Star Trek – The Future Began 1 Year Ago Today

On May 8, 2009 the future of the final frontier began again with the release of JJ Abrams Star Trek. One year later the film is still fresh in the minds of Trekkies while we await news (and the release) of the sequel the film inspired. Today TrekMovie takes a look back at the film, its history and impact.


From Fatigue To Phenomenon

Following its return on the big screen in 1979 with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the Trek franchise grew as part of the cultural landscape, spawning multiple sequel films and TV series through the 80’s and 90’s. But by December 2002 the Star Trek film franchise hit a wall with the first true bomb in the ten film series: Star Trek: Nemesis. Just a little over two years later, in early 2005, UPN and Paramount announced that the 17-year run of Trek on TV was coming to an end with the cancellation of Star Trek Enterprise. On top of that you had drop-offs across the extended world of Trek from conventions, toys, publishing, and beyond. Things were so bad in the early 2000’s that the gaming licensee (Activision) sued Paramount to get out of their contract.

With failure of Nemesis and cancellation of Enterprise – Star Trek was without a crew for the first time

Around this time some people at Paramount (including Star Trek overlord Rick Berman and chairman Jonathan Dolgen) starting talking about "franchise fatigue" and saying that Star Trek needed a rest. But as it turns out, this was also when Paramount executive Marc Evans first approached the writing team of Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci to see if they had any ideas for Star Trek. Some in the studio wanted to bring Trek back and they were impressed with the work Orci, Kurtzman and JJ Abrams had done on Mission: Impossible III, which was in post-production. By Spring 2006 news broke that Paramount (with its new CEO Brad Grey) had tasked JJ Abrams and his partners in geekdom to create a new Star Trek movie. This was also when news first broke that Abrams was going to take on the challenge of recasting Kirk and Spock, who he saw as the heart of the franchise and natural starting point for any new spin on the final frontier.

Comic Con 2006 teaser poster hints at return to Kirk and Spock

Even though the recently released Batman and Bond films had shown that franchises can be rebooted for the 21st century, many fans were still skeptical with some even saying that it was impossible to recast icons like William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. The Abrams team actually found it rather easy to recast Spock, with Heroes villain Zachary Quinto actively lobbying for the role. And using the ‘idea’ that Orci and Kurtzman came up with, they could also cast the original Spock, Leonard Nimoy, and both were announced to a roaring crowd of geeks at Comic Con 2007. Casting Kirk did turn out to be a bit harder, but eventually they convinced Chris Pine and filled out the rest of the new crew with talented attractive young actors like Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Anton Yelchin and Simon Pegg. Shooting began (during a WGA strike) in November 2007 for a planned release date of Christmas 2008.

Comic Con 2007 Star Trek Panel

In early 2008 the buzz began to build with the release of the Star Trek teaser trailer. This waiting period was soon extended after the WGA strike ended and Paramount moved Trek to May 8th 2009. Now positioned as a Summer tentpole, the buzz continued on a low ebb  amidst the backdrop of Abrams’ trademark super-secrecy, with little official information coming out until the Fall of 2008, when the first images emerged and a the first full trailer soon followed. The buzz moved into high gear with a Super Bowl commercial and a hugely successful trailer in March 2009 (with Watchmen).

Award-winning trailer shown with "Watchmen"

And the months leading up to Spring 2009 also saw a Trek resurgence of another sort, with toys and merchandise from both the movie and classic Trek appearing at Walmart, Walgreens, Toy R. Us and other big retailers. 2009 was a collector’s bonanza with everything from shirts to key chains to Pez and of course, action figures. Paramount also lined up a number of big name marketing tie-ins like Verizon, Lenovo, Esurance, Nokia and Burger King, which all built on the critical mass that was the return of Star Trek.

Burger King commercial shot on the Enterprise bridge

As the Summer approached and more and more footage was being released, skepticism was replaced by enthusiasm in much of the mainstream and geek media. After years of dismissing the Trek franchise as either dead, or just for hardcore geeks, the world started waking up to the possibility that Star Trek could be cool again. With a worldwide promotional tour and screenings starting in April combined with consistently positive reviews, by the time of official release in May, JJ Abrams’ film had developed into a meta story about the rebirth of Star Trek as a cultural phenomenon. 

Star Trek inspires cover of Newsweek

But what about the fans?

With so much positive vibe on Star Trek, some in the mainstream media tried to push the notion that fans were not happy with the new take on their beloved franchise. Some even scoured the world, contacting fans like myself and James Cawley to appear on TV to attack the film. This new found relevance for Trek even inspired the humorists at The Onion to create a parody video of Trekkies complaining about how Star Trek was "too watchable."

Onion has some fun at our expense

However, all kidding aside, the Star Trek movie did what many thought was impossible. It played well with the mainstream moviegoers and the Star Trek fans (casual and hard-core). Polls at this site and other Trek sites have shown that JJ Abrams Star Trek was well received by the faithful, with most rating it as one of the best of the series (if not the best over all). These same kind of positive thoughts were also apparent in geek reviewers like those posted here by myself and Jeff Bond, and the likes of Harry Knowles of AintItCoolNews and others. Of course, being that it was a totally new take on Star Trek, and the fact that it played a bit loose with timelines and canon, there were (and still are) detractors. However, even RedLetterMedia, famous for their video take-downs of the TNG era films and the Star Wars prequels, had a back-handed way of complimenting the Star Trek film (in a very un-PC re-enactment of Star Trek ‘having its way’ with a fan).

Famously brutal – Red Letter Media was pretty gentle on Trek

Legacy – Getting Serious

There is no doubt that Star Trek was a hit. It was the sixth highest grossing film of 2009 domestically with $257.7M. Globally the total was $385.5M, with the film performing well in English-speaking countries, but not as well in the rest of the world. Even detractors acknowledge that the film successfully achieved its goal of making Star Trek popular (again). Paramount was so up on Star Trek, that they commissioned the sequel script in March of 2009, before the money even started to roll in.

In addition to mainstream popularity, the film also got a lot of serious attention from the critics and film industry. Star Trek was one of those rare films that was nominated for popularity contest awards like People’s Choice and even Teen Choice, along with more high-brow groups like the Critics Choice Awards. When Star Trek wasn’t nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, it generated quite a lot of ‘snub’ buzz, especially following its PGA and other guild and critics award recognitions. Bottom line was that Star Trek was being taken seriously. And in the end, the film still took home the first Oscar for the franchise (for Makeup). 

Another legacy of the film is that the new crew find themselves to be big-time celebrities, especially Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana (although Avatar also helped there). The new crew of attractive young actors are followed by paparazzi and are often rumored to be attached to new tentpole films. All this of course can only help the sequel, due June 29th, 2012.

Star Trek celebrities Chris Pine & Zoe Saldana at Academy Awards

Still a good Trek movie after a year

Watching the film again today I still find it an enjoyable, entertaining and emotional experience. There are still little facets that can be noticed for the first time, and familiar moments can continue to have impact, such as the tear-jerking opening segment with Capt. Robau and Mr. and Mrs. Kirk (and the baby too). And how can you not like seeing Leonard Nimoy once again as Spock. To me, Star Trek is an action thrill-ride film, that still finds time to inspire hope for the optimistic future envisioned by Gene Roddenberry (and the greats that followed him).

Leonard Nimoy came out of retirement for a reason – these guys got it

Is it flawless? By no means. JJ Abrams once told me that he agrees with most of the criticisms of the film, and I agree too. I don’t like the Budweiser redress for engineering, nor the squishy location of Delta Vega. The series of coincidence meetings and rapid promotions do force a lot of suspension of disbelief. And although I am no canon-ite, I really do miss phasers that beam instead of the blaster bolt style we have now. In addition, while the time travel plot allowed them to stick with canon and do a reboot, they could have made it a bit clearer that we are dealing with a parallel quantum universe and not a rewrite of the timeline. Of course, there also may have been just a few too many blinding lens flares.

Kirk wonders if this brewery can even hit Warp 1

I think the difference for me is how much I care about those things, and how I weigh them against all that is right with the film. It is hard to ignore the success of this new cast who all hand in impressive tours of duty. Of course Karl Urban’s pitch-perfect McCoy is a favorite (even for detractors). But, I am still amazed by Chris Pine’s performance going on an arc from jerk to Kirk. While it is true that the villain Nero was not fully realized, this film was not really about the Romulan threat. It was about this family coming together, especially the building of the partnership between Kirk and Spock. And then there are the technical achievements from effects to makeup to sound and beyond that I believe put this Star Trek film into a new class. But most importantly, the team of Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof and Burk were able to thread the needle and bring us fans a new and very modern take on Trek that mixed action, humor and character in a way that both was reminiscent of classic Trek and something new.

Star Trek’s new crew is a key to its success

So in my initial review for the film I said it would take time for me to decide if it was the best of the series. In the end, I feel that honor still sits with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. However, JJ Abrams Star Trek is in there with my group of second favorites: Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and Star Trek: First Contact. But, the guys have a sequel or two (or more?) to get to the top of the list.

Can’t wait to see where they go next


POLL: One Year Later

So now one year after release, how do you rate the Star Trek movie?




Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It’s Chris Pine’s amazing performance that really sold me on the movie! Shatner left big shoes to fill and Mr. Pine did NOT disappoint!

Agreed. TWOK still reigns.

I have to say it’s best next to Wrath of Kahn…


you have “how do you rat the Star Trek movie”

that would be “rate”…….leave “rat” to the Stanky McFibberich’s of the world!

Wow, the 13% of 31 voters who voted “0 (Worst Trek…ever)” need to chill out.

Chill okay. This is a good thing, all the popularity. Maybe you need to watch the ‘Onion’ clip provided via You Tube above.


bear in mind the poll was just put up moments ago so don’t really look too closely until the sample size increases. Check back later or tomorrow to get a balanced picture. But I suspect that in the end there will be a significant ‘hater’ crowd. They are out there.

5: how is it a good thing to make an awful movie, slap “star trek” on it and sell it to millions of idiots?

1: pine diddn’t fill shatner’s shoes, he was given ford’s shoes instead.


Are you kidding? Harrison Ford WISHES he came across with as good acting in the initial Star Wars movie! Not even close! Ford is extremely wooden and limited as an actor!

A year later…

And I still really like tha’ film. Did I have great expectations cuz’ o’ Lord Anthony and this site? Yes. And it wuz’ great. Really “fascinatin’.”

Ok, Mr. Pine… I said whatz ye’ wanted… can ye’ let me oot’ o’ yer’ kung fu grip now? Those big hands!

Oh, I kidz… Starry Trek ’09, as it wuz’ said afore by men better than me, wuz’ like a TOS episode updated and big-budgeted. Now, personally, I dunna’ like how tha’ ship looked at all, except upside down fur’ a a change, all nacelles and AMT parts… but tha’ ST09 film really delivered and made me feel enbiggened… or mayhaps that wuz’ just some Pine in me pants…


BND and I agree on the fact that the exterior shots of the Enterprise were weak, almost bordering on amateurish. For the next movie they should get a GOOD special effects company and LOSE the brewery/engineering look!

Oh, I kidz cuz I loves…

Great film.


Aye, Harry.


OK- one last post… Harry, that be tha’ one thing that took me outta’ tha’ movie- seein’ tha’ Enterprize look so wanky… really bugged me… I coulda’ made me a better ship outta’ a paper plate and two used toilet tissue rolls…

Otherwise, I can ignore that and enjoy tha’ film again and again.

Great film. Lotsa’ fun. Good actin’ in it and a nice TOS-like feel that made me tingle. That and me cellular telephone be on vibrate as I called meself repeatedly while watchin’ it.

But I am real glad I wuz’ here at this website ta’ “build up” up ta’ it…

Way ta’ go, JJ… And way ta’ go, Anthony- ye’ made that film so much fun ta’ wait fur’.


The ship looked fine, engineering looked fine, the movie was a very fine movie. And Pine was on target as a young Kirk; he was a much better actor as Kirk than Ford was as Solo. Ford’s gotten better over the years, but his early work is weak.

But what is UP with these poll choices? 10, 10 +? Is 10+ somewhere between 10 and 11? And why would you frame it 10+ best Trek movie ever?

Perhaps I think it’s an 8 or 9 and the best Trek movie ever.

My biggest Trek dreams came true with this movie. I almost cried at every character introduction in the film, especially the mccoy intro. This movie had a lot of positives. I felt as though i waited all my life for this huge production interpretation of Star Trek and it finally had come. The character interpretations were damn spot on and the action/plot/drama were all balanced soo well. I think the JJ team took the best of the Star Trek Franchise and the Star Wars Franchise and the lessons learned from the Ron Moore Battlestar galactica series and gave us this great Trek Interpretation. This movie shocked the crowds as though they were all about to enter warp speed for the first time.

There were a few shortcomings that i felt a bit betrayed by, but once again, it was trying to reintroduce the characters foremost and align cannon with the JJ-verse. So i shouldn’t take it personally, but i still feel let down by the “the big trio” and a little bit more of “romantic enterprise ship moments”.

Regardless, one of the best movies of 2009 and What a great reboot. I loved it soo much. It made my dreams come true.

Hope the JJ-team continue their creativity with the Trek-Sequel and make sure Khan is in it ! You heard me boborci ?!

There certainly was some franchise fatigue by the time Voyager and Enterprise were made – and I’d say it was more to be found in the writers and producers than the fans who stayed loyal even as the show quality bottomed out.

But Trek was never dead. They always had the option to revive the Original Series in some form.

I just feel sad it was this form – more Star Wars than Star Trek – and writers that sacrificed beloved characters for adolescent laughs and quick and shallow shock.

I feel bad that Vulcan and Amanda Grayson got stuffed into the refrigerator merely for shock value and the kind of cheap “character development” only the least sophisticated fanfic writers fall back on in lieu of real depth. I feel bad that Spock’s character was thrown under the buss for cheap laughs and shock and all his and Vulcan’s alien mysticism stripped away. I feel bad that Uhura was demoted to an object the boys could fight over.

I lump this movie in with “Generations” and “The Final Frontier” – bad Trek that didn’t respect or treat the characters well and that I can’t regard as canon.

And I was one who photographed a part of the production of ST2009 in 2008, as you can see from a entries in my blog. I had high hopes for the production then, and I couldn’t be happier that my hopes have been fulfilled.

As a longtime fan of Trek, I want to thank all the other Trek fans that helped make this moment possible — the one-year anniversary of a reinvigoration of the franchise that has mesmerized much of the entertainment world, and, more importantly, one that has inspired countless high-achievers to go where no one has ever gone before.

Some people are afraid of change, as Kirk himself said in ST VI. But the future is about change. Hope is change. Hope springs eternal. As, it strongly appears, does Trek.

Lest we forget, the creators of Trek — Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, the great writers of the Original Series, the hundreds or thousands of cast and crew who followed — are to be credited for inspiring a fanbase of millions.

And last, but certainly not least, thanks to JJ Abrams, O & K, and the cast and crew of the new Star Trek movies.

We live in good times for Trek. Very good times, indeed.

Keep up the good work!

9: that’s my point.

17. as much “fatigue” as enterprise must have suffered, the climax of the final episode (not the one with riker, i mean the real final episode) personifies the defining traits of star trek, and precisely what was missing in the new movie.

This movie was FUN (squared)!

I think that TWOK and FC are the best Trek movies ever, but the key distinction in 2009’s Trek movie is that it was appealing to non-Trek fans. That is a key thing that none of the other Trek movies, save TVH, could boast. That alone is reason to love Trek 2009.

@ N and Anthony,

Yes, there are haters out there. I am one of them. I did not like this movie, nor do I find the “Onion” clip funny.

As probably no one will listen to why I did not like this movie, I won’t waste typing it out. Sufice to say, this is not my Trek.
I do agree though that STWOK is the best Trek ever.

I am a big fan of TMP and TWOK, and I find something new in FC every time I see it. All the Trek movies speak to me, but these movies in particular stand out, I think, as brilliant pieces of popular art — in the best possible sense of that term.

ST2009 reintroduced Trek to the world — a Trek as Roddenberry intended, full of vigor and fun, full of action and humor, and with a dash of philosophy besides.

ST2009 made all the Star Wars movies — all of them, from the first to the last — seem yesterday’s news.

Partly this is because of the youth of the cast, and their sheer coolness, besides. Partly this is from the story — an origins story that is nevertheless full of the promise of the unknown and suspense.

Of all the SF franchises out there, Trek has become THE franchise to beat. While Transformers may have more bucks, it has none of Trek’s intellectual appeal. Where Iron Man may have more zing, it’s a one-man story in a universe located merely in the present. Trek carries the promise now of everything we could have wanted it to be.

The elders of Trek — Shatner, Nimoy, and many others — will always have our respect.

But it is the current generation that has our attention, and the attention of the masses.

And that, my friends, is a good thing.

A year later…I need a Star Trek TV Series.

Everyone keeps raving about First Contact. I reject that movie from consideration because it has a HUGE plot mistake. If the Borg can send a ship back in time at leisure, why not just send it back in their quadrant of space and then travel to Earth and conquer it in the past? Easy, right?

Yeah, nobody wants to acknowledge the elephant in the room. This story was put into production ONLY because the in-house writing staff came up with it! If anyone else had submitted it, they would have been laughed out of the room!

Same with Generations…the Picard we know from the television series would have known to leave the Nexus at an earlier point in time and apprehend Soran in Ten Forward (with a full security team).

Sloppy, sloppy writing!!!!

I hate it when favoritism trumps talent!

Fun film, though I still have a special place in my heart for ST:TMP.

Ah yes. RIP Trek, 1966-2008.

the wrap-up of Fringe’s second season is giving me great impressions that Mr. Orci and Mr. Kurtzman will be able to weave a fantastic story arc for new Star Trek films

I was briefly on Good Morning America as a pesky fan at the pre-midnight pre-screening last Spring. “It better be good,” I said (and it was on TV), and it was. ;-)

20: “fun”, as you use it, means stupid. shut-off-your-brain-and-enjoy-the-shiny-colourful-spectacle-of-vacuous-idiocy fun. not what i look for in a movie, and not what star trek is supposed to be. star trek is phi-fi.

actually i should rephrase. I do not like the term ‘hater’ and should not have used it, let’s just say ‘passionate critics’, some of whom i consider friends and people i respect.


There’s a reason you didn’t find the hilariously spot-on Onion parody funny…..

You know this film did a lot of good things. This is the kind of send off that Shatner should have gotten. It was good from start to finish, yes there are some lens flare glaring “trekkie” issues. But there are about 100 in twok and TUC and FC as well. So witht hose out the window, I gave it a ten, not twok 10 but a solid I had to think about it for a second, 10.,

21: how is it praise to say this movie appealed to people who don’t like star trek? that is the very criticism it should be receiving, it’s not star trek.

23: how is it “reintroducing star trek” to introduce something that isn’t star trek? star trek isn’t just a name. you can’t make a movie that not only ignores, but shows distain for, the central philosophies of star trek, call it star trek, and tell everyone you’re “reintroducing star trek”. that’s not a reintroduction, it’s a redefinition. imagine filming an arthur c clarke story as a mindless action movie containing only the most superficial aspects of the original, and then saying “i’m bringing new fans to the works of clarke”. those “new fans” will open up a clarke novel and say “where are the tits? this sucks”. how many people became asimov fans because of the will smith movie? as for the star wars movies, they posess actual quality, and intelligence, leaving any recent fad in the dust.

27: hear hear. of all the shows i have encountered in my travels, this was the most…. human…. *cue bagpipes*

my only worry with the new cast is they won’t stick around past their 3 movie deal, and then Trek will be dead again…lets face it Shatner, Nimoy etc didn’t have many other options, all these actors are going to be big and move on to other things

The Wrath of Khan will never be overtaken by any future Trek movie unless they use 6ft models and fly them over each other at impossible angles and dimensions. The new movie is good but it will NEVER compare to the originals. I personally believe it’s only better than V and all the TNG movies. The Original films have a substance that is impossible to recreate. I am excited for the next film, but it will not be a Star Trek I II III IV or VI. Luckily I have Star Trek Online to help endure the long wait.

35: heard that before.

this movie will be quickly forgotten, just like any other brainless special effects blockbuster. by the time they can make a contrived sequel, people will have forgotten it entirely, and they’ll have to market the sequel as a new movie. even intelligent blockbusters like the nolan batman series have gone through this, where they market the second as if the first never happened, so as not to confuse ADD moviegoers. pirates of the carribean did this too.

“21: how is it praise to say this movie appealed to people who don’t like star trek?”

How is it not? Past Trek did it before, thus why 99% of us here are fans. You realize that don’t you?

“that is the very criticism it should be receiving, it’s not star trek.”


“23: how is it “reintroducing star trek” to introduce something that isn’t star trek?”

It is Star Trek, you have no power to declare it not to be

#37 – “35: heard that before.

this movie will be quickly forgotten, just like any other brainless special effects blockbuster”

Nope, it won’t :)

My opinion is that Star Trek 09 was an epic win. It brought back to life a franchise that had become mediocre over the years. Great Job to the whole SC for doing a fantastic job! Cant wait for the sequel either (2012 is to dang long to wait though :] ), Im interested to see where JJ, Bob and Alex and the rest of the SC take this series. I have to rate this movie up there with ST: TMP and ST: TWOK, IMO its kind of a mixture of both, it has the epic look and directing of TMP married with the more action/adventure story line of TWOK.

It’s funny how people think that those who say it’s the “worst Trek movie ever” assume that they’re ALL haters.

Maybe some of those folks, like myself (who voted a 3), think it’s bad in the sense that I just didn’t enjoy it. When I saw Star Trek on opening day, I went in there with an open mind, both Trek-wise and with the mentality of a film critic.

While all the little quips to Treks past were nice, they couldn’t mask what was, to me, a very shoddy film.

38: there was no point when i disliked star trek. it appealed to me as soon as i saw it, for the very reason this movie disgusts me. and the reverse is true, people who like shallow crap like this are disgusted by star trek. that was the movie’s target audience, people who actively hate star trek. they still hate star trek, only now they like a crap movie with the same star trek stamped on it.

i’m not declaring it anything. it isn’t star trek. my say has no impact on that. they made a non-star trek movie and called it star trek. that was their choice.

39: what won’t?

can any of you seriously say to me that you think carl sagan would have enjoyed this movie?

Count me in as a detractor. The potential was there, but sadly, it was missed in my opinion. From a soundtrack that sounded a mashup of the soundtrack from Tim Burton’s, “Batman,” and of course, “LOST,” to a weak and lame plot device; from bad casting decisions to missed opportunities and overlooked details, this film just did not work for me.

Just to clarify i loved the new movie, just worried it won’t last like the Shatner era because of the actors leaving…guess they could go TNG in that case though.


you just started posting here are already you are bullying. You dont like the movie fine, but dont berate everyone who does. one out of six posts already is from you

I started out loving Trek 09, but gradually, piece by piece, it started to lose its luster. One year later I accept it for what it is, but not as the Star Trek I grew up loving. It’s fun, it’s entertaining, but I find it to be somewhat empty. The essence of TOS is there in form but not in spirit. Let’s try to do better next time, shall we?


That’s your choice, at least you’re not a “hater”. There were flaws with the movie no doubt, but there were also flaws with TOS(UESPA anyone?), and all of the movies from 1 to 10.

I have to say, as a ‘star trek’ film it ranks as my least favourite (indeed, the only film I did not enjoy, despite trying desperately to do so). However, as a generic ‘sci-fi’ film I’d rank it somewhere about 5-6.

@ N and Anthony: As with Capt.Roykirk et al., I don’t appreciate caricatures of star trek fans who dislike the movie as being incalcitrant and unreasonably conservatives. We have our reasons, and while some of us may be unable to control themselves sufficiently to explain them clearly (or be sufficiently patient to do so repeatedly), I certainly respect the opinion of those who enjoy the film, since we are (after all) judging it from a different perspective.

Of course (@ Devon), we ‘new-film haters’ can’t really criticise the film as ‘not being star trek’ just because it doesn’t fulfil our own definitions – however, that doesn’t mean the conflict can’t exist for us (i.e. that it does NOT match our definitions), or that we can’t be ‘reasonable people’ in disliking the film for being so-very-different. Everyone, after all, has a different idea of what makes ‘star trek’ = ‘star trek’, whether it is those tenets we attribute to Gene, the style of story-telling, universe or ethics. Some people place importance on the intellectual or allegoric aspects, and others more weight on the action – that was even the case during Voyager or DS9, I recall friends who enjoyed the way the stories were presented, but were keen on Star Trek to ‘get darker’ or for quicker pace / more ‘epic battles’ &c.

We should lay off any provoking insults on both sides, as there are plenty of more fleshed out and mature ways to explain why you like or didn’t like the film other than simply calling it ‘stupid’ – and unless we ‘new film haters’ are truly all completely barmy, I find it infinitely difficult to imagine that ‘film lovers’ cannot empathise at all with us, although they may disagree with the conclusions (i.e. they may enjoy aspects which others do not – a matter of personal preference that is hardly arguable).

My feelings are that:

1) The new movie is not in the spirit which I associate with original trek and its corresponding movies, at least in the sense of Gene Robbenberry’s utopian ideology (that admittedly was more manifest in the TNG era than TOS/TAS/TMP)

2) The morality of the story is lost, as is the emphasis on discovery, the overruling importance of intellectual and mental personal development (the passion for knowledge and understanding above vulgar, ‘uncivilised’ tastes) as opposed to transitory pleasures (se x, bar fighting etc.)

3) The filming style and dialogue is far too action oriented with a weak/contrived plot (especially when it comes to Nero, whose background and character are extremely shallow without the backstory provided elsewhere – although even then I find him somewhat cliche and one-dimensional) and none of the more strategic (naval style) and philosophical flairs Star Trek was so loved for.

To understand this point of view, run the following thought experiment:

-Thought Experiment- (as an exercise in simple logical coherency):
Notation: Given statements listed (i) i = 1,2,3… ; (r) denotes the physical object society typically associates with the the word prior to (r) (e.g. apple(r)). (n) denotes only the name prior to (n) (e.g. apple(n) which is actually orange (r))

(1) I enjoy eating apples(r)
(2) I do not enjoy eating oranges (r)
(3) I possess an orange (r)
(4) I rename the orange (r) with the name: apple (n)
(5) I rename the apple (r) with the name: orange(n)

This is necessarily logically coherent with:
‘I do not enjoy eating apples (n)’

Question: Have I now changed my tastes so that I enjoy eating apples, whereas before I did not?
Answer: The name ‘apple’ may experience continuity, but the properties and qualities that constitute what can be named an ‘apple’ has changed. If you apply this to the Star Trek movie: even if the new movie is called ‘Star Trek’, it has lost the original essence (at least by the definitions and in the eyes of we ‘new trek haters’) of ‘Star Trek’, and can be distinguished as a seperate entity. We might as well call it by another name (By Any Other Name, haha!) e.g. ‘Quinto, Pine & co.’.

@ Hat Rick: Some people *are* afraid of change, and some people dislike change… but is that so wrong?

41: excellent point. the assumption that is made is that all the criticism of the movie comes from change-fearing lifelong trekkies in their 40s, primarily pissed off at the change of cast. this assumption was of course promoted through a media smear campaign against star trek fans by the makers of the movie. if you point out that the movie was awful and stupid, they say “this isn’t the 60s, old man, get with the times. it’s young and hip and exciting and (insert marketing-buzzword euphemism for stupid here), you just don’t like it cuz ur OOOOLD”.

the fact is, i’m 22, and i viewed the movie as if it were not a star trek movie at all, which was helpful, because as it turned out, it wasn’t. i did not hold it to star trek standards, i held it to movie standards. i hated it for the same reason i hated transformers or x-men 3 or any other brainless special effects movie (now it’s own genre, plot optional). it was bad. then holding it up to remake standards, it faills still more. it fails by not keeping true to the characters, reducing them to one-dimensional action-movie cutouts, or worse yet, an accent with legs. it fails by not keeping true to the message of the original, or even the mood of the original. basically, it fails as a remake in every way that “the day the earth stood still” suceeded as a remake. it doesn’t have to be identical, just good. i’m not against change, i’m against change for the worse.

now onbviously i can’t rate it as an entry in the star trek series, because it isn’t. the fact that it claims to be is insulting, and takes it down another notch. but even with that notch, it’s still a terrible movie.

I rated it as my favorite. I’m one of the younger crowd so I liked its fresh take on classic Trek. I’ve seen almost every season of Star Trek and every movies and its my favorite with First Contact close behind. I’ve always been a bigger fan of The Next Genertion that The Original Series but, this really was both enjoyable and awe-inspiring.