproar because the new movie is fun to watch. I think they’re flattering themselves a bit. Their idiotic opinion is that Trek fans are numb to action, thrill, and excitement. Get a grip main-stream. This isn’t the Obama campaign! *laughs*

We Trek fans love what you love about movies, but Star Trek wasn’t just another movie for your temporary pleasure. It was a fictional universe we could enjoy as a child, and as an adult.

When you to go football games (assuming you enjoy football), are the folks with painted faces, and freaky hairdo’s retarded, or dorky? No! They’re merely having fun. Trek fans are the same way; they attend conventions dressed in their favorite costume, and to them, it’s fun.

What a lot of us true trek fans are upset about is not the graphics, action, or thrilling moments. [I’ll break it down to your own language to make it simple]

We (Trek Fans) are not happy that mommy left daddy for another guy! Make sense?

JJ Abrams has taken what Trek fans have loved since childhood, and twisted her into a street girl dressed in neon colors, and pink lip-stick in the hopes of attracting more business from the main-stream. Why is this bad for fans? Because nobody in the main-stream likes sleeping with the same girl, or dating the same guy for life; in short, commitment is just a word in the English dictionary, but to you it has no true meaning. We True Fans were committed to Star Trek (as our own), but lately, it has taken away from us. And because Star Trek isn’t something you value as special, it’s just a joke that many of us fans are upset.

JJ Abrams has erased 40 years of our history, in order to start a new history. Fine, some of that is OK. But then again, it’s not. (Breaking it down into your language again). There was nothing wrong with my wife. I loved her just the way she was. But she decided to get boob implants, drop a few dozen pounds, color her hair blond, and now she’s roaming the streets looking for the one-night-stand. Now do you understand why a lot of Trek fans are upset? It has nothing to do with graphics, action, or thrilling scenes. It’s about JJ Abrams and Paramount taking an idea that we loved, from Gene Roddenberry and us, and perverting it’s appearance in order to attract a new type of crowd which we call, “Main Stream” or “One-Night-Stands”. This is bad because the main-stream doesn’t know a thing about commitment. Thus, you will not be able to do what we’ve done for the past 40 years…..keep Star Trek alive even through the thick and thin. More importantly, It wasn’t the fans that caused Star Trek to die. It was Paramount who did it, with low budget films (which we still supported), and minimal production costs. Yet JJ Abrams was given more money than what was provided to produce 4 or 5 previous Trek films. Besides, they purposely killed Star Trek so that they can do what they’re doing to it now.

I hope I was able to communicate this properly. So stop flattering yourselves as though JJ Abrams is doing you a favor by filming a Trek you’ll be committed to. Huh Oh! There goes that “C” word again. *laughs*

Geez!

Joseph

867. Sci-Fi Fan - May 29, 2009

Hello! I just Star Trek last night. Awesome movie!

I did not know that a lot of Star Trek fans are upset about this new movie. Sorry to hear that!

The only thing I can say is, this is a movie, nothing more, nothing less! Like Superman, when they created Smallville, a lot of the story got twisted. However, those stories were twisted for a reason. That is, to make the story more interesting and spontaneous. If they are going to make the same movie, where is the fun in that, if you know everything about it already!

I can relate why many are upset, but this is a movie, not a real life story! My advise to all, just enjoy the movie, and lets all get along! Peace! ;O)

868. danny - June 6, 2009

this movie is so crappy please email me cause i died of boredum in this crappy movie this is the biggest rip off for all star trek fans screw this movie u all suck

869. Jack - June 8, 2009

I was excited to see this movie but wow when I watched it, it turned me into a fan into a non fan. So many things are wrong with this movie.

Most of the origional crew is promoted to ranks which would take years to get. So instead of the crew earning it they were given ranks above other officers who have been in the federation for years and years. The new crew did not earn anything.

The timeline was changed so basically the older movies like the voyage home for example never happened. They were on Vulcan in that movie but Vulcan was destroyed. This planet was an important part of many episodes in the next generation as well but technically they never happened now so all of Star Trek has now been erased and a new time line has started. The Vulcans in Voyager may not have been born so who knows how it will change that and any other things for example.

All the fans of everything Star Trek before this movie, all the stuff they loved and liked has now disappeared. Why would they remove such an important part of history and something that built and helped shape Star Trek.

Uhura and Spoke are lovers, this never happened and seems like a cheap attempt at love, it seems spoke has tons of feelings for everything but in the old shows spock controlled his feelings for the most part.

Technology that will ruin things by making other things obsolete, like for example a transporter that has unlimited range and the technology was available in that old period of time. If this is the case, you don’t need ships for transportation, you don’t need cargo ships, just put your goods on the pad and you can teleport anywhere any distance. You can also go into the Delta quadrant and Gamma so in the future if this time line even happens which it may not because it was changed so much, if Voyager gets stranded, just teleport them back, and if there is a worm hold for deep space 9 it does not have to be used and will not be important because we would already have been there 100 years earlier.

So for erasing and destroying Star Trek and starting new I really don’t like this movie. I used to be a big Star Trek fan but not any more, I gave away my movie collection today because basically when I watch them, technically they never happened in Star Trek history so it’s really useless to watch them.

This movie is great for people who have never watched anything from Star Trek and who know nothing of Star Trek or it’s history. It’s full of special effects and thats about it.

870. Shaggy - June 10, 2009

This movie is the epitome of what is wrong with hollywood. It was saved by the bell in space. Kirk was Zach, Spock was Slater, and Bones was screech. The villains were rejects from a Korn video. Just really bad.

871. PScooter63 - June 23, 2009

Wow, the hate/jealous envy sure is strong in here.

Myself, I’ve been a Trek fan since the early 70s. I grew up on both TOS and the animated series. I was one of the very first people in my city to see TMP on opening day. Loved TNG early on, but hated each movie spun off of it (I found them oddly irritating, but I can’t exactly put my finger on why).

For the first time in a very long while, I regained a sense of wonder and amazement watching this “reboot”. Even if future installments bomb, THIS movie’s acheivements will shine on for me.

(Note also that this film, this past weekend, surpassed ALL the other franchise’s movies to become the highest-grossing Trek in history – accounting for inflation.)

872. Toby - November 2, 2009

Just watched the movie, and was disappointed. Just another forgettable Hollywood action flick.

Far too little character development at the expense of (some pretty fantastic) special effects. Abrams talked about needing to speed up the pace of the movie in relation to the classic TV series, but I think it was a mistake.

Sure, it may be a cash cow, but without memorable characters this movie is anything but a classic. Made for 12 to 15-year-olds, I guess.
In short: a sell-out.

873. Ann - November 18, 2009

I am not a Star Trek follower. I did not even watch as a child but a friend of mine told me that this movie was good and it would help me understand all the hubla for Star Trek. It did just that I loved the movie and now I want more. I will now have to go back and see all the others and the TV show. Loved the child to man thing. Great MOVIE…

874. Lee Stevens - December 23, 2009

This is just old news now but I just saw Start Trek 2009. It was fantastic. The actors were picked to perfection and it was the best Star Trek movie I have seen in a long time. I was grew up with the 60’s version and all through NG and Voyager I was fullfilled. This has got to continue. These caracters and their actor counterparts continue to keep the original Star Trek alive with much better graphics. It was AWSOME. Please make another one with these main actors. It satisfied what I had been missing since the Star Trek series left us. These guys are Kirk and Bone, Mccoy and all the crew; they do justice to great legends.

875. Lee Stevens - December 23, 2009

Sorry I hit the wrong button and put Start Trek instead of Star Trek. I certainly wanted to correct that. It was such a good movie, action packed and well worth the wait. Thanks Mr. Abrams for a wonderful job. Thanks also to all the actors in the film. PERFECT!!

876. billgerat - December 27, 2009

Good movie, except for the continuity. It would have been rather easy to fix the plot so that it matched up with TOS, but Abrams unnecessarily pissed off the old fans for no good reason. I liked the flick, but since it didn’t jibe with TOS history, it really is nothing more than a pretty-fied piece of garbage. You may just as well film a new Superman movie where Kryptonite doesn’t bother him and Lois Lane has the hots for Jimmy Olsen.

877. Jed - January 10, 2010

Awsome film. The best thing about it is that when nero and spock come back in time, their presence necessarily creates a different reality, changing history. Any real Trek fan knows the effects of time travel. Since this story takes place before any other Star Trek story, it essentially negates the entire Star Trek time line that we know, leaving a blank slate to be filled with new stories. The burden / limitation of having to write stories compatible with the old Star Trek time line has been removed. Now the writers can take us wherever we want to go, not just where the old Star Treks will let us go. Since there is now a new time line, may I suggest a new TV series with the cast from the movie.

878. boohoo - March 24, 2010

We should just accept this universe to be the mirror universe of the Terran Empire. It makes all the continuity issues more tolerable:

1) This would explain why ships like the USS Relativity doesn’t show up to fix the timeline. Because it’s the mirror universe and the Federation doesn’t care about what happens there.

2) This would explain why there is no George Samuel Kirk. The mirror Kirk may not have a brother in the Mirror Universe, so he is essentially George, but is named Jim due to the destruction of the USS Kelvin and early death of his father Lt Kirk. It also explains why he is such a trouble maker without conscience, unlike the original Captain Kirk. The Abrams Kirk acts a lot more like Mirror Kirk than the regular Kirk we know from the original series.

4) This would also explain why Uhura and Spock have a relationship. This Mirror Spock doesn’t care about his bond with T’pring and with the destruction of Vulcan she dies anyway.

3) Why does Pike not get court martialed for doing such a poor job defending the planet Vulcan? Because he is an officer of the Terran Empire, not the Federation. They probably to a certain degree don’t care otherwise. Since the Romulan Empire is independent in the Mirror Universe, the issue of defeating a new Romulan Ship is likely a more pressing issue than saving the planet Vulcan.

4) It would also explain why the USS Kelvin looks so weird. The design of the Kelvin that we see on screen was influenced by the appearance of the Constitution class USS Defiant, which appeared in Tholian space during the time of Captain Archer of the Terran Empire. This advanced ship showing up earlier in the Mirror Universe influences the design of USS Kelvin that we see in the Abrams film.

It will be cake for writers to retcon this version of Star Trek in the future. If the Tholians could open a gateway into the future of an alternate universe and capture a more advanced constitution class ship, then the Red stuff that Spock was using could do the same thing into the past. In fact this timeline could also be an attempt by the Terran Slave resistance to keep the Terran Empire from losing power to the Alliance, by maniputating the time line in the Mirror Universe.

879. Air Jordan 7 - March 30, 2011

I assume from your blog all the time and I honest trifle I’d state mind up the decorous charge!

880. Charlie Hettrick - February 20, 2012

At 64 years of age, I’m obviously a “trekkie” from way back. I liked the movie for the most part. I thought it was enjoyable and entertaining. There were, of course, a few anolamies that I noticed from the original “Star Trek” TV series. The most obvious thing that stuck out to me was that the bridge of this “Enterprise” was way more high tech looking than the original TV series “Enterprise” bridge. It seems to me that for continuity purposes, they should have found a way to make this “Enterprise” bridge look more like the one in the original TV series. After all, it WAS the first “Enterprise NCC-1701″ that was made. But then, who but an original “trekkie” would even know this. Just because we have all this nice new CGI technology, doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t be over used. But then I suppose I’m more of a purist when it comes to details like that. The next thing I noticed was that in this movie, Spock’s mother dies. In the TV series, Spock’s mother is played by Jane Wyatt, who appears in several episodes, and is very much alive and well. But I suppose that this can be explained away by the idea that the time portal created by the black hole that Nero’s and Spock’s ships pass through when the Red matter creates the black hole, creates an alternate reality—one in which Spock’s mother does die. An alternate reality is discussed. But it is somewhat unclear, if this is supposed to be like a prequel to the TV series, how Spock’s mother dies in this movie but is alive for the original TV series, which would be next on the time line of movies and TV shows. Finally, I noticed that Zoe Saldana, cast as “Uhura”, was not as shapely as Nichelle Nichols who played the original “Uhura”. But then too, probably no one but an original male “trekkie” would notice this detail. No offense to Ms. Saldana, she is gorgeous. But again, it’s a matter of continuity. I’m sure that there are other gorgeous African-American actresses who have a shape more similar to Nichelle Nichols. After all, the casting department made very believable choices for the other cast members of this film.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.