Movie News

Moriarty Also Saw That STAR TREK Footage... And He’s Ready To Sign Up For A Five-Year Mission!!

Published at: Nov. 23, 2008, 10:33 p.m. CST

Hey, everyone. “Moriarty” here. I’m still chipping away at that KICK-ASS set report, so bear with me, especially as each and every day piles on several new events worth covering. Yesterday, for example, I joined pretty much every other person in LA who covers film so that we could see the 20-minute STAR TREK presentation that Paramount also held in London and New York. It’s been interesting watching the wave of positive reactions from those first two events, including Harry’s considered response. When they do that, it’s sort of like reading reviews of a band that’s on tour, knowing you’re going to see them play when they hit town, curiosity building as you hear about the set list and how good they supposedly sound. And in this case, I find that my curiosity works on a couple of different levels. I like the original 1960s TV show. That’s pretty much it. Of the theatrical films, I like pieces of THE MOTIONLESS PICTURE, I think KHAN’s a wicked adventure movie, and I’ve got no use for the rest of it. I’ve tried to stay interested, but I can’t really pretend to care about the way the rest of the franchise played out, on the big screen or the small. I like the theory of STAR TREK more than the execution of it. Of course, I know how seriously people take the material. It’s sort of difficult to grow up a nerd in America and not have at least one Trekkie friend. We hung out with this guy in high school who approached all things TREK as religion. He had a ton of money sunk into STAR TREK, and kept a running tally on the monetary value of the collection of books and toys and memorabilia and soundtracks and movies. He was a Spock nerd in particular, with this “I’m a Vulcan” affectation. I remember when STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER came out... I was working at a theater, and a group of us decided to drive to another theater in our chain in downtown Tampa to see a midnight employee screening of the movie the day before it opened. On the way home, my buddy Jake and I really tore into the film, mocking it mercilessly, and our Trekkie friend sat there simmering for the entire forty minute drive. Finally, when we let him out of the car at his house, we were standing there, having climbed out so he could get out of the back seat, and one of us made one last joke about how wretched the film was, and he... just... snapped. He started yelling at us, tears in his eyes, fists clenched like he was about to start throwing punches. Telling us how we didn’t understand all the nuances of the characters, and how we didn’t get that it was THE MOST STAR TREK OF ALL THE STAR TREK MOVIES SO FAR AND HE LOVED IT AND WE WERE JUST ASSHOLES AND WE SHOULD SHUT OUR FACES. It still makes me giggle to type that out. And at the same time, I’m sorry. Obviously, Trekkies have a profound connection to these characters and the world that Gene Roddenberry and his amazing writers on that original series all created. It speaks to them. It means something to them. It’s important to them. And if there’s any group of people who are going to have a hard time wrapping their heads around what JJ Abrams is doing with STAR TREK, it’s probably those hardcore uber-STAR TREK fans. What I like most about the original series is the optimism. That’s such a rare thing in science-fiction, but STAR TREK was a product of its time, and I always really respected the show’s vision of the future. More than that, though, I think Rodenberry had one perfect idea amidst all sorts of really f’ing good ideas: the dynamic between his main trio of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. I can name all sorts of other virtues to the original series, but I think the main thing that show got right was Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Part of what makes Sergio Leone such a genius was the purity of the creation of his archetypes “the good, the bad, and the ugly,” and the way he played with them over the course of several films, showing how variations on those archetypes could create all sorts of different storytelling opportunities. Well, I think K/S/M is just as flexible a dynamic, and just as loaded with dramatic potential. If you’re going to get ANY of the characters right, it should be those three and the energy between them. Walking into today’s presentation, I think I was relatively baggage-free compared to a lot of the people I spoke and listened to before and after. First and foremost, this has to stand alone and work as a film. How it applies to continuity or how it reintroduces the property... that’s all secondary. What matters most is the two hours in the dark, and how well that plays. And based on the twenty minutes we saw, I’d say Paramount’s got nothing to worry about. JJ Abrams came out to introduce the footage, and the first thing he talked about was how strange an experience it was to be on the Paramount lot talking about his STAR TREK movie, since his dad was a producer with an office on the same lot when he was a kid, and went to an early screening of the 1979 Robert Wise TREK film when he was a kid, also on the lot. He talked about how it was the script that got him involved with this one as a director, and how it was something he’d never seriously considered before that. He introduced Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, John Cho, Bruce Greenwood, and even Ben Cross, who were all in the audience so they could see the footage with us. And then just like that, we were into the first sequence. It’s a small-town bar, presumably just off-base, and a bunch of Starfleet cadets are blowing off steam. Uhura (the lovely Zoe Saldana) heads up to order a round of drinks for everyone, and Kirk starts hitting on her. He’s a townie, and he’s very drunk, so even though he’s giving some pretty good flirt, there’s no way he’s going to close the deal. Harry talked quite a bit in his write-up of the footage about the alien guy sitting at the bar between them, and it’s a nice design, a nice throwaway appearance that was actually adding punctuation to the scene through performance, reacting to both sides of what was going on and then getting the hell out of the way when the inevitable barroom brawl breaks out. Two things stood out about the fight: (A) Chris Pine’s a convincing brawler, something I deem crucial in a Kirk, and (B) the beating he takes is surprisingly savage. It’s broken up by Commander Pike (Greenwood), who then sits and talks with Kirk for a while. He knew Kirk’s father, and he was somehow involved in the disappearance of the Kelvin. I’m not clear on the full backstory of the Kelvin, but in the trailer, that’s the ship you see being destroyed at the very end of the trailer. Evidently, it had some sort of encounter with Romulans, and Kirk’s dad was the captain, and his actions onboard during the attack helped save a whole lot of people, but at the expense of his own life. That’s the chip on Kirk’s shoulder, and the reason he has no interest in Starfleet despite scoring off the charts in entrance exams. Pike tries to get through to him, implores him to join. In fact, my favorite line from the sequence is when Pike finally evokes the image of Kirk’s dad. “Your father had command of a ship for 18 minutes. He saved the lives of 800 people, including your mother’s. And yours. I dare you to do better.” Greenwood’s always great, and he’s (pun acknowledged) commanding in the role. The next part of the sequence is the shot you see in the trailer of Kirk riding out to where they’re building the ship. It’s the Luke Skywalker “two suns” moment, and for me, it worked. Keep in mind... I’m mercifully unaware of Kirk’s real backstory, so I don’t know if this contradicts what’s come before. Evidently, the image of a starship being built on Earth is giving people fits, and I can see why the science of it is a nightmare. But as an image... it’s evocative. Guy’s looking at his ride outta here. It’s just that simple. For me, the sequence served as a real indication of what to expect from Chris Pine, the film’s single biggest question mark. James T. Kirk is a pretty big character to step into for a guy as unknown as this, and if his performance doesn’t work, none of the rest of the money they spend on this film is important. You can’t buy charisma or simply cut around it. Either Pine’s the guy, or he’s not. For me, the experience of watching him in the footage we saw today was a lot like when I went to see the first X-MEN on opening night, and I got that sensation while watching that Hugh Jackman was both the perfect embodiment of Wolverine and a guy we were going to be watching for a long time in a variety of roles. Well, Pine looks to me like the next Jackman, a guy who’s going to springboard into the pop culture consciousness fully-formed thanks to this iconic character he’s been given to play. He’s a brawler. There’s an arrogance to him. But there’s also a soul in there, and that’s what makes it work. The second clip was set a full three years later. That’s something I’m not sure people get. There’s a passage of time in this movie. It’s not like a bunch of cadets end up in charge of the Enterprise three weeks out of the academy. Kirk isn’t stationed on the Enterprise, but when there’s an emergency call from Vulcan, something about it seems suspicious to Kirk. He has to enlist the help of McCoy (Karl Urban, who is positively spooky in the role), who infects Kirk with some sort of low-grade virus so that he has an excuse to put him in sick bay. Once there, Kirk’s got to warn Pike and avoid being put in prison for his disobeying orders. Unfortunately, Kirk manifests a few insane side effects (like numb tongue and giant swollen Tom-Cruise-in-TROPIC-THUNDER hands) that kick in as they’re approaching Vulcan, where they’re headed into what Kirk is convinced is a trap. The “lightning storm in space” that’s been reported has only shown up one other time, when Kirk’s father’s ship was attacked. Pike is shocked when Kirk shows up, and Spock (Quinto) is visibly annoyed. Kirk looks like a lunatic, babbling and shrugging off McCoy and Uhura, both trying to stop him from confronting Pike. But when Kirk lays out his reasons, and when Uhura confirms the truth of what he’s saying (she’s an alien language specialist), even Spock has to admit it sounds like he’s right. Kirk’s warning may be the only thing that saves them from flying directly into a trap, and because they’re battle-ready when they emerge from warp drive into the space above Vulcan, they’re able to survive. Barely. There’s a lot of humor in this sequence, but also a lot of tension, and it gave us our best look at Chekov (Anton Yelchin), who’s playing it big and broad. His Russian accent’s so thick that the computer doesn’t recognize him at one point, and I sincerely hope that’s as big as that joke ever gets. I know a lot of people love STAR TREK IV, but it’s precisely that sort of winky winky jokey jokey vomit that makes me hate that film. The entire movie is like an episode of HAPPY DAYS where the cast walks into the room as if greeted by applause. It’s STAR TREK vaudeville, and there’s a few beats out of the Abrams stuff that has just the slightest little whiff of that. I pray that it’s not played up much more than this. Seriously. When you see the way TERMINATOR SALVATION does that, too, it’s going to start to feel like the summer of déjà vu. I thought Quinto’s Spock was underrepresented in the footage we saw, so I can’t really tell you what I think of his performance. The emphasis was largely on Kirk, and Pine continued to impress. He’s funny, but he’s also got a fair intensity at the same time, something that’s not easy to pull off. Abrams walked out between each clip to introduce the next one, and he worked the room really well. He was funny, like when he explained how Spock ends up in control of the ship, and his first priority is to get Kirk “the fuck off of it.” Kirk’s abandoned on an ice planet, exiled, and he runs into another guy who’s suffered the same fate, a young brilliant engineer named Montgomery Scott (Simon Pegg). It appears that Scotty has also been exiled ever since he ran a disastrous teleporter experiment on a superior officer’s beagle. Now Scotty’s living with a weird little alien dude, and that’s where Kirk finds him. Of all the clips, this one was probably my favorite, just because of the interplay between Pegg, Pine, and the midget in the make-up. Pegg’s got the Scottish brogue down cold, and he looks so different that he sort of vanishes into the role. Oh, and did I mention that Spock is there, but it’s not Quinto? It’s Nimoy. Old Spock. With Pine’s Kirk and Pegg’s Scotty, playing scenes. So... no matter what, you know this is a time travel movie. Nimoy Spock is adamant that Quinto Spock can’t know he even exists. He certainly can’t meet him or deal with him or interact with him at all. This was the only sequence they showed us that hinted at the time travel stuff in the movie, and they didn’t explain much. Obviously, Nimoy’s Spock is trying to correct something that’s gone wrong in the timeline, and Kirk seems to be the focus of whatever it is he’s got to fix. At one point, Kirk admonishes him, “You know, time travel is cheating.” And Nimoy Spock smiles back, “I learned it from an old friend.” He fires off a familiar gesture and a “Live long and prosper” to finish off the scene. Nimoy is older than dirt at this point, and that age combined with the fact that he’s the only one of these people who has a history with the character he’s playing gives him this sort of quiet dignity that we’ve never really seen from him before, and he’s allowing a lot more emotion to show through, too. He’s so visibly delighted at this younger Scotty, this younger Kirk, that he can’t hide the smile. One story in particular that Abrams told that I liked: after a take on one of Nimoy’s first few days, Abrams called cut and then started to walk over to Nimoy to give him a note. And halfway over, his legs went to rubber and he just hit a wall. Slowed down. Realized how insane that would be, for him to walk up and tell Leonard Nimoy “You’re doing it wrong.” And Nimoy saw Abrams stop, saw him realize what he was doing and panic, and said, “No, it’s okay. Tell me. I want to know.” The final sequence was the biggest action scene they showed, and it’s a pretty rousing piece of staging and imagination. You’ve seen a few hints from it in the trailer. You remember the guys in the space suits who look like they’re flying? Well, they’re not. They’re falling. From a shuttlecraft. On purpose. Kirk, Sulu (John Cho), and a Red Shirt jump out and follow a tight descent path next to a line that connects a Romulan ship to a powerful planet-sized power drill that is aimed at the surface of Vulcan, running full-blast. Their job is to land on a platform at the bottom of the connecting line and disable it to stop the drilling. The entire sequence is turned all the way up in terms of dynamic action, and each part of the scene is built as a complete series of gains and payoffs. Landing on the platform intact proves to be too much for the Red Shirt, and his death (it’s not a spoiler... really... you know it’s inevitable) is hilarious and awful. Sulu and Kirk just barely manage that, and then they have to engage in some hand-to-hand (or in Sulu’s case, sword to sword) with some big-ass Romulan guys. Then they have to shut off the drill. Then they end up knocked loose from the platform, and they have to be beamed from their fall towards the planet’s surface into the Enterprise. If that’s even possible. The whole thing builds and builds, and at the end of it, Eric Bana shows up onboard his ship, where he reveals what sounds like an endgame. Onboard the Enterprise, Spock figures out what’s happening, and he rushes to the surface of Vulcan so he can help evacuate everyone who’s at the Vulcan temple, including his parents. Look... I’m not the authority on continuity or on how this fits into canon or doesn’t, and since I don’t like more of STAR TREK than I do like, feel free to complete disregard everything I have to say about the preview footage we saw. But I’m betting now that at the very least, what we’ll get next May is going to be a rousing SF adventure film with a sincere desire to capture the optimistic nature of my favorite era of TREK. It looks like a huge canvass, and I’m really eager to check out more of the work by Michael Giacchino, cinematographer Dan Mindel, and production designer Scott Chambliss. It looks like everyone’s really trying to redefine and still respect the iconography of the show, and I’m sure everyone will have their own take on how well they do or don’t accomplish that. May. 2009. Looking forward to it.


Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:34 a.m. CST

    First

    by Darth_Scotsman

    Make it so.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:38 a.m. CST

    This Has Bomb Written All Over It!!!

    by Media Messiah

    One weekend, and after that, it's over!!!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:40 a.m. CST

    You don't even like The Next Generation?

    by DerLanghaarige

    I can kinda understand how and why you don't like any of the movies or the other series but...no Next Gen for you? This is just weird.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:48 a.m. CST

    Hey Mori...

    by Seany-Wan

    Any chance that this will be posted on the web? They already have a tv commercial and I think it would help to build interest.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:52 a.m. CST

    DerLang...

    by drew mcweeny

    ... nope, not particularly. I don't hate it or anything, but I just don't think much of it. It's fine, I guess. Not my thing.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:04 a.m. CST

    Star Trek V

    by TinSpider

    The only thing I remember about that movie is the catwoman thing that does an immpeccable impression of James Brown's intro to I got you (I feel good) whilst attacking Kirk.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:07 a.m. CST

    Still cautious...

    by Nordling

    I know STAR TREK isn't your personal geek center, Mori, but it sure does mean a lot to me. I'm not the kind of Trekkie that wears headbumps and costumes, but I grew up on these characters and it sure means a hell of a lot to me that they get it right. If Nimoy's involved, that's sort of a stamp of approval and your report makes me think it's going to be good. But K/S/M and their shared dynamic is the most important thing to me. Hey, in 1982 when Spock "died," man, I was one devastated 12 year old. This story means a lot to a lot of people.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:07 a.m. CST

    Wow, harsh Mori...

    by singlewhitestar

    I suppose you were younger when you trashed another Geeks religion, but I hope your friend was kind when Ep 1 came out. Can't all geeks just get along? What's with the Trek/Wars holy war? (Peace from Ybor City)

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:10 a.m. CST

    Any idea what the big bad SQUID ship is Moriarty?

    by Praetor

    It looks awesome in the trailer and seems to be involved in the Kelvin sequence.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:15 a.m. CST

    Moriarty aint my thing neither...NextGen was good tho..

    by quantize

    nuff sed

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:17 a.m. CST

    What if...

    by MotherPussBucket

    Shatner had got a part in the movie and JJ had to tell him that he was playing a scene wrong? But it would be great to have him in the background at the bar singing 'Rocket Man' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvQwXOCKNLY) while the brawl ensues.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:19 a.m. CST

    Mori, Terminator Salvation...

    by bluelou_boyle

    Nice write up Mori. But your comments on Termiantor Salvation are disturbing. What have you seen? Total film just debunked that horrendous 'John Conner becomes a terminator' rumour, at least.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:26 a.m. CST

    Kirk gets booty.

    by Anna Valerious

    Okay, so that's not news. But Conan pointed it out, and joked that the DVD would have commentary to explain to Trekkies "what Kirk and the lady are doing". -groan-

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:39 a.m. CST

    I wouldn't trust the opinion of anybody

    by kwisatzhaderach

    that didn't like Star Trek IV and Star Trek VI. And, although it has a lot of problems, V does have a great scene where Kirk, Spock and McCoy have to face fears from their past. Its a terrific little scene, and i'll stick my neck out and say it has more drama in it than all of JJ's effort.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:52 a.m. CST

    Excellent writeup, Moriarty

    by cornponious

    But i have to say that it WAS the camp stuff in IV that made it enjoyable for me. It's exactly what all the trekkers wanted to see. Not that I'm a trekker, but i do love the films.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:53 a.m. CST

    Except there won't be a 5 year mission and you know it!

    by V'Shael

    They couldn't even keep an ensemble like XMen together for 3 movies. <p> If this thing makes a ton of money, they may make a sequel. And it may feature the same actors. But that's about all you're going to get.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:53 a.m. CST

    I hope for Pine's sake he's not the next Jackman....

    by Righteous Brother

    Jackman's post X-men movie roles have been terrible. Van Helsing, Someone Like You, Kate and Leopold....and I like Jackman!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:55 a.m. CST

    And your friend who liked Trek V ? Retarded.

    by V'Shael

    Don't feel bad. He was clearly a basket case. Probably had undiagnosed Aspergers Syndrome.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7 a.m. CST

    good write-up...

    by Righteous Brother

    I hope Pine can pull Kirk off (ooeeer)

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:02 a.m. CST

    Hey, I liked STAR TREK IV

    by JackIsLost

    Approaching the material from a comedic standpoint was inspired and the film works. Mori, you are more of a geek than you know and show it with being so annoyed by IV...

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:05 a.m. CST

    -sigh- Righteous...

    by Anna Valerious

    You're obviously a dude, right? And V'Shael, I wouldn't make fun of people with aspergers. I had been diagnosed with it two years ago and I don't appreciate people calling them freaks. I don't mention it because I want to be treated like a regular person.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:12 a.m. CST

    Trek fans

    by I am_NOTREAL

    just ought to be glad that there's a new movie coming next year that has a chance of not sucking completely, as the last two did.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:12 a.m. CST

    Star Trek V

    by Mastidon

    The Search for Satan is by far the worst of any of the Trek movies. I am surprised by how much early PR they are doing. It is not out for over 6 months after all. To me it seems like non-fans would have forgotten about it by May.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:14 a.m. CST

    Thoughts on the films

    by Dreamfasting

    One of the things I always liked about the original-cast Trek movies is that they are each different in tone and style - they aren't just the same story repeated with a different boss at the end.<BR><BR>TMP was the awe and wonder of the unknown. TWoK was the scifi take of WW2 sea battle films. TSFS was a claustrophobic, deeply bittersweet story (and is the one that I find has aged the best for me). TVH was the light morality play (and is a rare episode that escapes the celluloid trap that the finale of a movie must be a ship-to-ship battle). TFF ... well ... it's just an epic fail for me, but it's the closest to a simple K-S-M buddy-adventure story (although that one face-your-fears / I-need-my-pain scene did resonate for me). TUC is the bookend to the political melodrama, the nod to the passing of the cold war that shaped the original series, although I find the technobabble and redressed TNG sets haven't aged well.<BR><BR> The thing that I missed from the later movies was the sense of culture, of scale that TMP provided. You really got the sense that a ship mattered, that it really was a giant capital investment to send out into space. I remember that long panning approach scene with the theme blaring taking my breath away the way the twin setting suns of Star Wars did. I like the comment drawing a parallel between the construction yard scene and that scene. That gives me hope (although I also tend to see this film as the passing of the mythos to a new generation of viewers and storytellers with a different set of dreams and worries to work through)

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:15 a.m. CST

    I tried...

    by richievanderlow

    To avoid all these reports, but I couldn't. This is sounding fantastic. I liked TNG okay, But always found Trek as kind of Sterile and safe where it was concerned. Even when they did something major, like kill someone off, it just felt like they were cashing in on something. This movie is sounding more and more like the kick in the ass the franchise needed. I love TOS era Trek, and tinkering with it is just fine with me, so long as they stay true to the characters and the relationships. TNG F'ed up canon so much, I don't care what liberties they take with this one. At this point, we need a monumental shake up to bring Trek storytelling into a modern era, and not make it the episode of the week for two hours on the big screen. I've not allowed myself to get excited about this movie.. until now. How I wish it was opening this Christmas as originally planned.... Ready for May!!!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:24 a.m. CST

    K/S/M?

    by raw_bean

    Crazy three-way fanfic action!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:25 a.m. CST

    For some reason, that headline sounds really gay.

    by rev_skarekroe

    "Chris Pine can command MY starship anytime! Sign ME up for a five year mission!"<p>Anyway, enough of that. I'm going to go read the article now.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:26 a.m. CST

    Come on, Mori. You can't honestly tell me...

    by BiggusDickus

    ...that Seven of Nine didn't have you tuning in to at least one episode of Voyager?<p>Nice write-up, fella. I'm really looking forward to this one!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:38 a.m. CST

    Very good piece Moriarty

    by zapano

    I share many of your misgivings about Star Trek. Never really loved Star Trek but I enjoyed the Next Generation, a great tv series. But I think the fact that JJ is not a fan actually bodes well for this film's chances. I'm looking forward to this.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:41 a.m. CST

    RighteousBrother

    by Midnightxpress

    The Prestige was a dman good post-X-Men role for Jackman.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:44 a.m. CST

    Aren't there any Trekkers...

    by GoSensGo

    ...who can give us a review? Everything I've read on this site is basically, "I don't like Star Trek, and I don't know jack shit about it, but I loved this clip." Isn't there ANYONE here who's seen the preview that is a FAN?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:45 a.m. CST

    I really hope all the early word of mouth is right.

    by rbatty024

    I liked Trek television up through Deep Space Nine, and while the films were hit and miss, the last good one was easily First Contact. Here's hoping that after two failed series and two failed movies they finally get things right.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:46 a.m. CST

    Yep, Sounds Stupid

    by Aquatarkusman

    Glad to hear it rehashed for the 128th time on the site. I expect to see the small print on the bottom of the site reflect some change in ownership to Bad Robot, LLC.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:51 a.m. CST

    "I like the theory of STAR TREK more than the execution of it."

    by rev_skarekroe

    Well said! I feel the same way, and that's why this review has got me feeling all giddy!<p>Well, that and the giant ass-fuck cup of coffee I just drank...

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:52 a.m. CST

    Anna Valerious:

    by V'Shael

    I didn't say if you have Aspergers you're a freak. So chill. <p> Anyone who gets so wrapped up in Trek that they spend thousands of dollars on conventions, DVD's, costumes, or whatever.. well, they've let their fandom for a TV show get a little away with itself. That's fine. Perfectly harmless. And yes, many many people with Aspergers do (for some reason) become big fans of Star Trek. <p> But if you're the sort to be reduced to a shaking emotional wreck, while almost tearfully decrying that Trek *V* is the best Trek movie so far?? Then you are a basket case. Q.E.D. No further proof required. Call off Dr. House, we got this.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:53 a.m. CST

    My Humble Prediction

    by cutest_of_borg

    #3 in total box office revenue for 2009 behind Harry Potter & Transformers 2. $285 mil domestic.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:53 a.m. CST

    This article reminds Rickey of the Detroit 3 Hearings

    by Rickey Henderson

    ...in which all the Senators profess to know absolutely nothing about the automobile industry but then proceed to weigh in on the situation anyway.<br> <br> And, Mori, there's a HUGE chasm between creating something that functions as an entertaining movie and creating something that's true to the source material.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8 a.m. CST

    TRANSFORMERS IN SPACE

    by bobjustbob

    Replace "Kirk" with "Sam" and "Romulan" with "Decipticon". Sounds like typical K&O writing. At least Bay isn't directing...<p>Still a skeptic but anticipating May 8th...<p> <SPOILER>The squid-like ship is Romulan.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:01 a.m. CST

    Doh! Meant to have a SPOILER tag on above post!

    by bobjustbob

    Sorry 'bout that...

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:02 a.m. CST

    I am a Dude.....

    by Righteous Brother

    was it the Kate and Leopold thing that gave it away.......or was it the name RighteousBROTHER, as opposed to SISTER.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:05 a.m. CST

    Rickey!

    by just pillow talk

    What's going on my fellow Metsy?<p>I'm still unsure about this flick, but am positive it will be entertaining just unsure if it will follow Trek 'lore'.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:05 a.m. CST

    reason and cast changes

    by Himbo

    Mori, thanks for writing as the reasonable voice on this site. Quint is coming up a close second as he makes progress with his AMAD column. <p> As for folks saying only one sequel "maybe" because of keeping the crew together... Star Trek has the tradition of getting better after a crew change. TOS got Checkov. TNG dropped Tasha, and got Crusher back after Pulaski. DS9 got Worf. Voyager got 7 of 9. Not to mention there are Trek stories where several secondary characters did not appear. And I felt that finding something for each character to do in each movie turned into a Maguffin. As long as they can get the big three together Kirk, Spock and McCoy (Guts, Brain and Conscience), they can tell any story, whether as backup they need a tech, language, or physical solution (Scotty, Uhura, Sulu).

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:09 a.m. CST

    Once Again This Sounds Good!

    by Real Deal

    I'm getting a very good gut feeling from this now. At first I was kind of worried. How can they do Kirk with this young guy? But the fact of the matter is he's closer to Kirk's supposed age than Shatner was when he did it. And he seems to be pulling it off with his perfomance which doesn't try to mimic Shatner. That would be unforgivingly stupid. No I think this is going to be a killer movie that has a simliar effect that the new Batman movies do. Can't wait!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:12 a.m. CST

    cutest_of_borg

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Avatar will own all.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:16 a.m. CST

    Is Cadet Finnegan

    by Manos

    one of the cadets who beats Kirk to a pulp in the bar? It would be a nice touch.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:17 a.m. CST

    yo, Pillow

    by Rickey Henderson

    Rickey's just whittling down the days until the Mets sign Juan Marichal to a 10 year contract.<br> <br> Rickey's take on this Trek is that it'll be next year's Transformers. We'll all line up to see it, we'll be pretty impressed upon the first viewing, but the film will seem less and less decent with each viewing. To boil things down to the simplest issue: Star Trek is full of far too much talking to appeal to the mass summer movie audience.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:20 a.m. CST

    Actually, Binks, His Opinion DOES Hold A Lot Of Weight

    by Sean38

    Making a new Star Trek movie for the die-hard will actually defend Star Trek V as a decent movie Trekies would be a colossal mistake. This movie has to entertain those who could give a rat's ass about Trek. I think Harry put it best...all of you bitching and moaning about Abrams taking over thie franchise would give your left nut if someone had wrestled Star Wars away from Lucas before he could destroy the franchise. Be THANKFUL someone is making Star Trek entertaining and relevant again.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:22 a.m. CST

    This movie will mark the Second Cuming!

    by Sithdan

    This is the movie Trek fans have been clammoring for!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:24 a.m. CST

    no doubt Ricky...maybe bring back Jose Lima too

    by just pillow talk

    Well, if he makes it entertaining even for only one viewing, it's got a leg up on the majority of Trek movies.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:38 a.m. CST

    harold and kumar

    by stupidmop

    I really hope that harold does the original sulu accent

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:44 a.m. CST

    Mori...one thing I must know!!!!!!!!!!

    by Righteous Brother

    does.....KIRK....STILL....have that....STRANGE...kind of...DELIVERY!!??

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:48 a.m. CST

    V'Shael

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Alternately, ripping a film relentlessly in front of someone who enjoyed it is a bit harsh.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:55 a.m. CST

    I'm not 100% on this movie, However,

    by D o o d

    I'm just glad we've seen the back of the likes of Next Generation, Voyager & Deep Space Nine. Those were all horrible tv series and the movies were just as bad. It's strange how the original Star Trek went from being a cheap tv show to some truly High Budget Movies. Whereas the new series, Next Generation, went from high budget tv show to low budget movies.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:56 a.m. CST

    Leonard Nimoy on "Marge vs. The Monorail"

    by Aquatarkusman

    Leonard Nimoy: [appraising the monorail] I'd say this vessel could do at least warp 5. / Mayor Quimby: Yes, and may I say, "May the Force be with you." / Leonard Nimoy: [annoyed] Do you even know who I am? / Mayor Quimby: I think I do. Aren't you one of the Little Rascals? // Leonard Nimoy: A solar eclipse. The cosmic ballet.. goes on. / Man Sitting Next to Nimoy: Does anyone want to switch seats?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:58 a.m. CST

    Mr. Zeddemore:

    by V'Shael

    That's what guys do. We rip the piss out of each other, or the movies, or whatever. Hell, just look at some of the funnier talkbacks. <p> And playfully or not, Trek V was a fucking joke which deserved much ridicule and mockery. <p> IMO, some movies, like Godzilla, Phantom Menace, Trek V, deserve to be ripped to shit. If you liked them, then retort and justify, and mock my tastes, and be funny about it. <p> (The unspoken assumption being that you're not doing it to a six year old, or someone with the emotional maturity of a six year old.)

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:04 a.m. CST

    From a TOS fan

    by thot

    I've long thought that Trek could benefit from a "reboot" of sorts. I had, and have, no problem with recasting and even a bit of "re-imagining". As long as they keep the core what made Trek work and that, as Moriarty noted, is the optimism and the personalities and relationships of Kirk, Spock and Bones. I'm encouraged so far by what I've been reading. As for the TOS movies, They were all good or even great except for the awful "The Final Frontier".

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:12 a.m. CST

    Funny you should mention "Star Trek V"

    by Theta

    That's the vibe I got off this movie, especially the trailer. Quite frankly, I would be a lot more interested in this movie if they weren't pretending it was Star Trek. It isn't.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Yes, Trek V

    by I am_NOTREAL

    blew massively. That movie's lameness has as much to do with me drifting away from Trek fandom as anything. Despite a couple of decent scenes that others in TB have already noted, it was almost a total failure. Now, I was never hard-core Trek, but up until V I was solid - I have seen (I think, never really bothered to keep score) every episode of the original series and most of TNG, as well as all of the feature films (the last two, though, on video only). DS9 bored me early and I never went back, even though I heard it got a lot better as it went along. Saw about an episode and a half of Voyager and Enterprise. So I'm as lapsed as anyone and I can clearly see that what Star Trek needs as much as anything is some new energy. I bet if Roddenberry was alive he'd be for it.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:18 a.m. CST

    Do you have any idea who I am?

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    Weren't you one of the Little Rascals?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:19 a.m. CST

    Hey, it's TV...

    by Ruthless Berserk

    ....don't get sanctimonious, it's pop culture and nothing more, something to feed the masses, and make sponsors and advertizers some money. It ain't buddhism, it ain't utopianism. There's not a little social propaganda in the series, but that's not what makes Star Trek such a good sci-fi adventure show, it was good, tight writing that kept you riveted to your seat (not the case with the latter series). When you look at it more deeply theres a lot of neo-con themes behind it, the Federation is massively military spreading truth, justice and the American way throughout the galaxy so that a lot of starship contractors can make piles of credits LOL

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:20 a.m. CST

    Sorry Mor, But You're Wrong...

    by maliswan

    Hugh Jackman WAS NOT the perfect embodiment of Wolverine! There. I've said it.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:21 a.m. CST

    The Final Frontier - spoiler

    by Sgt.Steiner

    Has its problems(usage of supporting cast for lame comic relief, for one) but it does contain one of the greatest exchanges in Trek history. Kirk sees Spock and McCoy on deck, gazing out at the stars, after the whole Sybok episode. McCiy wonders if God is really out there. Kirk points to his heart. "Maybe he's not out there, maybe he's in here, human heart. What's wrong, Spock?" Spock: "I have lost a brother." Kirk: "I lost a brother once, then I got him back." Bones: "I though you said men like us don't have families." Kirk: "I was wrong." "The Final Frontier" has its issues, but serves after the trilogy of II, III, and IV, in refirming the friendship of the holy trio at the heart of Star Trek. "He did have pointy ears." And Jerry Goldsmith's score is one of his best. I hope Abrams pulls this thing off. But to suggest one shouldn't make a film for the fans who have put millions in the pockets of Paramount over the years is a slap in the face. I do not want "Star Trek" to be "Top Gun", nor do I want it to be "Star Wars". I want it to be "Star Trek". And I know I'm not the only one.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:22 a.m. CST

    I love the one with the Whales in it

    by DRACULA_WANTS_THE_AMULET

    Directed by Nimoy himself. I wasn't old enough to drive and I was anywhere near my cynical movie judgement phase yet. I like that one. In fact I still like it, and I can see how it would be easy to lampoon the shit out of it. Where is this friend now??? Did he marry before 30 something. Does he still reside with the parents???? Did anyone every do the same to you. Insult something you loved so much that it hurt like that. I'd say I like all the films equally up until after the whale. After that they are watchable but as entertaining. Nah...

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:24 a.m. CST

    "...the work by Michael Giacchino"

    by Fawst

    That gave me chills. I've read all these reports of the footage that's been shown, and so far, that is the thing that got me most excited, I think. I absolutely love his work from Alias, Lost, Fringe and the brilliant piece from Cloverfield. I had no idea he was on Trek-score duty. That fucking RULES.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:27 a.m. CST

    Dracula, the whales was IV. (4)

    by V'Shael

    Number 5 (v) was the one where Spock has a brother, and Kirk takes on God (who needs the Enterprise) and Kirk wins.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:29 a.m. CST

    RuthlessBerserk

    by Sgt.Steiner

    "Neocon themes"? Bullshit. Gene Roddenberry, like his contemporaries Rod Serling and Paddy Chayefsky, was a liberal humanist. Hence, the way pacifistic resolutions arose from the Federation/Klingon reflections of Cold War tensions. As opposed to say the views espoused by the likes of Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, or more significantly, Curtis LeMay.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:37 a.m. CST

    re: "the work" by Michael Giacchino...

    by Rickey Henderson

    Care to explain how this guy is any damned good? Best as Rickey can figure, his musical compositions consist of him repeatedly banging a single note on the piano with frantic strings playing in the background.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:38 a.m. CST

    Nerd Meltdown

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I love the depiction of the inter-geek tensions surrounding The Final Frontier.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:46 a.m. CST

    Kirk / Spock / McCoy Dynamic

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I've said it before: I think this is more to do with the actors than the characters. I'll be glad to be proven wrong, though. I just don't think anyone can out-Kirk the Shat, out-Bone Kelley or out-Spock Nimoy.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:48 a.m. CST

    V'Shael

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Yeah, we do... but we don't usually carry it on relentlessly when one chap looks like he's about to burst. There's something called tact, ya know? Like I'll happily rip on Death Proof, but if a mate starts getting that angry look then I'll stop.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:51 a.m. CST

    Rickey

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    I'll knock Lost a lot, but Michael G is a tremendous composer. Go listen to his score from the end of Lost 1x19 'Deus Ex Machina' for proof.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Love how everyone disses campy batman

    by DRACULA_WANTS_THE_AMULET

    but then they cream up on the OS of trek. Sad to know theres tons of red shirt bullshit in this film. The previous movies evolved beyond that.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Sgt. Steiner

    by Ruthless Berserk

    Sorry but the "Federation" was just big military with a nice face, the only reason to create an empire is to create power and wealth. No too far removed from Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz in the Middle East. The fact is the guys in the "white hats" are just as militarized as the "bad guys" Roddenberry's sham is that somehow the Federation is better. Don't look at the surface, see what's going on behind the scenes. The Federation and the Klingons probably had backroom collaborators managing the conflict lol. To me Star Trek as pacifism is pretty weak.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Mr. Zeddemore

    by Rickey Henderson

    Rickey just did a quick google on him, you're right, the guy has done some great stuff like scores to The Medal of Honor series. Perhaps Rickey is just a little weary of that Lost gimmick of piano not banging & wild strings...

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:58 a.m. CST

    Oh Mori was dissing the Charles Mansion Messia

    by DRACULA_WANTS_THE_AMULET

    Flick. Fuck yeah.. I can see that. The god one was awful. The scene with the boots on the mountain in the begining was cool though. That and the campfire scene in the woods. The rest of the movie sucked. Genitals in the knee area.. ahahaha. Watchable, but damn was that film a letdown.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:05 a.m. CST

    Damn Mori, you were one of THOSE geeks

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    The kind of holier than thou bitter man geeks, who mocked everyone elses crap, while privately holding onto your own wet dream fantasies of seeing a Star Wars film that kicks ass? <P>Look I'm not mocking your love of SW, and I can understand if you were a young immature kid, but the fact that you still giggle over tormenting some poor Trekkie nerd? Maybe I am getting the wrong picture here, but damn you sound like you were a douche back then, and you haven't completely given it up. <P>I love your writing, you are one of my faves on this site, but that story sort of disturbs me, whatever dude.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:11 a.m. CST

    Mr Zeddemore :

    by V'Shael

    Fair enough, if you want to stop when your mate gets that angry look. But what if his lower lip started quivering, his eyes got moist, his body started shaking, but he didn't say anything? Then erupted like a "LEAVE-BRITTNEY-ALONE!" clone? Over Death Proof? <p> Tell me you wouldn't think : Someone's off his meds.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Remember the good old days when critics...

    by paulrichard

    ...reviewed entire films? Man, those were crazy times.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Scotty wouldn't do that to an Animal

    by NoDiggity

    Especially not to a Beagle. At least, I don't think he would.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Five Words That Sum Up Star Trek V

    by Aquatarkusman

    "Row, row, row your boat..." OK, three more words: MICHAEL FUCKING BERRYMAN!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:18 a.m. CST

    You know what would be poignant...

    by DougMcKenzie

    Having one of the cadets in the Bar that beat up Kirk be the guy that Kirk sends to his death on the day he is to be married. Have Kirk say "I'll get you one day, Buddy, and much worse then you got me today!" It would magnify Kirk's guilt in that episode even more, wondering whether or not he really did it to get back at him...

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:20 a.m. CST

    Sorry Doug

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    But that concept only matters to hard core Trekkers, and I think Paramount is looking to broaden the audience beyond just the fans who know what pant size Kirk wears.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:22 a.m. CST

    MelGibsteinberg, I didn't get that from Mori's story.

    by NoDiggity

    I mean, maybe he and his friend were torturing their Trekkie guy on purpose, but I got the impression that they were just ripping into the movie because it sucked. Which UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY did. (just not as bad as VOYAGE HOME). And then to have they guy blow up on them unexpectedly was kinda funny.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:25 a.m. CST

    DougMcKenzie, are you serious about that idea?

    by NoDiggity

    Come here, I'm going to punch you in the nards.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:32 a.m. CST

    There was NOTHING wrong with Nemesis

    by Sithdan

    It was a dark, fast-paced science fiction thriller. The B-4 character was a little out of place, but the storyline was solid. I don't see why so many people detest it. It's waayyyy more watchable than Star Treks 4 and 5 in my opinion.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Oh that feeling.

    by gotilk

    Absolutely adoring something everyone else you're with hated with a passion. It's horrible. Happened to me with "Empire of the Sun" and I have to tell you it was so frustrating to be so moved by something and have people you care about completely dismiss it as manipulative, predictable garbage. Of course in this case they were idiots on board the "Spielberg is manipulative filmmaking, I'm a film snob" bandwagon at the time and I was COMPLETELY accurate in my love for the film. (lol) <br> <br> But I've been on both sides of this type of situation, and I have to say neither side is comfortable or easy to deal with. I'm enthused as hell over even the idea of JJ re-launching the Trek universe, let alone the idea that all indications point to a home run on his part. There are a LOT of people who do not agree. But eventually, if this is a success it will mean good news for ALL fans of Trek. Even the ones that will hate this film. One day we mat just get a new Trek series out of this featuring new characters set in the same universe. Hopefully not even affiliated with a Federation starship(or "base"). That's what the franchise has needed for a long time. Someone willing to take the risk and give us something completely new set in the same world. Some familiarity, sure. But maybe a new side to things. Maybe characters not so happy with the Federation, for good reason? Some anti-heroes for once. Not a darker Trek, just a different take on it. No lost in space scenario, no space station scenario. Maybe fugitives? Not a Farscape type thing, but maybe something similar.<br> <br> I'm just excited beyond belief that we get a fresh take on this Universe i have loved for so many decades now. It's deserved so much better than it's received over the years. I'm not with Mori on the overall disinterest. I've watched almost every series with hope and sometimes it's paid off. But there HAVE been a LOT of duds. Let's hope this helps take Trek through this century with a new, fresh perspective. And maybe some risk. Even at the expense of over-zealous fans who are far too comfortable with their sometimes far too mediocre franchise.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Paramount HAS to be worried...

    by conspiracy

    given the massive amounts of PR they are giving this thing a full 6 MONTHS before release. Has anyone seen the script yet? Or have these early reviewers been so loaded down with swag, hookers, and blow from Bad Robot and Paramount for them to care to find one? It may make $...but this thing is going to suck like Megan Fox on a Strippers clit.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:46 a.m. CST

    Nemesis sucked because

    by I am_NOTREAL

    it was copy of Trek II, and a very weak, lazy, and contrived one at that.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 11:02 a.m. CST

    V'Shael

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Fair enough - I have to admit, if someone did the 'DEATHPROOFISGENIUSANDYOUDONOTUNDERSTANDART' to me, I'd laugh and tell them that even if they like the film it's not art... it wasn't even intended as art.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Excellent Write-Up, Mori. That was a great read.

    by NoDiggity

    Thanks.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 11:18 a.m. CST

    Fundamentalists of any kind suck.

    by NoDiggity

    I'm as fond of Spock, Kirk, and Bones as anyone, but the Old Series was rife was crappy embarrassing episodes, esp. in Season 3. What was great about the Old Series was that they used the device of a Starship to get the crew to investigate different social and philosophical dilemmas, in seperate stories, and the Star Trek universe that was the background to that device was secondary. Once the worldbuilding detail-obsession takes over, those individual stories that made the Old Series great get lost in an exercise in Encyclopedia checking. What continuity nitipickers forget is that much of the detail of the Old Series' history was created to make a particular point for particular episodes<br><br> That is why I enjoyed Voyager most. It's storytelling was focussed on the individual tale, not on a massive body of Star Trek trivia.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 11:27 a.m. CST

    gotilk

    by secretcylon

    You basically described DS9.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Ruthless Berserk

    by Tin Snoman

    "Sorry but the "Federation" was just big military with a nice face, the only reason to create an empire is to create power and wealth." There is no wealth in the Federation, they don't have money. Which is insanely unrealistic, but that's Roddenberry's Utopia Future.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 11:32 a.m. CST

    This set of actors/crew

    by tomdolan04

    won't be doing these movies in 3 years, let alone thirty. Relaunch/reboot away. Sure Trek is an easy target to shit on, but it's enduring and has provided a good set of stories over the years. <p> Echo the sentiment of many - why recast existing characters that (whilst not by any stretch the greatest actors) were played by people who MADE the show.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 11:36 a.m. CST

    The market for this film is very limited

    by Geekgasm

    Regardless of how good or bad or (most likely) in the middle it is, Star Trek has a very limited domestic audience and an almost-non-existent foreign audience - always has, always will. All the sneak-peeking and viral marketing and "Oh I never liked Star Trek" Abrams huckstering isn't going to change that. The box office on this flick will not justify all the cash Paramount has ponied up to make and market it. If its not the Speed Racer of 2009, it will certainly be the Superman Returns of 2009: so much money spent for such small return.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 11:50 a.m. CST

    Spot on Thunderbolt Ross

    by kwisatzhaderach

    It's not about Kirk, Spock or McCoy. It's about Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley. This is a Trek aimed at potential new fans, not the old ones. I keep saying it but this script is written by Kurtzman and Orci. I can only see one possible quality outcome for a film written by those guys, and it ain't good.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 12:04 p.m. CST

    addressing a lot of comments here

    by crankyoldguy

    snoman: until new thinking and genuine evolves beyond notions of "right" and "left" wing, 20th century economics in a 21st century world, and concepts of wealth and well-being, that Roddenberry hope won't exist in any form. Geeky as it sounds, I'd love to live to see us make one first contact, though I figure at my half-century mark, it won't happen in my lifetime. If you want to believe in nothing but brutal, ugly futures, that's your choice, but it does not have to be so. Geekgasm: Limited, perhaps, though some of the films have been money-makers (do the old dollars then versus dollars now and all that). If you want to play the hardcore bean-counter game, then you'll get the films you deserve in terms of not satisfying your particular fan jones. You want to talk limited audience? I honestly think that's going to be Watchmen (not that it won't be good) and The Spirit. To Mori: Thanks for the view of a non-Trek enthusiast. I hid the Trek closet for years and then said f-it, boldy proclaiming my love for the various series, books, comics and such, to hell with it. No Diggity: Yeah, some of the eps were stinkers in TOS. But I can say the same of TNG, DS9 (especially early on), Voyager and surely Enterprise. But then you had eps like "Amok Time," "City on the Edge..." "Tribbles" for TOS; "Measure of a Man," "Inner Light," "Best of Both Worlds 1 and 2" and more for TNG; "In the Pale Moonlight," "The Visitor," and the love letter to TOS "Trials and Tribblations" in DS9, plus a good part of the Dominion War arc and so on. Voyager and Enterprise had fewer great ones, but we can still find some in each. And I won't even go into Trek fiction, most of it quite superior to Star Wars fiction. So there's been ton for a Trek type to enjoy over the decades. I understand those who don't want to get on board with this new version at all, but I can't quite understand the sheer hate. It doesn't look like a travesty at all (like Will Smith's "Wild Wild West" or that "Avengers" film with Uma). For many of us, it may never by "our" Trek, but it may be our children's or grandchildren's. And that's...okay.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 12:06 p.m. CST

    and conspiracy, re: your comment...

    by crankyoldguy

    I would pay double, triple the going theater ticket price to see Megan Fox on a stripper's clit and visa versa. Followed by them chowing down on my personal big johnny.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 12:07 p.m. CST

    one more thing....

    by crankyoldguy

    bring back Farscape, dammit!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Paramount worried? . . ...........

    by u.k. star

    Well of course they are. Trek has become over a long period something that not only is mainly for a decreasing number of "fans" but that is actively "uncool" / uninteresting too take part in for a majority of the proscpective audience. A lot of it is down to them not really spending the money since The Motion Picture" but they'd argue that as their audience seemed to be capped at a maximum of $140m - $150m it was too risky to spend more than they did. <p> Well now they are taking the risk, and what they are doing now. (which they only have the luxuary to do because the film has been pushed back 5 months so is finished way ahead of "schedule"),is spending their time showing people that this is different to the other movies. It will be "cool" and as well as all the usefull talk and character stuff they are also spending the money on the action and energy that's often felt to missing from Trek movies. A big movie, which Trek films always tried to be, needs a good balance. All action is no good (generally) and neither is all talk (for this type of movie) there's a balance to be drawn and Trek, by neccessity, always had to skew too heavily away from the energy. I've no doubt, once they built on the work they've done well so far, in attracting the non Trek audience, Paramount will work on convincing the Trek fans that the soul of Trek is there too. <p> However if it comes down to having to convince the "fans" (who will on the whole go regardless), or the "future fans" then it's not even a choice. Batman Begins $370m+ Casino Royale $590M+ Iron Man $580m+ First Contact $142m+ Now if they HAVE to choose which audience do you think they'd plump for? The Trek fanbase , or at least that part of it that pays to see Trek films has diminished, new fans are needed. <p> Now of course we do NOT want them turn it into effects filled pap, but, so far, there's little to suggest that they are trying to. The question has to be why do so many Trek fans think they have? <p> Anyway I've said this a cpl of times during the Week , and Moriarty echoes it here. The 1st thing to do is make a good film, 2nd is make good Trek. I've always had the feeling that too many "fans" are concerned with making good Trek 1st and good film somewhere way down th list of priorities if we can around to it. Like the assumption is if it's good Trek it must naturally follow as a good film, or worse that well , we get it, us Trekies(ers) if everyone else doesn't get it who cares. (Or maybe they just aren't as clever, or subtle as we are.) I just remember being around 10/11 when Trek II came out and it seemed like EVERYONE wanted to go see it, by the time Trek VI came out it was this thing, that old men and geeks went to and it wasn't such a big deal. 1st contact semed to take in a few extra people, bu basically by then most of the people going were Trek fans, with a few stragglers here or there. That's the only thing Paramount has to worrie about, apathy from non fans. A $150m fan only gross for this film will kill Trek, or at best consign it back to the "..distinctly cheap-looking .." & "looks like a distended television episode," (to quote EMpire's review of 1st contact, although the same sentiment appears amongst many Trek movies)type movies we've mostly had before. <p> The limited audience is precisly why they've started again, prescisely why they cut the 1st full trailer they way they did, and precisely why They are out there hoping for, and getting, glowing reviews from as many non Trek people as possible.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Sorry

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    It shouldn't be a case of making a good film before making a good Trek film. The key should be making a good Trek film that can catch the new and old. Go watch Serenity for an example of how that's done - Joss Whedon told a new story but managed to make it workable for old fans.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Nostalgia clouds the mind.

    by Scroo|oose

    TOS was not that good imo... Shatner was just plain annoying to watch and still is. Nimoy on the other hand is great!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 12:53 p.m. CST

    good film

    by u.k. star

    I disagree. I like Serenity by the way, The most important thing is always a good film, otherwise you've lost. You'll find a lot of Trek fans who'll reverse the odd numbered theory and tell you the odd numbered films were real Trek, and the even numbered ones flashy Trek-lite. Trek V (even in this talkback) is often cited as having the most "Trek like" storyline. Many would argue it was good Trek, few would stand up for it as a good movie. I'm not saying it's an either or thing, because it isn't. <p> One of the best examples is when you see people "trying" to make a good kids film. Whenevr it's made in a childish way that's obviously "throwing" everything you think a kid would like at it you tend to get a poor film, and one that it's a struggle for any parent to sit through. Then you get the pixar / Miyaki / and original Star Wars way. You make a good film. The story just happens to deal with things in a way that means it's appropriate & accessable to kids. The level and tone of anything say violent or sexy is at a level. <p> If you somehow fail to make it good Trek, say it's only 5 out of 10 for hitting the right Trek notes, but the film is entertaining, fun and in many ways a "good" film you've won, because (hopefully) the wider audience will turn up and want more, and at least you've sen a good film. <p> Serenity failed at the box office. I'm not sure if one of the reasons was people thinking they wouldn't get it as they hadn't seen the show? But that's one of the reasons Paramount are so keen to let everyone know this is a beggining and you can watch it even if you know nothing about Trek, I never watched Firefly, because by the time it started over here I already knew it was cancelled, so I didn't see the point of watching yet another canceled genre show. Oh and I always wonder if Serenity had been a hit if we'd have been lucky enough to get a Farscape movie, or at least more tv movies.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Abrams getting nervous about giving Nimoy direction....

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    I don't get it. Is Nimoy supposed to be some great actor? He takes nude picture of fat women for fuck's sake. What does he know?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:12 p.m. CST

    In the DVD extras for Star Trek V....

    by Smashing

    There is a Q&A moment with the original cast on the bridge in uniform, someone asks the cast if they enjoyed Shatner directing, complete silence, poor Bill Shatner looks at DeForrest Kelly for help and says "old friend" to which Kelly replies "he's dead Jim", harsh to watch man.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:15 p.m. CST

    u.k star you have never seen Firefly?

    by Smashing

    I felt the same way, slightly annoyed that by the time I got to see it it had been cancelled, it does not matter in 13 episodes it not only blows every Trek out the water it literally redefines how to write old sci-fi as new, its pure class and I hope you get to see it.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:15 p.m. CST

    DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    by Boborci

    I think all JJ means is that he is giving advice to a man on how to play a character that's he's been playing since JJ was 3 years old.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Wait a second, didn't you write this? If so, spill. How bad does it get?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:24 p.m. CST

    DGDB

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    To be honest, I don't think JJ can tell Nimoy how to play Spock. Or should, particularly. Especially if he's 'not' a fan.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:25 p.m. CST

    Smashing

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    I agree. Firefly is awesome.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:26 p.m. CST

    U.K. Star

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Yeah, I guarantee you if they got behind Serenity like they got behind this flick then the former would've banked some serious cash. Then again, Whedon makes product for us; JJ makes them for the mainstream. And I prefer Whedon's product any day of the week.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:27 p.m. CST

    JJ directing Spock....

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    Thats just ridiculous. There are entirely different motivations for a character in any given scene. How long has it been since Nimoy even played Spock. It has nothing to do with Star Trek expertise. Its just a director communicating with an actor.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Nimoy wise

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    My posts sounds a little odd. Let me clarify - Nimoy knows the character. So it seems odd that he'd be taking direction on a scene from JJ Abrams - sort of like me going up to Kristen Stewart and giving her direction on Twilight II: Glitterballs.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Nimoy wise

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    My posts sounds a little odd. Let me clarify - Nimoy knows the character. So it seems odd that he'd be taking direction on a scene from JJ Abrams - sort of like me going up to Kristen Stewart and giving her direction on Twilight II: Glitterballs.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:28 p.m. CST

    I've seen Firefly now

    by u.k. star

    Serenity I just found so funny, and I think it's a good film, it got me to find Firefly and watch it anyway. It was jusst like, O.k another show that's meant to be great will it last a season? and true to form it got cancelled, I decided not to put myself through getting into yet another Sci-fi show thay didn't get a fair crack at survival. <p> It was worse with Farscape (admittedly a weird show hard to pick up in the middle) becaues it was a successfull show when they cancelled it?!?!?!?!?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:29 p.m. CST

    Damn double post

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Eh, I concede defeat. I'm still not convinced, but my arguments aren't coming out particularly well.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:30 p.m. CST

    Firefly

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Is awesome.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Building the Enterprise

    by Plathismo

    Normally I'm not one to quibble over scientific/engineering howlers in movies...but the idea of building the Enterprise within Earth's gravity is so staggeringly ridiculous that I'm quite convinced it's going to ruin the above-mentioned "Kirk checking out his ride" scene. Are they going to beam the whole thing into space when its ready? Other than that, I'm reasonably excited about the movie.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:01 p.m. CST

    I caught Farscape by accident from ep 1.

    by Smashing

    BBC2 just started showing it, no introduction, no ads just it was on and I saw it purely as I was thinking The Fresh Prince of Bel Air would be on, do you remember BBC2 showed that like every night for 15 years ay 1800?<P>I love Farscarpe and always thought it would have easily worked as a film but like MRZ said its for fans not mainstream, I guess?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:02 p.m. CST

    The Enterprise will be able to atmo fly in this film.

    by Smashing

    You can just tell, a grand shot of her flying from earth into space will be the signature shot for this films launch, I am guessing but sense it will be so.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Optimistic...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    I like a few episodes of the original series...plus TREK 2 (Wrath of Khan), 6 (Undiscovered Country) and 8 (First Contact). TREK 3 was almost good, TREK 1 had a nice...but way too long story, and TREK 4 was an environmentalists' orgasm. <p>I just wish that they could find a way to "rescue" Kirk from his death. A small, limited cameo at the end would be pretty cool (even after the credits roll).</p> Hoping for the best...but preparing for the worst.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:11 p.m. CST

    BTW, TREK 5 was...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    ...shit on celluloid. If we showed that to men as evil as Osama bin Laden, they could argue that such a display is against articles of the Geneva Convention (about REAL torture).

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:17 p.m. CST

    OT. Is the new Doctor Who black?

    by Smashing

    Accidental slip of the tongue reveal or a planted leak? They say it is Paterson Joseph,the divine Alan Johnston from Peep Show. <P>http://tinyurl.com/6c4ssd <P>Rumour also says he is going to be played as a super gay lisper, too weird to be untrue?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:18 p.m. CST

    How the enterprise gets into space according to Abrams

    by Rickey Henderson

    ...a frantic Kirk storms into Spock's Starfleet quarters and tells Spock: "we have to MOVE the Enterprise!"<br> <br> Spock: "Most illogical."<br> <br> Kirk: "Damnit Spock, you're a man of SCIENCE, but I'm a man of FAITH! We have to MOVE the Enterprise!"<br> <br> And then the Enterprise disappears and the audience gets to spend the next three hours deciphering aramaic code using a sextant in order to figure out where it went! Thrilling!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Rickey Lost reference?

    by Smashing

    I used to hate that show but series 4 was amazingly cool sneaky sci-fi.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:22 p.m. CST

    Spock: WHY IS IT SO EASY FOR YOU?

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Kirk: IT'S NEVER BEEN EASY.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Smashing

    by Rickey Henderson

    No, it's actually a reference to an episode of "Dastardly & Mutley in their Flying Machine" that Rickey enjoyed. Why do you ask?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:28 p.m. CST

    I heard that the Enterprise actually PISSES on another ship...

    by My Mom Is A Whore

    ...and that Ulhura speaks like a black stereotype throughout "Yo! Dog! What warp we at?"<p>Damn you Orci! DAMN YOU TO HELL!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:32 p.m. CST

    BobOrci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Didn't stick around long, did he?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:37 p.m. CST

    Fuck continuity...

    by SG7

    ...TOS, TNG and the rest never had it. This is new. New is good. But I'm peeved with the big ship built on a planet thing. That is just bad SF. It might work dramtically, but it is a retarded way to build a starship.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:38 p.m. CST

    Ricky sarcasm?

    by Smashing

    You writing, unclear it is, why I ask it be.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:41 p.m. CST

    Indeed it was, Smashing

    by Rickey Henderson

    Sweet sweet precious sarcasm... the lifeblood here at AICN.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Farscape & The Enterprise

    by u.k. star

    I was doing a n essay on sociology (as part of the whole media / film studies thing) and like you switched on the Telly for a break and there was this random, muppet sci fi show, after abou 10 minutes I called my mrs down to watch and we were hooked. Genuinely different. We love it. <p> As for the Enterprise taking off. It's Start Trek it's already established that Starships can fly in atmosphere. I'm not "hard core" enough to know exactly how it all works, inertial dampners, and Structual integrity fields? anti gravity or something. But The Enteerprise has "flown" in Earth's atmosphere in TOS; not to mention the bird of prey which was hovering in atmosphere in at least 3 movies to my memory, and leaving the "gravity" well in a matter of seconds, or fractions of a second with no trouble at all. Also if you're not getting materials from the Astroid belt it makes sense to build the thing closer to the materials, labour etc AND in a much safer enviroment, i.e an atmosphere and gravity. Especially if you don't have to worry about heavy lidfting rockets / space Elevators to get the thing off the ground. Anyway I always liked that Shot in Trek III of the Bird of prey taking off.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:53 p.m. CST

    u.k. star

    by Rickey Henderson

    Sure maybe it's scientifically possible to build the ship on Earth. (Rickey always get a chuckle when he hears people argue about what isn't scientifically possible in the future. It's the goddamned future, how would you fucking know?!)<br> <br> But even if something scientifically can be done, it doesn't mean it should be done. For example, an evil alien crash landing on earth and encoding a secret message on an explorer's glasses that are later put up on ebay is a scientifically possible. Doesn't mean it should be done though, right?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:06 p.m. CST

    Ricky man

    by u.k. star

    The irony is finding it funny being involved in an arggument about what CAN be done in a fictional future, but not being able to stop anyway! <p> It's funny for sure, but I guess you just turn into a techno geek and argue within the established rules. You know how Superman can barely stand when exposed to the merest slither of real (green) Kryptonite so could never fly an entir island of the stuff off into space. You don't KNOW what a real Superman could do but the rules say he turns weak as new born babe iand is essentially powerless.... ah but that's a whole other talkback right? :) It's more the reverse of what you say. Sure you could build them in sppace, but if you aren't mining the asteroids for the materials to build it why bother sending all the parts, not to mention loads of poor people in eva suits out into a gravityless (technically) vacuum when you can just build the thing where the people and materials are at much lless risk, and probably cost / time. Gota be faster working in Jeans and a t-shirt than a bulky, oh shit I tore my suit) eva suit right? I always thought of it backwards, from that point of view. It takes them seconds to leave a planet's atmosphere, with no g-force issues so the space building thing never sat right to me.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Mr. Zeddemore

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    I get what you mean. And I listen, because I respect you, Brother Winston. Let us join hands as followers of all things Mitt Romney's Cock.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:12 p.m. CST

    In the DS9 books starships where built on Bajor.

    by Smashing

    It made sense, they can be built easier there and then tractored into space, plus you cant ensure hull seals without loss of life in an atmosphere.<P>There is a whole cool chapter with Sisko and Kira walking over Ambassador class hulls, being built in massive pits in the ground, the star drive sections where the parts made in space.<P>Is this really what we are discussing anyway?, they recast Spock, I can't fucking wait to see how Quinto does.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:13 p.m. CST

    is this the movie where our vampire Lord Mitt Romney....

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    ....tears up teen trim?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:15 p.m. CST

    LOGIC TO A SPACESHIP BUILT ON EARTH

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    Also....to add to Brother Smashing's point, they build sea ships on land. Anyone ever see how fucking insane that process is? With flooding a canal and all that shit? Its insane. But they do it to ensure the hull seals on dry land first. Same premise. Whats so weird about this?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Valid point

    by Rickey Henderson

    But think about the vast resources it would consume to build something like a warp powered Starship (and not to mention all the other stuff that mankind will have launched into space prior to that). Wouldn't the planet run out of materials after, say, the ninth or tenth massive space ship? This reminds Rickey of a line from "Sunshine" where they talk about how mankind has exhausted every last resource to build Icarus II. And that was a smart & great sci-fi flick in Rickey's opinion.<br> <br> From a logical standpoint, you gotta build a starship that big in space. Sure, the union costs will kill ya (talk about hazard pay) but it's the only way, isn't it?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:19 p.m. CST

    GO FUCK YOURSELF ORCI!

    by conspiracy

    And stop fucking with things people hold dear you JJ Abrahms Cock sucking HACK of a writer!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Danny

    by Rickey Henderson

    If the AICN username "Romney's Ram-Rod" doesn't get registered within the next 24 hours, Rickey will be greatly disappointed.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Rickey maybe the replicate a lot of materials?

    by Smashing

    Hence they dig giant canyons to mine for raw replication material?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:23 p.m. CST

    Star Trek V

    by MDucret

    I saw Star Trek V opening night with some friends opening night (all huge Trek fans). My buddies were arguing with me about how bad V was, (I had no come back for ski boots as rocket boots). By the time we got home we all agreed the movie sucked. Moriarty, your Trekkie friend was probably more pissed off at how bad the movie was but couldn't admit it - that story would make a Vulcan smile.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Eh, building a spaceship on Earth doesn't bother me.

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    These NCIS characters TALKING TO THE FUCKING DEAD bothers me.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:25 p.m. CST

    Building starships on earth...

    by conspiracy

    Why? If anything the energy costs would be greater as it would require power using anti-gravity devices to move around huge sections of ship, sections that if built in orbit would require almost nothing to move. BUt forget all that shit...it is simply much cooler to build giant fucking ships in space...not much cool about a bunch of grimy, swearing and sweating, overpaid, former UAW members building the Enterprise.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Smashing, it's possible

    by Rickey Henderson

    AND it would explain the canyon in Iowa that young Kirk drives the car off. By jove, we've wrapped things up nicely!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:27 p.m. CST

    conspiracy

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Those contractors know what they're letting themselves in for.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:29 p.m. CST

    OR you build them somewhere there's a low

    by V'Shael

    gravity well, but terraformed earth-like conditions. <p> Utopia Planetia ship yards on Mars for example, as any decent trek fan worth his salt should know.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Rickey Henderson

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    I think the new user registry is still down. You hear about that shit? <p>Where the hell have you been? I haven't seen you since Pre-The Dark Knight TB's.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:31 p.m. CST

    I really don't see the issue....

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    Who fucking cares where the Enterprise was built? I don't get it. <p>Why argue about these petty details? Its not like this is Star Wars.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:34 p.m. CST

    Danny

    by Rickey Henderson

    no, Rickey didn't hear... They don't allow newbies in anymore? Damn.<br> <br> Yeah, Rickey's been biding his time, lurking about AICN, waiting for a thread of sufficient hilarity to pique his interest. And this Star Trek thing seems to have legs. Thank you Bob Orci!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Bob Orci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Someone posted using BobOrci as an alias, and as soon as I called him on it he left. I'm hoping it was really him.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Astroids

    by u.k. star

    It's why I talk about mining the asteroid belt. Sure if you're doing that it "may" make more sense to just stay in space if not, then build on the planet in a much safer enviroment. As for resources we keep building oil supertankers, aircraft carriers skyscrapers and all sorts, There's plenty of that kind of resource to go around, even without recycling. Energy wise it's nothing. They're meant to have virtualy limitless energy supplies so hauling stuff around wih cranes or anti grav lifts is not much different to shifting giant chunks of metal around in space, remembering that once you start it moving to where you want it to go it's a relativelt complex thing t get it to stop in the right place, with the rght inertia (geez too much science bable in this)and it is still a dnger to the constuction crew. There's far more reasons to stay on planet and build than there are to shift great chunks of ship up into space to be put together there. Added risk for no valid reason. Serious added risk at that.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Mr. Zeddemore

    by Boborci

    Back from lunch! So, what were you saying?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Who cares where it was built?

    by u.k. star

    I don't think most people give a monkey's toss, but there's a few die hard uber Trekkies(ers) who think it's the end of the world that in JJ's movie it isn't being built in bits in San #Francisco (which it may be?) and then the bits sent up to orbit above San Francisco! <p> It's the end of civilisation as we know it for sure people.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Rickey

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    Yeah there is no REGISTER NEW USER button on the sign in page. About a month back Mori said something about anyone banned not being able to come back for awhile because they were working on a new system and new registries won't be working for awhile.<p>We have lost many comrades lately, LIBERAL WARRIOR shall be missed.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:51 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Are you the actual Bob Orci, or someone doing a tongue in cheek account? Either amuses me, though the former would be perfect because... sir... you are not universally lauded here.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Who the hell --

    by Boborci

    -- would impersonate a screenwriter? It's me. I drop by occasionally for some abuse.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    You'd have no idea, sir. Plenty of people pull a whacky trip online. So go on then... who is to blame for how incoherent 'The Island' was as a film?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:54 p.m. CST

    uhhhhh who the fuck would make a handle Bob Orci?

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:54 p.m. CST

    The Island?

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    Ha. Thats the only Bay film I can stomach. Its the best he'll ever do.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:55 p.m. CST

    DGDB

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Huh? Better than The Rock?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:56 p.m. CST

    The Island?

    by Boborci

    I blame Alex Kurtzman.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Awesome. How about Transformers?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Chris Pine is in the Princess Diaries 2 and...

    by cameron1975willi

    ...although he's putting on a pseudo accent, the cadence of his voice is identical to a young Bill Shatner and the kid can act. I just watched his scenes, honest!!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:58 p.m. CST

    yeah...The Rock fucking sucks now.

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    I liked it 10 years ago. Watch it again. It is lame as fuck these days. Thats the thing with Bay....his shit really loses its quality years later with repeat viewings.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 3:59 p.m. CST

    So Bob ship built on earth.

    by Smashing

    Appease the fans.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4 p.m. CST

    Come on chaps

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Bob Orci (hee) is here. Ask away.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:02 p.m. CST

    "Question for Bob..."

    by Boborci

    How do you sleep at night over the sound of your own sucking?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:02 p.m. CST

    More I hear and see, the less interested I am.

    by Negative Man

    <p>Love for it to be a good solid movie, but I'm confident that we'll get something on par with the other quality films the writers and director were involved with in the past: Armageddon...Mission: Impossible III...The Island...Legend of Zorro...Transformers...</p><p>I do not hold out any hope for this film with that track record. Hell, even their TV work is sub-par. LOST is ok in general. I enjoy the island mystery, could care less about the flashbacks. I do agree that season four was pretty damn good, but that's mostly because something was actually happening. I think the infusion of Brian K Vaughan healped greatly. ALIAS I just couldn't get into no matter how hard I tried. It was just dull cliché after cliché. And the less said about that dreadful waste of time FRINGE, the better. The openings always suck me in, but then the main cast shows up and the uninteresting begins. Mediocre acting, stupid characters and every show is written by a room full of chain smoking monkeys that think they're smarter than the audience.</p><p>Every episode is the same... Intro: Odd, interesting mystery. Main Story: Uninteresting group of mediocre actors investigate, argue if main scientist is insane and should be re-committed to the asylum, a deus ex machina is introduced that helps solve the mystery. Ending: Mad scientist is redeemed, bad guy is killed (then revealed to be clone or is revived by mystery enemies) or bad guy gets away (and then is killed by mystery enemy) and the main cast is really none the wiser to whatever is really going on. It's a show that has very little forward momentum.</p><p>Ugh. Damnit. I said more than the less I wanted to. Damn time on my hands.</P>

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:06 p.m. CST

    a question for Bob.....

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    ....can you almost pretend Michael Bay is a women when you run your hand through those soft lockes as he sucks your dick?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Agreed - Chris Pine really is a fine actor

    by NoHubris

    I saw him in Bottle Shock and his performance was outstanding IMHO.<p>He does the "young man rising to the challenge" thing very well.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Pine

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    I'm not saying he can't act. Maybe he can. But I identify Kirk with Shatner (for better or worse.) An imitation would piss me off, too much of a distance would piss me off. Finding a balance requires an exceptional actor.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:08 p.m. CST

    DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    by Boborci

    I'm on the receiving end in your fantasy? Thanks!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:11 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Legend of Zorro. What. The. Fuck happened?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Seriously The Rock

    by u.k. star

    Maybe a tad long, but a cool, cool movie.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Negative Man, Zeddemore

    by Boborci

    Agree that movie didn't work. The idea of one of the main characters (Zeta-Jone) denouncing the title character was a flawed premise.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Boborci -- absolutely.

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    Bay likes to control the pace. He loves a warm shaft in his mouth. To him that is supreme control, deciding when and how a man explodes in your face.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:14 p.m. CST

    I mean HIS face, not YOUR face

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:14 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    MI3 - did you write the ridiculous 'let's all wave as Tom walk away' ending, or did they improvise it?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:15 p.m. CST

    DGDB

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Man, you're cracking me up. Ridiculously funny, sir.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:15 p.m. CST

    about your Trekkie friend, Moritary..

    by FamousEccles

    .... I would say the guy over-reacted and was a little sad in the head, but the way you told the story made you seem like a prick. you bullied him then. your bullying him now. not cool, man, not cool.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Hi, Mr. Orci

    by bravogolfhotel

    Did you know that building spaceships on Earth was going to be such a contentious issue, or did it take you by surprise? Man and boy, I've been watching Trek for more than 20 years, and I don't EVER remember it coming up...

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:19 p.m. CST

    BOB

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    Tell me you wouldn't hit this... <p>http://tinyurl.com/6j9aey <p>Those prominent cheek bones? They spell power. Nothing like a tight grip of wealthy power milking the half and half. <p>You know how much fucking money Bay has? He has the finest hair care products at his disposal.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:19 p.m. CST

    bravogolfhotel

    by Boborci

    Knew it would be contentious.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:21 p.m. CST

    'I identify Kirk with Shatner'...

    by cameron1975willi

    ...Of course you do, everybody does! He cannot be replaced, but this move isn't a remake, so go with it. Never has so much money or film-making talent been thrown at this franchise. It's gonna be like Casino Royale or The Dark Knight in terms of quality, I'm sure of it! If you think about it, it's smart business sense to lay a strong foundation for a franchise. On the strength of this movie there could be a new series and many more films. Paramount knows it can make billions off this first film in the long run.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:21 p.m. CST

    I thought JJ didn't even know...

    by Cagliostro

    That they made a bunch of Trek movies. Now he was at a premiere for TMP on the Paramount lot?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:22 p.m. CST

    cameron1975willi

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Except Batman and Bond have new layers to explore. An Indiana Jones and Kirk doesn't.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:28 p.m. CST

    Mr. Zeddemore MI3 ending

    by Boborci

    We actually had one more scene scripted after they leave IMF, but we never shot it, and we carved that ending out in editing.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:28 p.m. CST

    Cagliostro

    by Boborci

    He just didn't realize there were 10 movies.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:29 p.m. CST

    by cameron1975willi

    I hate to break it you, but both Batman and Bond don't have that many layers. It's about putting characters like that in new and interesting scenarios.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Shame, that ending is ridiculously cheesy. Also, did Tom Cruise demand pseudo-Scientological rewrites?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:31 p.m. CST

    cameron1975willi

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Not really. Look at how many different actors could play Bond successfully, but differently. You can't do that with Kirk - he is what he is. So Pine has to balance a homage with a slightly different take... and that'll require a near-miracle to pull off.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Mr. Zeddemore

    by Boborci

    No he did not. He was a pro and all about the work at hand and not trying to infuse anything into the movie that didn't fit.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:39 p.m. CST

    Mission Impossible 3

    by Lashlarue

    We can't forget. We shall never forget!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:40 p.m. CST

    Hardcore Trekkies

    by SithMenace

    How are they upset about Abrams taking over ST after the abortions that were the last 2 films. And I'm going to say it...First Contact was not that good. Above average 2 hour tv episode at best.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:41 p.m. CST

    Mr. Zeddemore

    by cameron1975willi

    Well, every single report of the footage shown has been positive. So I guess either miracles do happen, or there's more to Star Trek than just Kirk.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    And Transformers?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Mr. Zeddemore

    by Boborci

    what about it?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:45 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    What happened, really? Were you forced to put in the comic relief at gunpoint?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:48 p.m. CST

    RE: How To Launch An Enterprise Built On Earth - From Mild Trekk

    by jorson28

    This has probably already been addressed, but I'm giving it a shot anyhow. I'm a mild Trekker - I like a little more than just the original series, altough I do think that's where most of TREK'S strength lies as an overall property, particularly in the command triptych Moriarty mentions. Anyhow, technically, the Enterprise shouldn't be built on Earth and, yeah, I can understand how some of the hardcore fans could get upset at that AND understand how the science of launching it could be a bit mind-boggling. However, given how doubtful it is that any hardcore Trekker wanted those original roles recast in a movie like this in the first place, I don't think this bit of retooling of canon should be a big deal and in terms of Trek technology, there actually is a rather simple way to explain how they'd launch the Enterprise from Earth. Consider modern-day salvage operations at sea - barges lift wrecked ships off the ocean floor, albeit in pieces. It's tough and dangerous, particularly for whatever is being lifted because structural integrity rapidly declines as it's pulled out of water. In this case, though, a technique along those lines would be feasible in launching a ship like Enterprise from Earth and particularly if you consider one particular piece of Trek technology: TRACTOR BEAMS. Think of space as the ocean surface and Earth as its bottom, then you only have to think of Enterprise as a ship at the bottom which isn't wrecked. A federation barge - albeit a really BIG one - could theoretically lift Enterprise off the surface and through the atmosphere with a tremendously high-powered tractor-beam. I admit, even in the make-believe world of Trek, it's not the most feasible of solutions, but Moriarty is right in that it is a striking image, even in the trailer, one I quickly grew to like before ever even knowing about this footage shown or reading any responses to it. If it works dramatically AND there's a corresponding solution to the ship's launching within the scientific rules within STAR TREK canon, then I don't know why this should be a big deal at all.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Comic relief was intentional

    by Boborci

    The old cartoon was fun, too.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:49 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Even the urinating Transformers and the pseudo-racism?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:52 p.m. CST

    even that

    by Boborci

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:55 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Wow.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:08 p.m. CST

    actually, the pissing Transformers scene was

    by crankyoldguy

    fine. the masturbating thing with the parents was lame, a 'what are you doing in there' would've worked fine...or choking the chicken, then dad saying, hmmmm....this girl could choke my chicken....

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:08 p.m. CST

    I thought an Orci was a type of baby whale

    by crankyoldguy

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:08 p.m. CST

    Why did you guys fuck up the Traansformers movie so bad?

    by Han Cholo

    I mean seriously, from robot design to story, why couldn't you guys just write a good story for that movie? Did the studio say "Let's make a TF movie that appeals to the lowest common denominator"?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Pissed Off And Bitter - same story

    by Boborci

    It was the same story it's always been: human befriends robot who is member of benevolent alien race fighting evil faction of robots who are now on earth looking for energy.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Wasted Opportunity with Boborci

    by Primogen

    You have a chance to talk directly with one of the film's screenwriters, and you waste the opportunity by insulting his past work? Ain't it uncool!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:15 p.m. CST

    SHUT YOUR FACES DREW! JUST SHUT YOUR FACES!!!

    by BringingSexyBack

    Mori, I'm still not sold on the movie and will wait for Yackbacker's trusty review ... but that was a great write-up. You definitely piqued my interest and subsided my hate. Good show.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    How would you describe your writing process? How does it differ between episodic TV and franchise films?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:16 p.m. CST

    HEY BOB ORCI!!

    by BringingSexyBack

    High five!!!!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:17 p.m. CST

    Trans Reality check, please

    by crankyoldguy

    The original Transformers cartoons were mighty dopey. A lot of you were just kidlets when they came out, hence your nostalgic affection for 'em.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:20 p.m. CST

    Serious question for Boborci

    by Primogen

    How much of your film has the entire Enterprise crew (Spock, McCoy, Scotty, etc. with Kirk in command) working together as a team? Or do they only establish the relationships as we knew them in the TV series at the film's conclusion?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:21 p.m. CST

    just look at from point of view of

    by crankyoldguy

    five to 10 year old. My boy was five for Transformers last year and loved it. Robots that turn into trucks and cars and beat the crap out of each other? There you go. Since I never had any vested nostalgia in the various animated series, I enjoyed the movie enough as lark. And the casting of Ms. Fox was a smart move, from teen boy to dad taking the kids appeal.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:22 p.m. CST

    Primogen

    by Boborci

    Not saved till the end, but not from the beginning...

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:23 p.m. CST

    meanwhile, regarding Trek novels and script

    by crankyoldguy

    It's been said Best Destiny was one of the books used as a reference (though clearly not as "canon" per se. Yes?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:24 p.m. CST

    crankyoldguy

    by Boborci

    Best Destiny, Prime Directive, Spock's World, and many others were inspirations...

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:25 p.m. CST

    Boborci...

    by JustinSane

    ...tell me the truth. Does Spock going back in time adjust the timeline so that resurrected Old Kirk and Old Spock have a scene together at the end? Forget about spoiling it, man, we need SHATNER confirmation!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:26 p.m. CST

    no...

    by Boborci

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Those choices of books say a lot right there

    by crankyoldguy

    They're among the best TOS novels, along with Federation as well.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:28 p.m. CST

    I have no doubt there will be many surprises

    by crankyoldguy

    ....for there are always...possibilities.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    What's your favourite ep of Alias that you penned?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:30 p.m. CST

    HEY BOB ORCI YOU SHOULD WRITE A SCREENPLAY

    by BringingSexyBack

    where Sarah Palin becomes Prez and reveals herself to be the vessel carrying Xenu to world domination. Did you catch that vid where she was being interviewed while turkeys were slaughtered in the background? That's where I got the idea. We are all just turkeys in Xenu's world.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:31 p.m. CST

    The Spock/Kirk/McCoy trinity

    by skimn

    Maybe I read this somewhere, maybe not, but it fits. The three worked because they represented a single individual.<p>Spock: The brain<p>McCoy: The heart<p>Kirk: The balls

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:31 p.m. CST

    skimn

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    That's absolutely correct. You can also say they each represent a form of the ID.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:34 p.m. CST

    jorson28

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    You've never tasted pussy, have you?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:35 p.m. CST

    Mr. Zeddemore

    by Boborci

    I can't even remember which ones we wrote anymore since on TV the whole staff helps to come up with the carious stories. I liked the one where Will finally discovers that Sydney is a kick ass spy.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:36 p.m. CST

    tMore Trek.

    by u.k. star

    The Enterprise turns on the engines and flies away.Just like it does when it flies in atmosphere in the show, or the shuttles do. It's established in Trek that the ships. float..or hover. or whatever the hell they do with their impulse - anti grav - S.I.F or whatever. It really is NOT a big deal. As for Pine, No one I've heard thinks he's doing an impression. He's just acting a part, cocky, charming, sure of himself and all that, but most definately NOT an impersonation. Which is prob good news. Pine looks like a decent actor from what I've seen though.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:36 p.m. CST

    BringingSexyBack

    by Boborci

    or you should write it... take a stab at it.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:39 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Any advice for wannabe writers such as myself?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:41 p.m. CST

    SULU IS THE PENIS

    by BringingSexyBack

    Scotty is the legs, Chekhov is the taint and Uhura is the nipples.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Boborci avoids Shatner question....

    by JustinSane

    ...PREPARE TO SEE OLD KIRK AT THE END OF THE FILM! (You heard it here first!)

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:43 p.m. CST

    BringingSexyBack

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Scotty is the legs? NOOO

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Mr. Zeddemore -- screenwriting?

    by Boborci

    yeah, first, read as man y screenplays as you can get your hands on, especially the ones that are like the things that you would want to write. Second, write AS MUCH AS YOU CAN. The more you write the better you get. Three: don't forget about TV. Writing practice TV episodes of your favorite show is a great way to get better, faster, and with easy to understand feedback from whoever you let read it because if they know the show, they can easily tell if you get close. And a gig is a gig, meaning, any job in the entertainment industry is a potential doorway to other things, so never think any job is beneath you.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:46 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Sound advice. Currently writing a superhero noir novel for fun.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:47 p.m. CST

    I'LL DO THAT ROBERTO

    by BringingSexyBack

    And you can produce it for me. As long as you get Lizzy Caplan to play Palin. Have you seen her on True Blood? Holy sweet nips!!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:52 p.m. CST

    Bob Orci

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    Mormon? True or false?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:55 p.m. CST

    Five and Nine

    by berserkrl

    Your Trekkie friend must be atypical if he thought ST V was the Trekkiest film ever. Most Trekkies (like most non-Trekkies) think it's the worse of all the movies. But my question is: not even DS9? For me that was the best of the post-TOS Treks.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:55 p.m. CST

    Winston

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    Ditch that idea. its too familiar. People are sick of vampires and sick of noir. <p>My advice, get your ass on Gremlins 3 and get that shit to Joe Dante pronto!!

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 5:59 p.m. CST

    DANNYGLOVERS

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    I need to outline Gremlins III first - that usually takes four to eight weeks. Novel writing is a little looser.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:03 p.m. CST

    I had to kill Bob Orci because he made a mistake.

    by Lashlarue

    Now it's time to erase that mistake.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:05 p.m. CST

    Mr. Zeddemore

    by Boborci

    Can I make a suggetion? Outline a remake of the original.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:06 p.m. CST

    Orci...

    by conspiracy

    Not to say that Trek or Transformers are Shakesperian; but the source material is rich with the potential to be both entertaining and somewhat deep. So why do you and the rest of JJ's Minions continue to develop and deliver half baked tripe that appeals to those people who breathe through their mouths? Granted..there are far more of "Them" than of us...and that affects the bottom line...but just once before you died or your 15 minutes in Hollywood runs out don't you want to be remembered for more than Robots pissing on things and such verbose statements as "My Bad"? Don't you have any desire to be a more than a script puncher and elevate yourself above the base these films seem to always pander too? Isn't there just ONE Citizen Cane or Godfather in you? Or will you simply go on record as admitting you do it only for the money and Fuck artistry, real film fans and your own dignity?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:06 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    If I ever did do it, it'd have to be self-contained. My gut is telling me that getting some of the original actors back would be a good idea... but that'd be difficult to pull off.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Sorry for the typos and bad spelling...

    by conspiracy

    In the office. high on methadone and shaking in rage got the better of me...

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:14 p.m. CST

    conspiracy

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    I'm shaking in rage at the patronising tit on TV hosting a show that tricks people into paying money for the minisicule chance of a shitty prize.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:33 p.m. CST

    Question: What do non fans think was wrong with Trek?

    by Drath

    And why should their opinions mean dickshit to anyone? No wait, hear me out, think about this, several people now at AICN have pointed out that they didn't like Trek before--and Abrams almost brags about not being a fan--and it seems to be assumed that Trek's diminishing success both financially and creatively is the result of not appealing to those people who didn't like it before. How then was it successful in the first place? Maybe it wasn't on the levels of success of say the Bond or Star Wars franchises, but it was a pretty big hit that spanned both cinemas and TV for several decades. It seems to me that the die hard fandom--not the casual people like Harry, Moriarity, or even Abrams--is who has lost interest to the point of hurting the franchise. There has never been a Trek movie that was beloved to the fandom but flopped financially. We hated most if not all the odd numbered films and then the last even number sucked too. They stopped making the movies when the fandom stopped going to them. I for example skipped Nemesis, but I'm sure as a kid I too would have defended my favorite franchise from heckling dickhead buddies. Mori, I wasn't there when your friend defended a bad film just to save face but most of us acknowledged to each other that Trek 5 sucked and it's a well remembered bad movie in the franchise among Trek fans (though everyone still loves Spice Williams as a Klingon). So a youth took it too seriously to just laugh off your derision of his favorite franchise? Gee, what an immature fool, surely he's learned to bitch and moan about raped childhoods like the rest of us by now or there's something wrong with him (yes, I do call you Shirley, like it bitch)! You try telling Twilight fans how bad you think their movie is and they will cut you with their braces, man. Clearly some people take this shit too seriously (and all entertainment is, in a higher sense, just shit). But I really think that it escapes you and the lot of you non-Trek fanatics why the franchise has really fallen off the wagon. It sounds like this new movie is trying to address the sense of adventure that had gone out of the series, but so much of the praise is about the new wallpaper and not the actual value of the house. So if this isn't an exactly continuity-accurate take on Kirk, is it a GOOD take by Trek standards? Will it please fans who aren't obsessed with preserving the details about Kirk's childhood but still want this to be THEIR Enterprise? Is there a vibe that makes up for possibly major changes like killing off Spock's mother before her natural introduction in the series or blowing up Vulcan before the series even starts? If this movie makes a splash and traditional fans hate it all the way, what will it mean for the long term appeal of the franchise? Can you make a lot of movies that way or will it fizzle after two or three? If this fails AND ruins continuity, what then for the franchise? I'd appreciate some Trek fans to talk about this, similar to the Star Wars fan meetings you had back in the day. Sure, it's a geek out, and possibly there's just not enough crossover between the Trek--a fandom that is primarily a TV audience--and AICN faithful to make it work. But this "us and them" talk is really bullshit, more than a little hypocritical too.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:33 p.m. CST

    Encountering Romulans.

    by RosebudsStarfish

    According to TOS episode "Balance of Terror" no member of starfleet had ever seen what a Romulan looked like. If Eric Bana has any interaction with any starfleet member who lives, then they have flushed yet another piece of Trek canon down the drain. They could have gone so many other ways with so many other storylines to keep it truer to the original.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:38 p.m. CST

    RosebudsStarfish

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    They're going to use time-travel to reboot the entire franchise. This is a new canon.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Aliens mingling in a bar? How original...

    by KongMonkey

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:13 p.m. CST

    Re: Encountering Romulans

    by berserkrl

    They could always do re Romulans what _Star Trek: Enterprise_ did re Ferengi: "Oh, we fought these vaguely Vulcan-looking aliens but we never did learn the name of their people."

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:20 p.m. CST

    Drath has it right

    by tomdolan04

    This whole point of 'ooh the mainstream doesn't get Trek, let's get the guy from Lost and make it cool' concept is patronising and limited. <p> Predictions: This Trek will open huge and it will be flavour of the month in all the media outlets/mags etc. A little time will pass. The drop-off will be huge be it a few months or even a sequel. Then Paramount will go running back to the dedicated fanbase (and I am not a Trekkie by any means, but I love to dip into TNG and TOS) for their support. <p> Its coming up more and more recently as a legtimate business question. Take Pushing Daisies - by now it's proved it won't by a Lost type runaway smash, but you have a hardcore fanbase who will buy the DVD's no-matter what. I'm UK based and US fictional TV is great, but the message your networks send is "Unless your show is a mainstream hit, we're going to fuck it over so theres no point in getting invested in the start". <p> Ignore me, I'm still bitter over Journeyman. Actually sod that, wheres my Season six of Quantum Leap :(

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Star Trek IV was good V sucked

    by JestaFool

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:36 p.m. CST

    Turning Heads

    by Cobbio

    Thanks, Mori. Good writeup, mostly because I have your same basic take on all things Trek: pretty good, not great. I liked "The Wrath of Khan" well enough, I guess, the characters of Picard and Cue, and "Deep Space Nine" since to me it pretty much blew away all the other shows, but I was never a full-time fan.<p> Glad to hear JJ's new interpretation of "Trek" is turning heads. I hope mine is one of them.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:44 p.m. CST

    IV vs. V

    by Royston Lodge

    Star Trek IV was a REALLY stupid premise that was somehow executed well with high production values. Star Trek V was a really interesting premise that was executed with terrible special effects and misguided usage of the cast. It's so bad because it had so much potential to be much better. On the up side, it has some of the coolest Klingons even seen on the big screen (other than Christopher Plummer).

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 7:56 p.m. CST

    Sorry but you lost me at "experiment on a beagle".

    by Cotton McKnight

    Seriously, that is enough to keep me away from this. I own a beagle and the very idea... sorry JJ. Why couldn't it have been a cat? That would have actually been funny. Beagle? Not funny.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:05 p.m. CST

    Cotton McKNIGHT -- Beagles...

    by Boborci

    ...have two of my own. Love the Beagle from ENTERPRISE. Maybe the beagle is fine in the movie. Who knows?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Ships is space? How original.

    by gotilk

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:15 p.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Cotton McKnight

    Yeah I see your point. Perhaps the superior officer just didnt like the idea of him performing the experiment. But who knows. How about you see the movie first and tell me what happens?

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:19 p.m. CST

    Danny - The Island

    by MattmanReturns

    Agreed. The Island was the first time I enjoyed a Bay film. It's unfortunate that the one time Bay tried to do an original movie with half a brain, he was shunned by audiences who'd rather watch Bad Boys III.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:23 p.m. CST

    Enterprise built on Earth

    by Chuck_Chuckwalla

    Wow, folks are pissed that this new flick shows the Enterprise being built on Earth? Really? The ship that has endured through the many rigors of space travel and it can't lift itself from the gravity of the Earth? C'mon, that's weak. It's the 23rd century. They have the tech to build a star ship anywhere. Let it go.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:40 p.m. CST

    The Island was Bay?

    by gotilk

    What a trip. I like a Bay film. It missed in places, sure. But it was a fun ride with half a brain.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 8:44 p.m. CST

    Orci

    by gotilk

    Loving your work on Fringe. Excellent writing. If you ever have anything to do with fleshing out Walter, BRAVO. Best character on TV. Maybe one of the best ever.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:25 p.m. CST

    the beagle ...

    by crankyoldguy

    was my favorite Enterprise NX01 crew member, especially when he ate cheese.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 9:34 p.m. CST

    @secretcylon

    by gotilk

    Yes, I did sort of describe DS9. Well, except for mentioning "not on a station" a couple of times. But I know what you mean. I liked DS9. Do not get me wrong. I just think it missed as often as it hit. And I also think it had it's best season still in it. Same with Enterprise. On SOME levels, I felt Enterprise came closest to being a real immersion in that universe. Then it would feel silly the next week. It was far too schizoid to be a success. It was all over the place in it's writing/directing/effects quality. If someone decided to tune in to give it a chance, there was a 50-50 chance they'd get hit with a goofy episode instead of an interesting one. What made DS9 stand out, I think, is it's focus on characters. Same reason I LOVE Farscape.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Farscape understood the balance..

    by crankyoldguy

    of humor and drama, plus one hell of a love story, too. Gonna mention that over on the Twilight ranting and arguing.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 11:14 p.m. CST

    PIGS in Spaaaaaaaaaaaaace!

    by chromedome

    I miss the muppets.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 11:21 p.m. CST

    How about Mel Brooks....

    by crankyoldguy

    Jews in Space? Wait. That was the original Trek - Shatner and Nimoy - even made one of the Adam Sandler Hannukah songs. We'll light the menorah next month...

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 11:43 p.m. CST

    see Mori YOU are the target audience and the reason this

    by Maniaq

    will do so WELL at the box office. The "I'm not much of a Trek fan, but I didn't mind the original version" crowd are a VAST majority who will flock to see this film. There is also Quinto (Heroes) and JJ (MI3) crossover that will ENSURE the die-hard Trek fanatics will be LOST IN THE CROWD when they start bitchin about all things canon... <p> Paramount may be many things but business-savvy is definitely one of them and this move will go down as one of their best yet. <p> I predict once this film gets its run next year, the talk among the hard core will quickly shift from all the things they hoped would(n't) happen in this, to all those ignorant fools who LOVED IT and don't know what the fuck they're talking about...

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 12:32 a.m. CST

    time travel theory:

    by bluebottle

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 12:33 a.m. CST

    time travel theory:

    by bluebottle

    makes a lot of sense to me:<p></p> http://tinyurl.com/5s4hne

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 1:42 a.m. CST

    Star Trek / South Park crossover.

    by MotherPussBucket

    All Canadians must wear red shirts at all times. Operation codename: Phaser Fodder.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 2:20 a.m. CST

    i stiil dont get why the ship is built on earth

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    shouldnt a ship that size be built in zero g (orbit) - like in the first trek movie - dry dock in space - orbital shipyards - we have space stations now - wouldnt we have them in the future - i get the feeling more and more that this movie is for people who know what star trek is but hate it and think its a cliche - jj was brought on board to inject the franchise with the "aw, dude" factor - but im sure it will be huge, like his godzilla movie

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 2:32 a.m. CST

    Chuck_Chuckwalla

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    it just doesnt make sense - its illogical - this is star trek not star wars - its sci fi - not fantasy - but it proves to me that this movie is for those that dont see a distinction between star trek and star wars - building the enterprise on land makes as much sense as building an ocean liner in an airplane hangar - ships are built in harbors for a reason - and star ships are built in orbit for the same reason - its easier - shit like giant propellers and impulse engines weigh less when theyre in water or outer space

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 2:56 a.m. CST

    AVATAR - Fucking your eyeballs in 2009

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    nothing else matters

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 3:24 a.m. CST

    longest post ever

    by dkurina73

    take a deep breath man...

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 4:02 a.m. CST

    Dry dock

    by u.k. star

    They call it "Dry" for a reason. Ships are built out of the water. The space argument been done to death on this talkback, most people don' really care, and there's more reasons to buil on a planet than there are to buil off it. Much safer being the primary one, safe testing another, no "heavy lift" needed to get into space yet another.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 4:21 a.m. CST

    Not as popular as Bond???

    by u.k. star

    Oh but it was, at least in the US. It also had a chance to gather a similar following outside the US but missed the boat. The Trek films would significantly outgross the Bond ones, but Trek failed to add to it's fan base. It's fanbase died out, got old and so on and never did a good enough job of rplacing them. <p> It also got futher and futher away from the "state of the art" the balanc between, talk, energy and action got more and more askew as the budgets stayed "small" and the film makers were less able to kep that balance. The reputation for Trk films being mosly talk, little action , no sex (the antithesis of the 60's show!) and the die was cast.<p> Now this film is trying to redres that balance, to get that ration between talking (moaralising and so forth) energy, pace, sex and (the horror) action back. More mass appeal does NOT mean lesser quality. Trek 2 had mass appeal, as did Railders of the lost Ark, Jaws and so on. <p> Oh one more thing, it's been said before, by many people including me, Just because someone or people like something that you or I don't DOES NOT mena they must be a moron! It just doesn't. People can like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Blade Runner, Jaws, the Godfather, Yojimbo and so on AND have fun watching Transformers you know? They aren't stupid. People that asssume they are are basiclly like Fraisier and his brother. Elitest, so busy only enjoy fine wine and fancy dinning that they can't can't see the simple pleasure in chomping down on a nice burger or hot dog, or a bag oof fish and chips. Sometimes you just want to eat a burger! and it is possible for films to just be plain fun.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 4:22 a.m. CST

    Scotty

    by droids22

    I think Scotty needs to bring it down about a 100 notches! Damn! I thought I was witnessing a character from SNL!

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:09 a.m. CST

    Hey Bob Orci

    by joshuavance1701

    To bloddy hell with what some of these morons think dude, you are a screen-writer in Hollywood making fundage at what you know and love. Invite and welcome criticism, it just means people envy you and your status and station in life. I pretty much "get" what you guys are shooting for with this and I'm all about it. Relevancy and "cool" for Trek will be a good place to be again after so many years as a niche market limited to conventions, substandard television series, few novels, and high end collectibles for the "discerning fan". Not. I want McStar Trek God dammit - and I dont say that in jest or surreptiously. Flood the market dude. Have Trek toys in every God damn Wal-mart and Toys R us aisle possible. You guys shepard this thing into the 21st century and bring Trek into the mainstream. If you bloody some noses or step on some toes along the way, who gives a rats ass, make Trek viable, lucrative, pop-culture relevant, and most importantly, something it hasnt been in some time, fucking FUN. Making James Kirk a badass womanizing ass-kicking champion of men. These God damn emo overindulged, spoiled, unappreciative WEAK ass "men" today need old school role models evidently. Give us a Greek Adonais kickass Kirk that inspires a generation of kids to grow to be men and not wuss mother fuckers that fall apart in life over NOTHING. Hardcore Kirk. I'll have a Enterprise with my number 4 meal please. Bring that shit.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:21 a.m. CST

    Fuckin whiny Trekkie bitches..

    by DiamondJoe

    ...moaning about how this is going to suck. Wake up and sniff your early morning dump, girls - Trek died a very slow, protracted death as soon as Next Gen ended on TV. The movies after that were appalling (apart from First Contact, which is merely good - not great). DS9? Good, but it wasn't Star Trek. Voyager was an unwatchable techno-babble filled pile of shite. Enterprise was wholly misconceived. This film LOOKS as though it is Star Trek as it was intended. Bright colours, strong characters, action, idealism. If it works, great. If it doesn't - fuck it, at least someone tried. And who the fuck really cares about irrelevant shite like where the ship was built? Christ, put down your Technical Manuals and join the fucking human race.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:25 a.m. CST

    Boborci..

    by DiamondJoe

    ...does Nimoy only appear at one point in the movie, or in several scenes? Just hoping he's got more than a walk-on cameo.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:29 a.m. CST

    Abrams is da man!!!

    by Citizen Sane

    I too loved the original series. It was a brilliant yet seamless cerebral drama mingled with sex and shoot em up. But Trek completely lost its way by the fifth feature. TNG had some good episodes early on. But after Roddenberry passed, it went to shit under Berman and Braga's watch. I am encouraged by what I'm seeing and hearing and am (to my own surprise) looking forward to seeing it in May.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:34 a.m. CST

    DiamondJoe

    by u.k. star

    Most of what say is it in a nutshell. (Of course I disagree about DS9 I think it was just the other side of the coin Trek. which i gues is not Trek??) <p> This movie really does look like Pure Trek as intended. In other words if Trek had started as a movie not a TV show, it may have been something like this. Bright, colourfull, optomistic, sexy "COOL", with a good odse of action to match the drama. Now some people are saying they don't think the drama, the character will be there. Well nobody's seen this film, so nobody know that. It's certainly been implied that it's there, and hinted at (at least) in the footage showm. Fottage which has met with universal praise. (varying degrees of praise, but praise nevrtheless.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:48 a.m. CST

    Geekgasm

    by optimus122

    I have to agree that the box office will probably be a disappointment since they spent too much to make a killing in theaters but the DVD will sell like hotcakes , there will be at least 2 different director cuts etc and tv revenue will be huge as well. It will be a good money maker for the studio when all is said and done.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 6:09 a.m. CST

    Box office

    by u.k. star

    If the wider audience loses the interest that's been built up by this trailer and footage reviews it will strugle, because Trek movies' fan gross tops out at $140m odd, for the good ones. Whilst $150m worldwide is a decent gross for a next gen movie that's just because they are cheaply made in the 1st place. A $150m movie needs to get a much wider audience. Given how popular Star Trek was if they make a good movie, and remove the uncool factor from it it should be a big success. You can never be sure what will be a hit and what won't, but as this is Trek's last stand we have to hope it's a good film AND a successful one.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 6:55 a.m. CST

    In the end...

    by Newmark

    People who know little or nothing about Star Trek will probably like the movie, while fans will probably notice enough plot holes and ilogical stuff to not like it. Considering it's coming from JJ and the Transformers writers, I expect it to be a decent movie but superficial and forgettable.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 7:28 a.m. CST

    u.k. star

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    No offence, but I don't get why they had to spend $150 million in the first place. That just cuts down the potential profit. It'd make far more sense to have made a $60 million flick - you can make a convincing Sci-Fi flick for that amount.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 7:30 a.m. CST

    And also

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    MI3 was meant to start a new franchise. They talked that up as an effective reboot. So I think people are right to be skeptical of JJ.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 7:37 a.m. CST

    Can these reviews/new be...

    by the_scream

    Without all the fluff? I mean, it was fun a few years ago but all the waffle is just exhausting on this site. We don't have to know your life history to read a review. We don't need to know what you had for breakfast. It may be a "unique" quality of the site but "unique" does not = good.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 8:24 a.m. CST

    Mr Z

    by u.k. star

    I'll be watching MI3 this weekend to get a feel for it. It made more than enough mmoney to justify a sequel, and more than Paramount were expecting in the post Cruise meltdown / backlash. However it it is a bad movie I accept that, but everyone can make a bad movie, especially when given a direction to go in by a self centred moie star. There's a reason the MI films are not team based, Cruise the movie star. From all I've read JJ managed to get some of that back into the series.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 8:38 a.m. CST

    u.k. star

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    It's not a bad film, but it's still a star vehicle and it's still funny because it didn't lead anywhere. They remove nearly every tie to the earlier ones to make it more accessible, and yet it never went anywhere else.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Nr. Z pt 2

    by u.k. star

    Sorry but spectacle wise, you can't make a big sci-fi film ffor that money, you could barely make an earthbound film, with a reasonable amount of action for under $100m these days, movies are very, very expensive. Top of the line effects (Which Trek movies have mostly lacked) are expensive. In order to make a "real" movie out of this they had to spend the money. Even just as a statement of intent, that they are again giving Trek genuine movie treatment it needed to be done. <p> Trek can't be the poor little brother AND expect to get a new audience. Here's an example..<p> "After plunging through a bargain basement optical effect" or <p> "wisely saves his special effects budget for two key sequences" 1st Contact Effects alone will never make a good movie, but the ability to build better sets, have more location and yes, better special efects and action is key both to drawing in (and keeping) new fans, but also to getting a genuine Trek movie onscreen. Unless of course it's one of the just talking episodes, but why put that in a movie and it's still be expensive. Sure you could make the last Bourne film for $60m (say $70m to account for some of Damon's wages) and storywise keep it more or less the same, but it would be a lesser expeience, less visceral, perhaps a little less "realistic". <p> When they started Trek movies they were playing wth the big boys, $150m is actually on the low side for a movie like this, on this scale, but they are finally trying to play with the big boys again.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 8:47 a.m. CST

    I'm hoping it's going to be good

    by bender7

    Canon or non-canon, a lot of what has been shown looks well done and exciting. The casting in particular I think is inspired. But there's a lot from this article that worries me. I mean, Kirk rides his motorcycle to check out the ship being made? And he goes chats up Uhura at the local bar? Imagine the reunion on the bridge. Hoo boy!! It just sounds a lot like throwing as much if the mythology in one movie. Like how in the Star Wars prequels Threepio is being made by Anakin or Chewbacca in Episode 3. All in all, I agree with Moriaty that if it's a solid and entertaing 2 hours in the dark then that's what matters

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 8:55 a.m. CST

    MI3

    by u.k. star

    The sense I always got from word of mouth, reviews was that They'd tried to get the team ethic back in, and that was why JJ was hired, but that through it all BECAUSE JJ was essentially a nobody as a movie director, and Cruise was basically everything you could see it go so far and then it hit a "Mr. Cruide needs mors close ups, and Mr. Cruise thinks you need to cut some of this dialogue from the other team members and have more shots of him looking concerned, or heroic". Now I havenn't seen it so, as yet, I don't know. <p> It still huurts me to think that because I went to the movies in a group of about 5, MI2 got some of my money. The 1st one I thought was just average at best as a movie (with 1 good set piece and one ridiculous but fun set piece). It was awful as a mission impossible movie. The2nd, WHOO, an eve worse Mission Impossible film, and an awful movie. So many things were wrong with it it still burns me up to think about it. Soo you can see why I never bothered with 3, despite my usual efforts to see as many movies as I can. <p> Anyway I think Paramount maybe saw whatever good JJ did in that film WITH interference from the Star, and figured he'd do a better job without it on Trek. I also have to say I still think the episodes of Alias and Lost writtn and directed by JJ are outstanding, and the shows suffered greatly when he left to do other things.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 9:12 a.m. CST

    I thought MI:3 was the best in the series

    by bender7

    2 was obviously the worst. John Woo's worst movie. The first one was good but mainly from DePalm's directing I felt. 3 actually felt like a Mission Impossible movie. It was an actual team movie and they team actually helped with the mission apart from being killed off or being in awe of Ethan Hunt. Good action and characters. It thankfully got rid of the excessive use of facemasks and only used it once. The only downside was the typical 'traitor' plotline that you could see coming ten thousand miles away

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 9:47 a.m. CST

    This trailer got laughed at when we saw it...

    by Bones

    Finally saw Quantum of Solace this week and they had the trailer for this in front. There was some kid in the back who yelled "You're kidding, right?" and the entire audience laughed. Me, I think the trailer looks like the Lost In Space trailer...and we all know how well that went, right? Or the two trailers for Episode I...<p> As far as I can tell, there are two ways of thinking when it comes to Star Trek...The idea that Star Trek IS Kirk, Spock, McCoy on the Enterprise...no matter who plays them OR it is the universe that was created over 40 years. The problem with the Kirk/Spock/McCoy idea is that unlike any other franchise in history those characters are synonymous with the actors who played them...for 40 years. That is a long time, and when they started getting older 21 years ago that is when they started expanding Star Trek beyond that group into the future of the other TV shows.<p> The problem with the Universe idea is that the more you give yourself over to an alternate universe like they created, the more distance it puts between the fan and the rest of the world. For a long period of time there were only 6 hours of Star Wars to consider and the books where there were something like 600+ hours of Star Trek adventures on film or TV. Star Trek is so well defined and so many stories have been told that it is daunting for newbies.<p> And Paramount wants something with that Brand Name that is acceptable to newbies.<p> In our current culture that defines New as Better and Old as Bad, you won't get new Star Trek fans for old episodes or stories, no matter how enjoyable they are...and I am realizing I am not part of that culture anymore. The TV channels I watch most are Turner Classic Movies or Discovery Channel. The TV shows I like are canceled, the movies I like bomb at the box-office. And yet total shit like Knight Rider gets picked up for a full season and people just LOVE Transformers...which is just awful, people.<p> Paramount, for decades, coddled Star Trek fans into thinking that they were special, that their shared universe was both safe and sacred--that it was indeed different than the other fictional universes. But, in the end it is just Product. The last few movies and TV shows were not done in by the franchise being tired, but by bad writing. I am sure that JJ Abrams could have done a good Next Generation movie if he wanted, but he is NOT a Star Trek Universe fan--he only knows Kirk and Spock.<p> Star Trek fans are split up the middle by this new movie. Casual fans are excited that there might be interest in the brand again, the Trekkie/Trekker fans are hurt that their special universe is basically dead. Some fans want this movie to do well so they can say they are Star Trek fans without being looked at funny. As if Star Trek will ever be cool. Others want it to fail, so that it keeps the 40 year legacy safe, if dead.<p> JJ Abrams wants Star Trek to be Star Wars. George Lucas wants Star Wars to turn into Star Trek, with his plans for TV Series and cannonical universe. Battlestar Galactica is soon over. Babylon Five is still a show that no one outside of it's core fans care about. Stargate is dead. Americans want Magic over Science, Easy over Hard, Nihilism over Optimism (Dark Knight, anyone?).<p> And I am old now, comfortable with watching my old shows than caring about what the Kids are watching. So be it.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 9:54 a.m. CST

    I never saw MI:3 so I have no preconceived notions of Abrams.

    by rbatty024

    Going just on the footage and the early word of mouth, this film might have potential. I'm going with cautious optimism. <p> Others have already noted that it's do or die for Trek. After two crappy series I wouldn't mind the die alternative, but if they can really bring back that optimistic essence of Trek, then I'm all for a reboot/prequel/whatever.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 10:05 a.m. CST

    For a lot of Trek people...

    by rbatty024

    Star Trek has been comfort food for the last couple of series. It didn't change a whole lot despite having different crews and ships. It served up pretty similar story lines week after week and the truly devoted ate it up because they were used to it. <p> DS9 actually changed what Trek was about, and in fact challenged some of the ideas in earlier Trek shows. In other words, there was a reason for it to exist. That hasn't been true for much of what came later.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 10:38 a.m. CST

    Changing With The Times

    by Real Deal

    Well I think there is a very definate need for ST's type of optimisim in today's world. Unlike some I think it's time has come again but it wouldn't work unless people are presented with something fresh. I think this movie will reboot the franchise and all the crap I'm reading from the naysyayers won't matter very shortly after it's release. I'm an older Trekkie and I welcome a new take. Because if there's one thing Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek's vision has been all about it's moving forward, being on the cutting edge, being relevent. From what I've seen and read so far this movie has those things written all over it. At least they aren't making the same mistake they did with " Star Trek The Motion Picture ". That movie seemed to be designed by committee. In order to please all of the fans and everyone else. With great movies one guy has to follow a vision. No matter what anyone else wants. It sounds like JJ has done just that. Good for him! I look forward to it.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 10:47 a.m. CST

    Cool Star Trek

    by u.k. star

    Star Trek has been cool. It was cool for pretty long time. The question is actually can Star Trek ever be cool again. The reaction in your theater is pretty Atypical, not only in terms of people I've spoken to , but also most of what I've read, and "opinion poll" type things re interest in the new Trek. It's pretty much an overwhelmingly positive response. <p> Oh there's a barrier to get over, but so far it looks like the trailer is working on it's target audience.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 11:09 a.m. CST

    u.k. star

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    How about I throw it another way? Compare OT Star Wars to Prequel Star Wars. The former looks dated, but has charm... the latter is new, and has no heart. THAT is what people are afraid of, and a spic and spam trailer doesn't convince them. No-one is saying film it exactly the same way as the original, but a high-tech and 'sexy' updating mars the rustic charm of the original. But it's cool, you're a casual fan. We can't agree because I really, really like TOS - to the degree that I'm going to take six months of persuasion to even watch this film, let alone enjoy it.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 11:09 a.m. CST

    Laughing at trailers.

    by gotilk

    I've noticed the larger the audience, the more idiotic snickering and heckling there is at trailers. There was even laughing when I first saw The Dark Knight trailer. It's not any kind of accurate indication. Same audience was shining their lazer pointers at the screen DURING the film. There's nothing obvious to laugh and point at in the Trek trailer. And I have found myself laughing at "Trekkers" in the past. But mostly on the inside. No use spreading nastiness around and making people feel bad. Geeks and fans are the best, most genuinely enthusiastic people in the world.<br> <br> The closest the trailer comes to a "oh jeeze" moment is when the young Kirk says his full name. But even that was still kinda cool. The rest is action, effects and coolness. Not like the old Trek movie trailers, which were usually filled with those "oh jeeze" moments, even for a fan.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 11:09 a.m. CST

    Star Trek

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    It was never cool. Don't delude yourself into thinking that.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 11:11 a.m. CST

    gotilk

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    I'd flip that and say there's nothing with any real heart in the trailer... which is what TOS was all about. It's shiny and action-packed, which isn't Star Trek. If people want that, fine... but don't pretend like it's a logical extension of what Star Trek is.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 11:40 a.m. CST

    I can see how some people feel that way.

    by gotilk

    But I can't get that from the trailer. There's not enough in it. It takes more than that to convey "heart" and I honestly think they wanted to focus on the action aspect. And I'll also point out that I spent my childhood watching Trek (TOS) ONLY. And it's honestly what worries me the most about any new Trek venture. The "heart" of it. The characters. The story. I'm obviously just not worried about it as much from what I've seen. <br> <br> But I still think people laughing at a trailer is no good indication of how well a film will do. TDK did.. hmm.. let me check.. better than almost any film in history(even after adjusting for inflation). That one got laughed at the first time I watched it. It just depends on how many douchebags are in any given audience. I mean, do I really care what they think about a trailer? Maybe. Do I want to hear their opinion during or after said trailer is being shown? Absolutely not. Ever. It's nothing more than a weak fail of a cry for attention.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 11:47 a.m. CST

    True

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    I don't think this trailer is particularly good, so I can sort of understand some laughter... but to laugh at TDK's? Idiotic.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Never cool?

    by u.k. star

    Sorry I can only go buy hoow it was when I was growing up as a kid, in London in the 70s and early 80s. It was cool. You played Trek in the playground (like football, cops and robbers and Star Wars) and there was a buzz amongst kids and adults when Trek 1 came out, met by a lot of dissapointment, and again for Trek 2. It was very cool. Then it just got taken over by the stereotypical "Star Trek geek" and it was this thing you didn't really want to say you liked in case people thought you had a Klingon dictionary and a set of pointy ears at home. <p> As for s apick and san Trailer, well I should think the ship looks new and shiny, so di the old Enterprise, in a 60's kind of way with it's primary colours and flashing lights, and chunky knobs. As for the refit Enterprise, parts of that (sickbay especially) are the 70's equivilents of the new Enterprise. (that's mainly at aall this Apple Enterprise stuff I keep reading.) <p> I get what you're saying about heart, My wife and I say that for almost every "genre" trailer we see. Well it could be good IF... It could be great sci-fi / fantays IF.. or it could just be fun, or just plain tripe. You just can't know (unless it say .."directed by Uwe Boll!) <p> What I keep coming back to iss this, the trailer is designed, very specifically, to show non Trek fans, and Trek haters that this movies, as well as the heart and talk that you expect in a Trek movie, ALSO has these things that you WANT from a big sci-fi film. The things you always thought Trek couldn't afford, or was so caught up in pleasing ONLY it's hard core fans that it didn't address. <p> You know I always wondered how we went through so many Trek films with no "sex" whatsoever. The only time it's really done, and it's very funny when it is, is with Iman in Trek VI... the "what is it with you?" scene. I never counted or anything, but it alwaus felt like Kirk, and in the othe shows too, was always hitting on some hot alien. <p> Anyway what makes you think I'm a casula fan by the way? Love TOS, like next gen (after it fond its feet) Love DS9 (again it had to find it's feet but the "dark side of Trek masive story arc thing). The only series I didn't see all of was Voyager, which I thought turned into utter garbage. I'm a big fan, not a pointy ear wearing "fanatic" but a big fan. My sister's a fan, my wife is a fan and my father-in-law is a fan. Suffice to say he was a fan before I was born (wild guess but as he's 65 I'll assume he may have been a fan before you were born too, and he's looking forward to it. It'll be one of the 2 films he bothers to go out to a year now.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Heart

    by u.k. star

    There's 2 minutes to get this trailer accross. It HAS to appeal to the new audience, Just the name Star Trek gets it accross to everyone else. It also has to show that the negatives of Trek movies have been addressed. Action, sexyness, coolness. The 1st part deals with the character (heart) that Kirk and Spock are the central characters AND it's them growing into their roles, which the audience may, or may not know the history of. It's a waste of resources to spend extra time appealing to those people your NOT aiming the trailer at. It's a goofd Trailer, a poor onr for aiming at old Trek fans, but aint aiming at them is it? As for action packed trailers, There's almost as much action in Casino Royale as there is in its trailers. The trailer had to sell that aspect, show the "new type" of action in the movie, so the balance of action to non action was skewwed. Same here. $150m gets a lot but itdoesn't but 90= minutes of effects and action i promise you.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Casual Fan

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Because the hardcore ones seem to be ripping the trailer, and the casual fans seem to be digging it... leaving me in the middle non-plussed at it.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Bitching about The NCC1701 being built on Earth?

    by The Founder

    Come the fuck on. Who cares where the Enterprise is built. So what if in Orbit or whatever is better. My focus on is the story and how well it looks so far. I'm not compalining and considereing that the last Trek movies has been dull this is a welcome change. Abbrams is good director and it looks like he's breathed some new life into Trek. The movie will more then likly be good but it still has to win over mainstream and just not trekkies in order to succedd.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 12:16 p.m. CST

    Not be sour but can Abbrams pull in the mainstream??

    by The Founder

    That is the real question. While I think Abbrams has done a good job with what i've seen so far and it looks to be a winner(at least for me) I'm still not sold that the mainstream is gonna flock to see a Trek movie. I/m just not sure. Despite how good it tunrs out I think that a lot of people will go it's Star Trek, I'm not seeing that. The trekkies will flock to it and the average sci-fi junkies and fanboys will but the demographic is not large enough to make the movie a hit. Tossing Will Smith in a Trek film would've sweetened the pot for the mainstream.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Hey Bob Orci

    by Chief Joseph

    What's the deal with that Don Murphy guy? Why is he on the internet all the time? Why does he keep deleting all references to him getting decked by Tarantino from Wikipedia?

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Hard core vs casual

    by u.k. star

    I know what you mean.. I've been calling them Uber fans, not as an insult but because it seems to be the, if you like this, hell if you're willing to give this a chance you can't be a "real fan" or something. There's plenty of people, on AICN and anywhere else who have (like my father-in-law) been Trek fans since most of us were born who like the look of the new movie, or are at least fine with giving it a go. There are also a sizable, and very vocal, amount of Trek fans who hate it, and don't want to give it a chance. Does it make either set of fans "better" fans? or more hard core? I don't thiink so. <p> The one thing i do think is that the nit picking, things like where the ship was buily, appearing all over the net could answer The Founder's question, by convincing many that Trek is as uncool as it's been for years and to be avoided more than last year's mobile phone. So far it seems to be pulling in a good chunk of the "mainstream" audience, but there's plenty of time to remind everyone how uncool Trek is. <p> The next trailer or 2 will be key. They need to show the plot, the story of the film, and what is going on. If they panic and forget there "future fan prime directive to try and appease the old fans they could drive away poential viewers. The balance has to be right between action and plot. The Dark Knight & Casino Royale seemed to get it right, but then they were both following, commercially successful films. This one isn't.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Aye

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    I don't really give a shit about tiny continuity things (mostly because, well, they're going to start a new timeline - obviously), so much as whether they can get the intent and characters right.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 12:55 p.m. CST

    by u.k. star

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    dry docks are still docks - on water - pieces are built under very high roofs - frames are built in sections and plating is welded etc - but the dry dock opens up to the bay - where the pieces are assembled - this rule varies in degree depending on the size of the ship - but your average giant fucking ocean liner (titanic, carnival cruiser, etc) are in the water as theyre being put together - how will this enterprise built on land get off the ground? - anti grav i guess - then it has to traverse the atmosphere all the way to space - bumpy ride for a behemoth not designed with aero dynamics in mind - but i guess it could have a shield system that gives it virtual (invisible) curves - like an invisible egg shell surrounding the ship - geeky enough for you?

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 12:58 p.m. CST

    The Founder

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    the mainstream is stupid - wake up

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 1:05 p.m. CST

    JimmyJoe RedSky

    by u.k. star

    I'm not guessing about stuff. I mean of course I have NO idea what they do in this film, but I have seen starships flying around in atmosphere, with no problems in Star Trek before. In TOS the Enterprise is flying in the Earth's atmosphere, in Star Trek VI the Bird of Prey "flys" about Vulcan and Earthwith no issues, and no gravity well / gpfprce effects. So do the shuttles (I know they are smaller) none of them with even 1 iota of aeordynamic build about them. It's just a given that the tech they use makes in atmosphere flight no problem. It really is a no issue. Whenit's built the ship either works or it doeasn't. If it works the engines come on and it just "flies2 up into space in about 3 seconds.<p> In TOS the one where they go back in time to "observe" and they beam up an M.P who just stands still with a frozen look on his face for the whole episode. <p> Mr Z. I'm with you, they have to make a good film. Tell a good story well, and hopefully get the spirit of old Trek right.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 1:19 p.m. CST

    u.k. star

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    yeah - and all that atmosheric flight is possible because of their tech (anti grav and shield technology) - but a starship on that scale would still be easier to build/assemble in space - like the mir space station - weightlessness makes things easier - no cranes - no risk of falling 100 stories off a scaffold - seeing the enterprise on the ground in a desert being welded together by oily grunts on land takes some of the magic away for me - ill admit, it did looked real enough

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 1:20 p.m. CST

    im kinda high right now, excuse the redundancy

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 1:29 p.m. CST

    RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

    by alice 13

    the villian seems like a one-off. trek needs a darkness. bring back the borg. make it badder and more evil. the borg is the federation hyde. better yet- make the borg the future of the federation returning into the past to strengthen and perfect its beginnings. that would have been a better villian than a romulan time traveller and it would have been a thread for continuity / the need to change canon in sequels. BORG.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 1:41 p.m. CST

    was that really Bob Orci??

    by FamousEccles

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 1:46 p.m. CST

    And you people wonder why the franchise is dead

    by BurgerKing

    Because anyone willing to try and make a new film in the franchise is shot down before they even get a chance by you "fans". The thing is Trekkies don't want new films or material because theyre so terrified it's going to ruin it (not that it hasnt already been ruined over and over again). When you should get excited you get all mad and nitpicky that someone is even trying.. <p> Whatever, I'll check it out because it looks pretty awesome and a great 21st century update to the story.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 1:48 p.m. CST

    BurgerKing

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Whuh? I don't think people are opposed to new films so much as reboots of old ones.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 2:16 p.m. CST

    No it wouldn't....

    by u.k. star

    Sorry but the one advantage is that the chunks, (whatever size the are) are "lighter" You've still gotta shift em, and do it properly, and all the while putting your workers at risk. I hear what you're saying but safety alone would make you build in atmosphere if it was possible, let alone not having to hump all your bits and pieces into space and carefully cart them around together. They build current space station in space cos they have no choice, there's nothing powerfull enough to take the whole thing up in one shot, and it wouold likely tear itself appart on the way. They expend an aweful lot of heavy lift energy getting up there, and they are still building the international station now. Yopu think it would have taken over 10 years if they could have built it on Earth? I know in the Star Trek world moving the parts would be easier. Like I've said, even though it really doesn't matter (probably looks better and has more dramatic impact, more tying it to "reality" being on Earth) It has to depend on where you get your resources. If it's space (asteroids and such, then maybe best to stay out in space, if not it makes more sense to stick with the planet you and your workforce ANd your materials are on. <p> Oh one more thing, if human life is the main concern, which it is implied it is in Start Trek, none of that matters and your gonnas build it where it's safest, and easiest for your workforce. that's in atmosphere.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Voyager killed the Borg

    by u.k. star

    I didn't watch all of that show by a long shot but I distincly remember them cutting all the testicles from every single male bog in the galaxy, putting them in a bender and firing them into the sun. <p> They're Borg Jim, but not as we know them.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 3:31 p.m. CST

    u.k. star, you are absolutely correct

    by br1947

    Although I think the decline of the Borg began with TNG (last few episodes, Hugh), Voyager definately stomped the ever loving shit out of any villian credibility. Except toward the end of the series, TNG Borg were a terrifying, nearly unstoppable force. Voyager's Borg were about as much of a threat as the Ferengi. I always wondered what a good Borg backstory would be like, how did they come into being, etc. Maybe something to tie in V'ger and Decker's merger.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 4:03 p.m. CST

    br1947

    by u.k. star

    Yeah I always thought there might be a book that tied those 2 together. To be fair maybe there is. I know what you mean about hugh but at least the left that as just 1 cube being troubled. Voyager, oh boy.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 4:16 p.m. CST

    FamousEccles, yes that was Bob Orci

    by Primogen

    I know that he was also posting at trekmovie.com at the same time he was here -- he visits there often and knows its webmaster -- and on that site referred back to a question he answered at this site.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 4:31 p.m. CST

    BOB ORCI IS MY FRIEND

    by BringingSexyBack

    He gave me a high five once, and next time I'm gonna hit him up for a fist bump.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 4:45 p.m. CST

    U.K. STAR is it really that important??

    by The Founder

    I'm not sure if you're a hardcore fan but i just wanna know is it really that important that the Enterprise be built in orbit and if so why? Debating safty and gravity and blah blah just seems so nitpickish. Are we to assume that in the future these massive star ships vcan be built and have all this future tech but at the sometime their not smart enough to build the ship where it can land on a planet??? I know i saw an episode where Voyager landed on a planet and took back off with no problem. I'm not calling you out but this goes to anyone just looking for something to moan about.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Getting a ship of planet is to much power but warp drive isn't?

    by The Founder

    I'm sorry it just doesn't make much sense to me. I'm pretty sure that taking such a large ship into warp or faster then light travel requires a lot of power. Way more power then it would requite for the vessel to lift off a palnet considering its size and weight.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Next Gen sucked

    by criticalbliss

    It was a soap opera. While I liked Data (that's about it), the rest of the characters lacked the dynamic that made the original so special. You know it's true. Next Gen was groan-worthy.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 4:57 p.m. CST

    No ! That's the point

    by u.k. star

    I'm the guy who's been saying it can be built on a planet without a problem AND I couldn't give a monkey's toss where it's built. <p> It's funny because I just keep getting dragged into arguments about it with the people who have an issue with it not being built in space and all kinds of other shit that really isn't important. I say a few times earlier on in the thread that the ships fly in atmosphere a few times. It really does not matter. <p> Here's what I said.... "JimmyJoe RedSky by u.k. star Nov 22nd, 2008 01:05:08 PM I'm not guessing about stuff. I mean of course I have NO idea what they do in this film, but I have seen starships flying around in atmosphere, with no problems in Star Trek before. In TOS the Enterprise is flying in the Earth's atmosphere, in Star Trek VI the Bird of Prey "flys" about Vulcan and Earthwith no issues, and no gravity well / gpfprce effects. So do the shuttles (I know they are smaller) none of them with even 1 iota of aeordynamic build about them. It's just a given that the tech they use makes in atmosphere flight no problem. "

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 4:59 p.m. CST

    THE SHIP WOULD CRUMBLE UNDER ITS OWN WEIGHT ON EARF

    by BringingSexyBack

    Look at the thing! The two big things and the big saucer thing would fall off. Unless they used adamantium, then it would be okay. But you can't weld adamatium like that guy was doing in the trailer, so obviously they used steel. So the ship would crumble. Ask any MIT physics professor and they'll tell you I'm right.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:01 p.m. CST

    The Founder

    by u.k. star

    Oh You need to look at some of the other threads, they're moaning about Uhura's earings for God's sake. EARRINGS!! Talk about looking for anything to moan about.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:03 p.m. CST

    UHURA DOESN'T WEAR EARRINGS

    by BringingSexyBack

    She wears a bluetooth.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:04 p.m. CST

    WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT ENTERPRISE IS BUILT ON EARTH

    by BringingSexyBack

    So we don't mislead kids into thinking you can build a starship in Earth's gravity. duh!

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:05 p.m. CST

    Hell no...

    by u.k. star

    You know what they built it out of now? You also know about it's structural integrety? This is getting even more ridiculous by the hour.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:10 p.m. CST

    GAH

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Who gives a shit about where the ship is built? The film rises and falls on Pine and Quinto.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Oh My.....

    by u.k. star

    Now you know they can't build stardips on Earth in the 23rd century? You know what they can't do? Hell it's omparable in size to an aircraft carrier (I asume from watching movies and such) put the bloody anti grav and everything else in that and it's in space. <p> seriously the earring thing is better than this argument...

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Mr Z

    by u.k. star

    Thank the lord for some sense on the film!!

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:13 p.m. CST

    I'LL BET IF YOU LIFT AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER INTO SPACE

    by BringingSexyBack

    The thing would break in half. Ever seen Titanic?!?!?! ZOMg!

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:16 p.m. CST

    See--it is it's own universe...

    by Bones

    There are people who know what the metals are in it's construction, what the paint was called over the metal sheets of the ship. It is (was) the most explored science fiction/fantasy universe this side of Tolkien...but with Phasers and stuff. That basic cohesion of ideas is what was attractive to a lot of the Trekkers.<p> Granted, it was easier during the first 20 years when there were only the original shows, the first 4 movies and the novels. Oh, the novels--they were treated like sacred texts that exposed hidden truths on that world...only to be forgotten or overwritten by Roddenberry and others with Next Gen, First Contact and urgh, Enterprise.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:17 p.m. CST

    I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SPOCK'S AGE TOO

    by BringingSexyBack

    Vulcans have a far greater lifespan than humans, and here Spock appears to be similar in age to Kirk. <P> Well, that's fucking stupid because if that's the case Spock would still look like a 20-something by the time of Star Trek VI. <P> So that's another huge mistake on the level of welding a starship on Earth. <P> GAAAHHHHH!!!!!!

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:29 p.m. CST

    BurgerKing

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    you are wrong - i want new films - even new casts and characters - but certain rules shouldnt be broken - i actually think this looks kinda cool, except for the corvette over the cliff bull shit - i can even live with the enterprise being built on the ground (provided its take off is made believable) - having said that, this looks a bit dumbed down for the "2 fast 2 furious" crowd

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:32 p.m. CST

    BringingSexyBack

    by u.k. star

    You do know Leonard Nimoy ages like real human right? That's why he looks old in Trek VI. I have no idea how old Spock is in this film, he could be 50, because as you say, they age slower. <p> The aircraft carrier would reak in half. Seriously, you remember I said all the tech they use, the SIF and all that other shit. Plus to continue this nonsense, an aircraft carrier isn't made to be "lifeted into space", the Starships are. <p> oh and a for the sruts collapsing, maybe that's why they supporting the whole thing with scaffoold then huh?

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:33 p.m. CST

    The Founder

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    federation star ships cant engage warp drive in atmosphere or on the ground - they need to be in space - zero g - have you ever actually watched star trek?

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:42 p.m. CST

    JimmyJoeRedSky--

    by Bones

    The question is...Did JJ Abrams ever actually watch Star Trek?

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:43 p.m. CST

    WELL I HOPE THAT SCAFFOLDING IS MADE WITH ADAMANTIUM!!!!

    by BringingSexyBack

    Also, what JimmyJoe said.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:45 p.m. CST

    ENGAGING WARP DRIVE ON EARF

    by BringingSexyBack

    Would send the entire planet to the Ceti Alpha system.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 5:50 p.m. CST

    ho ho ho

    by u.k. star

    It's getting worse, when did the Founder say anything about warp speed to get off planet? <p> The question is did you guys watch Trek? Where the ships were in atmosphere several times. <p> whilst I guess it aint adanantium, I really don't know, or care what it is. I acept it's tough enough, maybe enhanced by Trek tech, but I accept it like I accept warp drive and hand held energy weapons.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Warp drive on Earth...

    by u.k. star

    Last time I take this nonsense even 1/2 seriously. Warp drive on Earth was done in Trek IV.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 6:06 p.m. CST

    u.k. star

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    again - yes - i watch it still - fed ships can fly in atmosphere - but fed starships were never meant to be built and assembled on land - theyre not "landers" - they were never intended to touch a planets surface - except if crashing - this all according to canon - jj broke canon - thats fine - as long as he gives us a believable lift off - it will require anti grav fiels (like the hover crafts in matrix) and shield generators that project a shell that the atmosphere would slide off of - which has already been hinted at in the shows and mold movies - i dont want to see solid fuel boosters blasting this into orbit - that would be dumb - physics would prevent it - in order for this to take off from land it would need that magic trek science - no flames or smoke

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 6:07 p.m. CST

    trek 4 sucked

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    wasnt that the one with whales

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Fuck You To All Who Hate Star Trek V

    by 1922

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 6:25 p.m. CST

    so you're complaing about something you don't

    by u.k. star

    ..even know is going to happen? wow, well that explains a lot. Who seriously thinks that's what they'd do? Of course I don't know for a fact they won't do it, but seriously, you honestly think that's likely? Like I've said before most likely thing is they "start the ship" Turn on the engines and just fly away. Just as they do when they fly in atmosphere many, many times. I'd love to know where you get your "cannon" from, because watching the shows / movies should be enough enough and if you're gonna hamstrring something to a bunch of obscure, finikity mind numbing rules you're gonna have a damned hard time making good entertainment. Oh wait, isn't poor Trek wjhat we've had for most of the last decade? <p> The big stuff has to be there, they have a mission , a code a prime directive and so on, the tiny details, like the doors having to be exactly 1.9m wide or something hell no. Oh and earrings can only be worn if they are the exact same design as those worn by the tv Uhura. For crying out loud people, we want a good film, a good story, and good Trek, if you're really gonna be distracted by things like the ship being on Earth, well God help you. How can you accept Warpp drive and tranparent alluminium if you can't accept that they may just be a little ahead of us in metalurgy and building techniques in the 23rd century? <p> Yes, the one with the whales, also known as the most sucessful Trek movie.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 7:04 p.m. CST

    It's still science fiction, right?

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    I mean... there's that fiction part that negates the need to worry about the complexities of a possible future where space ships are built on the ground and black women wear tasteful earrings. So, go ahead fellow geeks. Tell me why fiction doesn't mean fiction, especially when in comes to our beloved Trek.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 7:10 p.m. CST

    u.k. star

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    if it was built in space it wouldnt have to fly away - it would already be in space - 3% impulse power and it gently glides from its moorings and into open orbit - like in the first trek movie - which nailed it

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 7:12 p.m. CST

    if something is successful it doesnt mean its good

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    hannah montana 3d made a lot of money too

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 7:16 p.m. CST

    JumpinJehosaphat

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    the better sci fi plays with the rules of reality/science - star trek, the time machine, the matrix etc - the worse sci fi ignores the rules completely - thats not sci fi, thats fantasy - which is great, but dont call it sci fi - star wars, lotr, narnia are fantasy - trek is sci fi - but i get youre point - explosions in space are much cooler when you can hear them

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 7:44 p.m. CST

    Sci-Fi and Fantasy

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    I think to make assumptions about possible future technologies based on current knowledge and then to be unable to suspend one's own disbelief as a result seems to miss the point of the possibilities sci-fi as a genre presents. I'm hearing a lot if "that's impossible" instead of "how are they doing that?" The difference is that one position assumes what is being seen is incorrect (and usually based on a dubious scientific knowledge to begin with) instead of taking what is seen as being somehow possible. In short: When did Trek fans stop discovering possibilities with what's presented?

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 9:46 p.m. CST

    Star Trek can be big budget action. And comedy. And drama.

    by TallBoy66

    And everything. That's why Trek stuck around for so long - you can slap any genre on it and it can kinda work. So those complaining that big budget action isn't Star Trek needs to look back on their Trek to see that, at times, it HAS been that.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 10:03 p.m. CST

    JumpinJehosaphat

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    the star trek universe (which started in the 1960s and lasted into this decade on tv and in film) has established rules - some unbelievable but with applicable scientific theory behind them - that was the point behind my beef with a federation starship being built on the ground - it wouldnt happen in the star trek i know

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 10:18 p.m. CST

    anyone still whining about where this ship is built....

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    ....is a fucking dork. <p>And yes, I mean DORK. Not GEEK, like oh look at me-- I like movies and its cute to call myself a geek. No-- a fucking dork that needs to get a fucking life. No wonder this franchise sucks giant meaty balls, because they feel the need to please you douche bags. Finally someone says fuck the Trekkies, and I'm interested. Bravo JJ.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 10:26 p.m. CST

    star Trek V is GREAT!!

    by BendersShinyAss

    It just needs a bit of a trim here and there, Re-done visual effects and the campfire scene needs to be exactly like it was in the original script and novelisation. <p> speaking of the original script and novelization - they really delved into the klingon heirarchy on the ship (with command being taken by the most powerful klingon) <p> they explained how they are able to get to the centre of the universe so quickly - sybok spent his life formulating how a warp core could be modified... The klingons were able to follow them by replicate the same warp signature. <p> also at the end, it was only Kirk who saw God as a bearded man. All the other characters saw their own perception of what God was. And the monsters which were unleased were visious. <p> Also, Shakaree wasn't a big desert world, but a massive garden planet and the area where they find God was an incredible formation of circlar mountains. <p> Trek 5, according to the original script and Novel would have been exactly as shatner envisioned.... the most spectacular star trek of all ... <p> The original script and novel to generations was also vastly superior to the watered down POS we got.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Bones

    by tomdolan04

    You made a damn good post

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 11:18 p.m. CST

    Huzzah, Danny boy! And eat this the rest of ya!

    by crankyoldguy

    Where the ship is built is hardly a point of contention, unlike fucking Morman "vampires" without fangs that "glitter" in the sun (Oh the fights at home about this over the weekend...). More the trailer makes me want to see this than not, so there you go. And I seem to recall the ncc-1701 being built on earth anyway. As I posted before here, I think, or on another TB: "In the early to mid-23rd century, at least twelve heavy cruiser-type starships, the Constitution-class, were commissioned by the Federation Starfleet. The vessel registered NCC-1701, which was constructed in San Francisco and launched in 2245, was christened the Enterprise. Larry Marvick was one of the designers of the Enterprise. (TOS: "Tomorrow is Yesterday", "Is There in Truth No Beauty?") Dr. Richard Daystrom designed the computer systems used aboard the Enterprise. (TOS: "The Ultimate Computer")"

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 11:58 p.m. CST

    I just got off the phone to JJ - he says..

    by Maniaq

    ...you see the Enterprise being built on Earth and the next time you see it, it's in outer space - and there's NO FUCKING EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER. <p> Get THE FUCK over it! <p> All these assholes whining about this sorta shit are the reason RDM left Trek - and you will notice in BSG they do not bother to explain ANYTHING. Because it DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. <p> If it matters to you, you will devise a way to make it work in your head. The rest of us don't give a shit.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 12:39 a.m. CST

    Tom Dolan--Thanks

    by Bones

    Professionally, I make my living doing art--mostly Star Wars art--but there is a reason I chose Bones as my nom de plume and have had it for almost Ten years on this site. Star Trek was my favorite show growing up, every Saturday night, after Lost in Space re-runs and right before Space:1999--and then later The Twilight Zone.<p> To be young in the late seventies and early eighties when the first four films were coming out, usually within days of my birthday or the Holidays, was a golden part of my youth...and Dr. McCoy was always my favorite part of those films. He is always emotional, sarcastic and caustic--an elder Han Solo, always the one to cry "bullshit" when the situations got silly. And Goddamn it, he had a pill that could grow kidneys. That is the shit.<p> I remember the very first Happy Meals that McDonalds had were tie-ins to The Motion Picture in '79. I still have my give-away poster promoting Wrath of Khan form '82, my dog-eared copy of Shane Johnson's "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" from 1986 and the Newsweek article talking about the 20th Anniversary of the show. There are lots of spaceships in my studio, many of them from Star Wars and Star Trek...and a 1996 Sci-Pub-Tech Cutaway poster of the original USS Enterprise sitting above my workstation, always inspiring me to imagine Function when I am drawing Form.<p> The Devil is in the Details. This was the cement for me in that universe.<p> I guess the thing that bothers me is that I think, with proper writing, directing and funding (including marketing) the universe had many years left in it...but what do I know? I'm only one of the people who has been buying their product for the last 29 years. If Rick Berman had done his job properly, and thought about the films as events rather than two-hour episodes, we might not be where we are now.<p> And if JJ Abrams had created a new crew, a new ship and a new century and set it after the shows we have seen...then I think everyone would all be happy and excited to see something NEW set in that universe, instead of winking at the audience and re-hashing what is already classic. He could have created similar situations with new names, and been able to boldly go (sorry) where no one has been yet.<p> But it is a brand. Gotta remember the BRAND. THE FRANCHISE. THE PRODUCT. <p> We HAVE to get people to buy NEW things...it will fix the economy--who cares if no one has original IDEAS anymore. Transformers proved, among other recent movie franchises (SW, Indy) that the name recognition is enough to get butts in seats and tickets bought--never mind the quality of what people are buying. And the sinking quality of the last ten years or so has lowered expectations as well. So, who cares if Blockbuster movies are written by committee and don't challenge people anymore, only rehashing what they have already seen--following the by-the-numbers-Joseph-Campbell-six-point-story bullshit that modern Hollywood thinks every story needs--or the Product Placements?<p> We are supposed to shut up and take it. Don't think--BUY. CONSUME. DO WHAT WE TELL YOU.<p> Well, this movie is made. It is done. They have spent the shitload of money on it. And people will see it, because they tell us to in commercials, and by showing the best footage so everyone will get excited, and by the multiple posts on this site and others that it is going to be the best thing ever, even if you don't really want it or need it.<p> Well, it better be. It better be the second-freaking-coming.<p> Because if they are going to write over some of the best fan memories of my life, saying that it isn't important--that Newer IS better than Old--then it is what I DEMAND of it.<p> With the money I have already spent on Star Trek, I deserve it.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 3:35 a.m. CST

    Joyless Idiot

    by Friendo

    Joyless Idiot This film looks like a shit load of fun. I'm a really old Trek fan and I do not give a fuck about all your horse shit about what what you deserve because of all the money you spent in the past. You should have spent that money creating something your own damn self.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 7:40 a.m. CST

    "no use for the rest of it"? your review means nothing to most o

    by FleshMachine

    you didnt like ANY of the other film? didnt like TNG? i would think that most of us here would differ. i want a review from someone who also liked the good films (2,4,6,8 are the really good ones in my book) and generally loves TNG. not a crazy trekkie, not an indifferent normy...but a regular "i like star trek" star trek fan like most of us.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 7:46 a.m. CST

    huh? they built the enterprise on earth?? whaa?

    by FleshMachine

    thats really...really... dumb. it make ZERO sense. even in the future ST always tried to have a certain aurthur c clark style science-fact plausibility. not having that kills a large part of trek for me.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 8:18 a.m. CST

    "STAR TREK FANDOM IS TO J.J. AS PRE-TEEN GASH IS TO ME"

    by BringingSexyBack

    - The Mitt

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 8:20 a.m. CST

    YOUNG SPOCK AND BUILDING ENTERPRISE ON EARTH

    by BringingSexyBack

    = Nipples on the Mona Lisa

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 8:29 a.m. CST

    WILL SHATNER AND TAKEI BE INVITED TO THE PREMIERE?

    by BringingSexyBack

    That would be more entertaining than the movie.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 8:53 a.m. CST

    Done to death, resurrected &done to death again

    by u.k. star

    That would be the built on Eart argument. It's been had, it's irrelevent as the film has it on Earth, Seriously most people couldn't care less where it was built, AND there's at least as much sense to it as there is to building one in space. Practical terms it makes more sense. <p> But as I said the argument's been done to death more than once anyone who still gives a toss about it can just read what everyone else has said. Especialy the parts where it says WHO CARES. Oh same for the Spock thing, especially as no one knows how old he is in the movie, and we can't understand why it matters if he's "young".

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 8:59 a.m. CST

    FUTURE SPOCK SHOWS YOUNG KIRK THE WONDERS OF PON FARR

    by BringingSexyBack

    Kirk didn't know he was raped until his hand had an orgasm.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 9:02 a.m. CST

    BSB

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    There's not a jury in the land who couldn't elect to convict Old Spock. It's bad enough he did it, but he travelled back in time - that's just a whole nother level of motive and opportunity.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 9:08 a.m. CST

    ZEDDE - YES, HE'S WANTED KIRK FOR DECADES

    by BringingSexyBack

    and the sad truth of the matter is, any one of us would do the same ...

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 9:26 a.m. CST

    "MY NAME IS JAMES TIBERIUS KIRK!!!"

    by BringingSexyBack

    "Your name is gonna be bitch in about two minutes." <P> *Unzips pants*

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 9:27 a.m. CST

    BSB

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Dayum...

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 9:33 a.m. CST

    THE AGE OF CONSENT ON VULCAN IS 39

    by BringingSexyBack

    Ream me up!!!

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 9:35 a.m. CST

    So, is this still the basic plot of the movie...

    by REDD

    "When an elderly Spock (Leonard Nimoy) learns of a time-traveling assassination plot by the crazed Romulan Nero (Eric Bana), the Vulcan also goes back in time to stop him. Meanwhile, back in his early Starfleet Academy days, the young Spock (Zachary Quinto) is forced to turn in one of his fellow students, the rule-breaking James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), when he finds him tampering with the school's highest test, the dreaded Kobayashi Maru simulation."

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 10:07 a.m. CST

    hmm, can't wait...

    by mthrndr

    I'm kind of strange in that I HATE the original series, but LOVE TNG. It's probably mostly to do with my age. I started off liking DS9, but then it became a maudline melodrama. And I never got into the other series. So I'm all for a reboot, and Abrams has engendered enough goodwill with Alias and Lost that I have high hopes.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 11:14 a.m. CST

    JimmyJoe RedSky huh???????

    by The Founder

    I guess you're passionate about trek, so i won't stoop to insults like you just did to me. Yes sir I have watched Trek quite often. Please sir reread my post. I never said for them to use warp drive to get off the planet. I simple was saying that nitpicking over something as small as the ship being built on earth or in space is well a bit silly. I was just pointing out that moving such a large vessel at warp or faster then light speeds would require way more energy then simply getting getting it to lift off from a plantes surface. In my opinion getting the enterprise or whatever large starship to lift from a planet is the easy part. The hardest part is getting that puppy to fly at those intense speeds or velocity, Whatever.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 11:22 a.m. CST

    What are the structure integrity fields for?

    by The Founder

    I'm not being a smart ass and I may be wrong, but aren't those integrity fields purpose to strengthen the hull of the ship? Would they not fuction when a ship is lifting off from a planet to prevent it from breaking apart just like in space when its moving at those intense speeds?? Like I said I may be wrong on the purpose of those fields but I think that's the purpose for them that I can recall.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 12:33 p.m. CST

    The Founder

    by u.k. star

    Indeed. It's hard to believe this is still something we're meant to care about.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 12:39 p.m. CST

    The Founder, et al.

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    That's in a way a point I was making, but not getting into details. I don't think the how's or why's of the physics of a fictional world matter. Going into detail about such things seems pointless, as there is way too much assumption about what has come in between the now and the possible future. My approach to such fiction is to say, "There is something that exists in that world. I wonder how it does that?" I take it as a given that, somehow, some way, it works and makes sense for those people in that fiction to do whatever it is they're doing in that way. The fun comes from uncovering how it exists, and more importantly moves the story forward, not pouring over meaningless detail as to why it can't possibly be that way. Do people who don't understand aeronautics say a plane can't fly because it's big and metal? No, they tend to go, "Wow, that actually flies so there's got to be a reason behind what I'm seeing." Those people simply have the benefit of real science backing it up. What we know of things now, no... you can't build a ship on Earth. They obviously have a way to do it that works for them, however. But, as has been said before, this is all so much geeky masturbation. Ultimately, it's a compelling shot, and one that tells us about Kirk. That seems to be the real point of it all.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Well, this argument has about burned itself out...

    by Bones

    And that is good. I am glad we all got a chance to vent and get our opinions out there. I said earlier in the year that the thing about real fandom that I love is that when it gets really heated, you see that people care about these things--no matter what side of an argument you are on. You see PASSION...which is always a good thing.<P> Here is to fandom, of all kinds--from the most casual to the total fanatic. It's what this site is all about.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 7:12 p.m. CST

    The Founder

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    no insult intended - on warp drive - size doesnt matter - entering warp is the same no matter what the size of the ship - or at least that was my understanding of it - and yeah, with the tech of trek getting a large ship off the ground is possible - it is sci fi afetr all - my point is that its easier for all involved to birth a ship that size in space rather than on the ground fighting gravity

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 7:21 p.m. CST

    jj's rebooting star wars next...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    and the light sabers will be regular metal bladed swords that ignite into flames whenever the wielder yells "booya"

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 7:27 p.m. CST

    The Founder, on stucture int. fields...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    in space, a ship that size moving very fast would be fine - because there is no drag in space - no gravity or atmospheric resistance - i assume those fields are for safety when entering a planets orbit and red alerts (battle, bombardment etc) - but not for going fast in space

  • the first trailer seems to suggest it - seriously, NASA - that's who they wanna put up on a pedestal? What the fuck has NASA done but EPIC FAIL after FAIL for nearly 40 years now? <p> People have been mentioning the ISS - if you're interested, read this article about the Russian's ill-advised decision to make a space shuttle: <p> http://tinyurl.com/6npvou <p> I particularly like this bit: <p> "Still unfinished today, after a decade of efforts and dozens of assembly flights, the ISS could have been hauled into orbit (fully assembled) by only a few Energia boosters, had international partners adopted it into the program"

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 7:37 p.m. CST

    the galactica was built in space

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    do you know how i know?... because its fucking huge - star destroyers are built in space... same reason - the cygnus? - built in space - enormous space ships that are never intended to touch land are built in space - this is a general sci fi rule - except for maybe the nostromo - it has something the others dont, landing gear - but in comparison, it wasnt all that big - why build in space? - less risk and more cost effective - now ill shut up - i hope this movie is awesome

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 8:35 p.m. CST

    JimmyJoe RedSky I gotcha.

    by The Founder

    No gravitiy or drag in space, I get it, but I did google the purpose of the fields and they do serve the purpose of strengthning the hull. The Trek dictionary i was led to was long so I picked up points to back up my reasoning that a ship can indeed touch down or take off from a planet. It mentioned that the integrity fields are for a wide range purposes for aiding the hull strength, which includes the effects of gravity. I've watched enough episodes of Voyager where i saw the ship actually land and lift off from a planet. Sure you can debate the pros and cons of building a ship on planet or off, but it's just not that important to most people who's going to check it out for entertainment and nothing more.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Maybe

    by a rolling stone

    Maybe they built pieces of the Enterprise on Earth, then went to space, then put it together like a jigsaw puzzle.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 8:41 p.m. CST

    JimmyJoe RedSky are you referring to Star Destroyers form SW?

    by The Founder

    Well unless I'm wrong on the definition of a SD, but I'm sure in episode 1 and 2 their were some Star Destroyers lifting off from a planet. I certainly remember a scene towards the end with the Storm troopers loading up while Chancellor Palpatine looked on as some SD's lifted off.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 8:41 p.m. CST

    or maybe

    by a rolling stone

    Maybe they've designed a new form of lifting large vehicles off planet, since it is set in the future, and their tech should be light-years beyond our understanding.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 8:42 p.m. CST

    or maybe

    by a rolling stone

    or maybe it's a fucking sci-fi film, and therefore doesn't need to be grounded in modern science, seeing as how none of this exists in real life.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 8:42 p.m. CST

    or even maybe

    by a rolling stone

    I'm so tired of worthless scriptgirl, I just keep posting to make sure she doesn't remain in the top posts. Who knows, right?

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Another reason for the fields...

    by Stunt Vocalist 709

    Lots of stuff floating around the vastness of space. Hitting a pebble at high velocity would be like mortar fire/getting shot. The structural integrity fields and their counterpart shields protect the ship.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 9:39 p.m. CST

    nearly there rolling stone

    by Maniaq

    tho I don't think this particular TB has much in the way of legs left...

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 10 p.m. CST

    hey Mori, how's that KICK ASS set report going?

    by Maniaq

    jus wonderin... ok I really just wanna help rolling stone out here, ya got me

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 10:02 p.m. CST

    The Founder

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    i cant stay away - those ships in episodes 1,2,3 werent star destroyers... technically - i was referring to the ones from the ot - plus, thats star wars, which breaks all the laws of physics and science anyway (ships that fly like cars, toydarians, pod racing, carbon freezing humans, giant worms that live in space)... i love star wars, but it has more in common with the wizard of oz than it does with star trek - the more i argue my points, the more ridiculous i sound - i reread some of my other posts - you guys are right, im full of shit - i need another beer

  • Nov. 24, 2008, 12:37 a.m. CST

    JimmyJoe RedSky just enjoy the movie brother!

    by The Founder

    I don't think you sound ridiculas or are you full of shit. Just try not to take all this science and laws of blah blah serious. At the end of the day its just entertainment. Now i do want good entertainment but still it's just entetainment. As long as the main elements of Trek is there and Abbrams don't make any drastic changes then I'm fine with it, but mino changes and changes that will make trek more exciting and open it up to a wider audience then I say go for it. The truth is trek is fading and is at a standstill. Life has to be injected into the franchise if the fans want it to continue on. Fans have to learn to accept the changes, the new faces and whatever else is done to bring it back to the front. Sitting there and nitpicking everything apart isn't helpful. I could go on but I'm not. I like what I saw in the latest trailer and I'll see it on opening day.

  • Nov. 24, 2008, 1:30 a.m. CST

    I never understood the hate for Star Trek 5...

    by Bill Clay

    Sure, it was corny. But Mori's friend was right. It actually 'felt' like an episode of the original series. It wasn't a Star Wars caliber blockbuster, it was good old fashioned Trek done the old school way. I enjoyed it and remained puzzled to this day why it engendered so much venom.

  • Nov. 24, 2008, 2:25 a.m. CST

    It was butchered and cheap

    by u.k. star

    The script treated the characters like they were anything from 10 - 20 years younger than they really were.. It was, painfull, some of the things they were doing that they were clearly too old to be trying. Most infamous thing being Uhura's fan dance. <p> They got shafted on the effects, hey were incredibly poor, and whilst effects cannot make a good movie, bad ones can ruin one, Those effects took a lot of the potential joy out of it. <p> Anti climax. The end of the film was dissapointing. Again partly due to the effects, and as I recall themm shafting Shatner on hi s"flying demons" and all the other stuff that was meant to be trapped behind the barrier. <p> Oh there's a good story hiding in there, but it's far from allowed to be up on screen. Oh there's plenty of gravity in space, or we'd be on a dead planet travelling through space in some kind of straight line. The bigger something is the more it is affected. But thankfully, that argument is over. :)

  • Nov. 24, 2008, 4:16 a.m. CST

    Bill it WAS an episode - called The God Thing

    by Maniaq

    the very same episode they already did in The Motion Picture... <p> <p> At the risk of reigniting this whole bloody argument about spaceships being built in space again, have you guys heard about this: <p> http://tinyurl.com/6hl4rg <p> A *FULL SCALE* Enterprise coming to a town near you - Mori, did you guys know about this??