George Takei Unhappy With JJ Abrams “Star Trek” Using Name “Star Trek” | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

George Takei Unhappy With JJ Abrams “Star Trek” Using Name “Star Trek” May 13, 2011

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Celebrity,Star Trek (2009 film),TOS , trackback

George Takei, Star Trek’s original Sulu, has often shown support for JJ Abrams 2009 Star Trek movie, and for the new Sulu, John Cho. However, in new interview he reveals that he isn’t too keen on how Abrams and Paramount called the movie "Star Trek." Details below, plus Takei talks about how Gene Roddenberry embraced his Trek philosophy.

 

Takei likes 2009 "Star Trek" but not the name + talks Roddenberry philosophy

This weekend George Takei is attending Motor City Comic Con in Detroit, and the Star Trek actor spoke to the Detroit News to promote the appearance. Takei was asked about his thoughts on the recent JJ Abrams Star Trek movie and the new Sulu. As he has done in the past he expressed support, but he does have one issue:

[John Cho] did a terrific job. J.J. Abrams’ ‘Star Trek’ was a terrific movie. I think there should be a more distinguishing label to it than ‘Star Trek.’ I hope the next one will have some sort of a number or label. I take umbrage with it being called ‘Star Trek.’ We were ‘Star Trek.’ This ‘Star Trek’ is a progeny of our ‘Star Trek.’

Takei also talked to the Detroit News about how Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry practices what he preached on Star Trek:

"Gene Roddenberry said the Starship Enterprise was a metaphor for starship Earth. The strength of the starship lay in its diversity and coming together and working as a team.

"Interesting thing about Gene Roddenberry: He really believed in that philosophy. And he really embraced all cultures, all religions."

When Roddenberry married Majel Barrett, they "flew to Tokyo and decided they were going to have a classic Shinto ceremony." He hired a documentary filmmaker to film the preparations, Takei said. They honeymooned up and down the country. They came back and showed the film and had a big party.

"He really embraced that philosophy that you saw on ‘Star Trek.’"


Takei: Nice movie, but there’s only room on this bridge for one "Star Trek"

Takei, Mulgrew and Spiner in Detroit this weekend

Takei will be joined by Star Trek: Voyager’s Kate Mulgrew and Star Trek: The Next Generation’s Brent Spiner in attending Motor City Comic Con this weekend in Detroit, MI. More details at www.motorcitycomiccon.com.

POLL: "Star Trek" v. "Star Trek"

What do you think? Are you ok with JJ Abrams film using the name "Star Trek" to signify it’s return to the roots of the franchise? Or was that name just for the original Star Trek series?

Want Khan to return for 2016 Star Trek movie?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 

 

Comments

1. TrekkieJan - May 13, 2011

I agree with George. It didn’t have much Star Trek about it beyond some window dressing.

2. Jeff - May 13, 2011

Abrams & crew updated the show, while respecting it, and brought it back to life.

It doesn’t always go that way…the first Mission: Impossible movie turned Mr. Phelps into a traitor. Now THAT’S a reason to be upset, and Peter Graves was. However, M:I3 restored the franchise…again, thanks to Abrams & crew.

3. Mattyb.uk - May 13, 2011

Maybe Star Trek: Begins or something Mr Takei. I have noticed that 3 word titles don’t do well, Generations, Nemesis etc

4. Admiral_Bumblebee - May 13, 2011

Looking at those pictures, the TOS-crew looks more like a family being at home.

I know the new crew still has to find “together”; but the bridge of the TOS-Enterprise looks much more comfortable and “home” compared to the 2009-bridge.

If they want to have the crew as a family they need to have the ship as their home and I wouldn’t want to live in this iPod-hospital of the “new” Enterprise.

I hope they bring back the charming, warm and comfortable “at home”-look of the TOS-Enterprise.

5. MJ - May 13, 2011

That’s OK George, as I am unhappy with you being a two-bit wooden actor glory-hound based on a minor part that you really did just an OK job on, and then having to watch you “gravy-train” that part for decades, and then behave like you have this huge axe to grind with Shat (who, despite being an ass in his own right, could act circles around you) based on him supposedly limiting your minor part (FYI, he and others could see from day one that you just weren’t that good an actor…sorry, the truth hurts), and then pretend like you are some big Hollywood presence way beyond you capabilities and without having ever earned the right.

No George, I could really could give a rats ass about your opinion of Star Trek 2009.

6. kesseljunkie - May 13, 2011

He’s entitled to his opinion, but I don’t think that it’s an issue. If anything, the 1979 movie should have been called “Star Trek” without a subtitle, but they didn’t.

No need for numbers or colons until the next go-round. Subtitles imply sequels, too, and that would have driven the casual viewer away from the theatre since this film was a starting point for many people and the lack of subtitle gave a clean slate to those of us who were poisoned by the later years with Berman and Braga.

7. trekprincess - May 13, 2011

George I respect your opinion but I am very happy with the new version of Star Trek :):)

8. Johnnyb807 - May 13, 2011

@#5 (MJ) … Stop beating around the bush and just tell us how you really feel ;) !

9. Blake Powers - May 13, 2011

I think the name served it’s purpose.. And we can all remember “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one” I think the title brought Star Trek to the MANY… Let’s admit it, us trekkies would have gone to see it if it were called” Aliens Firing Missiles killing $#!^.”

10. Basement Blogger - May 13, 2011

Before fans of the Star Trek 09 get angry, George Takei did say Abrams’ film was a “terrific movie.” His comment seems to be about his series being the original “Star Trek.” I guess he wants Abrams movies to be named something different like Star Trek: The Next Generation. But what would you call the new movie? How about:

“Star Trek in J.J. Abrams’ Parallel Universe Which Is Not Fringe But Is The Second Movie Which We Hope Will Make A Ton of Bucks.”

Okay, it’s a little long.

Oh and by the way, he also raises one of Gene Roddenberry’s ideas for Star Trek. The Enterprise was a metaphor for earth and the need for the races to work together. Along with site reporting on the letter by Roddenberry defending “The Cage” (link below) and saying that he wanted the show be one of substance, I say there is a Roddenberry vision for the show.

http://trekmovie.com/2010/11/30/letter-of-note-gene-roddenberry-defends-star-trek-the-cage-pilot/

11. 1701A2E - May 13, 2011

I’m against just “Star Trek” as a fan of all series and movies, and especially big fan of this latest movie. But I can definitely see why it needs to be called just “Star Trek” marketing wise to bring in arguably largest number of fans in a new generation.

I will definitely be 1000% against next one be called Star Trek 2. It needs to have a label.

12. Anthony L. - May 13, 2011

I happy with them keeping with the Trek name, to me it actually takes some guts. The name carries with it a certain stigma.

There is a reason why Nolan hasn’t used Batman since the first…he wants to distance himself from the name. If the movies weren’t good he’d be getting run over on the internet for it. It just so happens he makes great films so he gets a pass.

I’m not saying they shouldn’t veer away from the Trek name in the title, but I think it took some guts to just say here is Star Trek…yep THAT Star Trek. And I think they changed a lot peoples mind about Trek and opened up a lot of others to the shows and films from the past as result.

For me I think it was 100% great for the franchise, both past and future.

13. SChaos1701 - May 13, 2011

5

ROFL that made my day!

14. johnbijl - May 13, 2011

I hope they’ll call the next movie just ‘Star Trek’ as well. For the heck of it.

;-)

15. Chris - May 13, 2011

I’ve never seen any reason to care about George Takei’s opinion in the past and see no reason to start now.

The guy’s a non-entity, a bit player fame whoring a tiny part he had over 40 years ago.

He needs to grow up.

16. Kev -1 - May 13, 2011

“Star Trek” sells. I think they excised what they considered “baggage” and focused more on action and FX. It’s a kind of Star Trek, just as TNG was a kind of Star Trek but not TOS. I think the new one is based on a certain shortsightedness, though.

17. Mike - May 13, 2011

Mr. Takei is, I think, absolutely correct here.

As someone that grew up with actual Star Trek the new Star Trek is not really Star Trek. It’s similar, but it’s a different universe, as everyone says. It’s actually a Star Wars movie with Star Trek nouns, exactly as they intended it to be. You may like it and that’s fine, but Star Trek was, in it’s own time, almost the anti Star Wars. That was perhaps even the point sometimes. This wasn’t a show about a fantasy universe. This was an attempt to to make reasonable, optimistic predictions about the future.

Star Trek was the single most important moral guide I’ve ever had. It talked about complicated situations that applied to everyday life, and it didn’t always plunk the sides into the extremist viewpoint of good vers evil. It talked about getting along, respecting each others differences, and imagined that we could all live in a society that was as good to it’s citizens as the Federation was, and that people could be that responsible and honest. It was about hope.

Star Trek 2009 is about a frat boy that gets WAY over-promoted. Now it’s a “peace-keeping armada” whatever that is. Now they take swords down on missions. Now the most important founding member of the Federation gets annihilated to make Spock more angsty. Now the science is magic and all the crew are geniuses. Scotty’s crazy and has a pet alien.

I liked Star Trek 2009, but it was a much Star Trek as Star Trek Online is.

Takei for the Win.

18. Dee - lvs moon' surface - May 13, 2011

…”we were Star Trek”??? … I respect Mr.Takei, but “Star Trek” is more important than a euphemism… I think! … Star Trek is forever!

:-) :-)

19. Chadwick - May 13, 2011

I agree with George. There have been many spinoffs but this movie was the first reboot and regardless of a reboot going back to TOS pre TMP, it was the 11th movie within the Star Trek franchise.

TMP technically is not called Star Trek I its called Star Trek The Motion Picture, it was the first motion picture movie within the franchise. A fitting name for the first movie. And that is the only thing that…not angers me but rubs me the wrong way, I am sure the creators of Fringe and Lost could have come up with an appealing and cleaver subtitle fitting for this movie.

In the end if it were the executives at Paramount who wanted the simple Star Trek name, then its out of the hands of writers and producers unless they have a silver tongue.

In the end, its not something I even think about unless its brought up for debate in an article like this, it does not bother me. But…a big BUT. I am hoping the next movie has a subtitle because Star Trek II would piss me off. Star Trek 12 is not Star Trek 2.

20. Thorbury - May 13, 2011

“”Interesting thing about Gene Roddenberry: He really believed in that philosophy. And he really embraced all cultures, all religions.””

Yep – he embraced them alright … from the waist down!

Also, #5 – say what you will about Takei, but there’s a pecking order. Just as the Shat can out-act Takei, Takei can make a meal of the 2009 cast. Sad to say, but that’s how it is.

21. Dr. Cheis - May 13, 2011

It’s still the only movie named “Star Trek.” I don’t think anybody is going to be confused.

22. Chadwick - May 13, 2011

And we all know Gene Roddenberry said in the future (now) he wanted someone to remake Star Trek, bigger, better, using their vision to continue what he started. Regardless of whatever nit picking we do, I personally feel the father of Star Trek would have been proud of the new movie, is proud of the new movie.

23. JP Saylor - May 13, 2011

@17 You’re awesome. lol

I second everything you said there.

24. Mike - May 13, 2011

22 – Really? I tend to think he’s just dead.

25. Ivory - May 13, 2011

Who cares?

26. Horatio - May 13, 2011

When I first saw the article title I thought “Good gawd, George is bitching AGAIN!”.

Interesting that he states Roddenberry embraced all religions. Although I suppose an argument can be made for that, Roddenberry always struck me as a very staunch humanist.

Regardless, IDIC is a wonderful philosophy.

27. Trek Nerd Central - May 13, 2011

Oh, my!

Seriously, what’s the big deal? It’s a title. Plain, simple, straightforward — suggesting both a reference to the beloved old series and a break from it. A fresh start.

Should every iteration of “Hamlet” since Elizabethan times come up with some funky new name? “The Depressed Dane Begins”?

28. the Quickening - May 13, 2011

#2

I still think the studio’s decision to finally spend money on a TREK film (something not done since TMP) was just as important as anything Abrams and his team did to successfully bring back TREK.

The movie was attempting to be the typical juvenile, dumbed-down flick that Hollywood usually makes in the summer season to which dozens of directors could have been found to produce–many of whom could have done a lot better job. Abrams’ poor choices and some of the slipshod writing almost sabotages the effort.

29. NFXstudios - May 13, 2011

He’s not saying he didn’t like the movie or that it “wasn’t Star Trek,” as some of you are trying to force his words into meaning. He’s saying the title Star Trek belongs to the 1960s television show and that this one should have had an identifier on it.

I still disagree.

30. Iva - May 13, 2011

The problem is that, by calling it Star Trek , they insinuate that this thing really is what ST stands for. Which is a very crewed idea, but the idea that general populace will have when ST is mentioned. Thank you, media.
So now days, not only is it necessary to be careful about showing the depth of your interest, as usual, but you also risk being outed as abrams or abramsmovie fan by simple association, even though it has nothing to do with ST or Gene.

31. Richard Dawson's Ruffled Shirt - May 13, 2011

I don’t care if he said “I am the Walrus, Coo-coo-cachoo”, I’m sick of him running his damn mouth about stuff he has NOTHING to do with.

100-% agreed, MJ, and that’s saying a lot.

32. Red Dead Ryan - May 13, 2011

Well, how about that? George Takei complaining about………………………………..something else instead of William Shatner!

By the way, I liked that the “Supreme Court” went with “Star Trek” for the title. Kept it all simple, and reminded everybody about the origins of this great franchise and phenomenon!

33. Jorge - May 13, 2011

The title of this post is misleading. Personally I don’t care about the title of the film because the fact it was great was what mattered but I refer to it as XI

34. djeewhy - May 13, 2011

I think it’s a good question . It stands with respect. Star Trek was the name given for the show, even Gene Roddenberry added “The Motion Picture” for the first movie. Calling this movie Star Trek is a sort of appropriation of the show, and a denegation of the past, it’s more than a reboot it means: ” Hey! Look guys! What you’ve seen before was sh… Here is Star Trek!” I understand that some people can’t stand that. I think that George Takei is right: They were Star Trek…On some adds for the movie we could read “Star Trek: The future begins” ,it could have been a good title, respecting the tradition of Star Trek:….. even Enterprise came to this kind of appelation.

35. Robert Paulson - May 13, 2011

They can call it what they want. Rubbish is rubbish!

36. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - May 13, 2011

I love that they called it Star Trek. To me they did a great job and J.J Respected Star Trek while moving forward. So I respectfuly disagree with George on this.

37. Damian - May 13, 2011

The name was not that big of a deal to me. I realize they were trying to tell the casual movie-goer that they did not have to be up to date on prior Star Trek to see it. I agree with 29. It seems that anyone who has even the slightest criticism of Star Trek, no matter how mundane, is going to get trashed. George Takei was fine as Sulu. He was not a main character, but he did ok with the role he was given. I never had any reason to complain.

I understand his point, even if I don’t fully agree with it. Basically every Star Trek show and movie that has come out since the original series has been based on “Star Trek” that Roddenberry created. The original will always be those 3 seasons of Star Trek and the characters and actors who portrayed them. Everything else is based on that template, whether it be The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, the new movie, etc. Even Star Trek (2009) had to credit, based on Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry. I think that is the point he was trying to make.

38. MikeTen - May 13, 2011

I think some of you guys are beating up on George Takei unfairly. He was asked a question by a reporter and answered the question. It’s not like he went out and just started picking on the new movie.
He said he liked it but wished the title was more than just Star Trek. Even if I don’t agree with everything Mr. Takei says I value his opinion and his contribution to Trek as one of the shows original cast and his appearing in nearly all of the original TOS episodes.

39. Christopher Roberts - May 13, 2011

After purposely dodging a Japanese racial stereotype in the 60′s by having Sulu be into fencing… and fantasies of being a French literary hero like D’Artagnan – I wonder how he rationalized John Cho having a folding samurai sword?

40. Alientraveller - May 13, 2011

I think it was neat as the last film was more of an adaptation of the original show than the the original films. I’ll continue to refer to the Prime universe films in writing with Roman numerals and the alternate reality ones with Arabic symbols.

41. Danpaine - May 13, 2011

…since it technically took place in the TOS era (albeit most of it in an alternate timeline), I thought it absolutely fine. And prior to 09′, there WAS no Trek film simply called “Star Trek.”

But yeah, I agree with most….the next one should not be called Star Trek Two.

42. Cap'n Calhoun - May 13, 2011

This headline’s a bit misleading, and I think a fair number of these responses are directed at the headline rather than the actual article.

While it’s true that George said “I take umbrage with it being called ‘Star Trek’”, this was in the context of saying “I think there should be a more distinguishing label to it than ‘Star Trek.’ I hope the next one will have some sort of a number or label.”

So his issue isn’t saying that he’s “Unhappy With JJ Abrams “Star Trek” Using Name ‘Star Trek’” in the sense that he thought it should’ve been called Star Wars or something (emphasis on “or something”), as I’m sure many are choosing to interpret this. (That is, they’re reading between the lines to say “Takei’s saying this isn’t realy Star Trek!”) It would be more accurate to say “George Takei thinks Abrams ‘Star Trek’ should have had number or label” or something like that. (In all fairness to TrekMovie, this would probably still be misinterpreted, and it doesn’t roll of the tongue nearly as well.)

43. Phil - May 13, 2011

Star Trek: Plan 09 from Vulcan Orbit.

There, George, happy now…..

44. Cheezyspam - May 13, 2011

STAR TREK: The Old Generation revised for a New Generation without calling it the Next Generation.

Er… or just call it Star Trek XI I don’t care…

45. Shannon Nutt - May 13, 2011

Interesting that George would invoke Roddenberry, since – with the exception of STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, Gene wasn’t very happy with the movies. In fact, the one he hated the most of the lot was STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY, which he saw shortly before his passing. He thought it was so against the characters he created, he told fans to “consider it apocryphal”. Yes, Gene probably would have hated the new movie too…but if you’re invoking Roddenberry’s name, George, please know from whence you speak.

46. Christopher Roberts - May 13, 2011

For about 25 years now, Star Trek has been referred to as The Original Series… or the Classic Series.

Although I do wish it had been given a subtitle. Maybe when the sequel comes out, the first one will get a name retrospectively. Like Star Wars adopting “A New Hope” or whatever. Although at least there was caption onscreen calling the fim Episode IV and that name.

47. Andy Patterson - May 13, 2011

@1

I’m with a few others here too. Feel like I’m alone sometimes in that respect. It was not very ‘Star Trek’ to me.

48. AJ - May 13, 2011

As has been mentioned here and in previous discussions, we can look to how George Lucas “framed” his episode titles under the moniker “Star Wars,” even changing the 1977 film’s name to fit in.

“Star Trek” is an iconic brand in many countries around the world. I respect Mr. Takei’s opinion, but with 4 series to follow before JJ’s reboot-vention, I think ST09 brought back the old mojo, especially with Nimoy on board.

Perhaps George is still hoping for “Star Trek: Excelsior!” And I say Bring it On!

49. Desstruxion - May 13, 2011

Many actors have portrayed Hamlet ever since it was written. In modern times as well. Hamlet is still Hamlet. If it’s good enough for Shakespeare then it should be good enough for Star Trek. Get a life George. You are only one part of it.

50. Lt. Bailey - May 13, 2011

I would have liked to have it have some secondary title to it so we can refer to it witout any question as to what we are talking about. When some one askes me if I have seen the Star Trek movie? I always reply “Which movie are you asking about?” But if they ask have you seen ST V (or Final Frontier)? Then you know what they mean. So George has a valid point and he is entitled to it.

51. gingerly - May 13, 2011

He said he was displeased with it being called simply Star Trek and wants a distinguishing label for the next sequel.

I disagree, but there’s nothing horrible about that.

As for those people hating on his “riding out this bit part”… The man survived internment, managed to carve out a non-stereotypical place in Hollywood despite being an Asian-American actor, came out a bit before the new wave of gay acceptance, and has spoken out for diverse causes on many fronts.

What have you done with your life, in comparison? If he’s a hasbeen or nobody, what does that make you?

Also, did anyone else read his statements in his voice? *lol*

52. jas_montreal - May 13, 2011

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

-family guy impersonation of george takei

53. DaiMonRon - May 13, 2011

@ Mike Ten

Thank you! You took the words right out of my mouth!

54. LWR - May 13, 2011

should have been:
STAR TREK ORIGINS: WouldBeScenes
or
STAR TREK :the prequel to star trek
or
STAR TREK returns
or
KERT RATS- Fringe Universe addition
or
just the big A with BEGINS over it
or just call it star trek and say so what, THE MOTION PICTURE was the dumbest subtitle title ever for a movie and move on.

55. NickInABox - May 13, 2011

How about that one promo during the superbowl where the announcer said “Star Trek: The Future Begins”

And thus, my pitch. Star Trek: The Future Begins.

56. Dion1701 - May 13, 2011

# 5 – WOW so true. I also laughed my ass off and hope Mr. Takei reads this. other then Howard Stern what else has he done recently? Oh wait some bad guest appearances on the Disney’s the Suite Life on Deck? (I have a seven year old)

20 – You think george Takei can make a meal out of the 2009 cast? I think you been hitting the Romulan Ale to hard. Bruce Greenwood alone out acts Takei in his sleep… not to mention Eric Bana, Chris Hemsworth, and Winona Ryder. As for the new crew any of them is better then Takei at the craft of acting. Don’t get me wrong the original cast and crew is what I grew up on. That on screen chemistry was magical. I have been a fan of Trek my whole life. Say what you want but you can not take anything from the new generation playing the crew of the Enterprise.

57. NX01 - May 13, 2011

George has a point. I applaud him for saying what he said in such a classy way.

Now that the movie has come out and been around for a few years,it does get confusing. My father wanted to see this movie just yesterday and grabed for a tos “single disc eddition” DVD because it has the same font on the spine.

I refer to JJ Abrams movie as Star Trek 09, as does this site.

George could have said this when the movie came out, but he did not want
to detract from the new Star Trek success.

58. fireflashfive - May 13, 2011

Get over yourself, George. ‘Young minds……fresh ideas…..be tolerant’!!!

59. The Starfleet Veteran - May 13, 2011

*clapclapclapclap* Yay Lord Abrams, THANK YOU OH THANK YOU for coming in like a winged angel and SAVING Star Trek!

BZZZ! No. “Star Trek” starred William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelly. J.J. Abrams and his holy trinity, Chris Pine and that lot were NOT a part of Star Trek. Don’t get me wrong “Trek ’09″ was a great movie. But, it WASN’T Star Trek. It was J.J.’s attempt to revitalize the franchise in HIS image. As such, it should’ve had something else in the title rather than just being called “Star Trek.” J.J.’s bastardized version is a spit in the face to Gene Roddenberry and the millions of old school Trek fans.

LONG LIVE REAL TREK!

60. Phaser Guy - May 13, 2011

Oh boo hoo people. There’s plenty of Nemesis and Insurrection for everyone!

61. The Starfleet Veteran - May 13, 2011

Know your role and shut your mouth Phaser! Go lick on J.J.’s ass crack some more.

62. Browncoat1984 - May 13, 2011

I’m torn here. On the one hand, its annoying because when I talk about Star Trek with my friends they’re like “you mean the recent movie?” No, I’m talking about the classic series! Plus I think that it would have better honored the previous ten movies if it hadn’t just been called Star Trek.

On the other hand, many in the general public don’t realize there have been eleven movies. My buddy was like “wait, there’s been how many Trek movies???” So maybe for the general public it was better. I’m sure they’ll call the next film something more than “Star Trek”

63. Phaser Guy - May 13, 2011

Lol, classy people on this site.

64. Phaser Guy - May 13, 2011

Paramount wanted a fresh take on Trek, and it got it. It wasn’t some stale Voayger episode that went nowhere.

65. The Starfleet Veteran - May 13, 2011

I’m very classy thankyouverymuch. I just have a low tolerance for those that come in and want to get down on their knees for J.J. Abrams. He’s highly overrated and should’ve had nothing to do with Star Trek.

66. BrodyKoss - May 13, 2011

Let’s be clear, it had to be called just “Star Trek”.

No general audience member would have gone to see “Star Trek XI: Nero’s Extreme Bitchfest Through Time”

Give me a break.

67. The Starfleet Veteran - May 13, 2011

Paramount could’ve gone to almost ANYONE for a fresh take on it! There a millions of great fan-fictions, role-playing games and even the novels, which have many great ideas for a Trek movie in them, and that people would have never seen or heard of. And at the same time, they wouldn’t have had to go in and destroy Trek as we know it.

68. Phaser Guy - May 13, 2011

Please, Insurrection did more to destroy Trek than JJ Abrams did.

69. The Starfleet Veteran - May 13, 2011

Insurrection was not that bad. Nemesis I would agree with you on, though I don’t believe that should’ve existed either.

*sigh* I’m leaving now. All you fools blinded by J.J.’s light – which is really no more than another lens flare – can keep on with your Nu-Trek. But as a nearly three decade fan of Star Trek, my loyalties lie with the LATE GREAT GENE RODDENBERRY!

70. Starbase Britain - May 13, 2011

I respect Georges comments, after all he helped create the classic original series.

I would have liked to have seen it called STAR TREK: ORIGINS as a title or something similar.

Greg
UK

71. Jack - May 13, 2011

Man, MJ. You, sir, are on fire.

And I agree. And I think the ‘international’ cast in this one had a lot more to do in the 2009 flick. I’ve harped on this before, but I loved Court Martial -—overacting Finny, grown daughter in sailor costume, microphone and all — because all the senior brass, if I remember correctly, was not white, with even a woman thrown in. We got an African doctor. The first four Trek movies gave us black admirals, a black lady captain, a southeast Asian captain, the mention of an Admiral Nogura. And then TNG made nearly all its admirals old white guys, and the same (the white part) with nearly all speaking extras, and most guests. In TNG, Enterprise and Voyager most human bridge crew members had WASPy names and were from America. Star Trek (09) seemed to get the casting mostly right, and tried to make them people rather than just Asian guy, Black woman, but I’d like to see it go
a little further.

72. Phaser Guy - May 13, 2011

At least JJ’s Trek didn’t have scenes with the crew singing a 20th Century show tunes number during a chase scene that was supposed to be dramatic.

73. Phil - May 13, 2011

Star Trek Episode 11: Rise of the S*** Stormtroopers

74. The Starfleet Veteran - May 13, 2011

Lens flare!

LENS FLARE!

75. Delia - May 13, 2011

The reason I think calling the 2009 movie just “Star Trek” was a good idea is that it gave the franchise a clean slate to work off of; especially because they were trying to bring in a new fanbase, who had probably heard of “Star Trek” (who hasn’t?) but had never maybe seen it. The fact that it was a revamped origin story made it fitting as well, it gave them a new starting point for the universe, so I think keeping it simple and not using a subtitle was the best way to go, definitely. I can understand wanting a subtitle for the next one though (not just “Star Trek 2″).

76. Bucky - May 13, 2011

I like the title because it first pops up in BIG LETTERS after Nero destroys the Kelvin / timeline. Everything has been wiped out so now it’s starting again. Things happen differently so you can get away with calling it Star Trek because this Star Trek isn’t that Star Trek. Technically, it should be called (Alternate) Star Trek but that is hard to fit on movie posters.

77. Phaser Guy - May 13, 2011

I got really confused because the ship wasn’t called The Star Trek.

78. Horatio - May 13, 2011

#66 – LOL @ “Star Trek XI: Nero’s Extreme Bitchfest Through Time”

79. SciFiGuy - May 13, 2011

How bout AlterTrek? ;-)

80. njdss4 - May 13, 2011

No, it should have been called something else. Just ‘Star Trek’ didn’t distinguish itself enough from what came before it, and almost insults the past by making it look like it’s the first movie of the whole franchise.

I compare it to the latest Rambo movie, or any of the recent major horror movie franchise reboots, that dropped numbers or subtitles to try and make it seem fresh and original when it isn’t.

81. Kosher Coder - May 13, 2011

George is spot on, and I don’t often say that.
JJ Trek was a fantastic movie, but it wasn’t Star Trek. It wasn’t Roddenberry, or even Berman. It needs a new name.

82. Bugs_Nixon - May 13, 2011

It’s a brand name – the title sent a very clear message: this is the brand you loved, this is it’s label and this is what you’re gonna get. Perfect. No pretentous subtitles, no numbers, just ‘STAR TREK’ – the brand everyone fell in love with.

If it was called Star Trek but the movie was some inward looking stodgy cannonical derivative pastiche, then it wouldn’t deserve the label.

Just keep kicking the franchise in the pants and confound our expectations with each show, then you can keep slapping the brand label on it.

83. Phil - May 13, 2011

How about…..

Kirk and Spocks Excellent Adventure
Gone With the Solar Wind
Fast Times at Starfleet Academy
Nero Nero Nero

Okay, I’ve wasted enough time this afternoon….

84. Phaser Guy - May 13, 2011

How about Cool Trek? Or Action Trek or Big BO Trek.

85. sean - May 13, 2011

Oh good lord. George, I love you buddy, but now you’re just searching for things to be pissy about.

86. Buzz Cagney - May 13, 2011

I’m not the biggest fan of Takei but, now he mentions it, I do kind of see where he is coming from there.
Sort of.
ish.
Not enough to be bothered about voting, one way or the other though!

87. Christopher Roberts - May 13, 2011

66. “Star Trek XI: Nero’s Extreme Bitchfest Through Time”

Heh-heh. I’m going to refer the film as that from this day on!

88. Miv - May 13, 2011

Takei has been whining about Star Trek since the 90s, when Paramount denied him Excelsior. He STILL whines about it, saying he ‘does sit ups’ and whatnot.

He needs to get over it, Paramount will not give him Star Trek: Excelsior. And he needs to stop bashing other people who work on it.

89. TrekkieJan - May 13, 2011

Star (we wanted to write Wars) Trek

90. Phil - May 13, 2011

Brokeback Starbase 69… too much?

91. MJ - May 13, 2011

@56 / Dion “# 5 – WOW so true. I also laughed my ass off and hope Mr. Takei reads this. other then Howard Stern what else has he done recently? Oh wait some bad guest appearances on the Disney’s the Suite Life on Deck? (I have a seven year old)”

Yea, what gets me is that he tries to pretend he’s this big shot on par with Shat. And you have to love the way the Shat pretty much just treats him as this annoying fly without any real standing. He seems to be a very grumpy guy in general and falsely believes that he has been slighted over the years, when it is really just a case of him being a bad actor who is lucky to get the roles based on his Trek notoriety.

@51. “As for those people hating on his “riding out this bit part”… The man survived internment, managed to carve out a non-stereotypical place in Hollywood despite being an Asian-American actor, came out a bit before the new wave of gay acceptance, and has spoken out for diverse causes on many fronts.”

That is laughable. He is tremendous success story of a pretty bad actor who leveraged one minor part into a very successful career despite his lack of talent. And since he had outed himself, his career has taken off even further.

@51 “What have you done with your life, in comparison?” I am a leader in my field, thank you. Is Takei a leader in his field? I don’t think so, and I think you would be forced to agree with that. Even Shat, who I am not a fan of, I would acknowledge him to be leader in the TV acting field.

92. Michael Hall - May 13, 2011

“It’s a brand name – the title sent a very clear message: this is the brand you loved, this is it’s label and this is what you’re gonna get. Perfect. No pretentous subtitles, no numbers, just ‘STAR TREK’ – the brand everyone fell in love with.”

I’d like to see that movie, someday.

93. rm10019 - May 13, 2011

These are valid criticisms of Trek 09. I would like the next film to be just as fun and exciting but also triumph a Roddenberry-esque humanist ideal. It would have been closer to old Trek if at the end, Kirk insisted on saving Nero despite himself.

94. MJ - May 13, 2011

@88 “Takei has been whining about Star Trek since the 90s, when Paramount denied him Excelsior. He STILL whines about it, saying he ‘does sit ups’ and whatnot. He needs to get over it, Paramount will not give him Star Trek: Excelsior. And he needs to stop bashing other people who work on it.”

Don’t forget, he actually believes that Shat tried to prevent the studio from promoting him to a Captain in Starfleet. LOL

95. trekker 5 - May 13, 2011

#14,john,lol! :) Anyway,what the heck were they gonna call it George?! It ‘is’ a Star Trek flim no? I haven’t seen any other movies with a Kirk and Spock that were not Star Trek movies! What could they have called it? ‘This Is A Movie That Is Based On A Famous Si-Fi Canon’?! I mean,I get his point ‘to’ a point,but c’mon!!

96. David Hoggan - May 13, 2011

Fundamentally, George is correct in assessing Roddenberry’s philosophy, except for one detail: Roddenberry was an atheist. He thought organized religion was superstitious nonsense.

97. dratikus - May 13, 2011

They should call it something like “Star Trek: Second Mirror” trilogy or series,

98. pah wraith - May 13, 2011

Got a brilliant idea. All the movies and spin-offs were called Star Trek: Something Something. How about reversing the title – like: “Their Other Star Trek” or “Not Your Daddy’s Star Trek” or… well… just a thought :P

99. TrekkieJan - May 13, 2011

I wish people would lay off Mr. Takei. He’s an intelligent, elegant, giving and amazing gentleman who managed a career in time when heroic parts did not go to anyone but white males. He also did his part in making Star Trek the amazing show it was and teaching those of us who were lucky enough to see it that heros came in all genders and colors.

100. boborci - May 13, 2011

My bad.

101. Allen Williams - May 13, 2011

I don’t care how close or different it is. In movies, Star Trek is the motion picture (1). This is movie 11. I’m not sure what you should have called it, but I’ve been calling it Star Trek 2009 for the past 2 years.

102. Joel1245 - May 13, 2011

@ #1

Really TrekkieJan? How did it “not have much Star Trek about it beyond some window dressing”?

103. Give me TOS, or give me death - May 13, 2011

The movie is Star Trek, so it was called Star Trek. Pretty simple concept, pretty good movie.

I’m ready for the next one regardless what JJ or Bob Orci calls it.

104. MJ - May 13, 2011

@98. “He’s an intelligent, elegant, giving and amazing gentleman”

Then why doesn’t he behave as such?

“when heroic parts did not go to anyone but white males”

And a time when heroic parts usually went to good actors, he fought that stereotype and ensured that bad actors gravy-training on niche TV show who followed in his footsteps would also get a shot to continue making good money in Holloywood. (e.g. Tina Louise, Barry Williams, Jamie Farr)

105. TrekkieJan - May 13, 2011

#17 Mike – thank you for putting it so eloquently. I agree.
#9 – you know, for my part, I mostly avoid movies that are just about aliens and missiles and explosions. I like my SF thoughtful and intelligent and full of ideas – something Star Trek was and something the JJ Star Trek wasn’t.
I also agree with the StarFleet Veteran. ANYone could have revamped Star Trek. And many would have done a better job of it than this crew.

106. NCC-73515 - May 13, 2011

The bad thing about the title is: who has been a ‘Star Trek fan’ before, may now need to change that.

107. MJ - May 13, 2011

@103 “I also agree with the StarFleet Veteran.”

Perhaps you are the same person, eh???

108. TrekkieJan - May 13, 2011

#102 – I’ve met him, and he does behave like that. You know, a lot of the original Star Trek actors and crew have legitimate grievances. The show they lovingly crafted was always getting budget cutbacks and on the brink of cancellation. They worked long hours, fought for script lines and screen time and recognition and for what little stardom they got in a business where you had to do that to work. Roddenberry deserted them in the third season and left them with inferior scripts and direction. For years after this amazing, groundbreaking show was wrongfully cancelled, many of the actors fought unemployment and if it wasn’t for syndication and the show’s peerless fandom (I don’t mean you) their wonderful work would have been lost. George Takei’s a fine actor and deserves our respect.

109. TrekkieJan - May 13, 2011

#107, no I’m not Star Fleet Veteran’s sock puppet – I post here fairly frequently. I’d love to share a drink with him and lament what could have been with this movie and what a shame it is about fans like you. :)

110. John from Cincinnati - May 13, 2011

I think:

“Star Trek: Alternate Universe” should be used from now on to disitnguish. Just like there’s a Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek DS9, Star Trek Voyager. etc.

111. MJ - May 13, 2011

@109. OK. Maybe you two could invite Dexter…err, I mean Michael Hall…to join you for the drink. In fact, you might all have a George Takei retrospective night, and watch Supa Ninjas, The Bronx Bunny Show and play the Draconus Cult of the Worm video game, interspersed with viiewing of his IRS tv commercials series with Patty Duke?

112. TrekkieJan - May 13, 2011

111. Bored now.

113. MJ - May 13, 2011

@112. Oh my!

114. Vultan - May 13, 2011

Calm down, Abrams groupies. Takei was just criticizing the title, not the movie itself. Take a deep breath. It’s okay. Your Hasbro Trek is still here.

115. DJ - May 13, 2011

Props to #5, great post.

116. NuFan - May 13, 2011

So glad that George loved the movie!

117. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - May 13, 2011

I love Star Trek ’09. I think titling it “Star Trek” is a bold move; I really do understand it, marketing-wise. But, it does make the distinction between all things TOS and all things rebooted difficult. I would have preferred, Star Trek: A New Hope… er, I mean, A New Beginning or some such.

118. Alex - May 13, 2011

Funny how everyone is bitching about Trek ’09 not inheriting the philosophy of Star Trek. Star Trek at it’s best lived that philosophy, Next Gen did, as did DS9, in some twisted way. Voyager rarely did, same for Enterprise. But mostly, that philosophy had to stand back when entertainment set in. Randomly select 10 episodes, and in 9 of them you will not find an obvious indication of this Star Trek philosophy that we value so much. Trek ’09 is a little dumb at times, a little loud and a little incoherent, but accusing it of lacking Roddenberry’s philosophy doesn’t do it justice. It doesn’t have more or less of it that the average 700+ hours of Trek that came before.

119. Rocket Scientist - May 13, 2011

Takei’s remark is an incredibly mild objection, yet some feel the need to trash him mercilessly. Unbelievable…

120. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - May 13, 2011

@119 — so true. Subtlety and fine distinctions are lost on “teh interwebs”

121. Let Them Eat Plomeek Soup - May 13, 2011

I thought the title made perfect sense: the movie was the prequel to how the whole team in TOS came about. It wasn’t about them after or during the five-year mission. I guess someone always has to find something wrong with a good movie…

However, in the words of Scotty, “Everybody’s entitled to an opinion.”

122. MJ - May 13, 2011

@119 @120

A lot of us are just sick of his whining/petty actions. Its a pattern — not just this one comments of his — that we are fatigued with.

123. PorthosPoo - May 13, 2011

Its different because IT HAD TO be……..simple. Trek was dead.
It has the same name because IT HAD TO……..Again…pretty simple.
I dont think any other name would have worked….and generated hundreds of millions of dollars………
I’d call it a similar spirit in a different body.

124. TrekkieJan - May 13, 2011

Some of the rest of us are sick of some whining too.:)
But I have to protest that Star Trek was never dead. Paramount *always* had the first crew to fall back on, they always had the potential of an origin story or an academy story. That they would do it was inevitable. I just hope at some point in the near future they give it to some real science fiction writers who understand Trek and make a good Star Trek show or movie.

125. I have been and always will be a Trekkie - May 13, 2011

@100 Bob, you really are a classy guy.

126. ncc50446 - May 13, 2011

They might as well have just called it Star Trek 2009 because that’s what everyone has to call it for people to know what Star Trek you’re referring to.

‘You seen Star Trek?’
‘Which one?’

But, what is done is done…

And Star Trek never died

127. Valenti - May 13, 2011

Wow, lots of negative comments in here. *keeps the fire extinguisher close at hand*

@ boborci: That made me laugh.

128. MC1 Doug - May 13, 2011

#5:

Ouch, MJ…. be nice.

129. MJ - May 13, 2011

@124 “I just hope at some point in the near future they give it to some real science fiction writers who understand Trek and make a good Star Trek show or movie.”

Yea, OK, we get it that you don’t like Trek 2009, as you’ve used this story on Takei to repeat that over in over.

We get it!

130. Michael Hall - May 13, 2011

So you’re a “leader in your field,” MJ? What field would that be–schoolboy taunts?

My, my. A little criticism of Trek ’09 goes a long way towards getting someone’s bloomers in a wad, apparently. But at least I’ve avoided the torrent of spew and venom and bile directed at George Takei, who had the utter temerity to (very mildly) criticize the film’s freaking title.

Mr. Takei is a gentleman, as anyone who experienced more than a minute or so of his company will attest. He has long been an activist in public causes that have meant a great deal to him and those in the larger community. (And I say this as someone who, frankly, finds the who Shat-Keonig/Takei/Nichols feud increasingly tiresome.)

Evaluating his acting skills is, of course, very subjective. His performance as Sulu has delighted generations of fans, though, so if they join TrekkieJan and myself at that table it will probably get a little crowded. The part wasn’t often very well fleshed-out, which is why Takei took a part in a fan production, of all things, for minimal pay, to finally get the chance to play the character as a fully-realized human being. And while millions apparently enjoyed the new take on Sulu in 2009 I doubt many of them could tell you who played the role. I won’t judge John Cho’s acting skills, though, since he only had one memorable line (“Fencing!”) in the whole film and doing so based on that thorough mediocrity of a script would be unfair.

Finally, as already noted I’m not the Michael C. Hall who plays Dexter. I’m proud and intrigued to share the name as I think he’s a very talented guy (though I have no love for Dexter, his performance on Six Feet Under would justify any career), and who probably has much better things to do with his time than post at a nerd website.

131. MJ - May 13, 2011

@130. Dexter, you are right on schedule with your predictable personal taunt…no doubt you would be quite the cafeteria clown if we were both back in high school. LOL

132. dmduncan - May 13, 2011

Never thought of it before, but I think Mr. Takei has a point.

133. mr. mugato - May 13, 2011

My main beef from the get go was that 2009 used all the characters and none of the philosophy.

I thought the scene where Kirk and Spock happily destroy Nero was JJ and company thumbing their noses at the Great Bird.

I don’t think the Star Trek philosophy, the thing that made it the American icon it is, sells in 2011.

134. Tenacious MC - May 13, 2011

Should’ve just called it “Star Trek: Rebooted”. =P

135. JKP - May 13, 2011

I wish George would just shut up.

136. s k Sexton - May 13, 2011

Hi George Takei
Aren’t you a popular fellow!
remember back when this was a thread
re:
Sulu?

yeah…
thanks for your good work creating a believable character
for a tv show in the really early days.

137. MJ - May 13, 2011

@133 Where was the philosophy in Trek 3 where Kirk “I have had enough of you” kicks the crap out of Kruge’s head and sends him to his death?

Trek 09 was an origin story, and that needed to be the focus. I expect we will see more of a focus on Trek philosophy in the next movie. In fact, I will be disappointed if we don’t see it.

138. TrekkieJan - May 13, 2011

Who says I didn’t like it? It was way better than Episode I, II, or III. It was just lousy Trek.

139. TrekkieJan - May 13, 2011

Star Trek 09 wasn’t an origin story. It was a Mirror Universe story.

140. MJ - May 13, 2011

TrekkieJan, like I said, WE GET IT!

141. TrekkieJan - May 13, 2011

MJ – pretty tired of you too, dude. (if you are a dude.) Michael, glad to be at the good table, with you. :)

142. JP - May 13, 2011

Can we ban Takei for trolling? :)

143. MJ - May 13, 2011

TrekkieJan, while your at the dinner table with him, for the sake of your own personal safety, I urge you to get out of there immediately if Dex orders orders out for fava beans and a nice chianti. :-)

144. Jack - May 13, 2011

91. Howdy, MJ. What IS your field, by the way? Just curious. Me = journalist.

I like George, from what I’ve seen of him over the years, but, yeah, he and most of the supporting cast got a (unique?) view of their popularity and their roles in history from years of worship (nerd sex?) at conventions. But, heck, yeah, he acted on the first show called Star Trek, so he has a right to his opinions about it — even though I think they’re, er, dead wrong. Hell, we each have strong views and we only watched the darned thing, along with tonnes of other people.

And I agree about the origin thing — they could have shoehorned in some random b-plot where they swoop in to save some misguided alien race from themselves and teach them about cooperation, tolerance and go go boots (which was US foreign policy ca. TOS and got echoed in it)… and they could have thrown in some blathery speeches that sound like philosophy (see Harry Kim in the Voyager finale) and some random Shakespeare/Dickens/John Masefield/Melville quotes that sound intelligent.

Instead we had characters directly dealing with loss and self-sabotage and emerging as better people — sounds pretty Trek-ky to me.

145. MJ - May 13, 2011

@144. Hey Jack — technology research.

Agree with your post above. In a vacuum, yea, I am too hard on George — one on one (I have met him twice over the years, including a chance meeting at an LA bookstore in the early 80′s where we spoke for 15 minutes on Trek and sf), he is a great guy, and sure, he has supported some good causes. But his asinine behavior and huge chip on his shoulder that have materialized over the past decade have really rubbed me the wrong way, and certainly make him look petty, jealous and irrelevant. And frankly, I am tired of his whining, bitching and potshots.

146. Vultan - May 13, 2011

#137

The philosophy was there… a little. Remember, just before Kirk kicks Kruge to his death he reaches out in an attempt to save him. Kruge instead grabs Kirk’s leg and tries to bring him down into the abyss.

In Trek ’09, Kirk also asks for Nero to surrender (or something along those lines) just before he gets sucked into the black hole. It was Spock who acted a little out of character, presumably being vindictive over the destruction of his planet. Can’t say I blame him though. In another life, Spock may have been a Navy SEAL. ;)

147. Desstruxion - May 13, 2011

It’s obvious that he wishes he was Shatner.

148. I'm Cherokee Jack - May 13, 2011

No matter the subject,these threads often turn into Trekkie squabbles.
Nothing divides fans like a common interest.

149. Iowagirl - May 13, 2011

Didn’t think I’d see the day when I found myself in agreement with something Mr. Takei said – but here I am. *That’s* Star Trek! :))

150. Green-Blooded-Bastard - May 13, 2011

This is an issue? Really? The name of a movie is an issue…

If the world was going to explode in a week, how many people would give a crap what the name of the film is? As many as there should be, not knowing if the world is really going to explode next week or not…Zero.

It was a good movie and I had a good time watching it…each time. That’s what matters. At least to me.

This is petty and trivial.

151. Keachick (rose pinenut) - May 14, 2011

#100 Bob, do not feel bad. This appears to be a jealous no-talent twerp having a hissy fit.

Keep up the good work!

152. Trekprincess - May 14, 2011

Trekkiejan I guess you are a loyal hard core fan of the prime universe :):) well I liked Abrams Star Trek it was brilliant in my opinion

153. DJT - May 14, 2011

Personally I think it’s a compliment that they used the name that was the zeitgeist of the whole franchise (no bloody A B C or D). To revive Trek, they had to go back to the roots, to what started it all. The new movie didn’t take anything away from the originals, it honored them (*ahem* mostly). There were a few things here and there that could have better handled, but overall the movie did it’s job. It brought back Trek.

154. Christopher Roberts - May 14, 2011

Nice to see words like “umbrage” and “besmirch” making a comeback. Classy!

155. captain_neill - May 14, 2011

152

You seem to be a little unhappy with people who like the prime universe.

Everyone is entitle to their opinions.

——————————–

Look people George said he liked the new movie yet once again because someone points a thing that gets them about the new movie then the hate brigade comes back into full swing.

its as though poeple here seem to think that only the new movie is worthy Star Trek. It’s a great movie but that thinking would be an insult to al that came before.

156. captain_neill - May 14, 2011

George Takei has a point it is the latest ‘child’ swing from TOS.

This new movie adds to Trek, it does NOT eclipse TOS.

It’s like the 6th crew

157. Trekprincess - May 14, 2011

Captain Neill I do love what came before have you got a problem with people preferring the alternate timeline and new trek :):)

158. captain_neill - May 14, 2011

157

No I don’t have a problem.

It’s just to me the alternate universe is just one movie. I see it the next chain of the legacy of Trek.

159. Christopher Roberts - May 14, 2011

Every so often somebody has to have the guts to speak their mind. Be the dissenting voice in the room.

“I said… What does God need with a starship?”

:)

160. TrekkieJan - May 14, 2011

MJ (and your possible sock puppets), I do not think I’ve said anything to warrant banning. Anthony tends to ban for us name calling each other. (Apparently it’s okay to name call celebrities.) I think I’ve managed to avoid that. He allows dissenting opinions because Trek should invite thought and debate and Anthony – who runs a wonderful site wonderfully – is a Trekkie. I’ve made no secret that I do not think this fun space romp of a movie with its very appealing cast deserves the name Trek. It doesn’t. I’ll tell you why.
1) It’s not Roddenberry’s Federation. Roddenberry gave us the hope that by the time we entered into space we’d have learned. There would be no child abuse (Kirk’s step dad), no money for Bones to be stripped of in his divorce, no mega-corporations deciding what you see and hear (Nokia.) This is an important distinction. I agree, these things are not currently looking realistic, but without them, our heroes are just neo-imperialists in space. And while the whole movie is pretty much a rehashed Episode IV, it’s an important distinction that this time Luke is working for the Empire – and the crazy old guy is the enemy. Is this due to this being an alternate universe? When Kirk’s dad was killed, the whole planet went back to a pre-Federation economy? Yah. No.
2) Star Trek is about hope. Hope that we’ll overcome the worst parts of our humanity and then go out to the stars to explore and help. By disregarding Roddenberry’s admittedly starry-eyed vision of the future, the future looks rather gloomily like the present and our flawed species should not be spreading beyond our planet.
3)The writers destroyed, they did not build. This is also important. Science fiction is not about explosions – it’s about ideas. There are NO new ideas in this Trek. No mysterious new races (just the destruction of a mysterious iconic one and their iconic world.)
3) There’s no science. It’s not science fiction, it’s fantasy.
4) Spock. Oy, Spock. In what universe would Spock gleefully say the equivalent of a blood thirsty “Let em have it?” (much less mack on a girl – the writers claim this is a victory for the nerds. It’s not. Nerds – except the writers – don’t really want to be the jocks and get the cheap thrills the jocks make look like entitlements.This is a huge distinction.
I could probably come up with more but you’re probably not listening. If you want to see what science fiction should look like go watch Children of Men – there’s an important message in it – more important to you then me because if nature is kind I’m not going to be in this world as long as you are – and District 9. I don’t mind my science fiction being as pretty as Star Trek – but I do want it to have some substance. I feel these writers and this director – while certainly talented – either do not have this substance or chose for sound financial reasons not to indulge it.

161. ToMaHaKeR - May 14, 2011

Should have been “Star Trek – The Future Begins”. Sounds nice, at least to me…

162. The Starfleet Veteran - May 14, 2011

MJ, please remove yourself from J.J.’s arsehole so he can get back to giving us more crappy Star Trek. kthanks

163. Trekprincess - May 14, 2011

Why can’t the haters understand that some people like me will love Abrams Star Trek film without going into arguements about what other people think of new trek :):)

164. TrekkieJan - May 14, 2011

Trekprincess, this isn’t personally about you. Please don’t take it as a criticism of you or what you enjoy. As I said, fun movie, likable cast. With the amazingly bad movies being made right now, one that’s entertaining at least naturally rises to the top. You’re not an idiot for enjoying it. I just want better for you and all the Trekkies to come.

165. Vulcan Soul - May 14, 2011

I think a more fitting title would have been “Flash Gordon”. After all, the cartoon villain with a super-weapon threatening to destroy Earth and the comic-book action for wow-effects but without exploring any ramifications reeks more of 1930s serial than “Star Trek”.

166. Alex Rosenzweig - May 14, 2011

I don’t have a hugely strong opinion about the title, though I think the problem with calling it just “Star Trek” is that the phrase “Star Trek” also defines the entire franchise, so it makes clarity of reference potentially difficult.

I just wish the movie–whatever it might have been called–would have been the TOS origin story that TPTB originally promised, and could have led fans into the richness that is the Star Trek Universe, as opposed to being a giant ‘what if?’ tale.

167. Boris - May 14, 2011

The movie is now referred to as “Star Trek” (2009) or “Star Trek” XI, and the acronym is ST09 (easily confused with Insurrection) or STXI. This confusion is the only reason why I don’t like “Star Trek” as the title.

168. Kirk, James T. - May 14, 2011

Takei irritates me to be honest. From his constant rants with William Shatner to this

George, get over yourself, You were average in the original series at best and to be honest, William Shatner was far more important than you and still remains so. Hell, George only Koenig was below you in the pecking order of cast importance.

JJ Abrams “Star Trek” was “Star Trek” what would you have called it? Star Wars?

Sigh… The title “Star Trek” was exactly what it should have been – all these Star Trek: The Bla and Bla Bla became incredibly dull and by Star Trek: Insurrection they had just run right out of ideas.

Calling Star Trek, Star Trek was as much about a new beginning as the alternate timeline was. The notion that the franchise (not the message) was beginning again.

2009′s movie was NOT Star Trek eleven – it was the FIRST movie in what will hopefully be a series of movies.

169. Red Dead Ryan - May 14, 2011

Captain Neill and TrekPrincess:

Can you two PLEASE let it go for F*CK SAKES??

170. dennycranium - May 14, 2011

My God George- please go do something productive.
Go act in a play do some more PSAs.
As I recall Takei was one of the TOS actors pining for a role in Trek 09.
Now after he doesnt get a part he takes a thinly veiled poke at it?

Mr Takei your performance in Trek VI was stellar.
As Captain Sulu your line “Fly her apart then!” gave me chills then and whenever I watch it now
Watchng you re enact those scenes in Voyager was downright painful.
IMO that was DEFINITELY not Trek.
Stop trying to generate google alerts George.

171. Boris - May 14, 2011

Kirk, James T: but the movie does have a Bla Bla title. Several, actually: Star Trek (2009), Star Trek (film), Star Trek XI. The need to disambiguate will never go away, and if the producers don’t pick a unique title, fans will. After all, the original Star Trek is now called The Original Series (TOS), not Star Trek.

172. Bill - May 14, 2011

I almost never comment on boards, but this one aggravated me enough to jump in.
First, the headline is NOT misleading. Mr. Takei (and I call him that because no matter what I think of his opinon, I choose to disagree respectfully) says very clearly, “I take umbrage with it being called ‘Star Trek.’ We were ‘Star Trek.’ This ‘Star Trek’ is a progeny of our ‘Star Trek.’” Mr. Takei Is saying, without actually saying so, that he thinks there was only one Star Trek, his, and what came after is simply not the “real” Star Trek.
I would think Gene Roddenberry, who created ST: TNG, would disagree with that.
Guess what, folks. You can’t go back. The original is done and long gone. So is TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT. All had varying degrees of special places in my heart over the years.
But every single episode, every single movie, including ST09, it’s all Star Trek to me.
It’s just like the state of soap operas today. People are up in arms that ABC just cancelled All My Children and One Life to Live….many of those people on comment boards said they haven’t watched them for years. It’s simple economics…if fewer people are watching, and it’s not making money, it’s going to die. (One show’s ratings even dropped AFTER the announcement.)
And that’s what’s been happening with Star Trek….each progressive series had been shrinking in viewers. Blame it on oversaturation, blame it on quality, blame it on whatever you want.
But you have to change. You have to move on…if you keep with Mr. Takei’s philosophy, there shouldn’t have been any Star Treks after the “real” one. My childhood and adulthood would have been a far lonelier place without those “progenies.”
Honestly, if I had heard Mr. Shatner whining ONE MORE TIME about not being in ST09, I would have screamed. Let it go. Move on. There can actually be a Star Trek movie without the original actors.
I’m sorry I’m rambling a bit, but this is more a stream of thought post…
This is what really set me off, (sorry TrekkieJan)…
3)The writers destroyed, they did not build. This is also important. Science fiction is not about explosions – it’s about ideas. There are NO new ideas in this Trek. No mysterious new races (just the destruction of a mysterious iconic one and their iconic world.)
Jan, and many others, just want a rehash of what’s been done before.
And THAT is why Trek will die. No risk taking, no leaps of faith, no attempt to bring in a new audience.
Just a very small core group of people demanding that Star Trek be what it used to be.
It can’t be what it used to be. Those days are over. Sorry, Jan, but you can’t have a philosophical Star Trek in the movie theaters and expect it to be successful. Maybe now that the first one reached out and grabbed folks, maybe the creators can go back and make a second movie that’s a bit more thoughtful too…but you’re still going to have to have lots of explosions and action to grab attention. Sucks, but that’s the way it is…we live in a world of ….ooo…shiny. You have 5 mins. to attract my attention or I’m gone.
In a weird way, the core Star Trek fans are rejecting the very philosophy they say the show should be embracing: Change.
You think we’ll head toward the future that Roddenberry portrayed in Star Trek if we want things to stay the same?
Thanks, everyone, for reading and allowing me to vent. I don’t feel I overly offended anyone, if I did, sorry.
And Mr. Takei: Thanks for the memories. But that’s what they are. Like you said…ST09 was a fantastic movie.
I’m ready for more.

173. MJ - May 14, 2011

@162. “arsehole” “kthanks”

Pass another cold one down the table to the old Star Fleet Vet…yes, he’s been out drinking again, folks! LOL

174. MJ - May 14, 2011

@172 “In a weird way, the core Star Trek fans are rejecting the very philosophy they say the show should be embracing: Change.
You think we’ll head toward the future that Roddenberry portrayed in Star Trek if we want things to stay the same? Thanks, everyone, for reading and allowing me to vent. I don’t feel I overly offended anyone, if I did, sorry.
And Mr. Takei: Thanks for the memories. But that’s what they are. Like you said…ST09 was a fantastic movie. I’m ready for more.”

Bill, you hit your post out of the park — well said!

175. MJ - May 14, 2011

@168 “JJ Abrams “Star Trek” was “Star Trek” what would you have called it? Star Wars?Sigh… The title “Star Trek” was exactly what it should have been – all these Star Trek: The Bla and Bla Bla became incredibly dull and by Star Trek: Insurrection they had just run right out of ideas. Calling Star Trek, Star Trek was as much about a new beginning as the alternate timeline was. The notion that the franchise (not the message) was beginning again. 2009’s movie was NOT Star Trek eleven – it was the FIRST movie in what will hopefully be a series of movies.”

EXACTLY!

176. MJ - May 14, 2011

@160. “MJ (and your possible sock puppets), I do not think I’ve said anything to warrant banning. ”

TrekkieJan, you are way off base here. When did I every suggest you warrant banning??? I never said nor did I even infer that you should be banned???

Please stop making up stuff that you are attributing to me here. I can handle any discourse with anyone, except when they reduce the argument to making false statements on things they claim I said or inferred.

(And no, I don’t need sock puppets…BUZZ…wrong again.)

177. captain_neill - May 14, 2011

169

I was making ONE comment, as you can see I did not rise to debate. One comment and that was all.

For God’s sake I was only defending what I felt was George Takei’s right, not nother bitching session.

As you can see I did not reply to Trekprincess’s last comment.

To be perfectly honest there are times when I think the people on this site don’t really respect Gene Roddenberry’s vision. Well maybe that’s too harsh but on this site it shows humanity at it’s worse and not it’s best.

This is a site which says it’s ok to bash Voyager and Enterprise but not allowed to bash the new movie without people criticising you.

I like both because despite having its flaws Voyager was still fun to watch most times but so is the new movie. Why is one allowed to be bashed and the other isn’t?

And don’t say something as straight forward as Voyager is crap. Opinions are to the individual.

One person who hates Voyager loves the new movie and someone who loves Voyager might hate the new movie. Who is right and who is wrong?

No one. It is their choice. we might not agree with that persons choice but it is their choice.

And if someone dictates that someone is wrong for liking a Trek that is not as popular then I think you have missed the importance of what makes Star Trek.

178. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - May 14, 2011

I have to agree with George.. IT is a rendition of star trek it isnt just an all incompasing star trek.

179. MJ - May 14, 2011

@177. Captain Nell, the problem with you and TrekPrinces is that you both seem to have this persecution complex regarding your completely opposite views on Trek, and you both also have a habit of freaking out a bit when challenged. You post above for example, appears to me at to being largely aimed at garnering sympathy from folks for your perceived persecution of your Trek views.

The majority of fans on this site, right or wrong, seem to like the new movie, and a different majority seem generally to not to like Enterprise or Voyage much. So therefore, by the simple fact of you being in the minority in these issues, you shouldn’t act surprise or behave like you are being persecuted when the debate does not go you way, as it is a simple fact that you are always going to be outnumbered on this issues.

And, as you respond to the majority on these issues, I would encourage you not to take the low-road and criticize people who have a differing opinion of you as being people of ill repute — i.e, you inferred in your post above that those not agreeing with you have abandoned Gene’s vision and have been reduced to a lower form of humanity. They just disagree with you, and that is OK!

180. captain_neill - May 14, 2011

179

I was trying to say also that it is a person’s opinion, If you actually read my comment I was saying that is no right or wrong.

I just feel some others act as if it will.

Look I love Star Trek and while I don’t agree with everyone here about the Abrams movie I have admitted he did a good movie.

181. captain_neill - May 14, 2011

179

I was not criticising anything. I was merely pointing out a fact I get when I read posts when anyone says something against the new movie it seems the person gets abuse.

However it seems okay to mock Voyager and Enterprise.

I like both as I said in post but I guess I am pinting out how unbalance people can be, it is like communisom at times. LOL

Mean no hate but I guess this is why I hate message boards.

182. MJ - May 14, 2011

OK, I give up. You are not getting it.

183. The 76th Distillation of Blue - May 14, 2011

hate to break it to you Jeff, but the Brian Depalma mission impossible, was a great movie. One that actually made you think. It was very well scripted and acted. It also made alot more money than MI:III
Mission Impossible made 180 million dollars domesticly on a 80million dollar budget. While MI:III made only 134 million domesticly not even breaking even with its 150million dollar budget.

those who complain about mr phelps turning out to be the bad guy, why complain? would you have prefered that Tom Cruise been a rebooted younger Mr Phelps? I personally prefer the idea of Tom Cruise being the protoge to Mr Phelps. Guess what people (even heros) become jaded when things change and its not outside the realm of possibilties that Mr Phelps changed the ways that he did as he began to feel no longer needed or appreciated.

Dont get me wrong i enjoyed MI III(primarily cause of maggie Q) but to say that Brian Depalma ruined Mission Impossible and it wasnt saved till JJ abrams came along is a bunch of BS. some of the posters on here suck up to mr abrams a little to much.

184. The 76th Distillation of Blue - May 14, 2011

I personally cant wait for these abrams star trek movies to run their course, and be over.
So star trek can return to what made star trek star trek.

185. captain_neill - May 14, 2011

182

I do get what you are saying. I apologise if you don’t think that I am.

You an I obviously just have different opinions.

186. MJ - May 14, 2011

@183. Regarding the Mission Impossible debate, IMDB users rate MI-1 a mediocre 6.9 and MI-3 a mediocre 6.8. So it’s basically a wash, and neither of you guys are going to convince me that either movie is a classic.

Maybe we can all just agree that MI-2 sucks?

:-)

187. MJ - May 14, 2011

@184. “I personally cant wait for these abrams star trek movies to run their course, and be over. So star trek can return to what made star trek star trek.”

Yes, finally, Rick Berman, Michael Piller and Bran Bragga will be running Trek again the way it was meant to be run. I can hardly wait…it can’t come soon enough for me.

LOL

188. captain_neill - May 14, 2011

187

Actually Michael Pillar was the guy who helped TNG find’s itself in the third season, the year TNG became great. Pillar is one of the greats and since Michael Pillar died in 2005 to cancer I find it a a little off criticising him, Also Pillar had left before the franchise fatigue came on.

I will admit Berman made some bad calls but a lot of good stuff was done under his watch. Like the final two parter of Enterprise with Peter Weller was excellent. Manny Coto did some great stuff that last year of Enterprise.

189. Thomas Jensen - May 14, 2011

Gene Roddenberry never said, “the Starship Enterprise was a metaphor for starship Earth. The strength of the starship lay in its diversity and coming together and working as a team.” George Takei said that, and started saying it a couple of years ago. He created the quote in his mind and if Gene Roddenberry did say it to him in private, then it’s curious that he came up with it only fairly recently in his convention and public appearances.

And Mr. Roddenberry didn’t embrace all religions, in fact, he went out of his way to make light of the Biblical God of the old testament and regarded himself as a humanist.

Takei did a great job as Sulu, but he’s just out there making up quotes that sound intelligent to please his audiences.

And his problem with the name Star Trek? Everyone knows where the spin-off series and movies came from, what a non-starter to talk about.

If he really wants to do something interesting, he should accept Shatners offer to be on his interview show. I doubt he ever will.

190. captain_neill - May 14, 2011

189

How do you know Gene never said this to George?

To me it was clear that Roddenberry was breaking ground by putting diversity in the crew at a time when differences were not embraced.

Gene took a crew of different races and one alien and gave a positive message that we can all work together. Gene was saying that Hey, it does not matter what colour your skin is or what your beliefs are, we all are the same.

I love the positive future than is painted in Star Trek.

191. captain_neill - May 14, 2011

183

When it comes to the Mission Impossible movies the worst one is MI 2.

Yet I think MI 3 was the one time in which a movie flopped, well did not do as well as hoped in the box office, and the director is not blamed but rather Crusie was.

Usually the director does not return if the film is a disappointment. Not a criticism, just a interesting point I am making.

Despite not being JJ Abrams biggest fan I still would love to see Super 8 though. Saw the trailer and it looks really interesting. Saw a few lens flares in the trailer. LOL

192. Red Dead Ryan - May 14, 2011

Captain Neill

We already get that you prefer the previous Treks. You’ve said so a billion times!

And Michael Pillar is open for criticisms. Just because he’s a pile of dust and bones doesn’t mean that people can’t have opinions of him. You have no problem criticising J.J Abrams and Bob Orci, yet when some people disagree with Brannon Braga, Rick Berman and Gene Roddenberry, you flip out and accuse people of not living true to the ideals of “Star Trek”, while in reality it is YOU who hasn’t shown any tolerance towards whom you may disagree.

We’re all sick and tired of you sitting on your moral high horse telling everybody to abide by Gene Roddenberry’s “ideals”. I suggest that you get off your horse before you get thrown off!

Time for you to move along!

193. Red Dead Ryan - May 14, 2011

As for “Mission Impossible III” not doing well at the domestic box office, that is the fault of Tom Cruise. His bad “acting” combined with his couch-jumping tantrums and his devotion to the nutjob convention that is Scientology turned a lot of people away!

J.J Abrams made a good movie with MI:III. It could have been great, maybe even a classic, had a different actor played Ethan Hunt!

194. MJ - May 14, 2011

@192. RDR, thanks for capturing the essential of what would have been my response to the Captain here…you have saved me 10 minutes of my life. :-)

195. Red Dead Ryan - May 14, 2011

194.
……

You’re welcome, MJ! I hope you don’t spend those ten minutes in one place. Spend it wisely! :-)

And to be honest, I do like a lot of the Berman-era stuff. Unlike Captain Neill, I try not to force my opinions on others or tell them they’re wrong for disagreeing.

A lot of people don’t share my tastes, but I don’t give a f*ck. I have my dvds and Blu Rays and nobody’s gonna take them away!

196. Anthony Pascale - May 14, 2011

I would like to see people treat eachother with more respect. here. Looking at you MJ, TrekJan. Also i do want to see people treat those we write about about (Takei, Shatner, Abrams, etc.) with some respect. I don’t like personal attacks or namecalling of any kind. I am old school that way.

Oh also no more back seat moderating. We will root out any sockpuppets, spoofers, etc. I don’t like seeing people accuse others of that kind of stuff.

Thanks and have a happy saturday

197. Anthony Pascale - May 14, 2011

by the way on Michael Piller. He saved Star Trek: Next Gen and is a true hero of the franchise. And they should have never let him write a feature film (Insurrection) as it appears he had no idea how to write a “movie”

But his work on TNG for me will always outweigh that one blemish

…right i’m off

198. Red Dead Ryan - May 14, 2011

Michael Piller also co-created “Deep Space Nine”, my favorite Trek series.
No question that he wasn’t qualified to write movies, but neither was Gene Roddenberry.

199. eaglesnare - May 14, 2011

I don’t have a problem with them just calling it “Star Trek” because these movies is supposed to be about the original characters, therefore, it should be called just “Star Trek”.

200. Vultan - May 14, 2011

“Insurrection” would’ve made for an interesting two-parter of the TNG TV series; the story just wasn’t big enough for a feature film. It’s too bad, too. Something done with the Dominion instead (and perhaps a DS9 crossover) would’ve really knocked it out of the park.

Oh well.

201. John Trumbull - May 14, 2011

The title was fine. It helped send a message that this was a reboot and probably helped gain new audiences.

At this point, I think Takei is complaining about this stuff just to complain about stuff.

202. boborci - May 14, 2011

184. Debating if we should plan a third one. Your preference is noted.

203. Jack - May 14, 2011

160. What’s so backward about the world in this Trek — that broken homes, personal struggles, bullies and racism still exist? These will always be around. Ideally, they won’t be the norm, and they won’t be institutional and people will be better equipped to deal with them and have better access to justice. There was conflict, jealousy and racism in TOS (court martial, balance of terror, conscience of the king, etc.) — they were challenged and fought against. not always successfully. What there was, though, was the idea of a United Earth, race (sort of) and (sort of) gender not being a barrier and no seeming lack of resources. But what science was in the previous Trek movies, even TMP? And in the bulk of the TOS episodes? By the time of TNG, they stood around talking about how advanced they were, how all problems and conflicts were gone, and how people no longer had to use contractions and, instead, just sat around improving themselves — and it was kind of just blather. How this all worked was never shown.

All that said. I wasn’t thrilled by the movie’s massive, ugly factory farms and quarries in Iowa or the massive, ugly brutalist towers in San Francisco (I’m guessing this is a nod to the ’60s, but, ugh)… but whatever, the planet still looked like a nice enough place to live (people need to live, grow food, and take resources somewhere) and, going by what we saw of Starfleet, anyway, it sure looked like people from all over the planet (okay, a lot of them white), and beyond, were working together.

204. boborci - May 14, 2011

And one last thing on this thread:

We went with our title because we realized it never occured to any previous courts to call their movie, simply, STAR TREK.

205. Vultan - May 14, 2011

#204

Any word on what the sequel will be called? Does the “court” at least have a list of favorites?

206. Desstruxion - May 14, 2011

Make a third and then more of em Bob. You can note my preference too.

207. Ursus Indomitus - May 14, 2011

Look who the movie was about. What was JJ gong to call it… Star Wars?

Also, Roddenberry was a mindless philosopher. Humanity is only ever going to get WORSE, as history has already shown us.

Transhumanism is the road to Borgness and is evil.

208. MJ - May 14, 2011

@196. “I would like to see people treat each other with more respect. here. Looking at you MJ, TrekJan.”

Fair enough Anthony, I will endeavor to try to relax a bit.

209. Jerry Modene - May 14, 2011

FWIW, I can understand why they went with the simple title – remember, there were a lot of people who went to the 2009 movie who were not fans of the original series, much less the later incarnations. So I’m OK with that, just as I was OK with the Steve Carrell version of “Get Smart” (but don’t get me started on Tom Arnold’s “McHale’s Navy” – the original series, you may remember, was co-created by Gene L. Coon).

As for STTMP: I always thought “The Motion Picture” was a bit pretentious, but it fit, given that that movie was a serious attempt at 2001-style science fiction, rather than a cheap attempt to ride the movie coattails of Star Wars. Besides, the first Superman movie had done it a year earlier – its full title, you may recall, was “Superman The Movie” without even a colon in there. ;)

210. Green-Blooded-Bastard - May 14, 2011

@204. boborci – May 14, 2011

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father, and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

’Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.

211. Keachick (rose pinenut) - May 15, 2011

#202 and 204 Good call it was as well to call the movie just “Star Trek”. I want to see a second and a third movie sooner rather than later. You can note my preference as well.

#203 I agree (well with most of what you have said – “ugly, massive factory farms and quarries in Iowa…”? ). I’m not sure I understand some people’s objections. I think that the ideal Roddenberry and others were trying to illustrate was that many of the problems that blight much of humanity’s quality of life today would be a thing of the past by the time the 23rd century is reached – Trek style. It is all relative, eg

A century ago, even in the more affluent and technologically advanced Western world, the maternal and infant mortality rates were a lot higher than they are today. This has come about through a combination of factors – better hygiene, better understanding of the physiologies, better medicines like syntocin. However, that does not mean that there are no still births etc because we know there are.

Human behaviour is harder to change, however the kinds of abuses within a family which were tolerated and/or ignored, like domestic violence, physical and sexual abuse of children, are not excused the way they were in the past. Over time, most people probably do behave in a more humane way towards those closest to them, but unfortunately there are still some problems.

Unfortunately, many of these problems, whether they be, for example, some violent skirmish somewhere or child abuse. will not be eliminated completely, but Gene R perhaps saw that these problems and others, will not be as common, as widespread as they are today.

“The poor will always be with us”. Yes, true, because the word “poor” can be defined in different sorts of ways. However, by Trek’s 23rd century (prime and alternate universes), the kind of material poverty experienced by millions today would not be as extreme as it is now for many.

I doubt the Bad Robot team have much of a problem with Gene R’s vision anymore than the previous teams doing their Star Trek.

212. captain_neill - May 15, 2011

197

I agree with you and that was why I was damn annoyed at MJ criticising Michael Pillar. To me Michael Pillar was the guy that got TNG going. His work made TNG the ultimate show. He wrote one of the best episodes of that show namely “The Best of Both Worlds”

MJ and RDR, I am ageeting fed up with you two as much as you ar probably getting fed up with me.

I have exercised the demons of the dislikes of the new movie and if you actually bothered to read my last messages I don’t really care if you prefer the new movie over the other Treks or vice versa. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

What is annoying me is that people here are being disrespectful to the likes of George Takei, Harve Bennett, et all just because they did not like the new movie. Yet you’d be wanting to buy them a beer and salute them if it was vice versa. Why do youinsult these legends just because they don’t share your opinion?

That is not on.

I am sutre MJ and RDR will turn this one into hate on my part. But this has nothing to do with the movie. THis is people on this board being nasty to people just because they don’t share your love for new movie.

213. captain_neill - May 15, 2011

And I will say this to MJ and RDR, while I have problems with the plot line of the new movie Orci and Kurtzman do good character scenes and that was the key to the success of the last movie.

To be perfectly honest I hate these message boards. No one listens and just argue.

214. captain_neill - May 15, 2011

I met George Takei at vegas last year. He was a lovely person who actually took time to talk to his fans in the autograph queue.

Yes the bickering with Shatner is getting old but the guy is really nice in person.

I guess that’s why the disrespect to Takei is annoying me.

215. captain_neill - May 15, 2011

and perhaps I have been harsh to JJ Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman in the past but I am trying my best to exorcise that demon.

Which is why I am saying that no one is right or wrong, it is just a matter of opinion.

If I have caused offense then I apologise to all.

If you accept my apology perhaps MJ and RDR we can start more civilised talks.

216. MajelSeven - May 15, 2011

Actually in this 2009 movie the writers finally got the bridge team done which is we can see in the last few minutes, they made this Enterprise got the its right crew. Oooo, time is up! No more for the rest of stories. In the meanwhile which we can’t see is the any meaning collapses from different cultures as we used to, as Mr Takei said about Gene “embraced all cultures, all religions”, indicated which old Star Trek had done magnificently well . But this doesn’t means we will ignore the terrific jobs 2009 Star Trek do. Still we sincerely hope that next Star Trek will be more Star Trek as Star Trek should be.

217. Boris - May 15, 2011

204 – J. Michael Straczynski and Bruce Zabel wanted “Star Trek” for their own proposed reboot, which would’ve gone back to Kirk, Spock and McCoy as well. In the prime timeline, the only place where “Star Trek” would’ve made sense was “The Motion Picture”, but someone wisely chose to avoid confusion with TOS.

As noted, I don’t really mind “Star Trek”, but it would’ve been better to use a more unique title, so it can be converted into a nice acronym such as TMP, TWOK, TSFS, FC…

218. True Trek Fan - May 15, 2011

Wow. You people are masters at bitching. If you aren’t whining at George, you’re bitching about J.J. Get a life. You people are the reason Star Trek fans like me have to hide our love.

George made a great point, it needed more, but it really doesn’t matter because its over and done with. The next movie will have a better title because that’s just how J.J. works.

George is a fantastic actor but was typecast because of his role on Star Trek. If they didn’t want him to do purely SciFi roles, we would have been able to see more of his abilities. And btw, as much as I love Shatner, the dude can’t act at all and he knows it. George takes the acting cake there.

And for those of you who hope he reads this? Trust me, both of those men have better things to do than read a long ass blog written by overweight geeks that still live in their momma’s basement and watch episodes of TOS with a bottle of lotion in hand.

Lay off George, lay off Roddenberry, and lay off J.J. They are all brilliant talented men who have helped us see what the future could be. I’m a true fan who respects all of it.

And I do believe that Gene is watching us from the after life and giving J.J. a thumbs up.

219. Red Dead Ryan - May 15, 2011

213.
……

“To be perfectly honest I hate these message boards.”

Then why do you bother posting here?

“No one listens and just argue.”

Including you. You have no problem pointing fingers at others, but once they criticise you, you play the “Gene’s ideals” card. For far too long, you’ve tried to have it every which way. Irony or hypocrisy?

Hmmmm………..

220. captain_neill - May 15, 2011

219

Alright I am sorry if I come across like that.

Can we make amends and start again?

221. Phil - May 15, 2011

132. dmduncan – May 13, 2011

I have no issue with him having a point, and he has also been very positive with Mr. Abrams efforts with the franchise. Because this (and I’m guessing other) message boards behave in very predictible patterns I have to ask why put forth a public comment that is only going to draw criticism of either you or the current state of the franchise you support?

222. captain_neill - May 15, 2011

219

Red Dead

I really do apologise if I come across as hypocritical, I don’t mean to.

I guess I was reacting in response to the negative comments towards George Takei, if it is creating an opinion of me that is not true then I do apologise..

I don’t want to be an enemy to you or MJ and maybe we can get back on the right foot. I will do my best to stop my rantings.

223. Phil - May 15, 2011

@184. Maybe Orci, Abrams, Kurtzman and crew will make lots of ST movies and TV, if for no other reason then to piss you off.

@204 – an obvious and simple answer. Gotta love it.

224. MJ - May 15, 2011

@222. Apology accepted — let’s move on.

225. MJ - May 15, 2011

@218. True Trek Fan, based on the negative contents of your post, how can you claim to be any different than the lot of us here who you obviously despise? Your post is filled with bitching and vitriol in its own right. Thanks so much for the lecture.

226. Dave in RI - May 15, 2011

Since Star Trek ’09 was made with “general moviegoers” in mind and not the fans, JJ should have called it what the general public already thinks its called:

“Star Track”…

…you know, the one with Dr. Spock and the Star Track Enterprise ;-)

227. Jack - May 15, 2011

Have I said this? I think Star Trek was the perfect title. It was a relaunch, after all and, yes, it hadn’t been used. As for a sequel title, I have no idea. Is there anything left unplundered from the opening monologue? To Boldly Go? The Voyages? Prime Directive? The… something… Mission? Strange New Worlds? Space? Final Frontier? These Are The? Meh. The Temple of Doom and The Dark Night Rises are both catchy. Personally, I like the idea of no colon/hyphen or number, ie. no star trek in the title (I’m sure that’s been polled already.).

I’m still hoping the court doesn’t think they need to put in silly speeches, clunky analogies, and pseudo-philosophy to make it Star Trek. Heck, Roger Ebert complained about the talkiness of all the previous Trek films long before saying that this last one wasn’t philosophical enough. Just showing a future where we’ve survived and thrived, where the world isn’t a toxic mess, where we’re at peace and working together, and where one of the world’s priorities seems to be exploration (for the sake of knowledge and not for economic, idealogical, political, territorial or military gain) ans where everyone
enjoys equal rights and freedoms, well, that’s a heck of a philosophy right
there.

228. captain_neill - May 15, 2011

227

I still like to have some of those speeches in their. That is part of the heart of Trek.

I dont think thought provking debates should be completely replaced with action..

You can have a successful balance of the two.

229. MJ (petunia almond) - May 15, 2011

@228. Captain Nell, I was under the impression that you were going to lay off your anti-Trek 09 schtick for a bit at least?

230. Captain Karl - May 15, 2011

Mr. Takei, I respect you very much, but sometimes you can be very full of yourself.

What else would they have called it? It was basically a reboot of TOS Television show. Just like Starsky & Hutch, Charlie’s Angels, The A-Team, etc., they named it after the show it was based upon. Even though it was Star Trek XI, it wasn’t really within TNG movies, which abandoned the numbers…in fact, the numbers were abandoned once they stopped basing the movies on TOS characters. It couldn’t have very well been named Star Trek VII since being TOS reboot, with those characters, because it didn’t take place on THAT timeline. It, for all intents and purposes, is a brand spankin’ new timeline. Now, what to call the 2012 movie is another story, we can’t very well call it Star Trek II as that was TWOK, although it will probably be called Star Trek 2…but that’s like toe-may-toe/ toe-mah-toe.

Again, Mr Takei, I respect you tremendously, but please don’t take it so seriously and be so full of yourself as the self appointed voice of TOS.

231. critso - May 15, 2011

Hey George, check out your stellar performance on Voyager. Hate to break it to you, but your acting chops are nowhere near where you think they are. Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley made Star Trek. The rest of you are of no consequence. Please retire with some dignity

232. Red Dead Ryan - May 15, 2011

229.
……

It has appeared that Captain Neill is either very forgetful or a liar.

I’m betting on the latter.

233. Jack (lilly macadamia) - May 15, 2011

Nothing to say here, as always, except lol to MJ. Flattery abounds for Keachick.

234. Kate - May 15, 2011

Jesus, is there anything Takei doesn’t whine about? He’s always crying about being offended by something or another.

235. True Trek Fan - May 15, 2011

@225…I never claimed to be different, I just said that which needed to be. I was taught to respect my elders and betters. George Takei is both, as well as J.J. and the late, great Gene Roddenberry.

George didn’t bitch about the title, he just thought it needed to have its own title and respect what TOS was.

As to everything else I could say about this subject, its just not worth it. I said everything I should have to.

To everyone else, post 218 was just based on the B.S. I was reading, not on the good posts. I felt that someone needed to stand up for them, not be like those people you read about who say horrible things about actors, singers, etc. that drive them to commit suicide, among other things.

It isn’t right, no matter what your opinions are.

236. MJ (daisy chestnut) - May 15, 2011

@235. “not be like those people you read about who say horrible things about actors, singers, etc. that drive them to commit suicide, among other things.”

I don’t think anyone said anything much worse than what Takei and Shatner have said about each other in the public eye. I would argue that both of them deserve this sort of criticism based on the awful public feud and public bitching back and forth over the past decade. Yes, they have set a poor example, but I also think, based on their statements, that we should hold them accountable for it.

So, when the pattern of Takei’s bad behavior regarding Trek leads him to a transparent slam on the new movie, you can bet that I am going to unapologetically comment on it, whether (with all due respect) you like it or not. You will notice on the boards that the only two actors in Trek I criticize are Shat and Takei — that is because through their own behavior and actions, they have not earned my respect.

Finally, to suggest the I might cause anyone to commit suicide here is completely off base, and I would request that you retract that statement, if not apologize for it.

PS: Anthony, I really am try to restrain myself…honest!

237. MikeThompson - May 15, 2011

George, please shut up……….

238. Z3R0B4NG - May 16, 2011

There is a reason why everybody calls it Star Trek “XI”

239. captain_neill - May 16, 2011

229 and 232

I was not making an attack on the movie.

Was only saying I like some speeches about morality. I don’t think that should all be taken away.

Since when does that constitute as another jibe at the Abrams movie?

240. captain_neill - May 16, 2011

For GOd sakes MJ and RDR I like the new movie.

God I can’t even say I prefer nice speeches mixed in wiith action without you turning it into me making some Antin Trek XI comment.

I like the new movie. I really do.

If it read as anto Trek XI then I apologise as that was NOT my intention in the last post. I was only commenting that I don’t think Trek should completely lose its commentary on issues and alogories. As this is part of the heart of the show.

I have no problem with more action but at the same time I like some of those questions brought up as that is what sci fi and Trek does so well.

Is asking for that and not solely be action a crime to say on this site. I like both.
But seriously if you felt it came across as an insult to the Abrams movie I apologise.

241. Anthony Pascale - May 16, 2011

“True Trek Fan”
Two things
1. warning for trolling
2. change your name

no one here has the right to bully people and claim the mantle of being a fan the right way. Everyone here is a fan. You are no better at it then anyone else.

242. Anthony Pascale - May 16, 2011

And to everyone. I don’t know what it is about this particular thread but chill pills for all

243. cristo - May 16, 2011

Thus, on another note>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

244. Desstruxion - May 16, 2011

Hey Anthony, On a different topic, is there any “genre” news on tap for this week? I know you’re probably busy, but I really like those posts. You guys do a good and thorough job with it.

245. Daoud - May 16, 2011

210: Green-blooded, you’re no bastard. :) Good opportunity for the “By Any Other Name”!

@bobo: Only a third? I think you should send one out every three Christmases until Armageddon comes: I’m sure you always would have new ideas to explore, you and your associates are a font of interesting ideas. Sorry to hear you didn’t get the pickup on the pilot, but I know this frees you to work on Fringe some more, perhaps? And maybe that “Captain Robau and the Kelvineers” animated series?

@Meta: “Star Trek” as a title goes back to 1963, after all when Roddenberry realized “Wagon Train to the Stars” wasn’t going to fly. Hmmm, maybe that’s a good title for a New Vulcan colonization novel. Where are those novelists when you need them.

I believe Bob called this “Star Trek Zero” in some of the pre-publicity noting the timeframe was earlier than any Kirk-based Trek had told stories. And Gene referred to both his Pike-pilot and Kirk-pilot as “Star Trek”. He didn’t plan on calling the Paramount Television Service series anything but “Star Trek” until the “Phase Two” was added.

And don’t forget, originally in Phase Two, the changes in uniform were to be subtle… and many “adjustments” simply ignored on film. He felt audiences wouldn’t have a problem with updates, doors in different places, and a slight change in interiors. Oops, he didn’t figure on how nitpicky we’d gotten during the 70′s waiting for new Trek. I’m not even sure that with TNG there was the intention of using “Star Trek: The Next Generation” as a full title, that the title card would have focused on “Star Trek”.

246. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2011

240.
……

Man, for F*CK sakes, can’t you just go ONE damn thread WITHOUT rehashing every single statement?

247. MJ (carnation peanut) - May 16, 2011

@246. Agreed, when someone apologizes and infers that they are going to lay off a topic, they should just go and do it.

248. captain_neill - May 16, 2011

247

I guess I will have to prove by doing.

I guess I am not allowed to respond to any comments I either agree with or don’t agree with?

249. gingerly - May 16, 2011

@91

Well, as Katt Williams might say, keep doing your job. ;)

250. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2011

248.
……

The things you always post about:

You prefer the prime Trek over the J.J version

Apparently for you the new movie was dumbed down for the mainstream audiences

You hate how people criticise Berman, Braga, Bennett, et al

You hate how people compliment J.J Abrams, Bob Orci, et al

The new cast will never replace the originals

You can’t stand people who prefer the new movie over “Voyager”

You feel like others decided to make it a crime for you to prefer the older Treks

You feel blacklisted

You complain about the lack of respect for past Trek

Need I go on?

251. captain_neill - May 16, 2011

You can’t stand people who prefer the new movie over “Voyager”

I think you mis quoted me on this point.

I never said Voyager was better. In fact in retrospect Voyager is my least favourite show.

I was actually actually using it as an example how people can be kind about one thing and enjoy mocking one but very unhappy when someone criticises the other.

Anyway. I will try my best to not rant about it again, by biting my tongue at a comment I don’t agree with. I won’t comment in fear of being labeled in a bad light once again.

Can we try to make amends? It seems the JJ Abrams movie is causing a civil war these days. LOL

252. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2011

251.
……

“I think you mis quoted me on this point.”

“I never said Voyager was better. In fact in retrospect Voyager is my least favorite show.”

I wasn’t quoting. But you wrote something similar. You’ve said before that you prefer the previous Trek series and movies over the new movie. So that would include “Voyager” regardless of you picking it as the least favorite of the series.

“I was actually actually using it as an example of how people can be kind about one thing and enjoy mocking one but very unhappy when someone criticises the other.”

No you weren’t. You were upset about J.J Abrams trumping something you like.

“Anyway. I will try my best to not rant about it again, by biting my tongue at a comment I don’t agree with. I won’t comment in fear of being labeled in a bad light once again.”

I won’t hold my breath. You’ve promised many times before that you wouldn’t rant……….and we’re still reading your rants.

“Can we try to make amends? It seems the JJ Abrams movie is causing a civil war these days. LOL”

Only in your mind.

253. Michael Hall - May 16, 2011

Hmm. Not really understanding why an opinion on the value of a motion picture is intrinsically distinct from, say, someone else’s opinion regarding the value, or behavior, of a particular actor. Except that one is entirely personal, and the other one isn’t.

captain_neill, unless you’re being abusive towards someone else you have every bit as much right to post your opinions on these boards as anyone, regardless of how tedious or repetitive others may find them. Since I have found your comments to be somewhat repetitive (but no more so than the 1000th post gushing about Trek ’09 being the most awesome gift to fans ever), but never abusive, let me suggest that you have nothing, in fact, to apologize for.

254. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2011

I can’t stand Trek fundamentalists and their “holier than thou, I know better than you” attitude. It’s something that needs to go, and go RIGHT NOW.

I can’t stand the hate directed at J.J Abrams. He made a great film. It’s that simple!

I wonder why Bob Orci even bothers coming to chat with us.

255. Michael Hall - May 16, 2011

“I can’t stand Trek fundamentalists and their “holier than thou, I know better than you” attitude. It’s something that needs to go, and go RIGHT NOW.”

From what I can gather, the fundies (wow, I lived long enough to see that word applied to myself! Cool!) are simply less than satisfied with what you, yourself, are obviously eminently satisfied with. So obviously, opinions differ, but where do you get “I know better than you” out of that?

“I can’t stand the hate directed at J.J Abrams.”

There’s been little to none expressed here that I can see. Even amongst those, like myself, who are very critical of his film.

“He made a great film. It’s that simple!”

I think you’d like it to be that simple.

“I wonder why Bob Orci even bothers coming to chat with us.”

Well, he probably figures that the feedback ratio of 9 (“Your movie was AWESOME!!”) to .9 (“I really liked it, but there’s room for improvement”) to .1 (“The thing blew”) he gets in these parts ain’t too shabby. Plus, the fact that he’s rich, successful, and to all appearances happy, probably helps in giving him a thick skin; thicker, certainly, than that of some of the posters here.

256. MJ (carnation peanut) - May 16, 2011

Gotta love you Dex!

257. Michael Hall - May 16, 2011

“Gotta love you Dex!”

*Shrugs* Right back atcha, fella. (In my serial-killer-but-entirely-hetero-normative way, of course.)

258. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2011

255.
……

I used the term “fundamentalists” to describe those who are against the new movie simply because they are turned off/enraged that J.J Abrams did things a little bit differently from the previous Treks. Those people seem to be of the opinion that Gene Roddenberry would not have approved of the recent film. These “fans” try to adhere by the strict rules supposedly set by Roddenberry even though the man has been dead for twenty years. They refuse to move on.

There has been so much hate directed at J.J Abrams ever since BEFORE the movie came out. Maybe not so much on this particular thread, but many threads have devolved into anti-J.J hate mongering.

259. Michael Hall - May 16, 2011

“I used the term “fundamentalists” to describe those who are against the new movie simply because they are turned off/enraged that J.J Abrams did things a little bit differently from the previous Treks.”

Speaking strictly for myself, why would on earth would I want a new take on Trek to slavishly duplicate the production values of a space opera made over four decades ago? Or even those of the more recent films? My objection to Trek ’09 was not that Abrams made different choices, that but from my own aesthetic viewpoint–sorry, but it’s all I’ve got–so many of those choices were wrong.

“Those people seem to be of the opinion that Gene Roddenberry would not have approved of the recent film. These “fans” try to adhere by the strict rules supposedly set by Roddenberry even though the man has been dead for twenty years. They refuse to move on.”

I happen to agree that it’s a mug’s game to declare with certainty the opinions of a man twenty years in his grave (and whose opinions even when it came to Star Trek weren’t infallible Holy Writ in any case). Based on his well-known views of the Harve Bennett movies I suspect he would have been happy overall with the cast and pleased with the film’s scope, but less than enthused with its lack of substance and some elements of its production design. But that’s only a guess.

“There has been so much hate directed at J.J Abrams ever since BEFORE the movie came out. Maybe not so much on this particular thread, but many threads have devolved into anti-J.J hate mongering.”

Well, again, I just haven’t seen the hatred you speak of. I certainly don’t hate the man; in fact, I regard him as quite talented. I just think he wound up making a bad Star Trek movie, which would be a cosmically piss-poor excuse to hate anyone.

260. Phil - May 16, 2011

@259…sorry, MH, but there has been a lot of venom thrown JJ and crews way. Critical of the man and the product.

261. Jack - May 16, 2011

259. What should have been different?

262. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2011

259.
……

Sorry, dude, but you’re totally wrong. The new movie was at least positively recieved by the vast majority of fans and critics. The movie wasn’t perfect, but whatever “bad” parts it had, was vastly outweighed by the tremendous qualities brought forth by J.J Abrams and co.

Feel free to dislike the movie. Just don’t call it a bad movie. “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier” was a bad movie.

263. MJ (carnation peanut) - May 16, 2011

@259. Dexter, if you don’t believe in the “JJ Haters,” right now, go over to the new story on this site, “First Clip From JJ Abrams Super 8,” and you will see several of the JJ haters having fun “in their element.”

264. "The Captain's Neck Is Broken" - May 16, 2011

The entire time I was watching, I was asking myself…what am I watching? The marquee outside the door said STAR TREK?!?!?!?!
All they did was ripp-off the franchise. Next film, come up with your own characters and title. Have a nice day.

265. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2011

Well, forget that, MJ! One just popped in!

266. I'm Cherokee Jack - May 16, 2011

Eric Idle once said people don’t really want a Monty Python reunion,they want to return to a time when they were young and seeing the show for the first time.That seems to be what’s behind a lot of the rancor aimed at nuTrek.The Abrams film is a sign of time marching on,and the “fundamentalists” don’t like it.They want to be kids again,watching a TOS episode they haven’t seen a hundred times before.Well,so would I,but time waits for no one,even Trekkies.
Perhaps it’s time for the “fundamentalists” to go their own way.Constantly complaining about Abrams’ Trek movie isn’t good for anyone.Maybe the fundies should stay with their TOS videos.Lot of good viewing there.
Never thought I’d be nostalgic for a Kirk vs. Picard debate…

267. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2011

266.
……

Well said!

268. MJ (carnation peanut) - May 16, 2011

@264 “Have a nice day.”

Er, I think you mean, “back to that six pack…”

LOL

269. MJ (carnation peanut) - May 16, 2011

@266 “Perhaps it’s time for the “fundamentalists” to go their own way.Constantly complaining about Abrams’ Trek movie isn’t good for anyone.Maybe the fundies should stay with their TOS videos.Lot of good viewing there.”

You know this site was ostensibly set up to cover the new Trek movies. So if there are some “fundamentalists” who hate JJ’s Trek, why are they wasting there time here? What is their point???

270. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2011

The leader of this fundamentalist movement goes by the name of Jeyl. She is Trek fandom’s equivalent of the Taliban. Jeyl is the leader of the Talifans. And they are very jealous and angry!

271. MJ (carnation peanut) - May 16, 2011

@270. OK, I am going to have reuse the “Talifans” over and over on these boards in the future. That is freaking genius, dude!

272. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2011

Can’t claim credit, as someone else coined the term, but thanks nonetheless!

How about for the whiners: Cryahtollahs?

273. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2011

eer

Cryatollahs

274. MJ (carnation peanut) - May 16, 2011

And don’t forget, the “Mullah NoMores,” who are stuck back in time with TOS.

275. Red Dead Ryan - May 16, 2011

You know, I’ve been thinking about this for awhile. What if the writers of “Voyager” had given the Kazon a religion? And they were fanatics and fundamentalists instead of poor men’s Klingons? They were divided among sectarian lines already. And one Kazon did blow himself up in a Kazon takeover of the ship. They could easily have been modeled after the Taliban and other Afghan/Pakistani ethnic groups.

A missed opportunity indeed.

276. Michael Hall - May 16, 2011

“Feel free to dislike the movie. Just don’t call it a bad movie.”

Feel free to pay attention–I didn’t call it a bad movie. As entertainments go, it was for most a perfectly enjoyable way to spend two hours in the dark that went very well with their sodas and butter-substitute popcorn. And was every bit as disposable and forgettable.

But while it wasn’t, in a generic sense, a bad action movie, it was for my money lousy drama, and worse science fiction. It had little to say about life as it is lived, and very little sense of wonder or awe about the way it could be lived. Which makes it bad Star Trek by default.

And thanks for the free analysis, Cherokee. No doubt, these days I am pining for my misspent youth–but if I have a yearning to experience new TOS-like episodes with that glow of discovery which allows you to perceive the old show’s biggest flaws as nostalgic virtues, there’s always Jim Cawley’s Phase 2. But in truth, I was more than happy to “move on” and see Trek done with the kind of narrative and technical sophistication undreamed of for a TV space opera produced in the ’60s, and based on his work for the first couple seasons of Lost I was very optimistic that J.J. Abrams was just the man to do it. You can confirm this, incidentally, by checking out my postings up through May, 2009 on this very website. So, to paraphrase #262, disagree with my views of the film all you like, but don’t assume my profound disappointment with it can be attributed to simple nostalgia, or an unwillingness to see Trek evolve and grow.

277. Sewing - May 16, 2011

I enjoyed the movie, Star Trek. I don’t care that the title was only that. No, the plot was not in the “philosophy” of Gene R but if you watch any of the series not many really are. The don’t really explore or go where no one has gone before, Voyager excepted. They often ended up blowing other starships up in firie explosions.

I view the reboot as a prequel mainly introducing the new actors, back stories, the alternate timeline and getting them all together on the Enterprise with a very young Kirk as captain. Nero and his plot were the vehicle to allow this all to happen. Now that this alternate universe has been established the writers, etc. Can go on in whatever direction they want without the restrictions of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and all the movies. New characters can be added and removed, twists in established alien characteristics, i.e. Klingons, Ferengi, Romulan, can be made.

By creating the new universe/timeline they have opened up not only more movies but the possibility of TV.

There has been a series of Alternate universe Star Trek books for a long while. I haven’t read them preferring the regular but they keep writing them so I figure they sell.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to the next movie to see where the Enterprise is headed. In the meantime, Star Trek Voyager: Children of the Storm is released May 31 and it will be downloaded to my iPad that day. I’m retracing the Destiny series and on to be ready for the new book.

278. MJ (lilac cashew) - May 16, 2011

@276. Sewing, have you read any of the DS9 books? If so, any recommendations for me? thx

279. captain_neill - May 16, 2011

253

Thanks for the support. and thanks for understanding what I am getting at.

280. captain_neill - May 16, 2011

The new movie is a better film than some others. Although I am not as critical on Generations I would freely admit that Star Trek XI was a better movie.

276

I guess technically as novels are not canon, where as I treat some as such unless something said is contradicted then it is no long er canon but I guess it can still play as an alternate universe in a way.

281. MJ (lilac cashew) - May 17, 2011

@278. Dexter has your back, Captain…whoa, don’t let him drive you at night to any back lots anywhere. LOL

282. captain_neill - May 17, 2011

281

Very funny.

Iam not going to rise to anything now. What’s the point.

283. Phil - May 17, 2011

275. Red Dead Ryan – May 16, 2011

It would have taken courage to present the suicide bomber mentality in that forum, because the various Islamic apologist groups that litter this country would have been screaming about how they were being mistreated in the media. Good idea, but it would never happen in the PC world of ST – it’s much easer to go after the old stand bys.

284. Michael Hall - May 17, 2011

Shorter Phil 283:

“Don’t muddle the issue of terrorism with talk about history or context or dead children. That’s just PeeCee, and my brain can’t handle it.”

285. Phil - May 17, 2011

@284….please….

286. Michael Hall - May 17, 2011

Please yourself. I have no problem not bringing politics into these forums, since the site owner has made requests along those lines numerous times and I believe it’s just good manners to follow the rules when you’re in someone else’s place. But the rules have to be the same for everyone.

287. Phil - May 17, 2011

@284. Go back and look at the thread. The comment was about character development, and my comment alluded to the fact that politically correct writing would never allow for that to be explored. Your restraint is appreicated…

288. Michael Hall - May 17, 2011

In other words, the other writer thought it might have been an interesting thematic springboard for storytelling, and you dragged politics into it by insisting that Islamic apologists and their PeeCee allies would never allow it. My point, exactly.

289. Phil - May 17, 2011

If it makes you feel any better, you prove mine as well. Cheers….

290. MJ (lilac cashew) - May 17, 2011

Watch out Phil, he may invite you over for a fava beans and nice Chianti.

291. Michael Hall - May 17, 2011

Oh, really? Well, just to make myself clear: I’m all for passionate public debate on each and every subject, including that of suicide bombers. (Whose connection with Islam in the Western imagination, incidentally, is a very fertile subject for discussion in and of itself: until recently, the most egregious employers of the tactic were the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, not followers of the Prophet by any stretch of the imagination. What PeeCee group in America will speak up for them, I wonder?) But just as I would never aver as a political progressive that my views cannot find expression in today’s popular culture, I find it absurd when such claims (ever seen an episode of 24?) are made on the right–you’re just making the easy claim that no conversation can take place before one even gets started.

As for the propriety of such discussions taking place here, you’ll have to take that up with Mr. Pascale.

292. MJ (lilac cashew) - May 17, 2011

snoring….snoring….snoring….

Somebody wake me up please when the Trek discussion restarts.

293. boborci - May 17, 2011

speaking of politics and the world we live in today, trek09 could be interpreted as the story of Bush and Obama coming together after 911;)

294. boborci - May 17, 2011

291. and as far as sci-fi goes, don’t know what could be more tasty trek sci-fi than mr. Spock going back in time, creating an alternate universe, and altering the course of the young lives of the people he knew! Would love to hear your log line for what the movie shoulda’ been now that you’ve had a couple of years to think about it.

295. MJ (lilac cashew) - May 17, 2011

Bob, I know you are very liberal, but what would be your solution to the out-of-control crime situation in your home country of Mexico? I was just in El Paso on business last week, and no one there who can avoid it will cross the border in Juarez anymore because the drug games have completely taken over.

296. Keachick (rose pinenut) - May 17, 2011

#293 Oh Bob, Oh Bob, or could it be “boborci (chrysanthemum brazilnut)”? :)

(Anthony Pascale – this post may be deemed political comment but it is in response to postings by MJ and Boborci -)

I guess I never interpreted the Trek 09 in that way. It never occurred to me. I hope Trek stories are not just going to be allegories for what happens within the US or US politics.

The truth is that more lives have been ruined/lost since the 9/11 attacks outside American soil than on it and these have all been the result of America’s desire to catch those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. More foreigners have suffered as a result of 9/11 than have Americans.
However, this is not new. That is how it has been throughout the 20th century. Ordinary American people living in the USA have been spared brutal occupation by Nazi forces (unlike France, Netherlands, Poland etc), they have been spared the horrendous bombing that took place during WW2 (save Pearl Harbour), the bombing, napalming, defoliation by long acting and chemicals extremely dangerous to human health (Agent Orange) that occurred during the Vietnam war lead by US armed forces and so on…and now there is US involvement (some might call it occupation) in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the recent bombing attacks on parts of Libya. All of these things are taking place well away from American soil…

This is not USA-bashing, MJ (lilac cashew). I am simply stating facts. For what it is worth, NZ and Australia have also been spared the terrible destructiveness brought about bombing and other military engagements. We have also been spared occupation by brutal foreign powers and I am very grateful for that. This is not about me inferring NZ’s (or any other kind) superiority over the USA, however it behoves us not to ignore these salient facts, to be blinded by our good fortune and remain unaware of how our actions can affect others, both good and bad. This is also NOT to say that the US’s response to certain international events is always wrong, because it is not.

The events of 11 September 2001 – ie the bombing of the twin towers by passenger planes full of civilians, the attack on the Pentagon and the plane destroyed along with all of yet more civilian passengers, was/is horrific and always inexcusable. They affected everyone, in some way or other.

The truth is that even my small children (8 and 6 at the time) were terrified whenever a plane flew over because they were so afraid the plane would (deliberately) crash into their house and/or school. This was the same for the hundreds of other elementary age school children living in our area. Some children were screaming, crying, desperately trying to hide.This was a result of the news footage they saw on TV here. (We live about 5 miles from Auckland Int’l Airport so we see and hear a lot of air traffic.)

Personally I remember that day well, hard not to really. It was one of those days similar to what many Americans ask of one another – “Where were you when JFK was assassinated?” and incredibly, 40 or so years later, so many remember that event, where they were, what they were doing, as if it had only happened the day before.

Given all the natural disasters that have occurred over the last few months around the world – NZ, Japan, USA, Spain (perhaps I have missed a nation), perhaps having the Enterprise deal with a powerful natural adversary or adversaries might be something that people around the world could relate to more and show us how we can be, at our best, through the example of the crew of the USS Enterprise, Starfleet, UFP.

297. MJ (lilly macademia) - May 17, 2011

Keachick, good post!!!

One positive from the last few years since 911 is comparing how women in Afghanistan were treated under the Taliban versus how they are treated today after U.S. intervention. In this regard, there is an outstanding book by an Afghan writer on this that I highly recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Thousand-Splendid-Suns-Khaled-Hosseini/dp/1594489505

298. MJ (lilly macademia) - May 17, 2011

Also, as I alluded to in my question to Bob, what is going on in Mexico right now is similar to a country having terrorist events all over the place…it has really degraded the past couple of years to the point where the thugs are hanging peoples body parts out for display, and you can have anyone you don’t like murdered for the going rate of $500, no questions asked.

299. boborci - May 17, 2011

295.

First, I would have the CIA quit dealing drugs globally.

http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/9712/ch01p1.htm

Then, id have the ATF quit shipping guns to mexico.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7358389n

300. boborci - May 17, 2011

296. Agree with you. Not taking a position at all. Not sayng Bush and Obama coming together to fight war on terror is a good thing, but i figured it would sell.

301. MJ (lilly macademia) - May 17, 2011

Ah Bob, you are so predictable — gotta love you man!!!

302. boborci - May 17, 2011

296. Pop quiz for a hundred points:

What famous person claims not to remember where they were the day JFK was kilked?

303. boborci - May 17, 2011

Killed

304. Red Dead Ryan - May 17, 2011

George W. Bush

305. boborci - May 17, 2011

304
So close! His dad, actually.

306. Basement Blogger - May 18, 2011

True Trek Fan says,

“And for those of you who hope he (Takei) reads this? Trust me, both of those men (Shatner, Takei) have better things to do than read a long ass blog written by overweight geeks that still live in their momma’s basement and watch episodes of TOS with a bottle of lotion in hand.” (@ 218)

Hey, watch it with the shots at geeks blogging in the basement. Second, I do not watch TOS with a bottle of lotion…. Okay, I do like watching the following episodes and actresses without lotion. Andrea in “What Are Little Girls Made of?”; Lt. Palamas in “Who Mourns for Adonis” and my favorite Yeoman Tonia Barrows in “Shore Leave.”

307. dmduncan - May 18, 2011

305: “So close! His dad, actually.”

Wasn’t he in Dallas that day?

308. dmduncan - May 18, 2011

Also, the attempted assassination of Reagan spoiled the dinner meetup between Neal Bush and the Reagan shooter’s BROTHER. Oh yes, the Hinckley’s were friends of the Bush family. My guess is that Reagan wasn’t supposed to win the election. He wasn’t a Hegelian statist.

309. dmduncan - May 18, 2011

Not clear enough, but it does look like him:

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/FbiMemoPhotoLinkBushJfk.htm

310. Keachick (rose pinenut) - May 18, 2011

I did not mean to start the whole JFK assassination controversy again with my remarks of comparison between that event and that of 9/11.

And True Trek Fan – please no more comments about “overweight geeks in momma’s basement” stuff. You have no idea who any of us are, what we look like or what we do. Not appropriate. Anyway, so what, if some may appear just as you describe? You still don’t know anything about them other than a superficial appearance. Most people tend to see those kinds of remarks as offensive.

311. dmduncan - May 18, 2011

It’s important to bounce around ideas with Bob on more than just Star Trek, because he’s in the business of making shows and movies that have a shot at influencing people.

As Stan Lee would say, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

I can’t be free until everybody in this damn country is free, and any opportunity I get to push those who send out the messages to help wake people up, I’ll take it.

312. MJ (lilly macademia) - May 18, 2011

DM, yours and Orci’s political/conspiracy posts crack me up. Keep it coming — it is entertaining!

313. dmduncan - May 18, 2011

What’s so funny? MKULTRA? COINTELPRO? Operation Northwoods? Iran-Contra? How about this: http://cbhd.org/content/forced-sterilization-native-americans-late-twentieth-century-physician-cooperation-national-

Yeah, for those who do the research the “laughs” never stop.

314. Red Dead Ryan - May 18, 2011

Wasn’t George H.W Bush meeting with some of Osama bin Laden’s family members on 9/11?

315. MJ - May 18, 2011

I don’t find the real events funny, but I do fine the way that some people connect the dots to come up with some of these conspiracy theories to be good ole fashioned entertainment.

316. Keachick (rose pinenut) - May 19, 2011

#313 dmduncan. I agree – that is not funny at all (re the link you posted). That is such a violation in so many ways. I wonder which people were behind this grossest of sexist and racist policies. Perhaps the same people who oppose pro-choice legislation. Nothing would surprise me. Pure Nazism! The same shit went down in Nazi Germany. Disgusting. Hypocrisy seems to rule.

317. dmduncan - May 19, 2011

Good ole Dick Cheney suggested that we attack our own ships with our own ships dressed up as Iranian ships, flying Iranian colors so that we can start a conflict with Iran with public support. That’s the kind of folk we have leading this country. The current administration is equally guilty, and playing a very dangerous game with Pakistan right now. But you won’t hear that on TV because there are no real journalists on TV any more.

316: “I wonder which people were behind this grossest of sexist and racist policies. Perhaps the same people who oppose pro-choice legislation. Nothing would surprise me. Pure Nazism! The same shit went down in Nazi Germany. Disgusting. Hypocrisy seems to rule.”

Sorry to have to tell you this, Keachick, but the founder of Planned Parenthood (Margaret Sanger) was one of those eugenicists who thought certain “undesirables” should not be allowed to reproduce. People who oppose abortion in principle are not also generally people who favor forced sterilization of minorities.

Bill Gates recently gave a talk at TED about the wonderful program he’s got going in third world countries with vaccines that control birth. Now tell me, what sort of “vaccine” prevents pregnancies? A vaccine where the purveyor deems reproduction a disease, that’s what sort.

And WHO got busted giving “tetanus vaccines” to third world women (only) with curious chemicals that have nothing to do with fighting tetanus but which do, coincidentally I am sure, serve to prevent pregnancies. The women given these vaccines were not told about this interesting side effect.

318. Keachick (rose pinenut) - May 19, 2011

However, the women were still at risk from getting tetanus, I presume. Clearly, certain people were prepared to cut down a population one way or another.

The only “vaccine” I know is an injection given every three months to control female fertility. If an injection is missed, usually her normal reproductive cycle resumes its normal course. Some women prefer that form of contraception over others. I am not sure what the (longterm) side effects are though, if any.

I am about choice, not coercion, nor about misinforming women, especially vulnerable third world women who have more than enough to worry about, like being tricked into taking something that could prevent them from becoming a mother. There are women out there who do a lot of other women no favours at all, quite the contrary. So much for sisterhood. Never believed it myself. Women can be such bitches at times, especially to one another.

For many poorer women in third world, the only way a young woman can achieve any kind of respect or status is by having a child or children, especially so if she can produce a son. It seems that the WHO etc even want to strip what little some of these women do have and for what in return, I wonder. I realise there are population problems, but I’m not sure that this is the best way of solving them. I can only imagine the pain and frustration a young woman would have in trying to get pregnant and not understanding why she can’t. The family and society in general would blame her, ostracise her and sometimes even throw her out on the streets. Wow, she has so much to be grateful for… NOT.

319. dmduncan - May 19, 2011

“However, the women were still at risk from getting tetanus, I presume.”

Everyone is at risk from tetanus but they were only “inoculating” the women which raised suspicion.

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Swine_Flu/Gates_Vaccines/gates_vaccines.html

Read this also. Monsters are real. They are often called “philanthropists.”

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23503

320. skyjedi - May 19, 2011

Finally an original cast member has the integrity to admit the JJ Abrams mess of a film is not Star Trek, but a good action flick. As i have been saying all along.

Too bad it did not come from Nimoy or Shatner.

321. I'm Cherokee Jack - May 19, 2011

That’s not what Takei said.He took issue with the movie’s title just being “Star Trek”.He said nothing about the movie “not being Star Trek”.That’s you projecting your opinions as fact.

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