More Dragon Con Video: Nimoy, Shatner, Stewart, Phase II, Guest Stars + more | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

More Dragon Con Video: Nimoy, Shatner, Stewart, Phase II, Guest Stars + more September 10, 2009

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Celebrity,Conventions/Events/Attractions,DS9,ENT,TNG,TOS,VOY , trackback

More video is now available from last weekend’s Dragon*Con in Atlanta. Below is much more showing Patrick Stewarts two appearances, plus an additional appearance from Leonard Nimoy, full video of the Phase II panel, clips from the Trek ‘guest stars panel’, an interview with William Shatner and also video of Trekkies in the big parade.

 
 

Patrick Stewart
While at Dragon*Con Star Trek The Next Generation’s Patrick Stewart attended two plans, including one with Phase II’s James Cawley. The below collection of videos includes portions from both panels, including Stewart talking about his favorite TNG scenes, what he would have done different, what he thought was foolish about TNG, Nimoy and Shatner, working on Family Guy and much more. 

More Nimoy
In addition to his joint appearance with William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy also did a solo panel, here is almost all of the video from that in multiple parts. There is very little talk of Star Trek in the video, with a bit on directing STIII & STIV. The rest covers his photography, other directing and acting work (including Fringe). At the end William Shatner drops by for the final minute.

Star Trek Phase II Panel
Full video of panel with James Cawley, Gil Gerard and others associated with the fan film.

Guest Stars
Four part video from Star Trek guest stars panel with Louise Fletcher (DS9: Kai Winn), Bonita Friedericy (ENT: scientist/Borg Drone), Richard Herd (VOY: Admiral Owen Paris), Alan Ruck (ST GEN: Capt. Harriman), Dwight Schultz (TNG: Reginald Barclay), and Kate Vernon (VOY: Cmdr Valerie Archer).

Shatner Interview
Interview at Dragon*Con with BigFanBoy.com, talking about his latest projects.

Parade Trekkies
One of the highlights of Dragon*Con every year is the parade. Here is a segment showing off some of the Trekkies.


Thanks for the YoutTube uploads to Jane Saubert of WhatJaneSays and kakopo71, EclecticMuse4, mclordhelmet, flowbee4, and cloudyvisions.
 

Comments

1. Mocker - September 11, 2009

what an amazing parade…..so many cars.

bwa ha ha ha harrr.

2. CmdrR - September 11, 2009

Great time at the Con! Great seeing Patrick and Kate, as well as the actors in the Walk of Fame.

(Seriously, though. They need to call in an outside company to handle the organizational factors on the ground. It was a MESS.)

3. Spockish - September 11, 2009

A Trek Convention with outside World (public contact), a Jock would say that’s not possible I thought they all hid in their mothers basements. Now back to reality. It’s nice to see something in the public, besides a movie premier. Could it be that Star Trek is becoming a Social Happening Event, which means it could be becoming main stream.

I bet the Jock groupies are starting to worry, who are we going to pick on now, first the Geeks, the the Thespians, now the Pointy Eared Trekkie’s, about all that’s left is the Grunge in the Slums. Another Jock says, and those that have cell phones as a music toon starts playing in rigning pulses in his pocket.

4. Spockish - September 11, 2009

Do we need a poll to find out how many Trekkies/ers have been made fun of because they like Star Trek.

5. Andy Patterson - September 11, 2009

Bigfanboy is in Plano? Huh. Just down the road. Cool you got to interview him.

6. Jim Cude - September 11, 2009

Love Patrick but um what is he doing with his arm the whole time…

7. The Weary Professor - September 11, 2009

It took a bit of time to watch all of the above video panels, but it was a slow afternoon anyway.

It was a bit of surprise to hear the usually circumspect James Cawley criticizing the new Trek movie in public. He has some of the same complaints I had about it and I admire him for stating them before a potentially unreceptive audience.

I was also a bit surprised at Cawley’s public casting of the Dragoncon panel moderator as Harry Mudd in Phase II. Does he always cast so intuitively? If so, perhaps he’s looking to cast Mudd’s wife Stella at a turnpike rest stop on the way home.

Having recently reread Leonard Nimoy’s 1976 book I Am Not Spock, it gratifies me to see he accomplished the life goals he set out in print all those years ago–to delve deeper into photography and to become a director. The more I hear the man speak seriously, the more I respect and admire him. I wish the same were true for William Shatner, who seems to very rarely let his guard down and seriously speak his mind.

8. Al Hartman - September 11, 2009

Great Phase II panel! Wish I could have been there.

Everyone on the dais are incredible folk. They all make the show what it is.

Vic Mignogna was incredible as a director and took the acting to a new level.

I got to meet Gil on the last day of the Kitumba shoot. I watched James and Patty make his uniform, and he looked great in it!

I chatted with Gil for a few minutes before I left on the last day. He is so much like his portayal of Buck Rodgers in real life. Gil is kind, personable, warm and funny.

I didn’t stay to see the scenes he filmed, but I hear they are wonderful.

I’m looking forward to seeing Kitumba released.

9. Iowagirl - September 11, 2009

Nice videos, thanks.

And Bigfanboy seems to be really fond of Shatner…:)

10. AJ - September 11, 2009

At DragonCon, Patrick Stewart said he and the cast were “in awe” at having met Leonard Nimoy during the filiming of “Unification.”

Yet, when asked in New Jersey what it was like to meet the cast of TNG during “Unification,” Nimoy said he only had limited contact with Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner during their short scenes together.

The truth must be somewhere in the middle!

11. James Cawley - September 12, 2009

#7 – I cast Mr. Watts as he is an accomplished actor and comedian.
I have known him for 5 years and I chose that moment at Dragon Con to ask him, because it was the perfect venue to do so, it was a way to share with the audience of Trek fans who know Mr. Watts for his 17 years as moderator of Trek trek. Erik is one of Star Trek’s biggest fans and does an amazing job hosting the con each year. If you have ever seem him host, you would understand my decision.
James Cawley

12. The Weary Professor - September 12, 2009

11: Thanks for the reply, James. I’m sure you had a good reason for your casting choice, I based my comment on your remark that you had the script for almost three years and didn’t know who would be cast until that weekend.

Keep up the good work on Phase II and, considering my hairline, if you ever need someone to play the Balok puppet just let me know.

13. James Cawley - September 12, 2009

Thanks Professor. Actually, the script has been problematic as I wanted someone who could really capture Roger Carmel. I know Eric can do just that.
After several years of seeing in action, I am more convinced than ever.
James

14. OtterVomit - September 12, 2009

Star Trek lives, and we have Phase II to thank!

15. VERG - September 12, 2009

What OtterVomit said. Good work PII. Love VERG.

(still hate my guts James?)

16. Michael Hall - September 12, 2009

My admiration for Jim Cawley is, if anything, even greater after watching this video. After reporting with great enthusiasm of his kind treatment by J.J. Abrams and the excitment even a skeptical fan would feel at finding oneself cast as an extra on the Trek ’09 film set, Cawley was the envy of many (and considered a sellout by some). But in the end his integrity and love for Trek compel him to speak the truth: despite a lavish budget and a fine cast the film disappoints because, as Cawley observes, the story is simply terrible. However “fun” the experience of watching Trek ’09 may be, in the end it doesn’t leave you with nearly as much to chew on as an old TV show from the Sixties produced on a fraction of the budget, let alone a fan series done on next to nothing. And that’s a damn shame.

17. Julio - September 12, 2009

Wow… that Phase II video looks great! Can’t wait to see it… Cawley’s productions to me are the TRUE successors to TOS.

18. Iowagirl - September 12, 2009

#16
– However “fun” the experience of watching Trek ‘09 may be, in the end it doesn’t leave you with nearly as much to chew on as an old TV show from the Sixties produced on a fraction of the budget, let alone a fan series done on next to nothing. –

Well said.

19. Shatner_Fan_Prime - September 13, 2009

#16 “as Cawley observes, the story is simply terrible. However ‘fun’ the experience of watching Trek ‘09 may be, in the end it doesn’t leave you with nearly as much to chew on as an old TV show from the Sixties produced on a fraction of the budget, let alone a fan series done on next to nothing. And that’s a damn shame.”

As McCoy would say, “bull.” First, the story is not terrible. Second, how can a 2 hour movie be expected to give you “as much to chew on” as 80 episodes of a tv series? Such an expectation is a little unfair, don’t you think? I guarantee you that if the men behind LOST were producing a weekly, TOS-era Trek tv series today, it would give us PLENTY to chew on. Third, there are those (the majority, actually) who just can’t get into fan films. I don’t care how faithful they are. With their distractingly cheap look and embarrassing acting, I just don’t care for them. I like Official product. When it’s done well. And ST 09 is. I tuned out during a lot of the Berman-era pablum, but ST 09 IS Star Trek the way Gene Roddenberry might have made it if he were a young man starting out today. His widow and son, with their enthusiasm for the new movie, have agreed.

I love TOS as much as anyone. It will always be my favorite. But I don’t live in the past. A few fanatics slavishly recreating TOS on the internet does no one any good, except those few fanatics. You can keep that stuff. Me, I’ll be first in the long line during Trek’s 45th Anniversary, celebrating the release of “Star Trek 2!”

20. Shatner_Fan_Prime - September 13, 2009

p.s. As for Cawley calling the ST 09 story “terrible,” which he did, where does he get off? He claims there are “plenty of new stories to be told?” LOL. Is that why in everything he makes, he relies on some gimmick from the past, like Koenig, Takei, unfilmed Phase II scripts, etc? If there truly are new stories to tell, he certainly hasn’t shown me that. What JJ & crew did – taking Gene’s ideas and updating them for the 21st Century – required real effort. Cawley is just mimicking.

And my God, people were laughing at Cawley’s acting during the clip above! I’m sorry, but Pine Kirk vs. Cawley Kirk = no contest!

21. ger - September 13, 2009

Nice, Shatner_Fan_Prime bashing Cawley. When I bashed Orci, because his script simply sucks…

22. ger - September 13, 2009

Wondering what Mr. Cawley thinks of Pine’s interpretation of Kirk in the Kobayashi Maru scene of the new movie. I think it was one of the worst part of the movie.

First I think they actually got the entire point of the scenario wrong. It’s not about causing fear in the cadets, it’s about studying the cadet’s individual reaction to a no-win-situation (will they abandon the ship, will they self destruct, will they sacrifice other crewmembers to save the ship, etc…). Which is why Kirk got a commendation for original thinking by changing the program. It was INTENDED that cadets come up with creative ways to solve the problem. And as Kirk said, his solution “had the virtue of having never been tried.”
There’s a novel that did indeed get that point. But Orci & Kurtzman didn’t, lol.

And then the general impression I got from Kirk over the years… none of that is in the new movie. I think had they written that scene twenty years ago, the character would have reacted entirely differently, and Shatner would have acted much better in that scene.

23. Hat Rick - September 13, 2009

What the blazes is going on with this sudden revisionism of ST09?

All of a sudden we have criticism of ST09 for “not having a good story,” or some such thing?

Are we, as fans of Trek, are own worst enemies?

It’s one thing to be constructively critical. It’s another to say things that the worst enemy of Trek would heartily applaud.

I don’t have anything against James Cawley, but I wish he would reconsider his comments, if indeed he said them.

24. Hat Rick - September 13, 2009

Let me go further. I challenge Mr. Cawley to point out exactly why the story in ST09 was bad. It was INTENDED to be an origins story, and an origins story it was.

It deftly blended traditional SF tropes (time travel, etc.) with character development. And it was a HELLA lot of fun.

So please — what, exactly, was bad about it?

I realize that we can all nitpick about various details (ship size, the Kobayashi Maru scene, etc.). But the STORY??

25. Hat Rick - September 13, 2009

Spelling error alert: I said, “Are we, as fans of Trek, are own worst enemies?”

Make that: “Are we, as fans of Trek, our own worst enemies?”

26. ger - September 13, 2009

Oh, lol, another one feeling offended by an opinion about the movie.

“All of a sudden we have criticism of ST09 for “not having a good story,” or some such thing?”

All of a sudden? Dude, people have been saying this since the movie came out.

27. OtterVomit - September 13, 2009

I said long ago that I would like to see what Cawley could have done if given this cast and budget. Watching him speak on that panel only solidified my confidence that he wold have hit the film out of the park if given the chance (barring some inept script interference from Paramount).

I found Cawley’s statements about ST09 to both be both accurate and politely said (not easy to do when discussing the deficiencies of something you love, and Cawley clearly LOVES Star Trek). I was very impressed with Cawley’s character in this video. There are a number of question and answer segments. Cawley did not receive many questions about ST09 that mentioned the film positively. It is difficult to put a positive spin on a negative question, especially when you agree with the negative aspects of the question, but Cawley did exactly that. Cawley eventually asked the crowd to stop asking ST09 questions as he did not want the panel to turn into a ST09 panel/bash-fest. Given that he was addressing a crowd that did not like the film and he could have easily said something such as “Yeah, I agree it blows” (and would probably have received high applause for it) I think he did very well to answer the question of how he felt about the film, without going as far as “bashing” it. He was very complimentary to JJ Abrams and the entire cast of the film, and said that ST09 appeals to a different sort of crowd, and that is fine as it falls in line with Gene’s vision. He also complimented the film for bringing interest back to TOS.

28. Hat Rick - September 13, 2009

You’d think from some of these comments that it’s easy to make films that earn hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t begrudge James Cawley his criticism, but I would very much like details as to what would have been both interesting AND saleable. Remember that before ST09, ST was considered a dead franchise.

It seems from some of these negative comments that nothing can actually fulfill the unrealistic expectations that some express.

If the comments had been more along the lines of saying that the next movie should delve into other aspects of what made Trek great, I wouldn’t feel this way about them. But to criticize the story without really giving an alternative when such opportunity presents itself, I think, is a bit questionable.

29. IHeartAngelina - September 13, 2009

The marketing campaign was so agressive that you could have shown any movie, it would still have been very successful. It was fascinating to witness how media and audience where manipulated into believing this was the most perfect film ever created and that a TOS reboot, that THIS reboot, was the ONLY way of “saving” Star Trek. To the point where this movie is represented as an absolute by its makers. Couldn’t have been done ANY different, no, no, it was the ONLY way. And most of the new film’s fanboys here are like “You SUCK for not liking this movie!” They are talking of this movie being a great gift and the true fans need to be thankful to Abrams for allowing them to see this magical, wondrous, amazing… thing that he lensflared onto the big screen, and stuff like that.
Every review I’ve read made me ask “Did we even see the same movie?” People are running ten times into this movie like crazy. Glaring mistakes and outright stupidity that they would have bitched about in any other movie and in any other Trek incarnation is now completely ignored, and sometimes cited as being the best thing ever happening since the invention of the wheel or something. I had many wall-bashing discussions about the quality of the movie, with lovers/defenders of the new movie, and the writer of the script himself, to the point where I have been asking myself “Why? What’s going on with those people? What has happened to the world?” People are totally OVERREACTING to this movie, I have never seen such a thing like that before. Not for Titanic, not for The Dark Knight, not for Big Mama’s Apple Pie. It’s like people were so unbelievably desperate to see a new Trek movie that they would have eaten anything, but at the same time they don’t admit that, instead they also present this movie as being the perfect absolute that couldn’t have been done any different.

And people like Cawley, who openly say they didn’t like the story and that it could have been better, despite having been offered a priceless cameo that every fanboy would have killed for, are criticized, and “challenged”! Challenged! LOL! Do you even listen to yourselves?

30. Hat Rick - September 13, 2009

So while people who like the movie are expected to accept criticism, people who criticize the movie, on the other hand, are beyond challenge?

Uh, how’s that again?

31. Hat Rick - September 13, 2009

Also, let’s look at the record. Every Trek movie starting with ST VI has had a decreasing box office take when adjusted for inflation, except for ST:FC and this one. Further, in adjusted dollars, no Trek movie — not even ST IV — has come close to the box office for the first Trek movie, save ST09.

I would like to know on what basis it may be said that there were better stories out there that could have been made that would have been as saleable. Asking for this basis when the historical record has been so frail is hardly demanding the unreasonable.

32. tony - September 13, 2009

mr nimoy is a fastinating man would love to be able to sit and talk to him

33. Michael Hall - September 13, 2009

“. . .how can a 2 hour movie be expected to give you “as much to chew on” as 80 episodes of a tv series? Such an expectation is a little unfair, don’t you think?”

Well, what can I say, Shatner_Fan_Prime? Ya got me. In the words of a former Science Officer, “Poor choice of words on my part.”

What I should have said is something like this: “The typical episode of a late Sixties space opera produced on a relative shoestring, and a fan series done on next to nothing, offer more genuine wit and imagination than this year’s $150 million megapalooza extravaganza, in spite of its having all the advantages of a great cast, the best visual FX artists in the business, and a gifted director. All because of lazy, predictable storytelling. And that’s a damned shame.”

Better?

34. Hat Rick - September 13, 2009

33, how do you think that any of the fan series would do if released as a major motion picture?

35. IHeartAngelina - September 14, 2009

“34. Hat Rick – September 13, 2009
33, how do you think that any of the fan series would do if released as a major motion picture?

A ridiculous question. Phase 2 released as it is would bomb.

Then real question to ask is how the creators of those fan series would do when given that budget and possibilities to make a Star Trek movie.

36. The Weary Professor - September 14, 2009

This thread has oddly evolved into one alternately praising and bashing James Cawley and his Phase II or Star Trek 2009.

Cawley is a prolific and amazingly talented fan of the classic iteration of Star Trek. He has utilized his own time, finances and know-how to rebuild and continue the original series, an effort that has garnered respect from D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold, Walter Koenig, George Takei and various others from the original show. Arguably the acting or characterizations may have weak moments, but the overall achievement is magnificent. That we can even mention Cawley’s fan effort in the same breath as classic Trek or the 2009 movie is testament to its quality.

Having said that, comparing his modestly-budgeted labor of love to the scope of a $100 million plus Hollywood production is unfair. I am among those who would argue that given the same budget and production resources Cawley could likely produce work of similar or better quality in terms of its adherence to the tone and vision of classic Trek. Until that happens, I suggest we respect each production for what it is.

As a fan, Cawley is entitled to his opinion on anything Trek-related. As I said in a previous post, I admire him for voicing his position before a potentially hostile audience. I agree with his position, but that has nothing to do with his right–with any fan’s right–to voice it.

37. Michael Hall - September 14, 2009

“33, how do you think that any of the fan series would do if released as a major motion picture?”

Not too well, if I would judge by the sparsely-attended showing of “The Menagerie” on the big screen I saw last year. Which doesn’t prevent TOS’ only two-part episode from being, in my opinion, still the best Trek movie ever made–light years beyond the Abrams film in terms of acting, believability, imaginative scope (as opposed to the sort only money will buy you), and overall impact. If there’s a moment in Trek ’09 that compares to “The Menagerie’s” exhilarating finale–where the crippled Captain Pike is liberated from the prison of his ruined body, if only in his own mind–I surely must have missed it.

Look, my snarky quotation marks around the word notwithstanding, I freely acknowledge that Trek ’09 is a fun experience. Yes, there’s a reason that it grossed almost half a billion dollars worldwide. And though I’m facing my 51st birthday this coming Friday, I like to think that I’m not bound by the past. My dissatisfaction with the Abrams film has nothing to do with its lack of plywood sets and half-buried marbles, soft lighting on the female cast members, and cylindrical warp engines. Unlike Jim Cawley, I in no way consider TOS to be “perfect”–not even in its first season, when it was clearly at its best. But the show was–at least, initially–a network’s first serious attempt to do an adult level space opera with at least something approaching the storytelling level of written fiction of the ’40s. Far from duplicating TOS, Trek ’09 should have bettered it, made it more sophisticated, not less. But rather than challenge their audience, the filmmakers chose instead to pander and have their fun in the guise of making their product more “accessible” to a mainstream audience. Well, it’s paid off for them, and handsomely at that. But since we don’t own stock in Paramount and were only interested in seeing the best TOS-revivial film possible, in retrospect it was probably inevitable that folks like Cawley and myself would come away disappointed. :-(

38. The Weary Professor - September 14, 2009

37: Michael Hall wrote: Well, it’s paid off for them, and handsomely at that. But since we don’t own stock in Paramount and were only interested in seeing the best TOS-revivial film possible, in retrospect it was probably inevitable that folks like Cawley and myself would come away disappointed. :-(

I echo your comment, Michael. I couldn’t have phrased it any better. If I weren’t an obsessive classic Trek fan, I might have dismissed the film as a loud but somewhat enjoyable summer popcorn movie. Moments like the transwarp beaming, Spock and Uhura lip-locked and the destruction of Vulcan left me shaking my head in stunned disbelief. What saddened me the most is that all of the above problematic transgressions might have been otherwise handled if Mr. Abrams had simply paid and legally bound a few longtime fans to go over the script and offer comments. I do this fairly frequently for book manuscripts (although the levels of fan interest are much different on the projects I’m speaking of). Still, even in this age of internet spoilers there are people of integrity who simply want the best for the franchise.

39. Michael Hall - September 14, 2009

Professor, thanks. Just to make it clear, though: what bothered me about the film wasn’t so much its transgressions against the established Star Trek lore (though I do share your concerns), but rather those against logic and common sense, not to mention dramatic and emotional truth. To wit: the Narada making no attempt whatsoever to evade George Kirk’s suicide run; a planetary implosion visible scores of light years away; a seasoned starship captain who authorizes a clandestine orbital parachute jump to disable a laser drill instead of just firing on the damned thing or ramming it with something; and a callow, immature Starfleet cadet who was about to be thrown out of school being given command of the fleet’s latest and greatest flagship because a few lucky guesses managed to pan out. I could go on, and on, and on.

Why did we get the film we did? When questioned about the scene where Nimoy’s Spock views the destruction of Vulcan with his naked eye in these very forums a few months back, Roberto Orci averred that it was “conceptual cinema” or some such thing–meaning, I suppose, that it didn’t have to make sense so long as it played well on screen. He couldn’t be bothered to establish in the story that “Delta-Vega” was close enough to Vulcan, or to have Nero give Old Spock a “subspace telescope” or similar b.s. device, any more than the destruction of earth’s closest ally and several billion people could be allowed to interfere with the triumphant tone (“Buckle up!”) of the film’s conclusion. As screenwriters, Orci and Kurtzman–who seem like nice enough guys for thirtysomethig millionaires–seem to always take the shortest possible route between where the story is at and the payoff they’re going for, whether it makes any dramatic sense or not. Which means they have little regard for their audience, or themselves as craftsmen–or both. Far less entertaining Star Trek films have nevertheless tried to preserve some semblance of internal logic while leaving the audience with something of substance to mull over; I, for one, refuse to believe that filmmakers must inevitably be forced to choose one value over the other.

40. Hat Rick - September 14, 2009

Michael Hall at 37 made a comment of interest: “Not too well, if I would judge by the sparsely-attended showing of “The Menagerie” on the big screen I saw last year. Which doesn’t prevent TOS’ only two-part episode from being, in my opinion, still the best Trek movie ever made–light years beyond the Abrams film in terms of acting, believability, imaginative scope (as opposed to the sort only money will buy you), and overall impact.”

It was also said earlier that if only Mr. Cawley had received the millions that Abrams had, then perhaps we’d have a saleable product based on Cawley’s vision. But I frankly see that as somewhat improbable, and the reason is that the style of storytelling is entirely different. I think that it would have turned out the same as if we had had a “Menagerie”-style movie amplified by millions in production value.

I think that if all we have in Trek is an art house film with production values escalated such as to allow it to masquerade by pretension as popular fare, then all we’ll have is “ST: Nemesis” all over again, whether the direction and pace is punched up or not. And then where would Trek be?

Yes — in art houses, methinks. At most.

41. falcon - September 15, 2009

Y’know, at the end of the day, it’s still just a movie.

Every once in a while, I still get a hankerin’ to watch STV. It wasn’t a great movie – it wasn’t even a good movie – but it was still Star Trek. And when it’s all said and done, isn’t that what it’s all about? If you’re a fan, that is?

42. Jorg Sacul - September 15, 2009

When I went to see The Menagerie, the theatre was nearly full. Not bad for a 40 year old stitched together TV episode. Everyone in the theatre knew every line and every scene…but we still sat there spellbound.

I get a kick out of people bashing ST09. Not just disagreeing with parts, but outright bashing. Really? I wish *I* could do work that sucked to that financial caliber. Just like Indiana Jones IV sucked… to the tune of $780 million.

James– it was great talking with you at DragonCon!

43. Hat Rick - September 15, 2009

41, Falcon, good points.

42, well said. I love “Menagerie,” as well. I also cannot understand why some fans of Trek would be so hostile toward ST09.

44. The Weary Professor - September 15, 2009

43:

I’m also somewhat puzzled by the outright hostility exhibited by some fans. Then again, it’s understandable to have a passionate reaction if something you expected and hoped to love disappoints you.

As I said above, there were certain aspects of the film that disappointed me, but I bear no animosity toward Mr. Abrams or his production staff. He accomplished his goal of rebooting and rekindling interest in a franchise that had seen better days and he is to be congratulated. That my 10 year-old daughter came out of the theater excited about Star Trek is a very good thing. I just wish I shared her unbridled enthusiasm.

45. Hat Rick - September 15, 2009

Good points, TWP (44).

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.