Comments on: Abrams & Saldana Give Star Trek Sequel Updates

By: Trek4ever

Trek4ever — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:34:01 +0000

I thought the kens flares worked well with the style of the movie, actually.

By: Captain Kathryn

Captain Kathryn — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:22:02 +0000

NO LENS FLARES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST NORMAL TECHNICOLOR!

By: Woulfe

Woulfe — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:37:39 +0000

- Title for the sequel -

Star Trek 2 : Not to be confused with Star Trek II : The Wrath Of Khan, in fact Khan isn’t even in this one, so don’t get your hopes up fanboys, but everybody is back from the first film, that shouldn’t be confused with Star Trek : The Motion Picture, you should know that by know, shouldn’t you ?

- W -
* Smirks *

By: SebiMeyer

SebiMeyer — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:37:44 +0000

I can already see Nichelle Nichold complain: I never got to kick a guy in the groin!

No, not really.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:17:32 +0000

I’d like to add that I saw the movie 5 times and have ordered 2 different editions of the blu-ray sets (amazons and best buys). I love the last movie. I don’t mind that Spock and Uhura had a relationship etc. But what made this story outstanding was the development of the two leads and how each travelled from one place emotionally, to the other. That was excellent. That made this movie as good as the original Star Trek. Please don’t screw this up by cluttering it with things that are not. Thank you.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:12:09 +0000

The reason the original Star Trek was successful on the small and large screen was because it focused on character, specifically the characters of Kirk and Spock. When people think of Star Trek, who do they think of? Forcing the original series into an ensemble will destroy the very thing that made it unique and timeless. This doesn’t mean the other characters shouldn’t have parts, or roles, or do things; but it does mean precious story and screen time should not be spent on development. They are loved, but character wise, who’s story is this really? Why were the other shows less successful, in the mythic sense, when compared to the original? That pointy earred guy *became* Star Trek, and Captain Kirk reached mythic status. To screw around with this is just stupid.

By: Trek Nerd Central

Trek Nerd Central — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:36:40 +0000

I didn’t mind the lens flares.

By: Trey

Trey — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:58:53 +0000

since im new to Trek, i want too see the trio, Kirk-Spock-McCoy. but at the same time i want Uhura, Scotty, Sulu, and Chekov to have a more prominent role, but not as big as the trio.

By: Chris Fawkes

Chris Fawkes — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:00:49 +0000

Zoe is in the sequel. I’m excited about this movie already.

By: devon

devon — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:29:09 +0000

I agree, develop and flesh out all the characters(7), not just the big 3! We all know the Kirk-Spock-McCoy relationship/dynamic, now let’s learn more about the others as well, and why the lesser 4’s lives became so intricately enmeshed & devoted to the triumvirate, leading to the great sacrifices (personal & career) that these 4 made on behalf of the other 3! I’ve always enjoyed Uhura, Sulu, Chekov & Scotty as much and sometimes more than just Kirk-Spock! McCoy, on the other hand, old & new versions, was, is and always has been a Delight in any way, shape or form! More ensemble acting without taking anything away from the established trio! The trio’s interactions with the other 4 will add to their individual depths as characters, and only serve to enhance the overall product! What was great about classic Mission Impossible was the team element, but with the modern Tom Cruise version (1st movie, haven’t watched the rest!) ego took over and it became a solo act which said to hell with the team! People & characters grow through their multiple & varied relationships, so we need to see more, less previously established relationships for these characters if they are to remain fresh and exciting!