Movie News

Quint has a post-TREK release chat with JJ Abrams!!!

Published at: May 21, 2009, 1:05 a.m. CST by quint

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. If you’ve been following closely I’m sure you’ve noticed that I was quite taken with JJ Abrams’ STAR TREK. I’ve been seeing a bit of a backlash in the talkbacks (strangely enough I’ve never run into it in the flesh), but for all its faults I felt that Abrams’ resurrection of the Trek iconography was a stellar success. There’s certainly room for improvement in further sequels, but the key elements are now in place. The cast works and works well together and I love the visual style Abrams employs. Yes, that means I love the lens flares. I had that on the list of questions, actually, a breakdown of how he uses different lens flares almost as visual keys into certain characters and situations, but the chat was short. And no, I wasn’t late with this. I was locked in to interview Abrams during the press rush in the weeks leading up to the picture’s release and I figured I just feel through the cracks when the flick came out and no Abrams interview had surfaced. But apparently, not. Late last week I heard I’d have some time with the man. I actually think this kind of thing should be more commonplace, actually. The movie’s out and that gives us more freedom to discuss specifics without spoiling. I’m not ashamed to say I’m a fan of his work. I am addicted to LOST and have stuck with it through the good times and the bad. I thought his work on M:I3 was really damn impressive for a first time feature director and he took it to the next level in TREK. He also has his mitts on something very close to my heart, Stephen King’s DARK TOWER series… so he better be at the top of his game when he gets to that! Anyway, here’s the chat. Hope you enjoy!

JJ Abrams: Hey man.

Quint: How’s it going?

JJ Abrams: Great, how are you?

Quint: I’m doing very well. Thanks so much for taking the time for talking to me. It’s not very common to do these things after the movie has been out, so I think it’s kind of neat to look back on the movie and talk openly about it.

JJ Abrams: I’m thrilled to do it.

Quint: So the first thing I want to bring up: Did you see The Onion video made about STAR TREK?



Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

JJ Abrams: That was so funny.

Quint: It’s kind of like the Shatner “Get a Life” thing from SNL a while back.

JJ Abrams: They do amazing stuff. Did you ever see the ones they did on the new Macbook with the turn wheel?

Quint: Yep and the “Sony Cocksucking Piece of Shit That Doesn’t Do The Goddamn Thing It’s Supposed to.”

JJ Abrams: Those were so funny. My God.

Quint: I don’t know how the hell you did it, but you kind of hit that middle ground perfectly where you were able to reach fans and non-fans alike.

JJ Abrams: Well, thank you.

Quint: It’s not even an opinion at this point. Look at the success of the film so far, both critically and monetarily. I think it’s pretty clear that you guys have hit that sweet spot, which, I still don’t know how you guys were able to do that.

Click here to read along with the next bit in amazing Sound-O-Text!

JJ Abrams: I think that part of it was that Alex (Kurtzman) and Bob (Orci) and Damon (Lindelof) are so well versed in TREK and yet they’ve got a great perspective on how TREK is perceived outside of that fanbase. And then you’ve got myself and Bryan Burk even more so, who were less familiar and so we had to this sort of range of experience with STAR TREK and a range of knowledge of it. And so you had the inside out and the outside in working together to make the movie and it really was the litmus test for us, which was “What is the story and the narrative of the story that we would all appreciate?” Once we got to that, we felt like we might be on to something.

Quint: Well, you seem to inject a lot of the adventure of a STAR WARS into the STAR TREK universe and you are also able to figure out the one way to reboot it where you kind of take away any arguments you have about bastardizing or going off canon. You were able to find a way to give yourself freedom to have fun with the movie and not be so tied.

Click here to read along with the next bit in amazing Sound-O-Text!

JJ Abrams: I think that the convention of breaking away from the timeline, which just obviously gave us the freedom to tell a story that wasn’t constrained by canon, but at the same time… and the weird part is that we also had to embrace it, because that’s what we were inspired by and we had to honor it and make sure that we weren’t insulting, as much as we could, the fans of TREK. And we knew no matter what we did, that there would be some percentage of STAR TREK fans that would hate it. We just knew that there was no way to make everyone happy and yet it was important that we try and so that was the approach. The other weird balancing act is that it was simultaneously its own thing, but it was also adhering to what has come before. It was a vision of the future that needs to work in a way that was relevant for today, but also was a vision of the future from fifty years ago, so there was a lot of bouncing back and forth. There was a brand new cast and yet it also had a character played by one of the original actors, so it was a strange backwards/forwards original piece that was also trying to adhere to what came before, so there was always this bizarre dance going on between trying to make something that was just purely its own piece and also something that was honoring and… what’s another word for it? Just being true to what had come before and that was, I guess, the biggest challenge of the movie.

Quint: Well, yeah, because you can’t have Kirk not being Kirk. You can’t have Spock not being Spock, but what I think is what’s interesting about the way you guys approached it was that you were able to see… It’s not like the STAR WARS prequels where everything has to so rigidly fall into place, so by the end you feel like you already know what’s going to happen. I also have to say that I really like that you got rid of the time travel device, the red matter, at the end of the movie, because I think one of the big worries about the time travel aspect is that once you do it, it’s a way to write yourself out of corners. I kind of like that you guys took that away from yourselves at the end, so everything matters. It’s not like you got to go back and save Vulcan. Do you know what I mean?

JJ Abrams: Yeah, I think it was important that as much as we could, that the story… within the context of what we were doing, that it not feel like we were either trying to wrap things up too sweetly and too perfectly and we also wanted to, in a way, close the door that we opened, so that at the end of the film it felt like we had sort of gotten back on track and now the adventures that these characters are going on will be their own. This was really the bridge between what you knew or what you thought you knew of how their lives were and given the convention of the alternate universe, that reset becomes sort of pure at the end.

Quint: Yeah, where it doesn’t feel like us as an audience are waiting for the cop-out to happen.

JJ Abrams: That was definitely the goal.

Quint: Was there a particular moment were you knew that this was going to work? Like when you got all of your cast together? Saw a specific scene? Was there a specific moment where you were like “This is going to work out.” A “Wipe the sweat off of your brow” type moment.

JJ Abrams: I think it’s when I read your review.

Quint: (laughs) Okay.

JJ Abrams: The truth is the whole process was such a big pill to swallow that, in a way, the only way to approach it was sort of looking at every decision and doing the best we could to try and answer or decide and make the choice in that moment. So whether it was what the approach should be… doing STAR TREK and all, going back to Kirk and Spock, figuring out what the story would be like, what the premise would be, whether it was lines of dialogue or casting… whether it was production design, costume, props, wardrobe, obviously the casting was a massively important process, whether it was shooting with a camera how to stage a scene, choreography, production of the visual effects, whether it was editorial… Literally, like with any movie, you just have countless decisions and I think that rather there being one moment where I would be like “Aha, it’s going to work” or not, and I really don’t remember having that moment, but I do remember having a bunch of smaller epiphanies where I felt like “Thank God that didn’t suck.”

I remember we started working with Zachary [Quinto] first and he was terrific and it was clear that he was going to be incredibly affecting and effecting in the role and he was very, very talented and working really hard and we had about a week working with him and I thought “Holy shit, Chris better be good.” I knew he was great in the audition and he’s awesome, but it was a different thing, like “Wait a minute, Zachary is really good. Chris better be great!” Then Chris started working and he was awesome and I thought “Zach better up his game” and it was this fun thing were they were all so good that it was like watching great tennis players where you think “Oh my God, that was such an amazing serve, there’s no way that can be returned” and then you see an amazing return and you think “Oh my God, that’s impossible.” That really, for me, was the key, which was “Are the characters working?” and “Are the actors doing their job?” and I’ve never been more grateful for a cast of actors than this cast. They not only had the burden of having to make a space adventure feel real and emotional and funny and scary and legitimate, but they had to do it in the shadow of these incredible actors playing iconic roles that were shoes that intellectually I realize how daunting it must have been, more in retrospect than anything do I sort of feel what that challenge was for them and I think that all of them did it not with fear or hesitation or self doubt, but they did it with fun exuberance. They did it with this kind of excitement and that was a really wonderful thing to see. They were embracing these roles in the only way you can do it and that to me, every day on the set and seeing how wonderful the cast was and what a wonderful job they were doing, that was the thing for me that felt like “It’s going to work,” because I was never worried that the story wasn’t good. I think they wrote a great script. I was never worried about the visual effects or that the action sequences weren’t going to be good, because I knew we were working with amazing stunt people, I knew that ILM is the best in the business, so my insanely long answer is really just to say that the actors were the keys for me even remotely feeling like we had a shot, that what they were doing was so good.

Quint: I think one of my favorite moments was seeing Chris Pine actually kind of throw on a little of the Shatner bravado during the Kobayashi Maru…

JJ Abrams: Yeah.

Quint: Where you have that kind of moment to acknowledge that aspect of Kirk as a character and it makes complete sense that that’s how he would approach that scene. He would kind of play up the theatricality of it. You pepper enough in there for the fans and then you have Leonard Nimoy… not only is he Ambassador Spock in the movie, he’s kind of Ambassador Leonard in real life, bridging the old and the new.

Click here to read along with the next bit in amazing Sound-O-Text!

JJ Abrams: That was the key. If Leonard would have said “No,” we would have been completely screwed if he didn’t want to do the movie. We knew there was a shot that he would and he was interested in the story and then we also knew that he had said “No” for decades, so we were nervous. But there was only one moment in the movie where I actually asked Chris to do a little bit of the Kirk we know and it was literally just one, silly little thing, but it’s this moment later in the movie where Spock is telling Kirk the statistics of how unlikely it is for their plan to succeed and it’s the first time in the movie that Spock calls Kirk Jim. Young Spock calls him Jim. And then the response that Kirk has is he says “Spock, it’ll work.” And I actually asked him to give that reading of just “Spock” a little bit of the Kirk we know, because it was the first time that it felt like… “Jim” and the first time that Jim said “Spock” in that way, it just felt familiar and it’s a subtle little thing, but again Chris did a great job.

Quint: I think also, just as a testament to the cast that you were able to draw, we haven’t really touched on Karl Urban or Simon Pegg and those guys bring so much to the movie, but as a testament to everybody, at the end of the movie all I wanted to do was see the next adventure of that crew. It seems like they are finally in the places they need to be and all is right in the world and they are about to go on their real adventures. So is that something that you purposefully set up, so you have…



JJ Abrams: The idea was that there were all of these disparate pieces and in a way, they are all sort of orphans and then by the end of the movie, they all click into place, they have all sort of come together as a family. When Karl Urban came in, quite frankly I felt that it would be unlikely that that guy from BOURNE or the hunk from LORD OF THE RINGS was going to be Bones. I knew he was from New Zealand. I just didn’t see the connection, even though I liked his work very much, but I thought “Well, he doesn’t seem right for this, but I’m a fan.” He came in and blew my mind so fast. It was one of those great things where it’s a great lesson to not be so closed minded, but God he was amazing. He just channeled DeForest Kelley, it was eerie.

Quint: Right, well they are shooing us off here, but again I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to me and as a life long DARK TOWER fan, I think you have quite a road ahead of you. As difficult as STAR TREK was to adapt, I think you are going to be looking at an even harder world to create.

JJ Abrams: Yeah, we’ll see what happens with that, but I’m really grateful for all of the stuff that you do and all you do on Ain’t It Cool. I’m obviously such a fan of the site, so I really appreciate all of your work and talking to you has been fun.

I had hoped to grill him a bit on Dark Tower, but the publicist cut in saying time was up without a warning, so that is not to be. Not that Abrams gives up details of any sort this far out on anything, but still the effort was intended. I hope you guys enjoyed the chat! -Quint quint@aintitcool.com Follow Me On Twitter

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 21, 2009, 12:50 a.m. CST

    Need more DT info!

    by PRbuick

  • May 21, 2009, 12:51 a.m. CST

    You guys liked it.

    by Lashlarue

    I get it. <p> But if I read one more article about Star Trek on this site, I'm going to puke my balls through my mouth.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:59 a.m. CST

    hell yeah

    by mr. smith

    i'm with you, quint. loved the movie. can't wait for more.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:04 a.m. CST

    I Was Hoping He Was Giving His Formal Apology...

    by Media Messiah

    ...for the new Star Trek. What I could have done with the look, the story, and the dialogue of this film? I wish JJ well, but he did not deliver here. His work with the actors, was fine work, but the movie itself was lacking in all arenas...bought critics and the rave reviews therein, notwithstanding.<BR><BR>Lastly, for a movie that reportedly costs 130 to 150 million dollars, the film looked like 60 million on screen, or less???

  • May 21, 2009, 1:10 a.m. CST

    For what its worth....

    by Jobacca

    I am not an Abrams fanboy. I ABSOLUTELY hate everything else Orci and Kurtzman have written...and STAR TREK has been a part of my life since I was a kid(although I do not consider myself a Trekkie or Trekker/dont speak Klingon/dont own a starfleet uniform). And I thought the new movie was really,really good. Good enoughto see again and good enough to buy the DVD. Its certainly the most entertaining Trek anything since First Contact. I went into this movie expecting and almost wanting to hate it and it won me over. I'm quite excited about the prospect of Abrams and company doing more with the Trek universe(fuck The Dark Tower).

  • May 21, 2009, 1:15 a.m. CST

    I TOLD you the Onion thing was funny!

    by BadMrWonka

    I posted that like 3 times in the other talkback, for 2 reasons: 1) it's funny, 2) it points out how LUDICROUS the complaints that the hardcore Trekkies have about the new film.<p>face it, it's a fun, exciting, engaging movie. everyone loved it but you grumbling doofuses! you can hate it, that's your right...but it isn't going to be based on any logical or cohesive argument. you just were ready to hate anything that came out of this tube. and that's fine, I respect that. (I swear to god, I really do...if someone tried to remake Lawrence of Arabia, I'd be similarly up in arms) but just fucking OWN UP tp it.<p>or else, as Shatner pointed out, get a life, will you people?

  • May 21, 2009, 1:18 a.m. CST

    I watched the first ever Trek episode, live

    by SmokingRobot

    On tv when I was 12. Been a fan ever since, although I've hated all the Berman movies. Other than the engine room (for the love of GOD, PLEASE put a real engine room in the next movie, NOT A DAMN BREWERY) I thought this movie hit ALL the marks. Successful artistically and commercially. Go figure the odds on that. God Bless you, J.J. You brought Trek back from the grave. No mean trick, that.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:19 a.m. CST

    Nice interview!

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    This guy rocks!

  • May 21, 2009, 1:19 a.m. CST

    Time for something new...

    by Jobacca

    The thing I like best about this move is how it embraces the characters we know and love with a fresh new spin. The Trek universe we all knew and loved was played out-First Contact was the last Trek movie to make any money..Insurrection and Nemesis put the nail in the Next Generation film franchise. DS9 was considered a failure because it never reached the heights of TNG,and Voyager and Enterprise were even bigger failures. It was long past time for someone new to come along and inject some new life into the Trek universe.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:22 a.m. CST

    also, "affect" vs "effect"

    by BadMrWonka

    this goes to show you that either Abrams is a really smart guy, and knows the rare (and modern) version of the verb form of "effect" and is using it in a very interesting way...<p>or he's just like the rest of you dorks, and he doesn't know the difference.<p>personally, I think it's 50/50...but I did love the movie...

  • May 21, 2009, 1:24 a.m. CST

    good interview

    by Castiel

    jj knocked it out of the park. MM you;re nutjob.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:25 a.m. CST

    There is spoken English and there is written English..

    by Carl's hat

    This interview reads disgracefully. Do you guys have any respect for the language? Maybe enrol in an ESL course at your local language school.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:28 a.m. CST

    The only thing I didn't like

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    Was that little guy with Scotty. Just didn't seem necessary at all. Just a nit to pick, I guess. Otherwise, I enjoyed it.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:31 a.m. CST

    i bet JJ loved having his ass kissed

    by animas

    what is the point of interviewing when there is no objectivity? why is this even posted?

  • May 21, 2009, 1:38 a.m. CST

    animas

    by zacdilone

    You're looking for objectivity at AICN? You must be new here.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:41 a.m. CST

    by goldenage

    Shame you didn’t ask him if he was embarrassed to work from such a terribly plotted script. The actors brought their top game and the writers delivered the shoddiest limp-plotted garbage I’ve watched in a cinema for an age. <p> A string of ludicrous coincidences so far-fetched that they treat you like a moron (and drive you out of the story).

  • May 21, 2009, 1:42 a.m. CST

    Big fan f the site no shit

    by AINT_IT_STAR_TREK_NEWS

    J.J.: I am a big fan of site and enjoy reading about how great I am and how great everything i touch is! What the fuck was he gonna say! I would hope he is a fan as this site is dedicated to all that is J.J and whoever else lets Harry and Co. get a sneak on set and exclusives and whatnot... Yawn. Quit coming here the last few weeks. Check back maybe once a week and find myself reminded why i left. and Im not alone.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:43 a.m. CST

    He's gonna do Dark Tower? Fuck. He's gonna screw the pooch

    by V'Shael

    with that one for sure. What drew him to the material? The fact that there were alternate realities in the story?

  • May 21, 2009, 1:48 a.m. CST

    wow. the love/hate ratio on this talkback is favoring the love

    by mr. smith

    glad to see it. cue Azimov's confrontational diatribe in 3,2,...

  • May 21, 2009, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Scotty's gremlin friend was hilarious

    by BadMrWonka

    and he took up about 20 seconds of the film, so even if he wasn't working for you, let's calm down a little, yeah?<p>comic relief is a staple of big movies, and if that guy was the biggest complaint about this film, then you need to relax a little. everyone in the theater when I saw it, they chuckled at him. as did I. as did every other human that isn't a huge asshole...<p>sorry, that was rude. but I meant it...you assholes.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:55 a.m. CST

    the Kurtzman and Orci praise was bullshit and he knows it

    by IndustryKiller!

    Because EVERYTHING that was wrong with this movie was those fucking guys. That story was garbage, total and utter garbage, and by the grace of God, Abrams directing, and an excellent cast they somehow pulled a fun movie together. But seriously I don't think there will be a more plot hole ridden story in a movie all summer long and I would be so happy for those unparalleled to not write then next film.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:58 a.m. CST

    MI3 was fucking terrible

    by manifestchaos

    I liked Star Trek but MI3 was a train wreck of an abomination.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:59 a.m. CST

    Badwonka you have to admit the story was garbage.

    by IndustryKiller!

    And please keep in mind Im acknowledging there was plenty about this film to like. The craftsmenship with everything but the writing was impeccable, but the writing......ohhhh the writing. You've got to acknowledge how terrible and plot hole ridden that story was. Like not just a few plot holes, but possibly in the double digits. Even if it didn't bother you or you could ignore it, you CANNOT justify it.

  • May 21, 2009, 2 a.m. CST

    Actually, Mission Impossible 3 Was Great

    by Media Messiah

    That is what the new Star Trek should have felt like, but wasn't.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:02 a.m. CST

    Castiel: You Are A Hive Mind Follower...

    by Media Messiah

    ...a simple drone, one with no independent self aware thought of your own.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:06 a.m. CST

    Abrams raped my childhood

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    Jar Jar, Bay, and their faggot ass writers need to stop HACK'N up Hollywood<P>Star Trek sucked and Jar Jar took on to many of Bay's trademark style ...including the awful:<P> Actors are uniformly shot in tight, emphatic close ups, framed under the hairline and above the chin. ( Film making tips for writing Armageddon no doubt ) <P> Not to mention the hacks that wrote it. I have never seen so many people complain about plot holes in my entire life... and look how they get rewarded for it. <P>Nothing but praise on how they managed to combine Star Trek Paul Blart and Fast and Furious.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:07 a.m. CST

    And for the record BadWonka

    by IndustryKiller!

    I did not grow up anything close to being a Trekkie, casual or otherwise, nor do I consider myself one now.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:08 a.m. CST

    Don't do movies, make it a tv show

    by Brody77

    It's time for new Trek on tv.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:08 a.m. CST

    MI3 was average. Not as bad as MI2, but not as good

    by Amy Chasing

    as the first one. And that's how I find most Abrams productions. Average. I don't understand the hype for his work. Fringe has become interesting, but it started bland and as long as you don't expect too much it's fun. <P> Maybe that should be Abrams slogan, like the New Zealand poster in Flight of the Conchords: Don't expect too much, and you won't be disappointed. <P> And also, bring your mum.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:09 a.m. CST

    And yeah there were too many closeups Tranny

    by IndustryKiller!

    Watched Wrath of Khan the other night and just watching the scene where Kirk and Bones talk about getting older and how it's shot in full body to frame Kirks quarters and how that really gives you a sense of place and atmosphere. I didn't think it was a big deal with all the closeups, but something JJ should be mindful of.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:11 a.m. CST

    Star Trek Rant

    by GoodTimeBobby

    Ok, First I think all modern Trek films owe a debt of gratitude to a screenwriter named Nicholas Myers, Who was also a novelist and wrote alot of great Sherlock Holmes stories set between the original stories, as well as great, yet unproduced adaptations of classic novels like Don Quixote and Conan Doyle's War of the Roses-era epic "The White Company". He also wrote Time After Time-the H.G. Wells vs. Jack Ripper novel/film. They turned to him to rewrite Wrath of Khan after the first Star Trek film sunk and all the sequel scripts were mediocre- he turned in his draft of Khan in only 12 days- being a fan of C.S. Forester's legendary Hornblower series, set in the British Navy during the Napoleonic Wars, he incorporated some of the maritime feel of those works into the Trek world- and they also echoed the diverse web of character relationships between shipmates as found in Forester's work. So Khan was a success because it was grounded in a vivid, literary reality that seems like a perfect fit with the material- you can even find an old interview with Shatner on youtube while they are filming the first pilot episodes of Trek where he compares the feel of the show to the Napoleonic Age of Sail. Now when I first heard of this reboot I was pretty excited by the concept- because it meant that in our popular culture, we were moving passed the idea that Shatner is Kirk and Nimoy is Spock, etc... we were moving into the territory the patrons of the Globe theatre were in during the early 17th Century when Richard Burbage, the first actor to ever portray Hamlet, got too old or died off...when the notion was born that this CHARACTER is a worthy enough construction as to be endlessly adaptable and revived and reinterpreted by any number of later actors. Maybe all these watered down Trek spin offs that have come down to us in later years have all failed because they missed the point- not to continue the story down the timeline- but to focus on more stories involving the original characters-because THEY represent an important aspect of the total concept. Anyway, we finally come to this movie. Which is odd first in that it is a film based on what was primarily a TV series, and directed by a guy who is primarily a TV producer. The worst part of this film is the direction of the quieter dialogue moments, when the tricks of television direction run amok and the camera shakes and cranes unnecessarily and every light source in the frame is flaring and candling in and out of focus, overwhelming the content of the scene. I read this type of thing as a lack of confidence on the part of the director. The story itself- while hailed as bold reinvention- does not seem to me that revolutionary a concept- take any one of the hundreds of Trek stories where someone goes back in time and alters the future, and then someone else goes back after them and attempts to correct the alteration and instead of telling it from the point of view of the do-gooding time traveler out to set things right- tell it from the point of view of the people in the "wrong" timeline that have lived out their entire lives never suspecting they were really an "accident" and you have the spirit of this film. The weakest parts, sad to say, involved Nimoy as a time-hopping older Spock. Playing the Deus Ex Machina/ Obi-Wan Kenobi role in so many places in the film as to shatter credibility. Nimoy plays each scene with a wink and a nod in scenes I believe were scripted just so militant fanboys would see Nimoy anoint the film with his approval. The movie really didn't need that- I wish the filmmakers had the courage to do without it- it would've made for a nearly perfect film. A much better solution would've been to somehow show this time-altering threat/event taking place in such a way that the audience understood that the future of these characters was once again uncertain- but the characters themselves remained unaware that any changes were taking place. The Younger Spock character however is well-done. You really feel early on that he is a stranger of two worlds due to his mixed human/alien heritage. Events transpire in the film to make the Vulcans a rare, enlightened, ethereal, strange race akin to the Elves of middle earth in the Lord of the Rings films. An interesting turn, I'd like to see where it goes. Eric Bana is adequate as the villain, Captain Nero. A Romulan Miner from the future with a Khan-like obsession for capturing and destroying his most hated enemy-the time traveling Older Spock. While i'm grateful his motivation wasn't belabored to death- I think it was too lightly touched on to make him compelling to me. In terms of production design I think Nero's ship is sloppily designed as a mass of spikes and tenacles floating through space. Between this and the aforementioned direction, alot of the space battles seemed abstract and confused to me. Also you get kind of a Muppet Babies-vibe from the idea that this intergalactic UN peacekeeping armada is handing over the keys of quadrillion-dollar starships to green three year cadets- seems kind of farfetched. On the positive side, Simon Pegg is really great as Scotty- I really dug it. Anton Yelchin does a great job too as Chekov. John Cho is OK as Sulu but they could've given him more to do-also, no one could've quite matched that strange theatrical timbre in George Takei's voice- so the character seems half-realized here. Ben Cross from the Dark Shadows remake even gets some work here as Spock's dad. All said, It was a good film, worth the time

  • May 21, 2009, 2:15 a.m. CST

    great movie

    by ShaunKillsDead

    loved every minute of it-- long time TOS fan.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:15 a.m. CST

    ABRAMS, PLEASE GET A NEW SPOCK WITH A SPOCK VOICE

    by Missing Dink

  • May 21, 2009, 2:18 a.m. CST

    MI3

    by sokitome

    MM sorry dude but you're fucked in the head if you like MI3 but hated Star Trek. The ending to MI3 was utterly ridiculous. JJ does have a tendency to have weak third acts. I'll even admit Star Trek's third act was a little weak but NOT NEARLY has bad as the abomination of MI3...cmon Cruise's civilian doc girlfriend shoots and kills 2 highly trained agents in a firefight? really? At least in star trek it's sci fi and you can get away with more but MI3 was awful.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:20 a.m. CST

    Also you know how when a tv show is adapted to a movie

    by Amy Chasing

    and they use a different composer for the movie than they did for the tv show. Star Trek should be a case study used in all music courses. Yeah, I'm looking at you Giacchino. You're a fine composer, but know your (and your orchestration team's) limitations. Just because what you do sounds good in computer games and tv, doesn't mean you should do the same thing for a major Hollywood motion picture. Compare Michael Giacchino, Brian Tyler and even John Ottman to guys like Alexandre Desplat and Joby Talbot and you can hear what I mean. The themes may be there, the storytelling may be there, but the recording quality and overall cinematicness/emotion/grandness of the orchestrations are lacking for Giacchino and co. Just sayin.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:21 a.m. CST

    IndustryKiller!

    by BadMrWonka

    I'm usually the jerk that is ruining films by pointing out plot holes, and logical missteps, but for this film I only had one (why Nero didn't warn his people of the sun problem, which is supposedly explained away in the missing scenes) <p>tell me some specific problems you had, and if I have an answer for them, you'll have it. if not, we'll toss it around and discuss it/them. and if I think you're full of it and I refuse to acknowledge your point, in favor of my own yelling and craziness, well then I'll join the church of Scientology...

  • May 21, 2009, 2:25 a.m. CST

    You really need to stop putting this guy on a pedestal.

    by Fortunesfool

    He's got all the film-making skills of a Peter Berg or a McG. All (bad) style and no substance. You really think an epic tale like The Dark Tower is going to benefit a shaky-cam, bad editing approach. A story like that needs someone who understands scope composition and scene structure. Abrams needs to go back to TV where his work doesn't hurt peoples heads.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:34 a.m. CST

    IndustryKiller!

    by HEADGEEK

    go watch TERMINATOR SALVATION to experience BAD writing. WOLVERINE had BAD writing. STAR TREK was exactly what it needed to be, to kick the franchise off again. It gets harder to a degree from here on out.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:41 a.m. CST

    BadMrWonka

    by Fortunesfool

    Why does Star Fleet just ignore the Romulan ship for 20 years despite the fact that it destroyed most of the fleet<p>Why does Spock (literally) throw Kirk off the ship. Why not hold him in the brig...(I actually know this one, it's because the writers couldn't make a shopping list without plotholes and comedy side-kicks)<p>Why is the romulan ship full of exposed water? Isn't this still dangerous in the future.<p>Why does Kirk act like a total twat during the Kobyashi Maru test. Surely he makes it obvious that he's cheated.<p>The ice planet-Spock in a cave-Scotty stuff...WTF!<p>If all it takes to destroy the Romulan threat is a couple of starfleet cadets beaming aboard with phasers, why the hell did no one think of that sooner.<p>How does Kirk manage to leap from a really high ledge and land on his chest without shattering every bloody rib in his body?

  • May 21, 2009, 2:42 a.m. CST

    Aint it time to suck Abrams cock news

    by Lashlarue

    24/7<p> 365 days a year

  • May 21, 2009, 2:43 a.m. CST

    Harry

    by BadMrWonka

    as much as I loved the new Star Trek, the only thing that bothered me slightly in the theater while watching it was the music.<p>it wasn't horrible, but it seemed very over the top and un-subtle, compared to how smooth the rest of the movie reimagined the idea of Star Trek.<p>again, not bad, but just...I don't know...clunky.<p>what do you think?

  • May 21, 2009, 2:47 a.m. CST

    Headgeek

    by Fortunesfool

    Thats a shocking excuse and you know it. Kurtman and Orci write for the lowest common denominator audience in an attempt to please as much popcorn munching zombies as possible. This isn't what Star Trek needed (or any other film for that matter)to kick start the franchise. It needed a well written screenplay full of fun and intelligence. With the power these guys wield, surely they should be trying to make audiences smarter, not maintain their dumbness.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:48 a.m. CST

    BadMrWonka

    by Amy Chasing

    It's because we're used to movie scores being produced by film composers, while Giacchino and his orchestrators seem to be TV composers put onto film projects. TV and film are two different (albiet similar) types of media and should be treated (ie. composed for) as such.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:49 a.m. CST

    Agreed BadMrWonka

    by CadderlySoaring

    The new music was horrible and stopped me from giving the film an A. Not sure why it was decided to keep the main theme until the end but that decision was most definitely off the mark.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:53 a.m. CST

    The score

    by Fortunesfool

    I agree the music was awful. When the logo came up and the music begins to soar. That should have been a spine-tingling moment. Instead, it was flat and embarasingly lifeless. It sums up the whole film for me though. A load of TV guys transposing wholesale their TV shtick to the big screen and making fools of themselves for not undertsanding the vast differences between the two.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:53 a.m. CST

    "They wrote a great script."

    by kwisatzhaderach

    No Mr Abrams, they really didn't. They just didn't. This new Trek was moronic.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:55 a.m. CST

    OK

    by BadMrWonka

    "Why does Star Fleet just ignore the Romulan ship for 20 years despite the fact that it destroyed most of the fleet"<p> from what I understand, the ship was involved in the huge battle, then disappeared (imprisoned by Klingons) for 25 years. there's references to the fact that it disappeared and was never heard from again in the movie.<p> "Why does Spock (literally) throw Kirk off the ship. Why not hold him in the brig...(I actually know this one, it's because the writers couldn't make a shopping list without plotholes and comedy side-kicks)"<p> first off, you failed to use "literally" properly. second, questioning his motivation in expelling Kirk is one thing, but he was certainly within his right, logically and technically, to do so. Kirk would find a way out of any brig, and he believed (at that point) that Kirk was a danger to the mission. so he got him as far away as he could.<p> "Why is the romulan ship full of exposed water? Isn't this still dangerous in the future."<p> also, time travel doesn't really exist, nor does wrp drive and "beaming"....come on man...<p> "Why does Kirk act like a total twat during the Kobyashi Maru test. Surely he makes it obvious that he's cheated."<p> it's a test with no real solution. either he thinks he's come up with a legitimate solution ( reprogramming) or he simply knows that it's going to come to light that he's cheated. either way, not outside of the realm of possibility that he'd be a little callous. <p> "The ice planet-Spock in a cave-Scotty stuff...WTF!"<p>yeah, OK. what I assumed was that the future Spock knew what would happen (maybe not "knew", but had a good idea) and so made sure that when Kirk would be deposited there, he'd meet the right people, in the right context, that the timeline would be restored...<p>which is to say: maybe in the original timeline, Scotty was in a different scenario, and met Kirk in a different way. but in this one, he;s marooned, and Spock knows it, and he makes sure that Kirk meets him, and in a certain way, so that he'll end up on the Enterprise.<p> "If all it takes to destroy the Romulan threat is a couple of starfleet cadets beaming aboard with phasers, why the hell did no one think of that sooner." <p> because no one even knew about the ship until the Enterprise engaged it.<p> "How does Kirk manage to leap from a really high ledge and land on his chest without shattering every bloody rib in his body?"<p>it's a movie.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:03 a.m. CST

    "for a first time director"

    by _Palmer_Eldritch

    Didn't Abrams do "Joy Ride" before? I'm too lazy to look it up, but that was a friggin great movie, and totally underrated. <p>And Harry, please stop defending the Star Trek script. Nobody's trying to shit on your love for the film. It is very entertaining. But it is also very, very hollow and has less to say than any previous Star Trek movie, including 5 and 9.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:09 a.m. CST

    The movie was great. Abrams did good.

    by The Founder

    Well he did and the movie was good.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:11 a.m. CST

    FORTUNESFOOL Those aren't plot holes...

    by Chuck_Cobra

    Those are nitpicks -Space is a big place the Romulans can hide. DONE -Spock REALLY didn't like Kirk at this point, and he was fighting security guards during a crisis situation - why keep a disgruntled and violent prisoner on board if there was a Federation outpost nearby to drop him at? -Water on the Romulan ship? that has nothing to do with the plot at all and I'm ignoring it. - Kirk acting the way he does was funny, entertaining and worked for his character - also has NOTHING TO DO WITH PLOT OR HOLES - Ice planet cave stuff could be considered a huge coincidence BUT with all the talk of Destiny and fate I decided to believe it happened for a reason (only thing you mention that COULD be considered a plot hole. - Beaming aboard the ship didn't stop the Romulan threat - igniting the red matter did. And they didn't do it from the start because NO ONE KNEW IT WAS THERE until old spock told them - KIRK and his leaping abilities have nothing to do with plot and I also will ignore it.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:12 a.m. CST

    Bashers please give it up.

    by The Founder

    You didn't like the movie , well so what. Don't call people who liked it stupid and moronic. Don't say the JJ and crew wrote for the lowest common denomenator cause people liked it. I hate it when @ssholes on this site with their noses turned up refer to the majority as brain dead and stupid cause they liked a film and didn't see the what they say. Keep on picking away, Trek is a hit.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:19 a.m. CST

    comments

    by tobin_blade

    ... some of you need to watch the movie again and pay attention to it before typing. I am in now way a trek fan or a sci-fi buff but this film just worked and I really enjoyed it. Bring on the next installment.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:34 a.m. CST

    The Founder

    by kwisatzhaderach

    I didn't say people who liked it were moronic. I said the script was moronic. Which it really is.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:38 a.m. CST

    LOVED Star Trek...

    by MonkeyLord

    LOVED it. Carnally. I think Abrams really, really nailed it, and I hope to god he makes 15 more trek movies. No lie.<p> But, I'm perfectly willing to admit that Abrams and the cast kicked ass DESPITE, not because of, the story. Several talkbackers here have a very valid point: Some of the plot holes and missteps in the script are really, really bad. So bad, there's just no excuse for that kind of lazy writing. Fortunately, the performance of the cast and Abram's brilliant directing outshine the glaring plotholes, and Star Trek is still a fun, fun movie. But, when one thinks about how good it *could* have been with a better story, one can't help but sigh at the missed opportunity. <p> But I do hope the success of the first installment paves the way for many more to come, providing an opportunity for Abrams to tap better writers, and deliver Trek movies that just blow us away.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:48 a.m. CST

    WTF is wrong with Abrams' Star Trek?

    by drturing

    It was fun, and joyous, and made you smile at goofy operatic space shit, and the characters were the characters in their dynamic. I hate remakes but Abrams not only nailed this, he made it feel genuinely watchable. I mean sure, all that time travel stuff has more holes than Sasha Grey in a non Soderbergh movie, but who gives a fuck. It's fun and you can take your girlfriend to it and she likes it. Moreover, he made Spock genuinely badass and in the most impossible thing ever Chris Pine took one of the most iconic caricatures of the 20th century and made it work. Like if I had a twelve year old boy I'd take him to Star Trek first and foremost this summer. Oh and despite the fact I think Tom Cruise is batshit insane, MI3 worked. Abrams knows his stuff. Though I wish he'd tell Lindelof to stop making a goddamn tv show about gun cocking, not having time to discuss things, and men with the gravitas of Captain Morgan ads who are supposedly immortals who can get stabbed to death. That Lost shit is just fucking godawful now.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:49 a.m. CST

    The ONLY thing next time please Abrams

    by drturing

    Make the Enterprise a bigger character. Give it something to do in battle other than support a small fast starfighter. Let us see that thing be a ship in the manner that any classic naval story has the characters relate to its ship. I feel the Enterprise was the one character that didn't get its due.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:49 a.m. CST

    Kirk would find a way out of any brig,

    by Star Hump

    That answer doesn't hold water.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:52 a.m. CST

    FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COME UP WITH A NEW ENDING!

    by Shermdawg

    The last four trek films has had roughly the same scenario in it's finale. I guess I can let this one slide since it didn't involve Picard and crew, but I want them to move away from showdowns on the enemie's vessel and a quick beamout/rescue/etc. <br><br> Also, if there was no Doomsday Machine in the next few flicks, that would be ok with me. Sick of that shit too. <br><br> I liked Trek, but yes, there was some really stupid shit in there and most of it was during the Hoth segment.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:53 a.m. CST

    I liked the film but...

    by Traintrack1

    Why didn't you ask about the gaping plot holes? It's not good enough to say "well that's in the comic/deleted scenes", a film should make sense on it's own. Those are the sorts of questions a post release interview should be asking, not just blowing smoke up everyone's ass, that's what the junkets are for.

  • May 21, 2009, 4:06 a.m. CST

    J.J: I love Giacchino BUT PLEASE get a mind blowing theme

    by silentbobafett2

    in the next film! Jerry Goldsmiths all time great, Trek theme/fanfare was sorely missed! Please, please, please use it OR come up with something else - it was the only complaint I have with the whole film! And I like Giacchino's music, I have purchased the soundtrack, but I miss true theme that a film like Star Trek needs!

  • May 21, 2009, 4:09 a.m. CST

    so when do we get a hugh jackman interview?

    by muri71

  • May 21, 2009, 4:10 a.m. CST

    about wolverine of course!:)

    by muri71

    oh forgot it, ur not going to pimp wolvi right!;)

  • May 21, 2009, 4:12 a.m. CST

    He looks like Eraserhead

    by TheGreatLightningHeist

    Only with glasses. Just thought I'd point that out. Just waiting for his head to pop off and for the lady in the radiator to sing her song.

  • May 21, 2009, 4:19 a.m. CST

    Trannyformers_Apologist

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    I thought you idiots would stop saying 'raped my childhood' when South Park did a spoof of it... but no. And HOW can Jay Jay rape a childhood? Unless you're only just hitting your teen years, he's only been populist for ten years. And even then you'd have to be watching his stuff as a KID - and thus not getting the point of Alias.

  • May 21, 2009, 4:23 a.m. CST

    Star Trek is pure class.

    by zapano

    It's what a blockbuster should be. Great characters, a zingy script, a great adventure. Well done JJ. I liked MI:3 but you've easily surpassed yourself with Star Trek. It succeeds on every level that the Star Wars prequels failed. <p> In some ways Abrams has done the hard bit. He was just as successful as Nolan was in recreating the origins of the characters in a authentic and engaging manner. Now he has the freedom to take the characters and the story where he wants to, just like Nolan did with the Dark Knight<p> When you consider the utter crap that's being churned out by Hollywood most of the time, like Terminator Salvation and Wolverine, then films like Star Trek can't get enough praise. <p> Quint that was a nice piece however may I suggest that the faults with the prequels go way beyond the fact that one knew how the story ended.

  • May 21, 2009, 4:30 a.m. CST

    I give up.

    by Fortunesfool

    Enjoy your vapid entertainment, your TV cinematography, your 'exciting' editing and your 'screenplay writing for dummies' scripts. Someone wake me up when Avatar comes out.

  • May 21, 2009, 4:35 a.m. CST

    Oh yeah - the score was feable

    by zapano

    Giacchino is the right choice but the score was nowhere near up to scratch

  • May 21, 2009, 4:50 a.m. CST

    Was Giacchino the right choice?

    by Amy Chasing

    I've just listened to Star Trek, MI:3 and The Incredibles again. Incredibles is the closest he's gotten to a motion picture sound, and that was primarily concert stage band music (ie. more big-band jazz-based brass, less traditional orchestral). <P> Hopefully next time, and there will be one I'm sure, he'll go the route of Ottman's Superman Returns score. That would at least show he's growing as an artist.

  • May 21, 2009, 4:50 a.m. CST

    Star Trekking review (spoilers)

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    http://tinyurl.com/r42w7g - shameless, but meh!

  • May 21, 2009, 5:04 a.m. CST

    Kirk was pretty serious in the first few eps of TOS

    by most excellent ninja

    I hope they bring that real regal/leadership quality in the next one. They're on the right track.

  • May 21, 2009, 5:13 a.m. CST

    Pegg was the only real downer in this film.

    by the ageless stranger

    Everyone else played the character, Simon Pegg played Simon Pegg, just with a Scottish accent, and he's not funny working with someone else's material.

  • May 21, 2009, 5:18 a.m. CST

    BONES!!! He was awesome

    by most excellent ninja

    Urban killed it.

  • May 21, 2009, 5:32 a.m. CST

    Seen it twice-Not Perfect But...

    by puto tenax

    Way better than any of the Next Gen stuff. Too bad Berman wouldn't let Ronald Moore have more input but that's another story. Lens flares, yeah they bothered me and the family but did the Enterprise design (inside and out) strike you as wrong?

  • May 21, 2009, 5:47 a.m. CST

    you see JJ is a fan of mine .....

    by JeanLuc Dickhard

    thats how i read it .... make it so

  • May 21, 2009, 6:09 a.m. CST

    STOP WHINING

    by TheExterminator

    talkbackers

  • May 21, 2009, 6:25 a.m. CST

    So who sucked off who in this "interview"?

    by photoboy

    It seems Abrams spent the interview sucking off Quinto and Pine and Quint spent the interview sucking off Abrams. Did Abrams ask for a reach around, Quint?<br><br> You couldn't ask some hard questions like why are Kurtzman and Orci unable to write a script without dozens of huge plotholes? Or why Giacchino's score was so devoid of any personality or appropriateness to Trek? Or why cadets who haven't even graduated can skip ahead of all the trained, experienced officers to the top jobs on a starship? Etc, etc.<br><br> Or would that jeopardise the chance at a set visit when the inevitable sequel is being shat out?

  • May 21, 2009, 6:38 a.m. CST

    Karl Urban was easily the best part of the film.

    by rbatty024

    He's the one who really got the character right. I enjoyed all the cast members, but Urban deserves to be singled out as the best.

  • May 21, 2009, 6:42 a.m. CST

    Trek was mediocre

    by Star Hump

    but it wasn't JJ's fault. Get some fucking writers next time. Luckily you have the cast.

  • May 21, 2009, 6:53 a.m. CST

    Get JJs dick out of your mouth

    by masteryoda007

    What the fuck does JJ stand for anyways? Jizz Juggler? Just Jews? Jungle Jim?

  • May 21, 2009, 6:56 a.m. CST

    Also Tuesday Star Trek just made it past Wolverine's...

    by rbatty024

    total gross. I hope it keeps this up.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:16 a.m. CST

    Trek Fans Listen Up You Stupid Fuckers

    by DIBARAHMAN

    All those trek fans dissing this film, listen up. You had your chance, and YOU ALL BLEW IT. We got served up the soap opera shit that was DS9, followed by the cack that was Voyager, and then the turd that was Enterprise. Any self respecting trekkie, knows trek died after TNG ended. As soon as Roddenberry died, the vultures moved in, and tore Trek to shreds. I still shudder to think how Nemesis got made. Tom Hardy running around in a posh school boys accent, trying to be Picard, as well. Along comes this breathtakign piece of cinema, called Star Trek, a film that works on so many different levels, critically applauded, raking in the money, and you cunts have got to complain. There is no pleasing some people. You'd slate Lennon singing Strawberry Fields. Now Fuck Off.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:16 a.m. CST

    Pretty sure the lens flares were ripped off

    by Dingbatty

    from Firefly (as well as chase cam, etc.) Whedon said in the DVD extras that he wanted the show to resemble 70's TV. BSG reboot gets a pass since Zoic Studios worked on both. The ship Serenity appears briefly in the miniseries.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:27 a.m. CST

    Trek fans hating the new movie

    by I am_NOTREAL

    just baffle me. Yeah, it had flaws. But a good cast (only the most cynical couldn't enjoy Pine's performance as Kirk on some level, plus Quinto performed very admirably with an arguably even more defined character, and Urban was excellent) and a jolt of new energy pulled it off in the end. Perhaps you'd prefer to continue with films the caliber of "Nemesis" (ugh...the series borrowing from itself, and doing so badly, and worst of all, BORINGLY), or else none at all?

  • May 21, 2009, 7:32 a.m. CST

    Harry

    by jae683

    If you think Star Trek was great writing, you really have lost all credibility. That had more plot holes than a Uwe Bowl movie.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:39 a.m. CST

    DIABRAHMAN

    by jae683

    First off, we didn't 'blow it.' If you didn't like DS9, or the rest, take it up with Berman and co. And as bad as Nemesis was (shudders), it was better than this Ritalin-induced piece of crap.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:43 a.m. CST

    media messiah... sigh...

    by dengreg31

    "..for the new Star Trek. What I could have done with the look, the story, and the dialogue of this film? I wish JJ well, but he did not deliver here. His work with the actors, was fine work, but the movie itself was lacking in all arenas...bought critics and the rave reviews therein, notwithstanding." Does that last sentence even make sense? We get it, you didn't like it... but you are in the minority... for the love of God, move on to something else.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:46 a.m. CST

    There is another time....

    by Sparhawk38

    Chris Pine does a spot on Shat imitation at the end. It is brief ... but it is definitely full on Shatner.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:48 a.m. CST

    Cast was really great

    by Arteska

    and elevated the movie in ways that we don't see often anymore.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:49 a.m. CST

    and Lashlarue...

    by dengreg31

    "But if I read one more article about Star Trek on this site, I'm going to puke my balls through my mouth." You could, you know, NOT read the articles.. there are these little headlines on the main page... when the word "Trek" appears, why not, you know, skip over that story? God, you people....

  • May 21, 2009, 7:50 a.m. CST

    HUGH JACKMAN IS ROLAND!!!

    by cutest_of_borg

    I'll keep saying it until it happens. Then I will expect a collective thank you from all.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:52 a.m. CST

    It's cute how some people think the movie was bad.

    by brokentusk

    Denial is a powerful thing.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:55 a.m. CST

    Kirk taking the Kobyashi Maru test..

    by The Dark Shite

    Wasn't Kirk-like at all. He basically acted like an arrogant prick throughout the movie. The only time he seemed like Kirk was in the final scene, after he'd been made captain & walked onto the bridge. <p> I loved the movie by the way,but I don't share the love for the way Kirk was played.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:58 a.m. CST

    I really LOVED the film... BUT

    by Mr Gorilla

    Is it really possible to have exciting adventures in such a utopian future? I mean, the space operas I really love - Star Wars, Starship Troopers, Firefly/Serenity, the new Battlestar Galactica TV show -are either set in a utopia that turns out to be downright sinister, or they are in worlds where any democracy is hard-won. Just a thought.

  • May 21, 2009, 8:01 a.m. CST

    Sorry, but anyone saying "Nemesis" was better

    by I am_NOTREAL

    has credibility equivalent to Blutarsky's grade point average: "ZERO POINT ZERO"

  • May 21, 2009, 8:16 a.m. CST

    stop pimping this movie

    by happyboy

    will you corrupt asshats quit pushing this movie? it was decent. it had no plot. OMG they recast Star Trek. quit blowing your loads over that simple fact. regardless of how much it is or is not star trek (like 10% star trek but who the fuck actually cares really? 20 years after TNG and 3 crappy series?) regardless of how "star trek" it is the flick simply had no plot it was just dogpaddling in place for 2 hours followed by "TADA! We didn't suck!" WE GET IT ASSHOLES it was better than Van Helsing. It didn't suck balls. Grats? Now quit pushing it regardless of how many burritos Abrams is buying for your fat ass.

  • May 21, 2009, 8:20 a.m. CST

    IT WAS GOOD

    by twogunjames

    I've been watching Star Trek since the age of 9, and I grew up on TOS, own it all on DVD, watch it all the time, and this new movie was damned GOOD. if you don't agree then you need to get over yourself and learn to have fun at the movies again and stop putting an old Tv show up on a pedestal. Because the old Tv show wasn't good either. It was FUN, it was silly, and it never took itself all that seriously either.

  • May 21, 2009, 8:40 a.m. CST

    Quint is full of shit

    by durkin

    "It’s not like the STAR WARS prequels where everything has to so rigidly fall into place, so by the end you feel like you already know what’s going to happen." Puh-lese! Quint and his middle-aged OT fanboy cohorts were the ones who complained anytime some moment in the prequels didn't EXACTLY justify every throwaway line from the OT. And to complain that the prequels failed because they felt predictible in order to service Abrams is the height of fanboy revisionism.

  • May 21, 2009, 8:42 a.m. CST

    Cue that AsimovLives douchebag

    by quantize

    whining like the loose pussy he is

  • May 21, 2009, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Lets extrapolate...

    by Eyegore

    Fans and non-fans loved this first new Star Trek movie. When the second comes out people will love that too, but some will start griping, starting with bitching about Khan not being in it, or they got the wrong actor for Khan, or that there's too much or too little Khan. Anyway, mixed reviews but generally positive. Then the third will come out and some will allready be chomping at the bit to declare that JJ is beating a dead horse, and make it stop, etc. Regardless of how awesome the third one is, the anti-fanboy/anti-hype moaning will get louder and louder. Then the studios will cut the budget in half for #4 and get a new director, and while many fans will still like #4, the general moan of the fanboy chorus will be negative, citing various stupid reasons for why #4 is pure garbage. Some idiot will say it's the inverse trek curse manifesting in the alternate timeline, making all even numbered Trek sequels suck. #5 will be made and people will say meh, at least it didn't suck like the last one (even though they were both pretty good). This is fanboyism. It has litle to do with the actual movie sequels and much more to do with eager fanboys chomping at the bit the be the first to say something sucks right when most people are still saying it's awesome.

  • May 21, 2009, 9:07 a.m. CST

    Jesus. They are some real whiny losers on here.

    by JacksonsPole

    You people do realize these are movies, right? Not bullies who pantsed you in front of that girl you beat off to, right? Relax. You gotta learn to enjoy movies. There are no perfect movies. I don't get why it's so hard to just have fun and kick back and enjoy the good AND the bad...

  • May 21, 2009, 9:17 a.m. CST

    locking phasers on quantize

    by son_of_ebert

    Fire!! Pew! Pew! Beeow!!

  • May 21, 2009, 9:18 a.m. CST

    Sparhawk38

    by son_of_ebert

    Yeah.. at the end when he says: "Bones! ... Buckle up."

  • May 21, 2009, 9:22 a.m. CST

    energize son_of_ebert into space

    by quantize

    splat!

  • May 21, 2009, 9:27 a.m. CST

    Fortunesfool

    by son_of_ebert

    Why does Kirk act like a total twat during the Kobyashi Maru test. Surely he makes it obvious that he's cheated.<p>The way I see it is that this was 'rebel' kirk.. You see, he didn't have a proper upbringing which gave him some bad traits.<p>He still has certain innate abilities as Kirk but is a punk nonetheless.. Remember that this is an alternate timeline. In the 'original' timeline I believe Kirk had beat the Kobayashi test in a more subtle manner in keeping with a more upstanding Kirk.. <p>Spock Prime, realizing that he has totally fucked up the timeline, does what he can to salvage the situation by giving ole baby Kirky a swift kick in the pants so-to-speak..<p>And in the end we have a once derailed Kirk (and Spock for that matter) back on track and ready to tackle a universe without most of the Vulcans.

  • May 21, 2009, 9:27 a.m. CST

    Quint

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    Nothing against the movie, but please when you get valuable time with these guys, could you for us, ask some tough questions, it came across like a headjob. <p> Talk about the challenges of a future movie, what didn't work, test the guy out a bit, challenge him, seems like a smart guy.

  • May 21, 2009, 9:37 a.m. CST

    Mr Gorilla

    by son_of_ebert

    Is it really possible to have exciting adventures in such a utopian future?<p>Yes it is. This is what Star Trek is all about. Humanity has come to terms with itself and has progressed, evolved even, past petty disputes and is now out exploring space.. It is the conflict that arises as a result of the exploration that creates the exciting adventure.

  • May 21, 2009, 9:39 a.m. CST

    AICN & Star Trek

    by Blanket-Man

    A match made in heaven. I don't see how people can bitch about this site giving too much space to the new Star Trek movie - precisely the exact type of flick for which AICN was created! Geez, the first decent (90-odd% positive on RT) ST flick in ages - I think this site should be putting as much related material as possible on here. And to those complaining about the JJ-Lovefest: I kind of like that this site wears its collective heart on its sleeve. What's wrong with being polite and letting an artist know you appreciate his work? This ain't Time.com; unbiased reporting isn't a prerequisite, nor should it be...

  • May 21, 2009, 9:43 a.m. CST

    RE: Cue that AsimovLives douchebag

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Yeah, really. It's like throwing red, bloody meat to a pig that's been on a two week fast.<P>He should be careful though; he may being walking a fine line should he choose to go full-on Assimov in here...

  • May 21, 2009, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Agree with what Media said.

    by ClarenceBeaks

    Fourth post from the top.<p> It's all fluff and no substance. The writing had so many plot holes. Didn't Abrams read this script before shooting? This was only ST in name only. Personally, I feel he took the easy way out. He had to use established characters instead of creating new ones. Pretty lazy stuff.

  • May 21, 2009, 9:54 a.m. CST

    the ships

    by LegoKenobi

    i thought the movie was a fine reboot, really the best they could hope for. sure, i had moments where i rolled my eyes and laughed, but it's a MOVIE, and i enjoyed myself watching it. one thing i have to say is, i LOVED the ships. the romulan ship was organic and appropriately "alien", and spock's ship was also very cool (tip o' the had to to ILM, i'm sure). zack quinto is a worth successor for spock, and he rules. that is all.

  • May 21, 2009, 10:01 a.m. CST

    the ships

    by son_of_ebert

    And what about those Klingon cruisers!

  • May 21, 2009, 10:04 a.m. CST

    All its faults??

    by Klaatu2012

    Exactly how does someone who had to watch a movie a day to "fill in gaps in my movie knowledge" qualify to determine that a movie like Star Trek has "all its faults"? An amateur is an amateur. Get out of the job if you can't do it, otherwise don't talk about shit you don't know about.

  • May 21, 2009, 10:08 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives.. the rorschach of trek talkbacks

    by son_of_ebert

    The accumulated filth of all their sfx and plotholes will foam up about their waists and all the fanboys and critics will look up and shout "Star Trek was GREAT!"...<p>...and I'll look down, and whisper, "No".

  • May 21, 2009, 10:24 a.m. CST

    PENIS NOSE DID A GREAT JOB WITH NEW TREK

    by BringingSexyBack

    I feel gay looking at his pic though.

  • May 21, 2009, 10:29 a.m. CST

    Pine channelling Shatner in that scene...

    by NeoMyers

    Watching the movie, I remember thinking that same thing: that moment reminded me of the infamous Shatner "Spahhhck"s we have seen over the years. It's neat to know that was intended from JJ.

  • May 21, 2009, 10:31 a.m. CST

    Thanks JJ!

    by Kentucky Colonel

    Thank you for not fucking it up! For that, I'll always be grateful. Taking the wife & son to see it this weekend at the Bengies Drive In Dusk-Till-Dawn memorial Day thingamabob. If you're not too busy I'll save you a seat and some popcorn.

  • May 21, 2009, 10:32 a.m. CST

    new trek was really really good

    by smudgewhat

    i enjoyed it so much i may go again

  • May 21, 2009, 10:33 a.m. CST

    COVER ME EBERT!!!

    by BringingSexyBack

    Pew!!! Pew pew pew beeow!!!!

  • May 21, 2009, 10:35 a.m. CST

    IF YOU HAVE THE URGE TO SUCK JJ'S NOSE

    by BringingSexyBack

    You might be gay.

  • May 21, 2009, 10:47 a.m. CST

    BSB, we're right above you.

    by son_of_ebert

    Turn to point... oh-five; we'll cover for you.<p>Beeow! Pew! Pew!

  • May 21, 2009, 10:47 a.m. CST

    Good interview

    by Refuge5

    "at the end of the movie all I wanted to do was see the next adventure of that crew..." I felt the exact same way - I cannot wait for the next Star Trek! Thank you JJ!!!

  • May 21, 2009, 10:50 a.m. CST

    The script and the engine room were the weak spots

    by Oberon

    Or the only really noticeable ones. It isn't that Orci and Kurtzman completely blew it - it was just savvy enough to let JJ, the actors and the effects carry the film. For the sequel, however, that won't cut it. The engine room is more of a quibble, but not just a fanboy one. Too many perplexed stares: Why does the Enterprise engine room look like a brewery? Why does it look so radically different from the rest of the ship? Surely it wouldn't have cost that much more for a more plausible redress or a new set.

  • May 21, 2009, 10:54 a.m. CST

    4 THINGS TO IMPROVE ON NEXT TIME ....

    by JackGraham

    Firstly, hire a composer who can produce a memorable score, secondly, recast scotty, as one talkbacker mentioned, he was the weakest character, pegg playing pegg instead of pegg playing scotty, he's funny in his own material but not funny in someone elses, and besides, since when was scotty meant to be a joke, hes a serious minded brilliant engineer, not some daft bufoon, thirdly, make sure your final screenplay contains little to no plot holes and contrivances and fourthly and lastly a better villian next time please, eric bana had zero presence in this.

  • May 21, 2009, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Its faults

    by NeoMyers

    Let me begin by saying that I liked the new Star Trek. I even saw it twice; I took my mom and dad on Mothers Day after seeing the 7 pm showings that prior Thursday. I actually liked it more the second time because I could watch it with a less critical eye than I did when it was unrolling before me the first time. That said, even after the second time, which I enjoyed a lot more, I was still left with the impression that something was missing. Once I thought about it, it occurred to me that it was missing that certain "Roddenberry" element. It really was more Star Wars than Star Trek and in most ways that worked out well, but ultimately Star Trek differed from Star Wars in that it was supposed to be OUR future, not a fantasy epic in another galaxy. This movie is OUR future and it is grounded in the Star Trek "universe," but it was missing that optimistic, exploratory, cooperative angle that Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek had. And yes, sure, there were brief allusions to those principles (what Pike says to Kirk about the Federation and Starfleet for example) but really this was a flat out revenge, action-driven origin story. It captured the characteristics of our main cast (Kirk, Spock, et al) but it did not capture that overall sense of Roddenberry's vision of the future, at least for me. I do think, however, that this first movie will be better served in the long run if the next Star Trek movie DOES service that vision because then you can say that the first movie was just setup and we needed it to get to this space where we can fully embrace the vision of this world. IF that's the case, then this movie will still be good and will likely seem better, but if the next movie is going to be just a flat-out special effects spectacular then I think it will miss what Star Trek is and why it is different from Star Wars.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:05 a.m. CST

    The Honor Roll of AICN Fuckwads

    by quantize

    AsimovLives (he wants you to know HE KNOWS HIS MOVIES) Media Messiah (the irony of that name never ends)..bringing sexy back (a one gag drop kick caps lock fetus scraping) Son of Ebert (training wheels)

  • May 21, 2009, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Great flick

    by Banky the Hack

    Great movie and outstanding cast. They should get Lindelof to do a Trek TV series with these guys after Lost is over.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Great cast.

    by Harold-Sherbort

    Mediocre movie.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:31 a.m. CST

    if Kurtzman, Orci and Lindelof are so...

    by brightgeist

    ... "well versed in TREK", how is it they didn't even get the Stadates right?? let alone WHY doesn't it matter to Nimoy-Spock or anyone else that the past has been altered? there have been countless episodes (and STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT) that were ALL ABOUT correctin the timeline! and now everyone simply ACCEPTS it? accepts that Vulcan has been destroyed, Spock's mother killed, Kirk's father killed?? WHY??? old Spock MUST know about the slingshot effect time-travel (after all, he also knows the formula for transwarp beaming from the top of his head), so why don't they "go back... repair whatever damage's been done"?? in my humble opinion, those guys know SHIT about TREK if they make mistakes like that.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:31 a.m. CST

    post movie letdown

    by 7ryder

    Longtime ST fan, especially TOS. Have to admit that during the movie, it felt fun despite the plot holes and the terrible score. Hearing our beloved characters say some of their catchphrases helped. Seeing the real Mr Spock (Nimoy aka Spock Prime) also helped during the movie....so I liked it while I watched it, despite the Star Wars feel. After walking out and thinking about it, I decided I didn't like the movie. Forget about the plot holes and the new direction...the biggest issue with me is how JJ and the writers changed Spock Prime's character. The Spock we know would do whatever it takes to to fix the timeline and this is a basic premise starting with TOS and continuing with all of the Trek spinoffs. Instead Spock Prime is like "oh well, Vulcan blew up, guess we'll start a colony even though it is not supposed to happen". And then with this stupid JJ interview, fanboy Quint lets him off the hook for this. I understand why they wanted to change the timeline so they didn't get into the future history trap and have every ST fanboy saying "this isn't how it happened", but introducing an original TOS character and then changing this character's moral compass? It is bad writing and it is insulting to the character. It would be like Bruce Wayne not being driven to clean up crime because of the murder of his parents. It is like Peter Parker not hearing Uncle Ben's "with great powers comes great responsibility" and his regret over not preventing his death. Sorry, JJ, (and not that you care) but you lost me with what you did to Spock Prime.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Hugh Jackman is NOT Roland!!!

    by Vespalad

    Hugh Jackman is too young and too pretty boy to play Roland. We need someone who can carry a 6-7 movie series (There's no way the Gunslinger is a 2 hour movie without some serious fluffing & filler) who isnt going to be filming other 'blockbuster' films in between. Dark Tower needs to be handled like Harry Potter with all the films shot as back-to-back as possible.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:37 a.m. CST

    The difference between FAULTS and NITPICKING...

    by Bones

    Nitpicking are little mistakes that no one notices and faults are huge mistakes that everyone notices.<p> I do nitpick, I confess. But this film had major Faults, which you hear about from many reputable sources including the film's so-called fans.<p> It is like when Revenge of the Sith came out and there were reports of people crying during the screening, ostensibly because the film moved them so much. That film is a logical and storytelling trainwreck, filled with Special Effects and bad editing, storylines that go nowhere, bad performaces, bad writing bad directing, bad editing and anything positive were constant allusions designed to evoke a nostalgic response. And yet, it was a huge hit and seemingly critic-proof.<p> It doesn't make it a good film, nor does it make Star Trek a good film. The fans are just happy that Star Trek is back, or that it is now much more dumbed-down to suit mass-market summer-film expectations.<p> F*ck that.<p> Even it's staunches supporters realize the film has faults, but no one wants to piss of JJ by actually calling him on it.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:38 a.m. CST

    thank you, 7ryder

    by brightgeist

    EXACTLY!

  • May 21, 2009, 11:40 a.m. CST

    thank you, Bones

    by brightgeist

    EXACTLY!

  • May 21, 2009, 11:43 a.m. CST

    Change your diapers kids...

    by TheSultanOfErato

    ...It's a new day for Trekdom. The movie was great. If you didn't like it, go see Terminator Salvation to find out how bad a movie can actually be.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:45 a.m. CST

    I think it's time for the AICN staff...

    by brightgeist

    ... to acknowledge HOW MANY TREK FANS out here have a HUGE problem with those MAJOR FAULTS. Quint, if you've never run into any critical TREK fans in the flesh, that's probably either because you don't get out much or just coincidence. BUT WE ARE THERE! AND WE HAVE A POINT! actually, we have several very valid points. so would you please not IGNORE this?

  • May 21, 2009, 11:46 a.m. CST

    And don't get me started on Breweries and Brand Names...

    by Bones

    Please don't. Because I will go on and on about it--and I am sure everyone is as tired of it as I am.<p> But--in short, brand names piss on the Utopian Quality of Roddenberry's vision of the future. There is no money in the 23rd century. It has been said time and time again, so corporations make no sense, especially in light of the Post Atomic Horror that is the backstory of Star Trek--they even have the aftermath in First Contact and Enterprise (which, supposedly is still the past of this Star Trek Universe).<p> The filming in the Budweiser Brewery was just silly and a way to spend the money on badly edited effects rather than patch up the script of actually build sets of modular, compartmentalized rooms that would actually make sense in a Starship and could easily be redressed to be different rooms in the ship.<p> Either that or the Enterprise is secretly the Visitor's ship from "V"...

  • May 21, 2009, 11:47 a.m. CST

    "Patch up the script OR actually build sets"

    by Bones

    Sorry--typo.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:48 a.m. CST

    they should show this to captive chimps to calm them

    by HaterofCrap

    crappy movie...wait until its on tv and tune in 10 minutes before its over... thats all you need to see and you will not be confused.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:48 a.m. CST

    7ryder

    by son_of_ebert

    Have you seen it a second time yet? I found myself liking it a whole lot more on second viewing.. <p>Friend of mine just told me that his kid wants to see the original series because of the movie.. it at least does that for TOS.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Beam Me Sideways

    by The 6th Conchord

    I'm at the point in my life where I just can't be so anal over these things any more. I was ready to bash this movie, but I really liked it, despite its flaws. There were so many times where my rational brain said 'that's not right!', but I have more important things to occupy my brain. Now let's just take the goodness from this one, get some GOOD writers for ST2 and move along.

  • May 21, 2009, noon CST

    no I haven't seen a second time

    by 7ryder

    Glad that your friend's kid likes it and wants to see TOS episodes and I'm glad that you enjoyed it more the second time. Frankly, I'm not interested in seeing it a second time in the theaters based upon how I feel about the item in my posting. If I do see it again, I'll wait for the DVD. Cheers!

  • May 21, 2009, 12:01 p.m. CST

    Brands

    by HoboCode

    What brands were in Star Trek? I totally missed them and I hate that shit.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:01 p.m. CST

    And did we mention the bad science?

    by Bones

    Orci and Kurtzman found one idea of String Theory that allows for multiple realities and jumping from one to the other (or creating new realities) by time travel--and they built their whole approach to the reboot based on that. Which is fine, since it justifies their whole approach without having to have predestination paradoxes or what-have-you...but the problem is that version of String Theory is basically outmoded and is no longer supported by people who follow it--but it supports their idea on how to reboot Star Trek, so lets go with it.<p> So, they use that--but they don't bother to find other Astrophysical concepts that could say, provide the devastating destruction of Romulus and Remus and threaten the Galaxy (A supernova? WHA???), or think even the slightest about what a Black Hole really is versus a Wormhole versus the various ideas of what a singularity is? What about the crappy energy wave the Enterprise "surfs" at the end--when (and admittedly Star Trek has made this mistake many times in the past because it looks cool) when a powerful wave like that wouldn't even happen in the vacuum of space? Wouldn't the implosion of that much Red Matter (of which we have been shown that a single drop will destroy a planet) suck the entire quadrant of space, or at least our solar system into it's own singularity?<p> But, hey who cares, right?<p> It's not like Star Trek ever inspired people to actually, you know, look into real science or become scientists or astronauts--It is just a dumb, Sci-Fi actioner that uses the laziest storytelling devices and explosions to lull it's audience into a stupor of drooling conformity with the Oh-So-Pretty colors and simple story of Heroes and Villians.<p> Oh wait--that is supposed to be what Star Wars is.<p> Well, I guess that is what Star Trek is now--as these films take one more step towards being homogenous and interchangeable.<p> And why do Vuclan children know what a WHORE is?

  • May 21, 2009, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Hobocode

    by Bones

    Nokia, Budweiser, BMW...

  • May 21, 2009, 12:04 p.m. CST

    timeline and plot holes

    by werock

    "he Spock we know would do whatever it takes to to fix the timeline" Alright, apparently you and brightgeist didn't get it...this isn't the same timeline! That's the whole point of the supernova/black hole. No past has been altered, they are on a new timeline. I didn't think it could be anymore obvious. And for the whiners about plot holes, this is fucking STAR TREK! Every single episode and movie is riddled with plot holes. It's the key ingredient to science FICTION.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Vulcan NOT Vuclan..

    by Bones

    I swear, I cannot type.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:08 p.m. CST

    brightgeist

    by werock

    In the words of Shatner, "Get a life". It's funny how some people compare this to TOS like it's a holy grail or something.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Eyegore

    by LarryTate

    You captured it perfectly. Fuck the whiners

  • May 21, 2009, 12:09 p.m. CST

    I love the "fans" that hate JJTrek

    by Arteska

    relative to what they actually have swallowed and even "enjoyed" in the Trek name over time.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:10 p.m. CST

    I'M SUPRISED NIMOY APPEARED IN THIS ...

    by JackGraham

    his presence in this film felt like a nod to the original crew rather than a neccesity to the plot. his presence here felt tacked on to add nostalgia value to the fans. and as one talkbacker mentioned, his character is not the old spock we all know and love, he has transformed to suit the needs of the script, nimoy in this film was not nimoy in films 1 to 6, there is no way he would allow the timeline to remain as it is and just accept that vulcan has been destroyed etc. he'd find a way to resolve all the chaos caused, thats how the film should have ended, not old spock just accepting it all. picture back to the future 2, martys dad is dead, his mom is a glorified whore and biff runs everything, does marty and the doc just accept this, no they god damned fix it all. spock would have done the same, especially considering his mum and home planet were destroyed. heck even id try to fix it, and im not even educated in science.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Bones...

    by brightgeist

    you are reading my mind. every word you say I just wanted to say :-)

  • ...Go onto a Submarine and an Aircraft Carrier.<p> No, seriously.<p> Go, poke around the interiors of those ships to understand what the interior spaces of the Enterprise should be like. Then think about what Roddenberry and his guys did with the original show.<p> They took the idea of compartmentalization, of having small rooms that are separate from each other and have pressure doors (that is what the sliding doors are supposed to be) that keep every compartment separate in case of decompression, fire, infection--whatever...Then they simplified everything into clean, aesthetically walls and forms. It might be seen today as being simple or even cheap, but it was a stylistic choice that made the future seem different than the present.<p> The future should look different than the present.<p> Matt Jefferies, who designed the look of Star Trek, theorized quite correctly, that the vacuum of space is a difficult place to work--and that the engines of the ship would be so powerful, perhaps giving off so much radiation, that there is an amazing amount of automation and telepresence to how the mechanics of the Enterprise operates. The main Engineering section was designed as more of an observation room, with a massive board that controls the various valves and kill switches that control the flow of energy to and from the ship--the main generators are separate from the room (you can see them in the distance) and the only part of the engine that is actually in the room is the Dilythium Crystal hatch because that requires a human interface.<p> If JJ was to go to a Nuclear Power Plant or the engine rooms of a Submarine or Aircraft Carrier, he would see, even with the pipes and controls, that it is basically "hands-off". In Star Trek, the places where an engineer could interact with actual mechanisms were called Jefferies tubes and were basically access ways and crawlspaces. The juxtaposition of these cramped mechanized areas and the wide, clean spaces where people usually worked was a hallmark of every Star Trek show and part of the Star Trek "look".<p> It sure as shit wasn't a brewery with random terminals placed willy-nilly.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:23 p.m. CST

    Werock--

    by Bones

  • May 21, 2009, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Werock--

    by Bones

    That would be called "Fandom".<p> One day you might have something that you care about, be it religion, politics, sports or even a silly TV show/Movie series that means a lot to you.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:31 p.m. CST

    werock

    by brightgeist

    trust me, I have a life. I'm not typing this from my mom's basement. I have my own 4-room place, my own company, I have a fiancee, and STILL I'm a TREK fan who actually CARES about details and continuity and consistency.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:33 p.m. CST

    The 6th Conchord

    by brightgeist

    "I'm at the point in my life where I just can't be so anal over these things any more"... yes, many people these days are at that point in their lives... that point is called "dumbed down" and "brainwashed"

  • May 21, 2009, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Arteska--you are not wrong...

    by Bones

    This film only compounds the problems of the Star Trek films.<p> Star Trek at it's best are great television episodes that challenge, inspire and entertain.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:36 p.m. CST

    How about

    by JohnSpartan

    A shout out to Zoe Saldana? The guys get all the credit here, but she managed to create a role that was strong, smart, sexy, funny and feminine without it feeling like a token thing or hackneyed girl power rah-rah bullshit. JJ and Quint spend a ton of time talking about the cast and how inportant they were, but where's Saldana's deserved kudos?

  • May 21, 2009, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Here, here Brightgeist...

    by Bones

    The cliche of the Trek fan in his parents' basement hasn't been true for two decades--except for the rare exception that seemingly proves the rule.<p> I mean, the idea of massively overweight Geeks with long stringy hair, a housefull of iconic collectables, whe breathe heavily and obsess over minutia as they sit in their wheelchairs railing against people who are attacking their beloved franchises--and who can only state their cases through their blogs or websites...that doesn't sound like anyone other than a Star Trek geek, does it?<p> ;)

  • May 21, 2009, 12:43 p.m. CST

    JohnSpartan--about Zoe...

    by Bones

    She is great. Except that Uhura's role, although expanded, is for the most part reduced to either corroborating Kirk's theories or being Spock's girlfriend.<p> Maybe she will get to go on an away mission and kick some ass.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Nah

    by joshuavance1701

    Engineering was just fine as a set- a welcome departure from what's come before and an interesting aesthetic choice. Engineering is very utilitarian befitting the work that goes on there. Now Scotty can actually simulate some actual engineering getting his head and neck in the grease. It was an aesthetic choice to portray engineering as grungy. How the fucking hell are faux -paneling, neon lights, or a big plastic tube from the previous films more realistic or futuristic? They aren't douch-fucks. I can believe actual life saving, ship moving WORK goes on in an industrialised location moreso than big long warp core tube with people standing around it getting concerned. <p> Let's also NOW make the mistake of branding anyone opposed to this film a "Star Trek" fan. I'm 35 and have loved Trek all of my life, since the early 70's. Before some of these clowns were even born. I loved this film, so no it isn't Star Trek fans that despise this film, it's assholes. Banal, insipid, uninspired assholes. But then again, they sort of bitch about everything in every talkback don't they? As a matetr of fact, if these emo fucktards AREN'T bitching, they aren't happy.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:44 p.m. CST

    That should read

    by joshuavance1701

    NOT make the mistake....regarding Star Trek "fans".

  • May 21, 2009, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Bones

    by JohnSpartan

    You're absolutely correct. She wasn't given a lot to do, I just think she deserves credit for what she managed to squeeze out of what she had to work to with.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:46 p.m. CST

    by the way, even if I weren't "anal"...

    by brightgeist

    even if I ignored all the scientific dumbness and all the TREK inconsistencies and all the characters that act indifferently to the altered timeline... I would still think it's dumb TREK, because there is NOT ONE moment in the entire movie that makes me THINK. there's not a single situation or predicament where I think "what would I do? what would be the RIGHT thing to do? what would be the MORAL thing to do?". there's no internal conflict to the characters. they never have to think about what might be the best thing to do, because the story doesn't even put them in situations that would require such thoughts. the only conflict is whether to follow Nero's ship to Earth or to regroup with Starfleet. and that EXTREMELY INTELLECTUAL "conflict" is solved be a fistfight and by throwing Kirk off the ship. but, you know, it would even be okay that there are no intellectually challanging situations in the story, if AT LEAST there was some sort of MSTERY. BUT THERE'S NOT EVEN THAT!

  • May 21, 2009, 12:49 p.m. CST

    Why was it filmed in concrete warehouses?

    by I Hope You Die

    Why didn't he feel like a single scene in the movie had to make sense? These are the questions I'd like answered. I don't give a shit about Star Trek or "canon" but I want my money back for having to sit through such a lazy, poorly thought out and terribly executed movie. And how the hell can anyone say the cast was great when nobody had anything to do? If somebody had told me about the scene where Scotty gets carried off through a series of water-filled tubes before I bought my ticket I would have known it was a insulting sub-Transformers-level piece of dreck. What in the hell is wrong with reviews these days? There were numerous scenes in this movie, any one of which somebody could have recounted to me and made me realize it was utter garbage, but I didn't see them mentioned anywhere. Bones is right on about the set design. It was lazy. Everything about this movie was lazy. Just awful. It managed to look like it had a smaller budget than the TV shows. There were, what, 4 sets on the Enterprise and one of those was a concrete warehouse full of pipes? Fuck anybody who liked it. There have been a lot of bad movies that have gotten good reviews lately but this POS takes the fucking cake.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:52 p.m. CST

    The funny thing is I don't hate JJ Abrams...

    by Bones

    he funny thing is I don't hate JJ Abrams. I like most of his television work (Except Fringe. Passing Pseudo-Science and bullshit off as viable science in a modern day setting bugs the crap out of me). In fact, I have met him before--and his kids--and he seems like a genuinely nice guy, as well as being a real Star Wars geek. I just don't think that his mantra of making Trek into Wars does either series a service.<p> Look, I realize that I am in an extreme minority when it comes to liking or disliking the film--but at least I have my reasons. People who say that they like something but who cannot give a reason as to why they like it are something of a puzzle to me. Besides--anyone who reads this--I am not attacking you for liking the film. I am genuinely interested in finding out why you liked it and then crossing swords and having us go back and forth with our likes and dislikes. This way, people who read these talkbacks can see the whole picture.<p> And if I get heated, just shows my passion, I guess...

  • May 21, 2009, 12:53 p.m. CST

    John Spartan

    by Toonol

    Amen about Saldana. I hope she inspires a whole generation of women to be strong, smart, competent, and wear miniskirts.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Faux-intellectual pandering

    by joshuavance1701

    If Star Trek serves as your moral compass and "enlightens" you, your parents failed you. Plain and simple. Sure Star Trek couched ambiguous moral and ethical talk-points underneath the action, when you were FIVE. But Trek as an allegory for social commentary is bullshit. Or, perhaps your heads are too far up your asses to even remotely percieve the commentary inherent in this film- a film that with broadstrokes JUST LIKE THE ORIGINAL SERIES, covered such I don't know, relevant and important concepts such as HEROISM, Gallantry, bravery, courage, duty, honor, kinship, friendship, destiny, interference, the futility of revenge, self-acceptance, not living in the past or in shadows, and finally selflessness, but then again, what would this Generation EMO crowd know about any of THAT shit??

  • May 21, 2009, 12:54 p.m. CST

    If you didn't like STAR TREK...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    ...stop watching. <p>You hateful TREKKIES (mostly older 30+ yr old guys with no wives...or careers) sure do spend a lot of time flooding the boards with your HATE. </p> <p>Interestingly, most of the TREK haters are also the same guys who flood EVERY thread with their HATE. I don't like Picasso or Dali, but I don't spit on their works. </p>Holy cow, ranters! Can't you figure out that this world is bigger than your mother's basement and your 10-hour-a-day computer usage?

  • May 21, 2009, 12:56 p.m. CST

    joshuavance1701

    by brightgeist

    believe me, nothing makes me HAPPIER than a GREAT MOVIE that I can enjoy on a purely entertaining and/or intellectual level. I would have LOVED to love the new STAR TREK movie. and I am generally very accepting towards dumb, entertaining movies such as ARMAGEDDON or VAN HELSING. but there hasn't been an intellectual tv show called ARMEGADDON with several equally great spin-off series that set a STANDARD for things that call themselves ARMAGEDDON. the same goes for VAN HELSING. I don't care if those movies are silly (and, by the way, there's definitely a lot more accurate science in ARMAGEDDON than in the new STAR TREK movie). but I DO care about STAR TREK. you know, I really don't care if other people like the movie. what SUCKS is that I have been a TREK fan for at least 20 years, and I wanted to stay a TREK fan for the rest of my life, because those were always great stories to me. sure, I can still love what came before the new movie. but I can't love this new TREK anymore. and that's what I hate.

  • May 21, 2009, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Brands

    by HoboCode

    Wow, that does kind of shit on the original premise. totalyl didn't even think about it. Were they new logos or post-apocalypty looking at least?

  • May 21, 2009, 1 p.m. CST

    what really worries me

    by son_of_ebert

    is a comment made at trekmovie:<p> ety3: My only real concern with the film comes near the end when Kirk offers an olive branch, and Spock — almost jokingly — questions it. Not to get all high-minded and what-not, but isn’t Spock’s reaction antithetical to the peaceful exploration mindset that Starfleet is supposed to imbue in its members? If Spock had been flat-out angry about the olive branch, that would, at least, have made some sense, character wise. But to play it off as a joke?<p> BobOrci: I can understand that. Entertainment value weighs heavily there!

  • I also think that people's viewpoint on this film will change...<p> Look at how overwhelmingly positive everyone was when Transformers came out...until they started to think about it.<p> Then the whole house of cards begins to collapse under it's lack of thought or logic...and pissing robots...and horrible robot designs...and horribly staged and shot robot fights...and the fact that Megan Fox is actually given work in anything other than a Vivid Video title...<p> The new Star Trek works if you don't think about it, if you have nothing invested in it, if you have no opinion or love for it's subject matter, if you don't have higher standards for Star Trek than other films or franchises.<p> It also seems to work for people so desperate for anything new with the name Star Trek on it, who are excited to have new Star Trek glasses to collect. But on the whole, I think that it will fade from people's minds just as easy as it was for them to watch--because there isn't really much there.<p> Maybe Quint will talk to JJ again--and this time ask him some tougher questions--about people's dissenting opinions, the role of Nostalgia in modern cinema or why he made the choices he did in making the film. Or try to actually ask if the film was compromised by it's lack of re-writing due to the writers strike.<p> Lot's of things I'd like to know...

  • May 21, 2009, 1:05 p.m. CST

    I don't actually believe people liked this film.

    by I Hope You Die

    I think they're just defending it against some perceived threat of "dorks who live in their mother's basement." You can see it in everything people say about the film. "Sure, it had its problems, but it was fun! Aren't you capable of enjoying it for what it is?" Basically, you can now pretend to be cooler than people you perceive as being all too similar to yourself (virgins who live in their mother's basement) by liking the new Star Trek movie, so people like the new Star Trek movie. I doubt there's anything more to it. Another fad driven by people's desire to not be perceived as falling into the wrong group ("Trekkies who are frothing mad about the new movie") carefully engineered by the movie studios.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:16 p.m. CST

    God Help Us

    by GeorgieBoy

    If people like this movie. There are so many problems with it (storywise) it isn't even funny. But, I guess this movie was made for the lowest common denominator who walks around day after day in an Obama-loving haze. What lemmings we have become.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Bones...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    I didn't like Transformers when it first came out. However, I now think that it wasn't so bad. In act, it was enjoyable for what it was...even if it didn't fulfill the unreachable expectations of fat, jobless, 30+ yr old fanboys. <p>Face it: TREK was a film that was genuinely enjoyed by a lot of moviegoers and professional critics (a VAST majority). </p>I can't wait for the sequel! By that time, I think that you haters will be as relevant as those people who hated BATMAN BEGINS. I think that this is the best outcome of the new STAR TREK film: The old Trekkies are so irrelevant now.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:16 p.m. CST

    joshuavance1701

    by brightgeist

    my parents did just fine, rest assured of that. but what they taught me is, first and most importantly, to THINK FOR MYSELF. you're probably one of those people who believe everything exactly as their parents do, be it religion or politics or whatever. I tend to find materials (books, documentaries, movies, tv shows) that I find interesting and whose contents I find morally and intellectually stimulating. and YES, STAR TREK used to be one of those materials.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:18 p.m. CST

    GeorgieBoy

    by brightgeist

    true. every word.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:24 p.m. CST

    ccchhhrrriiisssm

    by son_of_ebert

    do you have anything productive to contribute?

  • May 21, 2009, 1:32 p.m. CST

    If you didn't like this movie...

    by manzoniman

    then you are a bad person. That is all.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Holy Crap!

    by Goody2shoes

    The vitriol some of you guys are spewing makes it hurt to be a trekkie. If you hate it, you hate it. Fine. But don't act like the rest of us MUST feel that way. I thoroughly enjoyed it, even if I did wince every time they said the stardates wrong. Saying that 40 years of established Trek themes weren't properly crammed into 2 hours is unfair, anyway. Those themes were well established when they made Star Trek V, you know.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:34 p.m. CST

    I Hope You Die

    by brightgeist

    I certainly don't hope you die ;-) and that's a VERY interesting point you make! that may very well be the psychological / sociological reasons behind what we're seeing right now.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:34 p.m. CST

    So what if ST was liked...

    by ClarenceBeaks

    by critics and moviegoers. Seriously. Who cares. It's about the final product. A product that has been around for some time. It has certain qualities that have made it what it is and should always be over time. This movie failed in that. It had a terrible plot hole script. Characters that strayed away from the qualities that made the characters in the first place. Too much special effects and not enough focus on character development. It's easy to channel a character that you saw onscreen. Actually being the character is something else.<p>Also, Batman Begins is better than the Dark Knight. I might be in the minority but damn proud of it.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST

    son_of_ebert...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Do you realize that you TALK TOO MUCH? Get a REAL job, you useless would-be movie critic. You flood the TBs with your excessive criticism of this film. <p>We know you didn't like it. You said so 200+ times already. </p>

  • May 21, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    ccchhhrrriiisssm...

    by Bones

    Your lack of understanding is really rather funny. One day, when you have a job, mortgage payments, a spouse (of either sex since this would be the future), children, pets, and a real life in balance with your entertainment interests (like the rest of us)--it will be interesting to see what your take on all of this is.<p> Great way to perpetuate stereotypes though, Nimrod. <p> Now it is time for your bottle and nap--don't forget to go change your diapers before you go out, get drunk and perpetuate your mindless date-rape youth culture.<p> Tool.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:38 p.m. CST

    Whatever happened to movies that made sense..

    by ClarenceBeaks

    from beginning to end? This applies to all genres. When movies had some fantastic tight scripts. I might have enjoyed this movie if the script had made sense. Doesn't the director read it before shooting?

  • May 21, 2009, 1:38 p.m. CST

    Goody2shoes

    by brightgeist

    I don't think you MUST feel the same way I do. but please, PLEASE tell my WHY it doesn't bother you that no-one in the story cares about the altered timeline. I can accept every opinion as long as someone EXPLAINES it to me in sensible words. but if you just say that you liked the movie DESPITE the fact that all the main characters are acting the way NO character in a STAR TREK story EVER acted, only because the writers needed them to be indifferent to the altered timeline in order to create the reboot, then I really do not accept your opinion.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:41 p.m. CST

    Bones...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    You're so funny...because you are stupid. I don't have to defend my JOB, my WIFE and my LIFE to some fool who floods the TBs at AINT IT COOL NEWS with his excessive hate for this film. <p> We know that you fools hated this film. We heard you the first couple of hundred times. </p> <p>Now excuse me as I get back to work...and provide for my wife. I suppose that you will continue to flood the boards with your excessive hatred...which only a small handful of your fellow HATE MONGERS even care to read. </p>It is time to move out of your mother's basement, old man.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:41 p.m. CST

    ccchhhrrriiisssm

    by son_of_ebert

    Actually if you read the talkback (this one or 41001.. either one) you would know that on second viewing I liked the movie a whole lot more.. <p>So I take that as a no then?

  • May 21, 2009, 1:45 p.m. CST

    ClarenceBeaks...

    by Bones

    I totally agree with you.<p> And Batman Begins was in my opinion a much better film than The Dark Knight--much more in line with it's comic book roots, and had one of the most interesting and believable Fantasy Cities ever put to film, that combined elements from many sources like Tim Burton's films but in a much more realistic manner.<p> The Dark Knight was an overlong mess that easily should have been expanded and split into two films. The Joker should have been dealt with while Dent semi-recovered and then the last shot would have been the Bar scene with Dent calling himself Two-Face, setting the stage for a whole film of Two-Face versus Batman.<p> Spiderman 3 had the same problem, where by trying to squeeze too much into one film, it didn't service either villain.<p> And I'll leave my opinion of Heath Ledger's Joker to another talkback--as people's different opinions of what The Joker's character is varies wildly.<p> I will say that if Ledger hadn't died, the film wouldn't have done nearly the same amount of business--and the I still hold that the best Batman film of all time is still Mask of the Phantasm, which in one film managed to accomplish the telling of Batman's origin in a more successful way than both of Nolan's Batman films.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:46 p.m. CST

    This sites cock sucking love for Abrams is ridiculous!

    by scriptgirl_nipples

    The amount of cock sucking AICN does for Abrams is insane! - Even licking the cum off your chin, to love the fucking overuse of lens glare - For Fucks Sake!<br> <br> JJ's Star Trek, was a fucking shit-fest!

  • May 21, 2009, 1:46 p.m. CST

    brightgeist

    by son_of_ebert

    "PLEASE tell my WHY it doesn't bother you that no-one in the story cares about the altered timeline."<p>again from trekmovie:<p>boborci: ..going back in time is the equivalent of stepping into a parallel universe, according to current speculations based on Quantum Mechanics. Starfleet and Spock, basing their decisions on this theory, would see that their is NO SUCH THING as “rectifying” the situation in a MULTIVERSE.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:47 p.m. CST

    ccchhhrrriiisssm

    by Bones

    Look Chris--<p> All I did was give you back what you were handing out. If you had bothered to read it, you would realize that I have all of those things too (well, no kids yet).<p> Relax.<p> Time to get back to work.<p> Rant at you all later.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:47 p.m. CST

    I guess cchhhrriiissm's break must be over.

    by ClarenceBeaks

    I want fries with that order, please.<p> Love how people claim to have a wife, kids, and family on this site when they get their feathers ruffled. Also, love the basement line. Gee, that never gets old.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:48 p.m. CST

    I'm surprised nobodies mentioned this yet.

    by thedude2010

    I liked it alot but... I had a hard time not thinking about it as..."Ultimate Star Trek" An excuse any excuse to change it up and tell the stories again.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Agree with Bones about DK.

    by ClarenceBeaks

    Good post.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:50 p.m. CST

    Even the torrent version of Star Trek, ain't doing that good.

    by scriptgirl_nipples

    MUST prove, how shit this film actually is.<br> <br> It's not setting the box office alight, and even the pirates ain't fucking bothering!

  • May 21, 2009, 1:51 p.m. CST

    ClarenceBeaks

    by brightgeist

    right! imagine (all you who like the new STAR TREK), if you can, being a JAMES BOND fan. then (in an alternate universe) CASINO ROYALE is released, and not only are the new Bond gadgets unbelievably scientifically stupid (invisible car that can also phase-shift to drive through walls unnoticed, transform into an aircraft carrier and weighs only 3 pounds), and not only does the bad guy threaten the WHOLE WORLD with a little box of off-the-shelf fireworks, BUT James Bond also doesn't give a damn about the fact that the baddie threatens to blow up England and kill Bond's mother, but instead Bond just seduces women and drinks Vodka Martinis (with everyone in the theater cheering when he says "shaken, not stirred"), because that's obviously what James Bond DOES, those things DEFINE Bond's character, RIGHT? it's not that he fights to save world or anything. no, the important thing about his character is that he drinks his Vodka Martini shaken. BUT the movie has great effects and a lot of fun and action. I'd like to know how Bond-fans would have reacted to such a film.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:51 p.m. CST

    ClarenceBeaks...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Are you jealous, old man? If you get out of the TBs, you might actually meet a girl...or guy...or whatever rocks your world. <p>Seriously, coffee break is over. I'll check back at lunch. ;-P

  • May 21, 2009, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Thedude2010..

    by Bones

    Okay, one last post before I get back to work...<p> Do you mean "Ultimate Star Trek" as in the marvel comic books or "Ultimate" as in last?<p> Because this might very well be my last Star Trek film...

  • May 21, 2009, 1:54 p.m. CST

    I've hated ST four times now..

    by Mr. Triffid

    and tonight will make five. Let's see how "Germinator: Constitpation" does this weekend.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:55 p.m. CST

    son_of_ebert

    by brightgeist

    okay, at least here's someone who's discussing reasonably. but, then please do explain to me why, if there "IS NO SUCH THING", Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer have all risked their lives in several episodes and movies to rectify the situation, and they also SUCCEDED! so, obviously, it is ESTABLISHED TREK SCIENCE that the situation CAN be rectified.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:55 p.m. CST

    Bones

    by thedude2010

    Ultimate as in Marvel. Basically somebody went..oh oh oh oh I know how we could have told that better and then comes up with a way to do it.

  • May 21, 2009, 1:55 p.m. CST

    and on and on and on and on and on and on...

    by Glory_Fades_ImMaxFischer

    Aint it Never Ending Star Trek News

  • May 21, 2009, 1:59 p.m. CST

    "JJ Why are you so awesome?" - Thats the interview

    by Glory_Fades_ImMaxFischer

  • May 21, 2009, 2:01 p.m. CST

    i must be the biggest trekkie here

    by BendersShinyAss

    Cause i seem to be the only one to notice that little alien with scotty was one of those attacking aliens in Nemesis - the mad max ones in that pointless car chase scene. fuck i hate that film

  • May 21, 2009, 2:13 p.m. CST

    brightgeist

    by son_of_ebert

    "it is ESTABLISHED TREK SCIENCE that the situation CAN be rectified"<p>I agree that it plays games with how time is handled in canon.<p>I would say simply that if for every action that resulted in a bad outcome one could just go back in time and fix it, having a stable universe in which to work with would become less plausible. Plus you get into paradoxes.<p>By marooning Spock in the altered/parallel timeline and keeping Vulcan's destruction it shows that any of our characters are vulnerable and it allows for a concrete universe split in which to build on.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:22 p.m. CST

    you guys are cunts

    by BendersShinyAss

    the film is fucking great. the score is the best since Horner (goldsmith is in a class all his own) and who gives a fuck if they didn't fix the timeline in the end. THIS IS HOW IT IS fucking deal with it... it's fantastic. TREK IS BACK!!! <p>you bitches seem to forget that.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Brightgeist

    by Goody2shoes

    This is what I took away from the story; the only person who knew the timeline was altered was Spock and the Romulans. To everyone else, nothing was ever changed, except realizing that they were in an alternate timeline some 30-odd years after the fact. If I were them, I wouldn’t see the point of changing what is already an established reality for me, and the rest of the universe, especially not knowing if the other one is any better. How would they change it, anyway? Nothing in their arsenal is comparable to Nero’s ship. What would they do, go back in time and get destroyed with the Kelvin? They can’t go to the future, because it would be the future of the alternate timeline, so events wouldn’t unfold the same way anyway. <br><br> As much of a science geek that I am, this is science FICTION. This has to be a parallel universe/reality (or whatever you want to call it), because otherwise neither Spock, nor the Romulans for that matter, would know it was any different than what they came from. Like in First Contact where they surmised they weren’t affected by the new timeline they saw because they were caught in the Borg’s temporal wake. That’s pseudo-science if ever I did see, and I loved that one, too. You’re asking for trouble when you do a time-travel story no matter what. But as a storytelling device, I thought it worked. And as far as characters went, we are seeing them at the beginning of their adventures together, not when they’ve already been together for a while. Maybe the second movie will flesh them out more, who knows? But the galaxy is fundamentally different for them now, what with one of the founding members of the Federation near extinction, who knows how they’ll react to things?<br><br> As a franchise, Star Trek’s always been full of plot holes and contradicting canon. I suggest you check out this video on youtube. It had me laughing so hard I cried, because it’s totally true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1chtJQFQNs

  • May 21, 2009, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Circle Jerk

    by Geekgasm

    It would have been much hotter to watch you guys jacking each other off instead of just reading the transcript.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:30 p.m. CST

    I've yet to meet...

    by BendersShinyAss

    .... a single person who didn't like trek. EVERYWHERE everyone loved it. even all over the internet. But come to aintitcool and there is this band of cocksuckers who pull apart every single fucking thing about this film. <p>it's a champion film<p>i purposfully stayed away from this thread... why did i come onto it eventually? why?? none of you truely hated the film, admit it.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:43 p.m. CST

    ZERO plotholes

    by madmadmad

    Where are the plotholes? What makes you think the script is so bad? It was excellent and I would like to debate the "holes" that keep getting mentioned but not having any valid point behind them.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:47 p.m. CST

    J.J. Abrams

    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    first off, what DOES J.J. stand for? ( J.Jonah? like spiderman?) and secondly-you sir, are a cool motherfucker.I LOVE LOST-even if you don't do much with it, I liked cloverfield, I LOVED Star Trek, and you know..MI3 was okay. So, take that!

  • May 21, 2009, 2:50 p.m. CST

    STAR TREK WAS THE PROVERBIAL HORSE

    by BringingSexyBack

    that was already beaten beyond recognition. JJ Penis Nose brought in a thoroughbred - a little wet around the nose to be sure, but it's a winner. On to the next race. Engage!

  • May 21, 2009, 2:51 p.m. CST

    it had me crying so hard i laughed!

    by idrinkyourmilkshake

  • May 21, 2009, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Also remember...

    by jackofhearts29

    At the time Spock threw Kirk off, Kirk was still an unauthorized, unranked stowaway on the Enterprise. He was making trouble. Spock possibly knew there was a Federation base on the planet, but either way, he was competely within his rights to kick Kirk off.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:52 p.m. CST

    please shut up about trek already

    by cant_stop_yawning2

    it was fun - forgettable fun. now it is over - let's all just move on.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:52 p.m. CST

    The new Trek rules, piss on the haters!

    by DoctorZoidberg

    What the fuck did you losers want anyway???? What in the world would have made you happy and content. NOTHING except to exhume the original actors from the crypt and resume their 60 year old dance. NOTHING else would ease your jangled nerves, so all your criticism is worth shit.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:55 p.m. CST

    Dammit, Jim

    by Bubba Foom

    The new Star Trek movie is a series of recycled scenes from Trek’s tv series and movies, committee-picked as being the most marketable moments for “fans,” packaged around state of the art special effects and the pleasurable nostalgia of seeing the reds, golds and blues back on the screen. There is no semblance of a lucid plot. This is a movie written by people who think creativity is the ability to imitate what has come before without processing it in any way, shape or form to impart even a hint of originality of content, or respect of purpose. Orci and Kurtzman are good at what they do…but what they do is not good. Even my non-discriminating wife (who praises ‘Independence Day’ to God Most High—shudder)—and who left the theatre saying she liked it, came back with a series of questions once the dazzle faded. And it fades fast with this movie. I wanted to like it on several levels. I couldn’t. The director kept shining lights in my eyes, wouldn’t let me see what was onscreen during action sequences, and paced the movie so that there was no time to digest anything presented. I suspect this last was extremely intentional, otherwise we would have quickly realized how little we were getting in terms of an actual cinematic meal. It’s Star Trek. I like Star Trek a whole lot. “Art thee Wulcan, or art thee human?” has resonance for me. I do not expect Shakespeare from Star Trek. But I do hope for a little cohesiveness out of a movie within the confines of its own conventions. As pointed out by a lot of folks, you shouldn’t have to buy collateral-marketing (the comic book) in order to get the full sense of what a movie’s supposed to impart. If it ain’t on the screen, it ain’t on the screen. But there’s this “extra commentary—deleted scenes—dvd mentality” that says people won’t care in the theatres so long as they know it’ll be explained later. The movie made no sense. The internal logic made no sense. There are no canyons in Iowa. If the canyon was meant to be man-made, slow down enough so we know that. Here then, from what I can piece together of the whiz-bang viewing, is the creative process of Star Trek 2009: Big battle. Kirk’s father all heroically dead and everything, sets up big shoes for son to fill. Goth Romulan wants to kill Spock but finds out he’s been thrown back in time after blasting the crap out of Starfleet ship with super Mining Vessel Digger Missile Bomb thingies. It’s a mining ship, but it’s a Romulan mining ship, so they don’t play. Let’s see, I’m thrown back in time, I’ve just seen my planet destroyed by a natural phenomenon, what do I do? I kill a Starfleet captain. Because I’m all badass-torn up inside. Kirk grows up unloved. We know this because he’s a badass kid blasting down a dirt road in a hotrod (product placement here) about to plunge off a cliff in Iowa (check Wikipidia if get chance: cliffs/gorges/canyons in Iowa?). No motivation to scene whatsoever but will be visually cool. Everybody liked Spock-relearning scene in Voyage Home. Reuse. Make him kid though. Bridge it to lots of ‘Officer & A Gentleman”, “Top Gun” stuff, get Kirk in Starfleet. Hey, instead of coming up with plausible reason why Spock never took Kobayashi Maru test, say he created the test. Yeah. Spock uptight upperclassman instructor—but he gets the hot hot love from Uhura on the DL—WHO THE HELL SAW THAT COMING, HIGH FREAKING FIVES, WRITERS RULE! (note: make sure to bold caps), because, remember, in a couple episodes Uhura kinda teased Spock about his pitiful lack of romanticism, so here, in alternate reality, BOOM, getting it on at Starfleet. Subtle nod to fans. Yeah. Make note to self: ten thousand dollar bonus to me. Kobi Bryant Maru: Kirk ate an apple in Wrath of Khan all cool, bum-rushing the no-win scenario and laying the Kirk wisdom on the masses; let’s get this young dude to eat an apple and be all I’m-the-shit arrogant while only taking one of Starfleet’s most important tests—hell, the thing had to count for at least a quarter of his grade—because, y’know, everybody loves the Wrath of Khan. (ironic note to self: have villain shout Spock’s name like Khan later on.) (also, redo bug/Chekov ear scene—way cool.) (also, kill Spock’s mother in way that makes no sense but, again, is visually cool; Uhura can be all “I will sympathy-do you in this turbo lift.”) (also, make fun of Chekov’s accent—people loved that “nuclear wessel” scene in Wrath of Khan.) (Hey, can we splice scenes from Wrath of Khan in to save on budget? No? Ok.) What else do we need to show? Ok, Pike in wheelchair; Spock with the “I have been and always shall be your friend” line—that was cool, fit it in somewhere; all tag lines mandatory—hey, have we made sure that there are only cadets available to run Starfleet’s flagship yet again? Cool! Kill the red shirt but make him a doof anyway. Oh, hot green chick, definitely. We need lush, I’m talking boobs, not some waif; Kirk doesn’t do waifs. Need hot green chick. Everybody knows Kirk does green women. Note to self: cast black chick as Uhura, otherwise people might not know who black chick is supposed to be. Whoever’s available between Soft Sheen commercials. Where were we? Dilapidated Spock. Most excellent marketing tool. Have him Obi-Wan young Kirk on Tattoine—no, Hoth—dammit, no, Ok, come up with something. Delta Vega. Coooool. Spock can see Vulcan blowed up from there. How? He’s on the planet, it’s a clear sky. Got CGI budget and Nimoy budget, need cool scene of monster chase and scene of Spock trying to justify movie. Ice planet. Makes sense as counter point to Vulcan, y’know, Dune, Arrakis, Desert Planet… Hoth. Delta Vega. I think that was a name on one of the episodes. Check with geeks to be sure. Getting brain tired. Need pointless fight and explosions. Kirk and Spock bonding. Have him call him Jim for no reason. At end, Kirk gets ship. Roll credits. The End… Of Star Trek. Brother, unless we get some writers who aren’t easily amazed at shiny things, the future looks bleak in what’s sure to be sequel-land. I went into this movie wanting it to live up to its potential the whole time. This should have been a tight character piece minus any fake-menace villain or with a real villain. Instead we got Romulans from the Mike Tyson colony trying to be Khan and his people. I waited for Eric Bana to slip and call his second in command “Joachim”—maybe even do the “for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.” There were enjoyable bits. But when Kirk’s father’s scenes have more heft than the rest of the entire movie—including the utter destruction of Vulvan, which came off as “eh”—a potentially memorable movie becomes an utterly forgettable one. Honestly, I’m having trouble remembering bits now a few days after the fact. The Enterprise was butt ugly inside and out. The original pants fit better than the new ones. Zoe Saldana is not fit for Nichelle Nichols’ red panties to peek under her miniskirt. The plot holes were not just ridiculous but insulting (we can energize on Kirk and Sulu hurtling to their doom, but Spock’s mother falls and can’t get up so we lose her? Scotty’s able to beam them from a planet to a ship at high warp light years away? Wouldn’t Nero’s resources have been better served trying to prevent his planet from getting sucked up again? Or did I miss that explanation in all the witty banter of Starfleet’s finest? The whole angry “Joe the Romulan” thing just wasn’t working.) Every Star Trek movie has its share of utterly ridiculous stuff. I’m not one of those “canon” folks. I can enjoy a fluff movie like anybody else, as long as the fluff respects me in the morning. Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman didn’t respect me in the morning. They woke up loudly and kept pestering me to tell them they were great. Then they left without even offering to buy my hungry ass breakfast. You can’t riff together a movie from a bunch of other movies and tell me ta-daa! That, sirs, is not magic. You can’t arbitrarily and persistently contradict yourself just to shoehorn the kind of quick, gimme-scenes a real writer would have to actually, y’know, write themselves out of. This movie could have left the black hole/time travel gimmick at the door and started with Spock alone somewhere reading “A Tale of Two Cities”: the voiceover would have given Trekkies goosebumps and laid the groundwork for non-trekkies that a good meal was about to be served. “They were the best of times, they were the worst of times…” Spock sitting beside Kirk’s grave where Picard left him… Fade in… Alas… and sigh. But, I guess, there are always possibilities.

  • May 21, 2009, 2:59 p.m. CST

    dark tower

    by docproc

    its gonna be tough to get a good cast to commit to 7 epic movies, but i'm saying viggo mortensen for roland

  • May 21, 2009, 3 p.m. CST

    IT WORKED, plain and simple... Nerds.

    by BillyMayesHere

    Was it Khan? No. Was it a good start? Yes.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:01 p.m. CST

    CAN YOU FUCKTARDS AT AICN LICK JJ'S BALLS HARDER?

    by TITBAG

  • May 21, 2009, 3:04 p.m. CST

    Dear canyon haters

    by thedude2010

    IT'S A MINE close enough to where they're building the enterprise to be convenient. Made perfect sense to me.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:04 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERY:"QUINT, TELL JJ THANKS FOR KILLING MY LEGACY"

    by TITBAG

  • May 21, 2009, 3:07 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "I'M GOING TO KICK NIMOY IN THE BALLS."

    by TITBAG

    "WHEN HE GETS UP HERE, THAT FUCKING PRICK. IF ANYONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKING OUT FOR MY GOOD NAME IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HIM."

  • May 21, 2009, 3:08 p.m. CST

    reasons why trek is AWWSUM

    by BendersShinyAss

    1) its the original crew, concept & universe<p> 2) the cast is great and worthy - you can actually accept these new guys in these classic roles<p> 3) The score is phenominally good<p> 4) The visual effects are absolutely top notch (not one fake giveaway)<p> 5) the ship is sexy and sleek and finally realized in it's original form<p> 6) serious drama and intrigue - vulcan gets fucking destroyed for crying out loud! (BALLS)add to that it was romulans that did it - This is star trek at it's finest!<p> 7) The kobieoshi maru - kirk didn't just reprograme the simulation, he challenged the reality of the programers - thinking outside the box, that is star ship captain material!!<p> 8) Nimoy came out of retirement to give it his stamp of approval <p> 9) a red shirt gets killed. Fucking halarious! <p> 10) Spock and Uhura - I don't know whats going on there but i am hanging to see that plot line get developed further! the potential is incredible<p> 11) the transporter effect is terrific - actually looks like some seriously powered technology, not just a cheap effect.<p> 12) the old uniforms!! even pike at the end is wearing a uniform from the motion picture! <p> 13) It's not a mere remake, it's still in line with the complete star trek universe <p> 14) Spock is young and struggling with his human emotions and his vulcan logic. he is a stubborn prick and even lashes out at kirk. Not even the old films could have that because Spock had grown beyond it by the end of the original series run. <p> 15) the phasers switching between stun and kill... now THAT was cool! <p> 16) starfleet officers running and shooting in a romulan ship and it's not boring! (nemesis, im looking at you)<p> 17) fuck... i just loved everything. and i'll debate any bullshit excuse you have for not liking this film. cause your a dick licker

  • May 21, 2009, 3:10 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "THE ONLY THING ABOUT THE NEW TREK..

    by TITBAG

    ..THAT MAKES ANY SENSE IS THE SHORT SKIRTS AND ZOE SALDANA'S PRETTY ASSHOLE. OTHER THAN THAT IT'S COMPLETE ASS."

  • May 21, 2009, 3:11 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "EVEN SHATNER STAYED AWAY FROM THIS POS"

    by TITBAG

  • May 21, 2009, 3:14 p.m. CST

    stop saying it's star wars

    by BendersShinyAss

    its fucking NOT. I said this in another talkback - there is nothing in this film that hasn't been done already in previous trek films or tv. it's been going for 40 fucking years, give it a fucking break - you guys would burn the planet if you were at a safe distance and had a button that could do it.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:15 p.m. CST

    QUINT: JJ, I WANT TO GIVE YOU A RIM JOB

    by TITBAG

    JJ: HAVE YOU SEEN THE FILM YET? <P> QUINT: WHAT FILM? <P> JJ: COOL. WATCH THE TEETH

  • May 21, 2009, 3:15 p.m. CST

    TITBAG

    by BendersShinyAss

    YOU'R A GROT. FUCK OFF.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:18 p.m. CST

    BENDINGOVERANDTAKEITUPTHEASS

    by TITBAG

    YOUR LIST IS AN EPIC FAIL. PLEASE PROCEED TO THE NEAREST BATH HOUSE AND TAKE YOUR MEDICINE YOU PONCE.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:22 p.m. CST

    TITBAG: CLEAN UP ON AISLE NINE, ON MY WAY

    by joshuavance1701

    You know it to be true

  • May 21, 2009, 3:23 p.m. CST

    TITBAG: I'M SECRETLY RICK BERMAN'S TAINT

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 21, 2009, 3:24 p.m. CST

    TITBAG: I ENJOYED STAR TREK MORE THAN MY BOYFRIEND ALLOWED

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 21, 2009, 3:25 p.m. CST

    TITBAG: MY BASEMENT LOOKS LIKE ENGINEERING, ONLY THERE'S SPEW EV

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 21, 2009, 3:26 p.m. CST

    TITBAG: GREET ME AT WAL-MART

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 21, 2009, 3:28 p.m. CST

    TITBAG: STAR TREKS COCK OWNS ME

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 21, 2009, 3:29 p.m. CST

    JOSHUATRANCE: I PWNED YOU IN THE OTHER THREAD

    by TITBAG

    I'LL CONTINUE TO DO SO HERE. STOP NOW AND I'LL SHOW YOU SOME FUCKING MERCY.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:30 p.m. CST

    TITBAG: I MASTERBATE TO GEORGE KIRKS SACRIFICE

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 21, 2009, 3:30 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "POSHUATRANCE IS JJ'S FLUFFER"

    by TITBAG

  • May 21, 2009, 3:30 p.m. CST

    TITBAG: I'M GONNA GO EMO ON YOU HATEH

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 21, 2009, 3:31 p.m. CST

    TITBAG: SOMEONE CALLED ME PONCE AND IT STUCK

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 21, 2009, 3:32 p.m. CST

    I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS WORSE...

    by TITBAG

    ...THE TIME TRAVEL DRIVEL OR THE SHAMPOO COMMERCIAL ACTING FROM THAT NANCY-BOY WHO PLAYED KIRK.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:33 p.m. CST

    TITBAG: I CO-WROTE WOLVERINE I WORK AT WAL-MART NOW

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 21, 2009, 3:33 p.m. CST

    SPEAKING OF NANCY-BOY...

    by TITBAG

    PONCHUACHANCE: ANY PLANS FOR THE WEEKEND? BESIDES THE USUAL CUMBUCKET ROUTINE YOU DO EVERY FRIDAY NIGHT?

  • May 21, 2009, 3:36 p.m. CST

    TITBAG: I'VE GOT THAT NOT SO FRESH FEELING

    by joshuavance1701

    I'll probably go see Star Trek again since it was such a horible film, whilst everyone else is bitching about how bad Terminator sucks hopeing and praying for Transformers or G.I (snicker) Joe to save their summer, I'll do my part again to contribute to the box ofice of the BEST FUCKING MOVIE OF '09.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Marry me, Bubba Foom

    by gruntybear

    That was epic and true in every last respect. JJ, et al. haven't "reset" the Star Trek universe, they just borrowed the bits that were obvious and jumbled them up for shits and giggles. If I hear one more time that this "new" Trek universe is now free of all the "baggage" and continuity that went before, heads will start to roll. THAT SO-CALLED BAGGAGE IS WHAT TREK IS ALL ABOUT!! JJ have created nothing more than a machine to recycle and REMAKE all of the Trek that went before. We won't get anything new in a sequel to Dawson's Trek. We'll get a retread of "Khan" or "Best of Both Worlds" or any number of easily recognizable Trek tales that went before. And of fucking course, JJ is attached to "The Dark Tower." It's got the same plot as every other JJ project that he's ever been attached to - time-travel/alternate reality games. The man doesn't know how to put together a piece of filmed entertainment WITHOUT these tired crutches.

  • May 21, 2009, 3:55 p.m. CST

    REV_SKAREKROE: ALL CAPS KICKS ASS

    by rev_skarekroe

    EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION TO ME!

  • May 21, 2009, 3:58 p.m. CST

    But isn't the point Grunty Bear

    by joshuavance1701

    The man is putting together filmed entertainment? In actuality, so is Stephen Sommers, Michael Bay, Uwe Bowell, and you know what? They are living their dreams, what the fuck are all the bitches on this website doing exactly? Oh that's right, a "critic", is a failure at whatever they are critiquing. <p> Bob Orci must laugh his fucking ass off at you clowns everytime he gets on here and hears you cunts cry, all the while, cashing his FAT FUCKING paycheck and residual. Moan away Merril, Moan away.

  • May 21, 2009, 4:10 p.m. CST

    would love to know....

    by crankyoldguy

    what some of you morons consider a 'good' film. Shit like Saw (utter crap). The ponderous case of Benjamin Butane? What? What do you Trek defecation ranters think is good? This is going to be....fascinating.

  • May 21, 2009, 4:10 p.m. CST

    New Trek SUCKED!!!!

    by AdmiralCainsRazor

    This movie blows Donkey Balls!! It had no heart. Just a pile of Special Effects, which in all honesty were cool. Abrams could not do ANY better than a damn Romulan Mining Ship?? Come on dude, did he bang out this script while he was on the shitter. But Hey, His movie is gonna make $200 million plus, so who cares what I say.

  • May 21, 2009, 4:15 p.m. CST

    I'm so sick of hearing about his idiot.

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    AICN seems to have morphed into a JJ Abrams fansite. It's become incrementally more inane to the point where the blind fan worship this man receives rivals anything a cult like Heaven's Gate could come up with...

  • May 21, 2009, 4:17 p.m. CST

    BTW, Terminator had no plot and barely any characters

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    and was still more watchable than JJ Abrams Star Wars remake.

  • May 21, 2009, 4:29 p.m. CST

    And Danny Elfman's T:S theme in more epic

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    than anything in the entirety of the new SW...

  • May 21, 2009, 4:33 p.m. CST

    OMFG. DARK TOWER.

    by TITBAG

    J.J. DOING DARK TOWER. FUCKING FORGOT ABOUT THAT. KILL ME NOW.

  • May 21, 2009, 4:34 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "JJ, NICE JOB ON SPACE BALLS REMAKE"

    by TITBAG

  • May 21, 2009, 4:39 p.m. CST

    Dark Tower

    by Kaladrax

    There is only one that should play Roland in the Dark Tower and that is Hugh Laurie...search your feelings you know it is true.

  • May 21, 2009, 4:44 p.m. CST

    ONE DAY AICN REVIEWED A JJ FLICK..

    by TITBAG

    ...AND HAD TO CLOSE DOWN TWO WEEKS IN ORDER TO CLEAN THE CUM OFF THE RESPECTIVE REVIEWERS' MONITORS. YOU FUCKING PRICKS. <P> THAT'S ALL I READ FOR FUCKING WEEKS ON END WAS HOW AWESOME THIS FILM WAS. THE JIZZ WAS FLYING EVERYWHERE. <P> THE STEAMING PILE OF DANK MAGGOTY EXCREMENT THAT I VIEWED IN THE MOVIE THEATRE IS A TESTAMENT TO JUST HOW FAR UP JJ'S ASSHOLE YOU REVIEWERS ARE LIVING. MY GOD. AT THIS POINT THAT FUCKER BETTER BE CHARGING YOU RENT.

  • May 21, 2009, 4:47 p.m. CST

    Classic Rant Dude!!

    by AdmiralCainsRazor

    My Compliments Titbag

  • May 21, 2009, 5 p.m. CST

    NEARLY AS ANNOYING AS THE JJ WORSHIP..

    by TITBAG

    ...IS THE COCKSUCKING THAT'S GOING ON WITH THE NEW STALLONE FLICK. <P> OMFG <P> STALLONE SENDS HARRY OR WHOMEVER SOME JPGS THAT PEOPLE FUCKING MAGAZINE RAN THE PREVIOUS WEEK AND THE AICN TEAM IS ALREADY HAILING THE NEW STALLONE FLICK AS A FUCKING MASTERPIECE. <P> NO. <P> FUCKING. <P> SHAME.

  • May 21, 2009, 5:15 p.m. CST

    BendersShinyAss

    by brightgeist

    you think so? those aliens in NEMESIS seemed taller. also, NEMESIS was a good TREK movie. at least, unlike the new one, it dealt with VERY interesting philosophical questions that are EXTREMELY important in our world today. in essence, the movie asks "what makes a person 'good' or 'bad'? what defines who we are?". obviously, the answer is that it's NOT in the genes, because Shinzon (Picard's clone) became a "bad" person, whereas Picard became a "good" one. that seems obvious, but unfortunately most people don't seem to really understand the meaning or the consequences of that concept. essentially it means that there are no "good" or "bad" people and that ONLY our environment shapes our behavior. and when you continue along that line of thought, it means that so-called "terrorists" or "criminals" have been conditioned by their environments, their upbringing, their religions, and so on. even more importantly, it means that humans are NOT inherently greedy or power-hungry or lazy or anything else, and therefore that we could live in a money-free society, distributing the resources of the earth EQUALLY to all human beings, working just as much as is necessary to keep that system working, without any greed or power-struggles or any other aberrant behavior.

  • May 21, 2009, 5:23 p.m. CST

    Abrams is doing Dark Tower?

    by maelstrom_ZERO

    How the hell did I miss that? I will say that I'm certainly not opposed to it. Dark Tower, more than anything else, is the character study of a hero (Roland), and Abrams--at least more than other directors--knows how to focus on the characters. I just really hope that they find a decent actor for Roland. Clint Eastwood 40 years ago would have been perfect for the role. The only other actor I have in mind is Viggo Mortensen, and that's only because Aragorn is pretty similar to Roland in certain aspects. I can't wait to see his work in The Road.

  • May 21, 2009, 5:28 p.m. CST

    son_of_ebert

    by brightgeist

    two things: first, no-one is talking about changing every "bad" thing that happens by traveling back in time! there's a big difference between traveling back in time to rectify changes in the timeline, and going back in time to change things that happened the "natural" way! in STAR TREK, it has always been about keeping the timeline on its natural course. when something bad happens without any timeline-meddling, they don't go back in time and change it, because it's the natural way. but when someone has already altered time (like the Borg in FIRST CONTACT), then they go back and rectify that. and that's what they should have WANTED to do in the new movie, too. I mean, WHY don't the want to do it? there's no logical or human explanation for why they don't want to rectify the timeline, except that the writers of the story just decided that the characters simply wouldn't. and that's weak. because a writer should ALWAYS make it his or her priority to think "what would my character do next?", instead of just trying to reach a pre-set GOAL with the story, ignoring the characters and their "natural" behavior completely. and second: Spock wasn't "marooned" there at all, because he should (according to all we know) be able to come up with at least 2 ways to go back in time. there's the slingshot effect that THIS SPOCK has personally performed/witnessed at least FOUR TIMES. or, there's the Guardian of Forever. so, there's just no way around it: the writers simply did not allow Spock to do what Spock would/should/must do in the given situation. and that is BAD, BAD writing.

  • May 21, 2009, 5:33 p.m. CST

    madmadmad

    by brightgeist

    you see the HOLES now?

  • May 21, 2009, 5:36 p.m. CST

    BendersShinyAss

    by brightgeist

    "THIS IS HOW IT IS"... I see... you're probably the type of guy who accepts EVERY story he's told with the excuse "this is how it is", no matter how stupid or unlikely. like, the bible, for example. or terrorists blew up the WTC and the the USA went to Iraq to kill Saddam, because it's all the same anyway. great!

  • May 21, 2009, 5:43 p.m. CST

    DoctorZoidberg

    by brightgeist

    that's crap what you're saying. you wanna know what would have made me happy and content? easy: a BELIEVABLE explanation for why no-one in the story wants to change back the timeline, like, say, the old Spock simply ISN'T in the story, so no-one KNOWS about the change, and everything's peachy! it's not ME who needed to have Nimoy in the movie! that was Abrams & Co. I would have been perfectly happy with an all-new cast playing the well-known characters, but the STORY has to make sense! if they just left Nimoy-Spock out, there would have been MUCH, MUCH LESS of a problem. okay, there would still be no great philosophical topics in the story, but I would have been able to love the movie as a TREK-action adventure that at least FITS in the TREK universe and doesn't piss on everything we know about established characters and their behavior in a given situation.

  • May 21, 2009, 5:46 p.m. CST

    BendersShinyAss, you were right about one thing:

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    "you guys would burn the planet if you were at a safe distance and had a button that could do it." Damn straight! Goodbye, dumb shit primate pricks! Goodbye!! Our species is a hemorrhoid on the ass of the universe.

  • May 21, 2009, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Why all the Hate on Berman?

    by benlinus

    I dont get it? He wrote First Contact, which I feel is the 2nd best movie in the series and wrote some of the BEST epi's on TNG (Brothers, Matter of Time & Unification) Im just curious as to why so many people hate on him? Thanks......

  • May 21, 2009, 5:53 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "BERMAN IS A FUCKING GOD COMPARED TO ABRAMS"

    by TITBAG

  • May 21, 2009, 5:54 p.m. CST

    ATTENTION

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    Star Trek is not a good, great,fun or entertaining movie.<P> Star Trek is just not as horrible as the rest of the shit that has come out yet. <P> So please refrain from saying other wise. <P> Here is a list of acceptable adjectives for describing the new Star Trek movie: <P> arid, bromidic, characterless, cloying, colorless, commonplace, drab, drudging, dull, flat, humdrum, insipid, interminable, irksome, lifeless, monotonous, mundane, platitudinous, plebeian, prosaic, <P> repetitious, routine, spiritless, stale, stereotyped, stodgy, stuffy, stupid, tame, tedious, tiresome, tiring, trite, unexciting, uninteresting, unvaried, vapid,and wearisome.

  • May 21, 2009, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Bubba Foom

    by brightgeist

    wow, man... that's nice writing. best STAR TREK review I've read so far. could you please write the NEXT TREK movie? first scene: the last scene from Abrams' movie, then someone (Picard? Spock? anyone still alive in the late 25th century) wakes up in their bed and goes "thank goodness, it was just a dream!" that would be the ONLY CONCEIVABLE way that I could ever accept Abrams' STAR TREK as part of the "real" STAR TREK universe. thanks for your post, Bubba... really enjoyed reading it

  • May 21, 2009, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Lens Flares

    by Flim_

    For anyone who thinks there's too many lens flares in Star Trek, I suggest you watch one of the best-looking films ever made: Close Encounters of the Third Kind. They're about on par with each other, and Close Encounters was shot by Vilmos Zsigmond, a.k.a. The Master. Get real!

  • May 21, 2009, 5:58 p.m. CST

    TITBAG

    by brightgeist

    LOL

  • May 21, 2009, 6:04 p.m. CST

    crankyoldguy

    by brightgeist

    my favorite movies: 1. THE CROW 2. THE MATRIX 3. THE MATRIX RELOADED 4. THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS. THE CROW is simply a movie that touches me every time I watch it, I couldn't tell you exactly why. and THE MATRIX TRILOGY is great science fiction, SMART science fiction (which, of course, most people didn't GET beyond the first part).

  • May 21, 2009, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Harry that point of view is totally unsupported

    by IndustryKiller!

    Saying Trek was "what it needed to be." Is not a tangible way of stating things. I may even agree with you, but probably not int he capacity you meant it. I agree Trek was "what it needed to be" But it was nothing more than that. It was a great set-up for some great actors, but its not going down in the pantheon of genre films. Moreover I know a few Trek fans who abhor the lack of any sort of procedure,a nd no I don't mean the boring kind, just hte few things that establish that this is as much a naval vessel as it is a silly sci fi starship. The kind of procedure that gives the film and it's world meat, that its a functioning organic thing even before the story we are seeing began. Moreover the story was crap, that's just an objective fact.

  • May 21, 2009, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Harry that point of view is totally unsupported

    by IndustryKiller!

    Saying Trek was "what it needed to be." Is not a tangible way of stating things. I may even agree with you, but probably not int he capacity you meant it. I agree Trek was "what it needed to be" But it was nothing more than that. It was a great set-up for some great actors, but its not going down in the pantheon of genre films. Moreover I know a few Trek fans who abhor the lack of any sort of procedure,a nd no I don't mean the boring kind, just hte few things that establish that this is as much a naval vessel as it is a silly sci fi starship. The kind of procedure that gives the film and it's world meat, that its a functioning organic thing even before the story we are seeing began. Moreover the story was crap, that's just an objective fact.

  • May 21, 2009, 6:18 p.m. CST

    THE DARK TOWER

    by brightgeist

    okay... THE DARK TOWER is my FAVORITE BOOK (series) EVER. but, you know, as much as I think JJ's STAR TREK sucks, I still think JJ Abrams is a very good director. the problems in STAR TREK are ALL about the story. sure, I don't know how a director can not have enough influence on the story of the movie he's directing to avoid such stupidity as in STAR TREK. but I don't know, maybe for some reason he wasn't in the position to say "hey, does this really make sense? couldn't you guys write something more intelligent, and by the way, why don't they try to rectify the timeline?" maybe he just didn't really care. all I think I see in STAR TREK is that the story sucks and the director rocks. I mean, I LOVE LOST, M:I:III is pretty good, I like FRINGE a lot, and STAR TREK is (as far as I can judge) very well directed. so, as long as Orci and the other guy don't write the script for THE DARK TOWER, there's still hope. even if they do, I don't think King would allow them to fuck it up. at least that's what I WANT to believe. they just CAN'T fuck up THE DARK TOWER. they mussn't. please. PLEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAASE!!!

  • May 21, 2009, 6:21 p.m. CST

    i saw star trek nemesis last night

    by animas

    i wouldnt say it was "good" but it was definitely not as shitty as JJ's

  • May 21, 2009, 6:22 p.m. CST

    JarJar Abrams SUCKS

    by grendel69

    Sorry but its true. His ideas for Superman alone should have had him banned from hollywood.Armageddon,Alias, Lost, Star Trek....all shit. What do people see in this guy??

  • May 21, 2009, 6:24 p.m. CST

    animas

    by brightgeist

    at least NEMESIS had ambition to SAY something. JJ's "TREK" doesn't even try to speak, it just phasers and punches and screams.

  • May 21, 2009, 6:25 p.m. CST

    grendel69

    by brightgeist

    HAHAHAHAHAHA! Jar Jar Abrams... I know I'll never get that one out of my head again, LOL :-D

  • May 21, 2009, 6:31 p.m. CST

    PLOT HOLES Of Star Trek (I could write a book)

    by IndustryKiller!

    First of all Devin from C.H.U.D. already posted a great list of five continuity errors so you can go read those but i won't repost them here. I'll just talk about the ones in the film. First and foremost is SPock somehow miscalculating when the supernova was going to hit Vulcan. It's a fucking supernova, they take millions of years to occur. You would pretty much know when that was gonna happen. How the fuck did SPock simply not know when the thing was gonna hit Vulcan?<P>How come the only survivors of the planet Vulcan were on some random mining vessel when the Vulcans have LOOOONG had limitless space travel? Was it some sort of Vulcan religious holiday when that supernova hit and everyone just flatly refused to leave? Give me a fucking break<P> Then there is the concept of Red Matter. It's not a plot hole so much as a ridiculous macguffiny thing that is given absolutely zero explanation. It's just a lazy lazy lazy plot device from the same douche bags who brought you the "Rabbits Foot" in MI3.<P> why do black holes suddenly allow people to time travel? Does that mean Vulcan just time traveled somewhere else? <P>How come when Nero time travels he magically comes out at the exact time, in the exact place, that the ONE GUY who could possibly defeat him in the future is about to be born? That's an awfully fateful occurence. You would almost say the force willed it.<P> If Nero was just flying around space doing nothing for 25 years how did he just HAPPEN to be waiting for Spock when he came out of that black hole at a totally undetermined time? Once again fateful.<P> Unless he had been waiting for a while by the black hole for Spock to come out, but then wouldn't the federation have noticed and been like "Hey that's that ship that destroyed one of ours totally unprovoked, let's go do something about that."? After all I assume they would be monitoring the place where a black hole just spontenously appeared and then a massive murdering ship came out<P> How the hell does a random Romulan mining vessel have enough firepower and military skills to take out the entire Starfleet federation? It's like an oil rig taking out the U.S. Military.<P> Convenient that on the entire surface of this ice planet Kirk stumbles into the cave where SPock happens to be. There's that fate again<P> Ditto for the remote station Montgoemery Scott happens to be staying<P>Why would Nero maroon SPock on a planet he knows nothing about? You'd think a guy THAT desperate for revenge would say "I want you right here next to me so I can see your face while I destroy your planet....then I'll kill you."<P> I know I've thought of/heard more, but this will do for now and it gets m point across. I expect a lot of apologizing and very little actual explaining.

  • May 21, 2009, 6:38 p.m. CST

    And BadMr.Wonka as for your previous answers

    by IndustryKiller!

    To Fortune Fools queries. I think most of them are sound. SOme things can be ignored I agree. But you TOTALLY and ridiculously apologized for hte SPock cave stuff. First of all Spock was shot to that planet by Nero, not on his own volition. Moreover he wouldnt have the slightest idea Kirk would ever be there since none of the event int his film even have a reasonable facsimile in Old SPock's timeline. There is just no excuse for any of that. Like I said man none of this is a total dealbreaker in my enjoyment of the film, I did enjoy it, but Im realisitc about how good an actual film it was. A better tact than apologizing for plot holes would be to talk about how great the cast was and how immersive the visuals could be.

  • May 21, 2009, 6:40 p.m. CST

    Box office yesterday!!

    by lostbat

    Star Trek on no 1 spot again!! Star Trek has now more visitors in 2 weeks as Wolverine in 3 weeks. Why? because of good word of mouth!! The movie was great and as a Star Trek fan I enjoyed every minute of it!!You haters have to much bandwidth on this site. You are a minority!! PLOT HOLES? Who give a shit!! Shut up and crawl back in your holes with your Star Trek TOS VHS tapes.

  • May 21, 2009, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Dark Tower Casting Call

    by Kaladrax

    Roland Deschain - Hugh Laurie Eddie Dean - Edward Norton Susannah Dean - Alfre Woodard (Lily from Star Trek First Contact) if she isn't too old now Jake Chambers - Not sure Oy - CGI Father Callahan - James Cromwell

  • May 21, 2009, 6:47 p.m. CST

    "PLOT HOLES? Who give a shit!!"

    by IndustryKiller!

    Thanks lostbat, thats the only evidence I need that you're a complete douche bag.

  • May 21, 2009, 6:48 p.m. CST

    BRIGHTGEIST

    by lostbat

    my favorite movies: 1. THE CROW 2. THE MATRIX 3. THE MATRIX RELOADED 4. THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS. THE CROW is simply a movie that touches me every time I watch it, """I couldn't tell you exactly why. and THE MATRIX TRILOGY is great science fiction, SMART science fiction (which, of course, most people didn't GET beyond the first part)."""""" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA JERK OF THE DAY!!!

  • May 21, 2009, 6:49 p.m. CST

    "I Hope You Die" is the biggest idiot in Talkback history

    by TallBoy66

    He's deluded himself into thinking nobody likes the movie when it has fantastic reviews and made a shit ton of cash. But everybody hates it. Right. You're a fucking idiot and your name is awfully stupid. Cheers, fuckface. Also, good to see Quint throwing in his random editorializing bashing the prequels in every single interview he ever does. Guy can't help but mention it, can he? Fucker has a psychotic compulsion.

  • May 21, 2009, 6:49 p.m. CST

    INDUSTRYKILLER

    by lostbat

    Get a life or get laid!! You need that!!

  • May 21, 2009, 6:56 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "WARP FACTOR FAIL!"

    by TITBAG

  • May 21, 2009, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Roland

    by Vespalad

    Hugh Laurie isnt a bad choice for Roland. Lately I've been re-watching Dexter and thinking James Remar would be good for old long, tall, and ugly.

  • May 21, 2009, 6:58 p.m. CST

    lostbat

    by brightgeist

    you are quite easily entertained, aren't you?

  • May 21, 2009, 6:59 p.m. CST

    Lost

    by Vespalad

    Does anybody know how much longer Lost is going to last?

  • May 21, 2009, 7 p.m. CST

    lostbat

    by brightgeist

    and since you don't give a shit about plotholes, please humor me and tell me what exactly makes a movie GOOD in your eyes?

  • May 21, 2009, 7:01 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "MAJEL AND I JUST WENT TO BURGER KING..."

    by TITBAG

    "...AND THOSE TREK BOBBLEHEADS ARE MORE FUN THAN THAT FUCKING ABORTION OF A MOVIE. WE REINACTED THE ENTIRE FILM, BUT IN OURS IT'S NOT A SUPERNOVA BUT A GIANT SPACE COCK THAT'S HUNTING A SHAMPOO COMERCIAL ACTOR KNOWN AS KIRK. <P> OF COURSE, WE FIRED THAT PRICK SPOCKBOBBLEHEAD HALF-WAY INTO THE FIRST SCENE. FUCKER. COMERCIAL ACTOR KNOWN AS KIRK. <P> ANYWAY, TRY THEM OUT!"

  • May 21, 2009, 7:03 p.m. CST

    Brightgeist

    by lostbat

    I apologize for my reaction..but if you state that the Matrix 2 and 3 are outstanding movies and good science fiction and that most of us didn't get that......then U make me laugh..

  • May 21, 2009, 7:04 p.m. CST

    IndustryKiller!

    by brightgeist

    you're right about a lot of things, but on some accounts I actually have to defend JJ's STAR TREK. 1. the supernova destroyed Romulus, not Vulcan. but you're right about the rest of the supernova stuff. 2. Spock (Quinto) knew that there was a Federation station a few miles from the spot where he dropped Kirk.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:09 p.m. CST

    Every sci-fi movie has holes

    by MattmanReturns

    I know the plot relied too heavily on coincidence, but I don't care because it was entertaining and the characters were well written. Most Trek plots are nonsense, as is the science. Why this movie gets picked on for science and plot holes I'll never know.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:15 p.m. CST

    industrykiller..

    by dengreg31

    "but Im realisitc about how good an actual film it was."... No, you're realistic about how much you enjoyed the film. You don't expect me to substitute your judgment for mine, do you? Plot holes, sure! Still enjoyed the hell out of it, and if you didn't, it doesn't make it a mediocre or poor film. Personal taste. Pick another movie to nitpick please...

  • May 21, 2009, 7:15 p.m. CST

    What is a good movie?

    by lostbat

    I don't have a recipe for that... A good movie is a movie that gives me value for my money. It has to touch me and keep me entertained......

  • May 21, 2009, 7:16 p.m. CST

    MattmanReturns, not every movie has

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    plot holes you could fly the entire Federation fleet through. BTW, I notice Abrams and Friends don't seem to realize the difference the Federation and Starfleet, and think they're interchangeable. That's like confusing the United States with the US Navy (and/or NASA). Figures.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:22 p.m. CST

    BendersShinyAss...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    I agree with all of those reasons! Awesome!

  • May 21, 2009, 7:25 p.m. CST

    lostbat

    by brightgeist

    right. I don't care about money, but I too want to be touched and entertained by a movie. but in order to be entertained, and even more so in order to be touched by a movie, I need to be able to suspend my disbelief. and JJ's STAR TREK didn't allow me to do that for more than a few minutes at a time, before another hole or science stupidity or STAR TREK incontinuity pulled me back out of the movie. maybe you're the lucky one here, because you don't think about what you see. ignorance is bliss, I guess. and still, I'm happy not to be ignorant. it may ruin a few movies for me, but at least I know my brain is still working.

  • May 21, 2009, 7:42 p.m. CST

    My scrollwheel never got so much work

    by quantize

    as these Star Trek TB's...what a whining bunch of humorless fucking loser haters and flat out drooling retards (Titbag, your posts scream only PLEASE IGNORE ME)..which of course we do

  • May 21, 2009, 7:52 p.m. CST

    QUANTIZE

    by TITBAG

    YOU COULDN'T EVEN IGNORE ME IN YOUR LAME FUCKING PATHETIC EXUSE FOR A SMACKDOWN YOU WORTHLESS CUNT. <P> I'D LEAVE NOW BEFORE YOU HURT YOURSELF.

  • ...ABOUT GOD KNOWS WHAT AS USUAL.

  • May 21, 2009, 8:02 p.m. CST

    JJ PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

    by drturing

    remake this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avTfiRccYIA

  • May 21, 2009, 8:13 p.m. CST

    Why did I get banned for a SG reference, and not TITBAG?

    by DoctorZoidberg

  • May 21, 2009, 8:13 p.m. CST

    Titbag

    by rogueleader66

    Probably THE stupidest person here at AICN, and that's saying something.

  • May 21, 2009, 8:26 p.m. CST

    I LOVE IT-THE BATTLE OF ALL CAPS

    by Sal_Bando

    MORONS UNITED! SOME FUNNY SHIT! IT'S LIKE SEEING OZZY FIGHTING w/ GENE SIMMONS OVER WHO SNORTED MORE BLOW OFF THE BACK OF MORE HOOKERS. WOWEE LOOKEEEEEEEEEEEE

  • May 21, 2009, 8:29 p.m. CST

    "Devlin from CHUD said..."

    by mr. smith

    fucksake. really??

  • May 21, 2009, 8:37 p.m. CST

    I. HAVE HAD. ENOUGH OF YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by cutest_of_borg

    FUCK ALL HATERS. FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! Oh, and HUGH JACKMAN IS ROLAND!!!!!

  • May 21, 2009, 8:43 p.m. CST

    I meant Romulus not Vulcan

    by IndustryKiller!

    Every time I mention Vulcan in the plot hole post just pretend it says Romulus. Good catch brightgeist,

  • May 21, 2009, 8:45 p.m. CST

    No dengreg, Im talking about how GOOD a film it was

    by IndustryKiller!

    Enjoyment is far more subjective. Quality can be measured at least as far as technical points are concerned. And I think any good writer would tell you the Star Trek script, in many places, is damn near incompetent. Your enjoyment of something does not make it good.

  • May 21, 2009, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Ummm I wasn't quoting Devin Mr. SMith

    by IndustryKiller!

    I was simply pointing people toward other sources of writing mistakes. His list, like him or not, does in FACT point out many inarguable continuity errors.

  • May 21, 2009, 9:13 p.m. CST

    Jackman

    by Kaladrax

    Last thing the Dark Tower needs is Hugh Jackoff Van Helsing as Rollen.

  • May 21, 2009, 9:14 p.m. CST

    Roland Dammit

    by Kaladrax

    This crappy talkback needs an edit button...damn you to hell Harry Knowles!

  • May 21, 2009, 9:18 p.m. CST

    GAYHUGHJACKOFF WILL NEVER BE ROLAND

    by TITBAG

  • May 21, 2009, 9:20 p.m. CST

    rogueleader66: "TITBAG, BOTH MY HOLES ARE READY"

    by TITBAG

  • May 21, 2009, 9:23 p.m. CST

    I'D RATHER DRINK MY OWN URINE..

    by TITBAG

    ..OR SIT THROUGH TERMINATOR SALVATION 100X BEFORE VIEWING THE HOPELESS ROTTING GAY ASS-RAPED CORPSE THAT IS THE NEW TREK.

  • May 21, 2009, 9:28 p.m. CST

    ANTON YELCHIN'S RUSSIAN ACCENT WAS LIKE...

    by TITBAG

    ..FINGERNAILS SCRAPING ON A CHALKBOARD. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. HAS THERE EVER BEEN A WORSE AFFECTED ACCENT IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA? NO, THERE FUCKWELL HASN'T. <P> I KEPT HOPING AGAINST HOPE THAT SOMEONE WOULD TAKE A MAKITA DRILL TO MY TEMPLE DURING HIS SCENES IN ORDER TO PUT ME OUT OF MY MISERY. BUT, ALAS, IT NEVER HAPPENED. <P> AT LEAST HIS SCENES WERE MERCIFULLY SHORT.

  • May 21, 2009, 9:32 p.m. CST

    THE FIRST TIME THE WORDS 'BLACK HOLE' WAS UTTERED..

    by TITBAG

    ...I ACTUALLY LAUGHED OUT LOUD IN THE THEATER. <P> BLACK HOLE, INDEED. FUCK YOU.

  • May 21, 2009, 9:34 p.m. CST

    more dark tower casting

    by docproc

    eddie dean:colin farrell, susannah: zoe saldana, the man in black:stuart townsend, he already hates viggo for replacing him in LOTR

  • May 21, 2009, 9:35 p.m. CST

    REDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTER

    by TITBAG

    REDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTER<P>REDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTER<P>REDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTER<P>REDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTER<P>REDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTER<P>REDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTER<P>REDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTERREDMATTER<P><P> NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I SAY IT, IT STILL DOESN'T GET ANY LESS RIDICULOUS AND OUTRIGHT INSULTINGLY LAZY.

  • May 21, 2009, 9:50 p.m. CST

    great job QUINT. Thank you.

    by BillyMayesHere

  • May 21, 2009, 9:54 p.m. CST

    so i take it you didnt like the movie

    by lucid dreamstate

    i guess im in the minority here but i loved the movie. the plot holes dont bother me for some reason. i didnt watch the film just to pick it apart and look for errors. david lynch doesnt explain and spoon feed the audience every background detail in his films either and i love his work. im laughing at all the j.j. hate. i would never waste so much time picking apart a film and director i hated like you guys do. i didnt go into this movie to scrutinize every detail, i just wanted to see the trek universe on the big screen and i was really entertained. trek has always had plot holes. this movie was pure trek and im sorry if you guys dont see that.

  • May 21, 2009, 10:48 p.m. CST

    Loved the new Trek...

    by DeadAtRecess

    ...because shit actually happened and they didn't just stand around having tea and talking about space math. I knew the movie would piss of a lot of people though, but The Onion was right on the money.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:16 p.m. CST

    IndustryKiller: Bad story? Huh?

    by jedimast3r

    You want bad story? Go watch ONE fucking episode of DS9, Voyager, or Enterprise. <p>And OT (Original Trek) apologists need to shut their mouths about this subject...it's not like any of the Treks before had blow-your-mind stories, save Khan (which, in essence was a revenge tale, but at least it was a revenge tale with balls). MP was about a fucking satellite, Voyage was about humpback fucking whales....jesus, I'll stop there. <p>Get over it and stop the damn nitpicking, the new Trek was amazing and the story was epic.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:22 p.m. CST

    "stand around having tea and talking about space math"

    by IndustryKiller!

    I want to preface this by saying I am not, nor have I ever been, a Trekkie. But I really feel for those who are because it looks like JJ has handed their franchise to the douche bags on a silver platter. I cannot believe how fucking callous and stupid some people are. I get it, you didn't like Star Trek, it was over your head and the pacing wasn't to your liking. Well guess what, you've got a lot of fucking alternatives. Why does everything have to be for you? Why do you covet something and want to change it when its meant so much to so many other people? It's the same thing with people who liked Wolverine. You want something watered down and homogenized for the masses? I'm sure that version is out there somewhere so go find it. Seriously go watch a Michael bay film you fucking imbecile and leave those of us who are actual fans of quality with our art. And first and foremost, get the fuck off this site, as YOU are the problem with the cinema of today. These people are fucking disgusting.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:24 p.m. CST

    Way to make your point jedimast3r

    by IndustryKiller!

    Seriously is this the best the apologists have? THIS fucking cretin?

  • May 21, 2009, 11:32 p.m. CST

    killer, we may not agree on the movie but i like your moxie

    by mr. smith

    but the the slapfighting beatdown fanboy fascism is pretty disheartening. ah, well. htat's why i don't speak up much.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:32 p.m. CST

    replace that's for that's

    by mr. smith

    if you wish. damn lack of edit mode.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:37 p.m. CST

    one question though.

    by mr. smith

    how did you get past the inarguable plotholes of matter transportation and faster-than-light travel? just kidding. yer okay kid.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:38 p.m. CST

    J.J is...

    by FilmGuy125

    really, really Jewish.

  • May 21, 2009, 11:55 p.m. CST

    Star Trek 90210

    by Campion

    That's kinda how it felt, with all the good looking perfect people, Spock as a pimp, but I liked it overall and the characters should get better. As far as The Dark Tower goes, Steve Buscemi would've been a perfect Eddie Dean when he was younger.

  • May 22, 2009, 12:21 a.m. CST

    ACTION!

    by Darthkrusty

    Ok, plenty of stuff to nitpick on.. But a most interesting, enjoyable, well-made film.. in my oponion. Thanx JJ & Quint.. keep up the cool !

  • May 22, 2009, 12:34 a.m. CST

    killer, upon reflection...

    by mr. smith

    i've got to give you respect. your objective is admirable. yes, sometimes the folks in the moviemaking biz do sometimes read this. and a difference can be made. you actually provide arguments to make your case, unlike, say, the tourette's-addled rantings of a toerag who just want to take a piss on someone for enjoying a movie. there ARE other options out there, for all of us. so you have my apology for the devlin crack. reasonable people can agree to disagree and sometimes meet in the middle. as for the movie, my criteria for an enjoyable time at a star trek movie is no doubt more lax than yours or some others on this site. take for example, wolverine. to me, the movie looks like ass. i'll see it eventually, i'm sure. but i won't begrudge the 18 year old with a wolvie hairdo who's completely ecstatic about the film. to each his own. so keep fighting the good fight, there'll be something in the goodie bag of upcoming movies for you, i'm sure. cheers.

  • May 22, 2009, 12:42 a.m. CST

    Star Trek Kicked Ass!!

    by Underoos Hero

    It was a great time and the actors did a fine job. Abrams can keep his other shit house shitty shit, but he did good with this one. Nice overall development and the story was pretty good. The space scenes were kick ass too. Alot of people complained about Eric Bana's character but I thought it played out well and he was far more ruthless than people are saying. If you haven't....go see it.

  • May 22, 2009, 12:53 a.m. CST

    Trek never has continuity errors

    by Dreamfasting

    One of the great joys of watching science fantasy like Trek is starting with the *axiom* that there are no continuity errors. What the characters say is correct and what their engineers do is the most rational course of action under the circumstances. So any time you *think* you see a continuity error, you treat it as a challenge to your imagination to explain it away with the minimum required additions to known physics and lore.

  • May 22, 2009, 1:05 a.m. CST

    Star Trek vs Star Wars video

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    Side by side comparison of Jar Jar's Star Trek and Star Wars. <P> http://tinyurl.com/p26p 7f <P> Collage Humor video <P>

  • May 22, 2009, 1:06 a.m. CST

    Star Trek vs Star Wars Video

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    Side by side comparison of Jar Jar's Star Trek and Star Wars. <P> http://tinyurl.com/p26p 7f <P> Collage Humor video <P>

  • May 22, 2009, 1:07 a.m. CST

    Oh Looky cocksuckers

    by joshuavance1701

    Star Trek is extending it's release 120 screens, no doubt to accomodate the sell out showings. I said EXTENDING as in adding showings. Hows about dem apples? You cock sucking uninspired pedestriant minded fuck-faces. Eat on that with your Watchmen and Wolverine AND Abominator assholes.

  • May 22, 2009, 1:28 a.m. CST

    Make that

    by joshuavance1701

    193 screen count increase. Now you may kindly burn and rot in hell.

  • May 22, 2009, 2:17 a.m. CST

    That Star Wars vs Star Trek video..

    by CeejayNightwing

    is spot on! They didn't reboot Star Trek, they simply remade Trek with a Star Wars template. Star Trek is suppose to be challenging to the imagination and the intelligence. This was simply a popcorn flick. Americans love popcorn flicks so it's no surprise that its doing well in the summer. The rest of the world aint blown away! Making Star Trek into something it was never meant to be just to make more money is called selling out your integrity. JJ regressed the entire ideal and concept of Trek to a teen popcorn flick and Fans are ok with that? I guess most ST fans simply never really grasped what was unique and challenging about Gene Rodenberry's creation to make it what it was in the first place. It certainly wasn't about turning every character into a caricature or making the one Alien on the ship even more human than the rest of the cast! Spock is supposed to wear his humanity as an embarrassment, in this film he wears it on his sleeve! Why? becasue Kirks dad died fighting a ship from the future? What kind of ridiculous time story makes one ship being destroyed a ripple that changes the entire universe to that extent? Contrived Bollocks for people who want a quick laugh and a coke, not challenging sci-fi in one iota!

  • May 22, 2009, 2:27 a.m. CST

    IndustryKiller!

    by Dingbatty

    "I want to preface..." Righteous rant! Absolutely agree.

  • May 22, 2009, 2:37 a.m. CST

    Christ Almighty

    by joshuavance1701

    Did you fucking people ever even WATCH Star Trek? It might help you know having an informed opinion about a subject before shit oozes from your mouth. Star Trek is above and beyond an adventure flick and action spectacle?<p> Um. Fuck you turd heads. <p> Obsession , A Private little war, The Enteprise Incident, The Omega Glory, Operation:Annihilate, Assignment: Earth, The Savage Curtain, Where no man has gone before, The Galileo Seven, Mirror Mirror, A piece of the action, The Devil in the dark, The Doomsday Machine, The ultimate computer, holy shit you people clearly don't know your Star Trek, or maybe as i said vaginas are sandy because we don't have to put up with anymore of that Picard, Janeway Papsmear shit. God bless.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:20 a.m. CST

    IndustryKiller, once again you're being... you

    by necgrey

    I'm not going to apologize for Trek. Or for Wolverine. Or for any other movie you have mentioned. I just want to point out that you have this habit of getting on a high horse about populist film being pablum and yet I recall you being a HUGE TDK apologist when I made some of the exact same points you're making about Trek. Call the kettle black much? <p> Your anti-populist tirades are ridiculous. Go throw on some skinny jeans, a sweater-vest, and listen to Iron & Wine or watch some Jim Jarmusch "quality" independent cinema. Or whatever it is you think you have to do to prove how much "smarter" you are than the average movie viewer. Even if you ARE (and I don't doubt it, you actually sometimes make cogent points), the fact that you're so desperate to point it out is pretty f'n sad.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:24 a.m. CST

    joshuavance: "Papsmear shit"? Seriously?

    by necgrey

    I'm sorry you feel that quality science fiction has to be macho sexist claptrap.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:50 a.m. CST

    Necgray I like you

    by IndustryKiller!

    No really I do. To a degree you have me pegged. Hell, you might have me all pegged. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Movies are important to me. Vitally important. I honestly don't know what I, personally, would do without them. And I want them to be the best they can be. And I'm not really ranting against anything that has always been. I mean yeah bad movies have always been, but you just cannot look at films of the 80's and say genre filmmaking was the exclusive domain of the sub-jock asshole. In other words I'm not taking arms against the color blue or wood or something. And I'm not going to shut my brain off during an action film because it carries the monkier "action" before it does film. I just fucking won't. The two DO NOT have to be mutually exclusive. And once upon a time there were directors who would meet with me on my level on that and beyond. Or for God sakes would at least TRY. These guys today commit the worst cardinal sin of filmmaking. They don't care. Well if you don't care then fuck you. You can not read a Kurtzman and Orci script and say they care, I mean really really care. Seriously man read the Transformers script. These guys are cynical assholes, maybe not in their day to day lives, but when they take up the pen watch out. To me that's just disgusting. To leech unflinchingly off something that means so much to so many people. To sell everything that could be out for a quick buck. <P>With that said I will also never separate the sick symbiotic relationship between studio and audience. What exactly IS that relationship nowadays? "Hey peeps here's a deal, you shut off your brain during our shitty films and we'll keep making them incrementally shittier until you literally have no idea what your brain is attempting to comprehend?" At what point is it up to the audience to say no more?? I can't say for sure but I'm pretty sure we've reached it. When people who are posting on a movie forum on a movie website about movies and they lack the fundamental ability to quantify ANY sort of quality that could produce SOME sort of tangible argument I'm going to hold them accountable.<P><P><P>I thought my Dark Knight points were well supported, and I still say MOST of our difference of opinion comes down to Goyers overrated mess Batman Begins being our launching pad....but I digress.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:50 a.m. CST

    Biting interview there

    by FrodoFraggins

    Must take lessons from the Larry King school of interviewing.<br><br> But anyway, Abrams Trek is better than most Trek flicks. I just don't understand all of the love for Pine. He was adequate and that's about it.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:27 a.m. CST

    JJ's STAR TREK is a Rorschach Test

    by brightgeist

    it is the best of TREK movies, it is the worst of TREK movies. I think we have now established that some people love the movie despite its gigantic shortcomings, while other people hate the movie despite its gigantic entertainment value. in the end, all of this tells us a lot about the movie, but it tells us MUCH MORE about the people in the audience. sure, you can call us (the ones who don't like the movie) "anal" or whatever you want. but the fact is, we are not the ones who simply accept (or even enjoy) it when filmmakers treat us like morons. we actually want a movie to make sense (within the confines of its film-universe). if you liked JJ's STAR TREK it doesn't mean that you're a bad person or a stupid person, but it does say alot about you. you're probably not someone who cares a lot about scientific truth in your life. you probably don't read much, and you probably watch a lot of television. you're probably not very critical about the kind of society we live in. most likely, you simply want to enjoy your life, without any ambition to improve the world around you. sure, you're in the majority these days. but that really, REALLY doesn't mean you're right.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:52 a.m. CST

    That's the fundamental problem right there

    by joshuavance1701

    Scientific truth? From a Star Trek film? From entertainment medium in general? Star Trek represented a pursuit of scientific truth WHEN exactly during the last 40 years? I'd say the notion Star Trek somehow represents a legitimate sincere pursuit of scientific "truth" pretty much sums it up. Star Trek as originally envisioned conceptually represented wagon train to the stars- and the new film captured the spirit and creed of that concept MAGNIFICENTLY. You guys down the script and pseudo-intellectual scientific inconsistencies, and completely miss the forest for the trees with your incessant whining about something Trek never even represented. <p> There was more emotional resonance and celebrating of the God damn human condition in all it's idealistic nobility than 8 out of 10 movies you people can even NAME, I guaranfuckingtee that. <p> It's no different than the Prequel trilogy shit, just because you have projected your own self-deluded notions on what constitutes Trek onto this new film in NO way shape or form reflects on what Star Trek embodies or represents. If you want a two hour presentation on "the pursuit of scientific truth" go watch your God damn reel to reel 9th grade science film strip. There's not a fucking thing in this film that departs from the previous film or series extrapolation on current scientific dogma, not a fucking thing. Maybe quantum theory is simply too adult and high brow a concept for some of you to fathom so naturally there are "glaring plot holes." The only glaring holes I see is in some of your parabolic short-sighted half-ass reasoning. If you want a treatise on science go watch fucking NOVA or read some Stephen Hawking.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:57 a.m. CST

    see, you didn't even read my post right

    by brightgeist

    I did not in any way connect "scientific truth" with the STAR TREK movie. maybe you should read my post once more (with brain switched ON), and then have another go on a response. everyone deserves a second chance ;-)

  • May 22, 2009, 5 a.m. CST

    Actually

    by joshuavance1701

    it isn't that I didn't read your post right, you simply didn't articulate it right. But now since I've corrected you , you may infact remedy your glaring hyperbole hole.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:02 a.m. CST

    Trannyformers_Apologist

    by BurnHollywood

    Good catch...that video nails the bitch.<p> We now return you to the TalkBack already in progress:<p> "Slurp! Slurp! Mmm...Jar Jar Abrams cock tastes SO-O-O-O good!"

  • May 22, 2009, 5:08 a.m. CST

    and, by the way...

    by brightgeist

    since you have apparently heard the "wagon train to the stars" thing somewhere, and now claim that the new film captured the spirit and creed of that concept magnificently... please explain to me what that concept means to you. because to me, it means primarily the "exploration of unknown places and societies". or, as someone once said it "to explore strange, new worlds. to seek out new life and new civilizations". now, you HAVE TO mean something else when you speak of "wagon train to the stars", because I did not see ANY exploring of strange new worlds, new life or new civilizations in the new STAR TREK movie. or did I miss something? all I remember are fistfights, phaser shootouts, starship battles and funny or intense character scenes. where, exactly, was the exploring? in your eyes, is Kirk being chased by creatures on a planet very close to Vulcan "exploring strange new worlds and new life"? if I'm not mistaken, that Delta Vega was the ONLY planet, except for Earth, Vulcan and Romulus, in the entire movie. but if those two "monsters" on that ice planet satisfied your desire for exploration of new life on strange new worlds in a STAR TREK movie, then I thank you for proving my point.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:13 a.m. CST

    dude...

    by brightgeist

    you go on and on about how STAR TREK has never been about scientific truth, when all I said was that people who like this movie probably don't care a lot about scientific truth in their lives. that statement may be too complicated for you to understand, but it really doesn't mean that STAR TREK has always represented scientific truth in the past. if you're unable to process such complex thoughts in your mind, then I thank you again for proving my point.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:15 a.m. CST

    Are you fucking serious?

    by joshuavance1701

    I know you are just bullshitting me now right? Because fist-fights, phaser battles, starship battles, and funny intense character scenes are brand new concepts for Trek right? I mean, it isn't like every FUCKING EPISODE MADE didn't feature those premises? <p> God almighty are you THAT desperate to cling to a reason to hate a movie? Exploration and strange new worlds? A. It's a prequel that fucking sets everything up so that the crew can INFACT explore new worlds. B. The film in broad strokes as so many other Trek films did touch upon an extrapolated scientific concept- in this case quantum parallel universes and a multi-verse. That's not your cup of tea? Didn't agree with the presentation of said concept? Fine, but you only make yourself look like an uninformed moron posting blanket statements, entirely erroneous blanket statements at that. <p> If it's endless discussion of anomolies and rerouting conduits you want, dude you have HOW MANY hours of Voyager to sift through?

  • May 22, 2009, 5:16 a.m. CST

    oh, and...

    by brightgeist

    I actually prefer the STAR WARS prequels to the original trilogy, because the prequels had a lot more interesting philosophical and socialogical concepts.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:18 a.m. CST

    well I tell you what little man

    by joshuavance1701

    How's this for a blanket statement- for those who enjoyed this film to not care alot about scientific "truths." I'm a statician with a Psych degree from the University of Louisville. What do you got exactly? A couple University of Pheonix online courses? Fucking putz. God it kills me how kids watch just enough discovery channel to get themselves in trouble.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:19 a.m. CST

    again, you didn't read my post right

    by brightgeist

    YOU SAID that the new movie captured the "wagon train to the stars" concept magnificently. I only asked you WHERE you think it did that.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:21 a.m. CST

    basically

    by joshuavance1701

    the entire two hour running time you know? Wagon Train to the stars being high adventure and a film that starts off with a bang and doesnt let up I'd categorically define as wagon train to the stars. Do you need everything spelled out for you or what? There is something to be said for extrapolating you know.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:24 a.m. CST

    if you want to break the film down in depth

    by joshuavance1701

    My handle is my AIM ID, open for all the world to see, I love talking film so, go for it.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:29 a.m. CST

    congratulations

    by brightgeist

    I'm sure you are aware that Psychology is not at all accepted to be "natural science", right? so you having a Psych degree doesn't really mean anything. as you can probably read from my less-than-perfect English, I'm not from the USA but from Austria (that's not Australia, but a little country in Europe), so my academic degree is a little difficult to translate directly to your language or academic system. but I finished a school for electrical engineering with an "engineer" degree, and then a MutliMedia university/college with a "graduate engineer" degree. I'd say that's more "natural science" than a Psych degree, wouldn't you? also, I'm not a kid, I'm 33 years old, so I'd be curious who's the "little man" here.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:31 a.m. CST

    wagon train to the stars

    by brightgeist

    okay, if that's your definition for "wagon train to the stars", that's your problem. but I think most people would define it more in the direction of exploration. I mean, you do know where the term "wagon train" originally came from, right? it wasn't "high adventure and a bang", but it was the exploration of unknown territories. so your definition may be lacking.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:32 a.m. CST

    MutliMedia

    by brightgeist

    that's supposed to be "MultiMedia"

  • May 22, 2009, 5:40 a.m. CST

    AIM

    by brightgeist

    never used it, if you have a Skype handle we can talk :-)

  • May 22, 2009, 5:43 a.m. CST

    As I said

    by joshuavance1701

    There are hours upon hours of drivel such as Voyager for you to sift through. If you simply enjoy playing devils advocate for the sake of debate I don't have the time or desire for that, that's an endless slippery slope of back and forth panderings. <p> I'm also sure you would agree Behavioral sciences employ the scientific method just as much as natural science, probably moreso given the dogmatic rigidity held simply to maintain university grants. <p> My definition of wagon train to the stars works just fine for me in the context of which it was originally intended, since exploration of wild untamed lands was often you know, adventurous. <p> Don't be concerned, you are still permitted to have fun despite having a mundane career, don't let anyoen tell you otherwise. You are projecting far too much and embodying far too much cognitive dissonance regarding this film. It manifests quite clearly. You are allowed to enjoy the film, no one will think differently of you I assure you.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:49 a.m. CST

    I tell you what

    by joshuavance1701

    Watch "Where no man has gone before, The Tholian Web, The Enterprise Incident, Errand of Mercy, Devil in the Dark, This side of Paradise, and the Ultimate computer", then watch the new Trek film, THEN we will talk. If you can watch those episodes and find a discrepancy with the new film in content, characterisation, humor, intrigue, dynamics, and character interactions, then I admit to being mistaken and wrong. You and others downing this film wouldn't be uninformed, you would be intellectually disingenuous.

  • May 22, 2009, 6:32 a.m. CST

    hmmmm

    by brightgeist

    1. natural science and "dogmatic" don't really fit together, wouldn't you say? natural science is about discovering better models of describing the world, and in the process dropping older and less accurate models. but, yes, to a degree I agree that behavioral sciences do employ the scientific method, so I am generally inclined to respect your opinions ;-) 2. I really do not think that my job is more mundane than that of a statician. I work as a camera man, editor and visual effects guy in a small team of filmmakers here in Austria. for example, yesterday, today and tomorrow we are producing the official video for Austria's biggest oldtimer race. yesterday, I had the chance to shoot some footage from the co-pilot seat of a 1958 Mercedes Benz 300 SL-S during the 5 laps of the race, going at speeds of over 100 mph through the inner city of Salzburg. what exciting activities did your job as a statician allow you lately? 3. I really don't care what ANYONE thinks about me, especially in regard to what movies I like. I LOVE silly fare like ARMAGEDDON, VAN HELSING and TRANSFORMERS, and I say so without any shame. but I simply can't enjoy the new STAR TREK because it insults my intelligence and my being a TREK fan. 4. yes, of course there are TOS episodes that are no more intellectual than the new movie. honestly, TOS is my least favorite TREK show. in my eyes, STAR TREK improved greatly after TOS, beginning with TNG, which really perfected the concept of intellectual, critical, philosophical, sociological topics in the TREK stories. and JJ's TREK is definitely a fall-back to the most brainless, adventure-oriented TOS episodes. it may well be that STAR TREK began as mostly brainless adventure, but it EVOLVED over the years and became SO MUCH MORE, and THAT'S what made me a TREK fan. as a kid, TOS was fun to watch. but as I grew and learned, so did STAR TREK (TNG, DS9, VOY). and now TREK has became what it may have been in the beginning, but that's not enough for me anymore! I neither can nor wish to develop backwards in my life. and this isn't even so much about any scientific knowledge, than rather about what I expect from entertainment. I don't want to be insulted by writers. and when writers expect me to simply ACCEPT that a character that has been establishes for DECADES (Spock) now suddenly doesn't care if the timeline has been altered (to the extreme WORSE), then I feel insulted.

  • May 22, 2009, 6:43 a.m. CST

    by the way...

    by brightgeist

    I watched my new blu-ray version of "where no man has gone before" last week, and I agree with you that it's not really any more intellectual than the new movie. also, it's not exactly believable scientifically, with the galactic edge and all that. and you know, if the new movie had simply claimed to be a PURE REMAKE of TOS, I could totally accept it as that. but it's NOT a remake. it is, actually, a sequel to NEMESIS (though it's not easy to see that). Nero and Nimoy-Spock come from a time AFTER the events in NEMESIS, so that's the actual time reference for the movie (in my opinion). and it DEFINITELY wants to be canon. but it fails miserably at that.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:05 a.m. CST

    titbag

    by quantize

    you and whose army you worthless sack of moronic slime with your little fat fingers tapping away holding the caps lock, spitting over yourself..i'd lay you flat in a millisecond you micropenis flathead. now get back to making those posts longer so i can scroll past your worthless blitherings.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:40 a.m. CST

    Funny...

    by cripeman

    These guys that bitch about how they want their money back are gonna want their money back for the sequel when they go see it.

  • May 22, 2009, 8:03 a.m. CST

    cripeman

    by brightgeist

    that depends... I will read every spoiler I can get about the sequel (which I usually never do) and then MAYBE, just maybe decide to go see it, but only IF they address the problem of correcting the timeline. if they ignore that, I will ignore the movie.

  • May 22, 2009, 8:04 a.m. CST

    JOSHUAADVANCINGONMYASS

    by TITBAG

    YOU'VE AMPLY DEMONSTRATED IN YOUR LAST SLEW OF POSTS THAT YOU ARE NOT ONLY A COMPLETE FUCKING PIMPLE ON JJ'S ASS, BUT YOU UNDERSTAND STAR TREK ABOUT AS MUCH AS HE DID. <P> NOW RUN ALONG. QUANTIZE HAS SAVED YOU A SPOT ON THE KIDDIE POOL YOU FUCKING CHILD.

  • May 22, 2009, 8:06 a.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "NEW TREK WAS LIKE AN ASSRAPING"

    by TITBAG

  • May 22, 2009, 8:16 a.m. CST

    dengreg31

    by dengreg31

    IK wrote..."Enjoyment is far more subjective. Quality can be measured at least as far as technical points are concerned. And I think any good writer would tell you the Star Trek script, in many places, is damn near incompetent. Your enjoyment of something does not make it good." Look, it's obviously incredibly well-liked by most.. if you didn't, fine.. but that doesn't make it a bad or poor film. You are in the minority. Plain and simple. For the large majority of filmgoers it is a good film, regardless what your plot problems with the film are... if you didn't like it, why on earth are you on a message board talkback for it many days after its release? You aren't changing anyone's mind. Why waste your time????

  • May 22, 2009, 8:21 a.m. CST

    New Trek rocks, fuck the haters right in the ass.

    by NightArrows

    Seriously. If you can't enjoy this film, then simple run and go fuck yourselves. Or walk. It really doesn't matter as long as you are fucking yourselves with your stuffy, over-thought, tired opinions of what this film should have been. Trek is here, and if the new format means we lose all of the dipshits that made the last round so intolerable, then so be it. Live long and Fuck off.

  • May 22, 2009, 8:44 a.m. CST

    brightgeist...

    by DiamondJoe

    "I think we have now established that some people love the movie despite its gigantic shortcomings, while other people hate the movie despite its gigantic entertainment value". Like it. I can't deny the film isn't perfect (Nero badly underused, big plot holes) but fuck me if I didn't come out of this film with a big smile on my face having been thoroughly entertained by a great summer popcorn movie that had equal amounts of action, wit, heart, good characters and was FUN. No Trek movie in nearly the last 20 fucking years managed that (Undiscovered Country was the last great Trek. First Contact is merely good, not great). This wasn't what I was expecting, but I liked what I got, and I say give us more. Tighten up the plot holes next time, though guys....

  • May 22, 2009, 8:44 a.m. CST

    NightArrows

    by brightgeist

    okay, TREK belongs to you brainwashed morons now! have fun with it! nevermind that it's just another meaningless sci-fi-movie now. I guess that's what you wanted all along.

  • May 22, 2009, 8:46 a.m. CST

    brightgeist

    by son_of_ebert

    "they don't go back in time and change it, because it's the natural way"<p>Don't you remember what happened in Trek IV.. they totally changed a bunch of stuff.. In the natural timeline there were no whales..

  • May 22, 2009, 8:47 a.m. CST

    DiamondJoe

    by brightgeist

    yes, when I got out of the film I had a big smile on my face, too. that lasted about 3 minutes. then I started actually THINKING about the movie. and it fell apart.

  • May 22, 2009, 8:49 a.m. CST

    son_of_ebert

    by brightgeist

    nah, now you're confusing things. in TREK IV they didn't go back in time and change the PAST (at least not noticably). they went back in time, got those whales, and brought them to the PRESENT. that doesn't create an alternate timeline.

  • May 22, 2009, 8:50 a.m. CST

    correction

    by brightgeist

    of course, technically, it DOES create an alternate timeline where there are a couple less whales in the past. but I guess that was a small enough change, compared to saving Earth.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:02 a.m. CST

    Don't overanalyse it then!

    by DiamondJoe

    Fuck, this is the problem with sci fi. Particularly any sci fi that involves time travel. None of it (and I mean NONE) stands up to any serious scrutiny whatsoever from a narrative perspective. Back To The Future, Trek 4, First Contact, Terminators 1 & 2 (anything after that doesn't exist for me) - none of it holds any logical water. Time travel is inherently shaky as a plot device. The fact that you came out with a smile initially should tell you something - that you enjoyed the movie. I came out of Crystal Skull in a state of gibbering hysteria at the shiteness of it - thats a bad movie. The new Trek was fun, accessible and enjoyable. Which it hasn't been since Next Gen ended on tv in 94. Everything since then has been portentous, pompous, mostly unintelligible shite (Voyager being the absolute fucking nadir).

  • May 22, 2009, 9:07 a.m. CST

    brightgeist

    by son_of_ebert

    "if you liked JJ's STAR TREK it doesn't mean that you're a bad person or a stupid person, but it does say alot about you. you're probably not someone who cares a lot about scientific truth in your life. you probably don't read much, and you probably watch a lot of television. you're probably not very critical about the kind of society we live in."<p>Dude. Its just one movie. Your deductions about the audience have no scientific basis beyond your own hypothesis. There will be more. Some will be good. Some will be bad. Its not like Trek is the only scifi out there.. <p>I suggest you take this long weekend to read "Coyote" by Allen Steele. Great scifi read. You will thank me for it.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:11 a.m. CST

    DiamondJoe

    by brightgeist

    you don't understand my actual problem with the movie. I have no problem with time travel stories, in fact I generally LOVE them. I'm not saying and have never said that there's any problem with the time travel in the new TREK movie. once again, to clarify: the thing I really find terrible about the new STAR TREK is the fact that THE CHARACTERS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE HORRIBLY ALTERED TIMELINE! got it? TREK characters have ALWAYS cared about that. they ALWAYS risked their lives in order to rectify the timeline, from CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER to YESTERDAY'S ENTERPRISE to STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT. whenever the past was altered (and someone happened to be more or less aware of the change), they made it their TOP PRIORITY to change it back! but here they simply don't, although they're SUPPOSED to be the SAME characters. why?

  • May 22, 2009, 9:18 a.m. CST

    The difference here is...

    by DiamondJoe

    ...that its only Spock Prime who has time travelled and knows how his PARTICULAR future turned out. The new Kirk & crew don't KNOW the future. For them it isn't set, so they can't do anything to put it right, nor would they know what "right" is. As for Spock - well, what can he do about it? Not much as far as I can see. And the nature of Trek itself does allow for the original timeline to still exist, no matter how people might bitch about it being a plot conceit too far. There's the mirror universe, for one, and wasn't there a TNG episode where Worf hopped between hundreds of alternate timelines? Chill, man. Shatner & Stewart Trek is still out there.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:21 a.m. CST

    son_of_ebert

    by brightgeist

    I'm not saying that my deductions about the audience have a "scientific basis" as such. it's just my observation and my own deduction that in many cases, people who don't care about logical details in movies also tend to not care about most other things in life beyond their own well-being and their personal entertainment. if you can report a statistically significant number of contrary observations, please let me know. oh, and I checked out COYOTE on Amazon, and from some of the reviews, I don't think it's for me. it seems very much rooted in traditional political concepts, and I'm not interested in that topic. today's politics is an irrelevant, outdated system that we should get away from, and I see it as a waste of time to read books that treat our existing political systems as relevant. thanks anyway.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:27 a.m. CST

    brightgeist - from some of the reviews, I don't think it's for m

    by son_of_ebert

    I should think by now you would understand the fallacy in relying on someone else's review. Your loss.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:30 a.m. CST

    DiamondJoe

    by brightgeist

    you have some good points there. however, take for example the great TNG episode YESTERDAY'S ENTERPRISE. in it, only Guinan has a feeling that something is "wrong" with the timeline. she doesn't even know exactly what, but still they take it seriously and correct it. so, if Spock Prime knows about the change, wouldn't he EASILY be able to convince the Enterprise crew to do something about it? especially with Kirk's father killed by the change, and Spock's whole planet destroyed and his mother killed by the change, he should have enough convincing arguments to make them slingshot back in time, throw some antimatter into the black hole just as Nero emerges, and then slingshot back to the future. I mean, they all KNOW how it happened, after all. they KNOW Nero came from the future and they KNOW that all the bad things were direct results of that. so they SHOULD be pretty motivated to restore Vulcan, Amanda Grayson and Daddy Kirk. shouldn't they? for your other argument about the multiverse nature of the STAR TREK universe. okay, if that's so, then WHY did they EVER bother to correct the timeline before?? I'm not saying that there aren't multiple universes in STAR TREK. all I'm saying is that the characters ALWAYS wanted to "correct" their own timeline before, but now they suddenly don't, without ANY given reason. please tell me you're beginning to understand the problem.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:31 a.m. CST

    brightgeist

    by son_of_ebert

    try reading Allen Steele's house testimony (don't forget to remove the spaces):<p>http://www.allensteele.com/testimony.htm

  • May 22, 2009, 9:33 a.m. CST

    son_of_ebert

    by brightgeist

    you must have misunderstood. I'm not relying on their reviews. the reviews simply contain some content descriptions that make me think that I will not be interested.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:39 a.m. CST

    brightgeist - statistically significant number

    by son_of_ebert

    Based on what?<p> I'm done playing 'play science' with you.<p>*washes hands*

  • May 22, 2009, 9:41 a.m. CST

    Allen Steele

    by brightgeist

    okay, I read part of the testimony and feel totally confirmed in my opinion that this author has nothing to say that would interest me. he writes "the United States has become the wealthiest and most powerful nation on Earth", and "Our global communications network are now linked by geosynchronous satellites; without them, many personal, business, and financial transactions could not occur with the instantaneous speed to which we've become accustomed", and "Overseas military actions are now largely guided by satellite; officers in the field can now access real-time images which allow them to see the exact positions of opposition forces and react accordingly", and "All of these things are the result of space technology". someone who speaks about military actions and financial transactions with such obvious pride is of no interest to me. but I'm a bit proud of myself, I must say, because my initial deduction from the Amazon reviews was spot on.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:41 a.m. CST

    I get it...

    by DiamondJoe

    ...and yes, you've got a point. To which the answer really only can be - they didn't fix it because then we wouldn't have a shiny new Enterprise crew and un-set timeline to play with. But that's fine with me - its only a sci fi franchise and its a tricksy conceit which allows them to retool the franchise without completely rebooting (which would rightly have caused uproar). You could rationalise the multiverse thing by saying, well until that TNG episode ('Parallels', I just googled it) no one actually knew that there was a genuine multiverse - just a mirror, so they had to correct the timelines in case they blinked out of existence. You could theorise that Spock Prime in fact knows that although a time change has taken place, it doesn't mean "his" reality no longer exists. He has simply traversed one timeline into another. Added to which, he's too fucking old and can't be arsed.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:44 a.m. CST

    statistically significant...

    by brightgeist

    in the sense that you personally observed that a majority of the people who don't give a damn about logical or scientific errors in movies, are in real life extremely dedicated to making the world a better blace, getting away from the monetary/political system, and so on. if you have observed something like that, let me know. beecause I have observed the exact opposite.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:44 a.m. CST

    brightgeist...

    by dengreg31

    you wrote "if you liked JJ's STAR TREK it doesn't mean that you're a bad person or a stupid person, but it does say alot about you. you're probably not someone who cares a lot about scientific truth in your life. you probably don't read much, and you probably watch a lot of television. you're probably not very critical about the kind of society we live in. most likely, you simply want to enjoy your life, without any ambition to improve the world around you. sure, you're in the majority these days. but that really, REALLY doesn't mean you're right." That's the single most condescending thing I've ever read. I liked the movie, and what that says about me is that I enjoyed watching the movie. Period. Fuck you.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:48 a.m. CST

    dengreg31

    by brightgeist

    sure, whatever you say ;-)

  • May 22, 2009, 9:53 a.m. CST

    DiamondJoe

    by brightgeist

    you're absolutely right, the only answer can be that they simply made the characters indifferent because otherwise there would be no reboot. and anyone who thinks THAT'S a good motive for writing characters' behaviors, really has a poor sense of good writing. you also have an interesting point about the multiverse knowledge of the characters, but it doesn't work that way either, because in STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT they were all about "repairing whatever damage they've done", weren't they? if they believed in the multiverse theory, they would have simply accepted that the Borg have assimilated the entire Earth, but they didn't, did they? why?

  • May 22, 2009, 9:55 a.m. CST

    brightgeist..

    by dengreg31

    Austria, right? The guy with ONE Myspace friend and three twitter posts? How long have you been using the net, 12 minutes? Seriously, if you didnt like the movie, great.. but why would you come back time and again to post on a message board article that is positive about the film? Why? What does that say about you? Clearly you have "no ambiition to improve the world around you." as you wrote to those of us who liked the film. Go do something useful.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:56 a.m. CST

    and..

    by dengreg31

    you wrote "sure, whatever you say.." Thanks for agreeing with me. I knew you'd come around.

  • May 22, 2009, 10:01 a.m. CST

    Yes but this is what I mean...

    by DiamondJoe

    when I say you can overanalyse. Ultimately any plot involving time travel will fall apart if you examine it. Why does Marty McFly remember a timeline in which his Dad was a wet gimp, when he's changed it at the source? Why does John Connor not disappear at the end of T2? None of it holds any water. At a certain point you have to say, ok, this can be rationalised in a way that means we have a story, but we acknowledge this can be easily deconstructed. What matters is whether it works for the film and for my money, it did for the new movie, while acknowledging that as with ALL time travel stories, it doesn't really make sense.

  • May 22, 2009, 10:07 a.m. CST

    dengreg31

    by brightgeist

    let me think... my dorm room in 1995... so, no, not 12 minutes but almost 14 years :-) maybe the reason I have only one myspace friend and three twitter posts is that I usually do more useful things than use those websites. for example, I have created the Austrian chapter site of the ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT last week (www.zeitgeist-movement.at). there's just a preliminary site online so far, but I'm currently waiting for approval for the official ZEITGEIST webiste templates from www.thezeitgeistmovement.com, so that I can build the final site. also, I am very active in the Zeitgeist Community (on the web as well as in real life). I would say that counts as ambition to improve the world around me, wouldn't you? how about you? what's your handle on the ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT website? don't tell me you're not part of the movement yet, because that would be really irresponsible of you.

  • May 22, 2009, 10:10 a.m. CST

    Can we stop the "Trek" shit now, or hasn't the check cleared?

    by conspiracy

    I DL'd Trek..it was ok, fluff and popcorn, and definitely NOT "Trek", but it was good enough I went and paid to see it at the theater.</p><p>Still...as good as the effects, pacing and overall look of the thing was...the script was complete amateur hour; tv quality at best. Not an ounce of real weight or thought too it...even Nimoy's lines were flat, and when a Master Fucking Thespian like Nimoy can't bring a line to life...that is pretty fucking bad.</p><p>This movie wasn't the second fucking coming, it was not high art, it was not even good Sci-Fi...it was just kinda entertaining.</p><p>So enough of this JJ knobing...it is getting really fucking obvious.

  • May 22, 2009, 10:16 a.m. CST

    conspiracy

    by brightgeist

    I can live with that as a final statement! if the JJ lovers can leave it at that too, then we can put this TB to rest and continue with our lives ;-)

  • May 22, 2009, 10:38 a.m. CST

    conspiracy...

    by Alan_Moore

    "I went and paid to see it at the theater." Hahaha!!! That's awesome. You've been shitting on the movie and being a dick to Orci for months now, predicting Trek would tank like Superman Returns, and then you admit you kinda liked it and paid to see it. You sir are an idiot. But at least you're an idiot who embarrasses himself publicly so we can all laugh at you. I am a 20 year Trek fan, and I had faith in this project. My faith was rewarded. I love the movie, it was much more "Star Trek" to me than most of the Berman-era crap, and it is wiping up the decks with all the competition. Long live STAR TREK!!!

  • May 22, 2009, 10:38 a.m. CST

    What titbag doesn't understand...

    by quantize

    movies...entertainment..drama what titbag does understand..anything to do with poo poo and wee wee and screaming like the little bitch baby he is... big range there you felch bag

  • May 22, 2009, 10:49 a.m. CST

    Critics

    by Bubba Foom

    When did it become the norm to have zero to no expectations from art/entertainment/culture/life? If Rosario Dawson walks up to me and says she's going to do me to within an inch of my life, I expect to write out my will and get my affairs in order. If everybody involved in a major movie orgasms about how much work they put into making it right, I expect to at least get a chubbie. That's all I was looking for from Star Trek 2009: a chubbie, not a Viagra "call your doctor for erections lasting longer than 4 days" chubbie, but one good enough to make a man proud to wear soft, cotton drawers. I feel like Spock did a mind-meld on my troubled brain and quietly told me, "Forget," because I'm literally having trouble remembering chunks of this movie. I know I saw stuff, but I'm damned if I can get the memory to jog. I've been reading about Abrams and crew explaining this or that to people basically asking a huge WTF. Dig me now: if you've got to pretend you read a bunch of science books on string theory and then pretend that it informed your script and then pretend that telling people that your confused POS is actually sound once you tell us that it's sound--mind, all after I've plunked down enough stimulus package money to put the cute teen at the snack counter through college--college writing 101 clearly states that if the writer has to tell the reader what he meant, he should have meant what he wrote. Caps here for purely promotional purposes: JJ, I WOULD LOVE TO WRITE THE NEXT STAR TREK MOVIE. I WILL NOT HAVE AN IMPORTANT CHARACTER DIE BECAUSE SHE WASN'T WEARING HER MEDI-ALERT BRACELET. LET'S DO LUNCH. Bubba Foom knows his Star Trek. Bubba Foom liked the tribble in Scotty's cage as a throwaway Easter egg. Bubba Foom even enjoys speaking of himself in the third person as befits the name Bubba Foom, and Bubba Foom even did a spec script for the Next Generation featuring the entire planet Vulcan in major-league danger (Bubba Foom is not litigious), so let me do the next movie. I'm ready to get my nuts stomped by fans for nuanced, aesthetic reasons, not because I wrote a scene like Scotty's Wonka Ride without remembering to hit the delete button. This movie was 80 percent what you ate before you flossed, 10 percent that cool minty floss feeling, and 10 percent knowing that flossing is supposed to be beneficial. I base that on scientific theory, for those who might not get it on first reading.

  • May 22, 2009, 10:59 a.m. CST

    Dr_PepperSpray

    by quantize

    you should get a refund..you're an idiot and the good work was wasted on you. your judgement is fucked.

  • May 22, 2009, 11:31 a.m. CST

    ebert, zeitgeist, etc..

    by dengreg31

    Didn't Ebert give it 2.5 stars? I mean, its not like he hated it, right? I never said the movie was great, I said I enjoyed it and obviously many others did as well.. if you didn't, move on to Transformers or Potter or whatever's "next"... And Brightgeist, you said I was doing nothing to "improve" the world, I said nothing about you.. although I think the reason you have only one MySpace friend is because.. well, you only have one MySpace friend :) (bit too old for that anyway, no?) Your Zeitgeist website (and the main site) is very impressive and worth exploring.. but the fact that it is so full of worthy ideas and concepts brings me back to my original point. Why the hell are you here talking about a movie you didn't like then? Your website is where you should be focusing your attention, not at this movie PR site..

  • May 22, 2009, 11:50 a.m. CST

    Uhura

    by Bubba Foom

    Nichelle Nichols nailed the character of Uhura in "The Man Trap"--one brief corridor scene and you knew the "Hailing Frequencies Open" girl was not to be messed with. Those of you who know what I'm referring to, cool. A crying shame they never let her character be a character after that (with rare exceptions), but that's why Uhura gets the respectful nod in fandom. She was fine as hell but she had balls. The new actress, Ms.Saldana, was nice eye candy for a few seconds but fell into the generic black chick hole where actresses with super-permed hair wait for their next supporting role on the pretty-white-kids-with-problems shows. I say this because people might start talking about her "breakthrough role" ala what's her name's from Independence Day (if a black woman in a blockbuster movie doesn't become a crack prostitute, it's considered a breakthrough role--Hollywood, I will burn you down). Personally, give me the green chick any day! That full body shot of her was the best part of the movie. Since the writers of this movie do nothing but rehash, the next movie will suck just as much as this one. And not like fellatio, which was handed down by God, but like a parasite. It was cotton candy: dissolved as soon as it hit the tongue. And they didn't even use real sugar. Dudes used Splenda! There were good elements to the movie. People rag so high on it because the filmmakers and the marketing machine promised us hot porn action (Rosario Dawson, please contact me; I'm married but, dammit, some things trump marriage) but delivered Monica Lewinsky instead.

  • May 22, 2009, 12:06 p.m. CST

    No Money, Brand Names or Rock and Roll in the Future?

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    You people who claim to be hardcore Trek fans are surprisingly IGNORANT of how the Federation actually operates. It's partly a TRADE Federation. The citizens of the member planets (including Starfleet employees) work for CREDITS which they can use to purchase whatever they want. <br /><br />How do we KNOW this? Three words. Deep. Space. Nine. We see Starfleet employees drinking and gambling in a Ferengi bar, eating in a Klingon restaurant and buying clothes from a Cardassian tailor. When they go to pay, do they say "Sorry, I'm from the Federation, we don't have any money?" You guys are MORONS. <br /><br />Eliminating Want and Deprivation is not the same as eliminating Trade and Compensation. Are you telling me Ben Sisko's father slaves over a hot stove all day, cooking family recipes with non-replicated natural ingredients and then just GIVES THE FOOD AWAY? It doesn't work that way. They haven't spelled out in great detail exactly HOW it works, but it doesn't work the way you "No Money" Utopians think it does. The DS9 writers made that very clear and impossible to argue. <br /><br />And as for brand names in a post apocalyptic economy: Why Not? We're supposed to believe Picard's family has made wine for centuries and Scotty can still get a good bottle of Scotch, but Jack Daniels and Budweiser have ceased to exist? And if Nokia isn't making communicators in the 23rd century: who is? That was just funny. If you want to say they're military issue, then how do civilians communicate? Some COMPANY is making those devices. <br /><br />And for everyone groaning about the Beastie Boys: you accept that Picard loves classical, Riker loves Jazz and Data can sing Irving Berlin to Worf's chagrin, but Kirk, the most rock'n'roll of Captains, can't blast a little "Sabotage" when he steals a car?<br /><br /> We know Rock'n'Roll survives your little "WW3" excuse for everything. How do we know? Two words. Zefram. Cochran. They love him enough to name a school after him and build statues in his likeness, but they aren't studying his fondness for Roy Orbison? If they had played "Pretty Woman" while Kirk was watching Uhura cross the bar that would have made the scene even better. And completely CANONICAL. Flame away but you all know I'm right.

  • May 22, 2009, 12:12 p.m. CST

    TITBAG...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    You hate this movie. You hate the director of this movie. You hate people who like this movie. <p>We heard you the first thousand times! Give it a break, bro! </p> <p>Has anyone told you that you TALK TOO MUCH? You are sounding like a repetitious NAG. Maybe you should call yourself TitNAG? </p> MOST people liked this movie. You are just the oddball.

  • May 22, 2009, 12:20 p.m. CST

    If TITBAG, SONofEBERT, ASIMOV, etc... had their ways...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    ...this would have been what the new STAR TREK film looked like: <p>http://www.tinyurl.com/badtrek </p> Yep...that is a Trekkie's STAR TREK, all right!

  • May 22, 2009, 12:20 p.m. CST

    FUCK YOU J J - Give Howard Stern his Blowjob

    by Professor_Monster

    If you fucks really like this piece of shit then you are fucking retarded. JJ looks like a little fag-jew

  • May 22, 2009, 12:21 p.m. CST

    www.tinyurl.com/badtrek

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    It is a Trekkie nag's WET DREAM for a STAR TREK film!

  • May 22, 2009, 12:22 p.m. CST

    Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    by MattmanReturns

    That's a matter of opinion. I didn't think the holes were any bigger than any other sci-fi movie, especially any given Star Trek movie. You do realize that if we encountered alien life, it wouldn't look like anything human, right? You do realize that warp speed would be impossible for humans to survive? So I'm tired of hearing "a black hole can't do that". Who gives a shit? The characters worked, the story was entertaining. Fuck me, that's the point, isn't it? If I nitpicked every plot hole, I'd never be able to watch classic sci-fi like Alien again.

  • May 22, 2009, 12:23 p.m. CST

    Don't know if anyone is still reading this...

    by Rakafraker

    ...but, like I said in another Trek TB, I liked the movie for it's pacing, character development and huge entertainment value, but I don't think that it was a Star Trek movie in the traditional sense (read:intellectual).<p>I didn't hate the movie by any stretch, but I did think that there was much to improve upon. I can't wait to see the next one, because I'm sure that which was off-putting (for me) will be tightened up (shakey cam, lens flares, plot holes).<p>JJ has a lot of work to do if he's doing the next one too. What will it be called? I wonder.<p>BTW-Those touting their career credentials to justify being a douchebag are still just a douchebag (esp. Psych. OMFG. Sure you've been educated more about astrophysics and quantum theory than an engineer. Douche.).<p>OK, one more thing: It's clear (to me, at least) that some people are trying to explain themselves as to why they did/didn't like parts of the movie to have enlightened conversation and healthy debate, while others seem to feel some sort of triumph in dismissing those who disagree with them (I know: Welcome to AICN, but let me assure you that I've been coming here since '98 and it wasn't always this way. There was a time when people respectfully disagreed with each other, instead of bashing.), and I think it's sickening. People are allowed to respectfully disagree with other's opinions, so quit getting your panties bunched if it's not the same opinion as your own. <p>Those who've been respectful and willing to discuss (as passionately as it can get sometimes) their opinions are always going to be the TBers whose posts I read. All others are refuse to me.<p>rant fini

  • May 22, 2009, 12:30 p.m. CST

    brightguest,

    by BendersShinyAss

  • May 22, 2009, 12:32 p.m. CST

    brightguest,

    by BendersShinyAss

    I seriously doubt john logan was thinking the same thing when he wrote nemesis. nor do i think stewart beard was cotemplating all that bullshit you just said when he was preparing to direct. <P> infact, the only person actually putting any effort into that film was jerry goldsmith. and even he saw the bullshit that it fucking killed the poor bastard. Nemesis is more worthy of trek hatred. and it is not in any way a better film thah the new trek. put your cock away and stop trying to impress me. it's just to fucking small. and ugly.

  • May 22, 2009, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Last Post on the Subject

    by Bubba Foom

    ...and I'm only posting because it's a quiet day at work, The Man has already left early, I've got work on a personal manuscript I'm neglecting to do, and Big Trouble in Little China was a fun-ass movie that was dumb as hell but didn't pretend to have Chinese history and mythology underpinning it. What was wrong with Trek '09 is not that it had plotholes. The problem was that there were fundamentally too many, which came off as "the writers and director don't care", which comes off as moviegoers don't care so long as we give 'em 'splosions, cleavage, humor and ironic references. Key being the "don't care" component. The writers knew their script was trite; they didn't care, movie was going to be made anyway. The director knew he was chewing horse when he wanted steak, but he didn't care. Not caring about what you put out and what you consume is not cool. Outside line is ringing now. Obviously somebody thinks I'm going to do some work. Fools.

  • May 22, 2009, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Rakafraker...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    "There were times when people respectfully disagreed with each other...." <p>I remember those days! I wish that we could return! The hate-ranters on here have ruined this website. The TBs used to be fun places to learn new info...and discuss films in a great fanboy manner. </p> <p>Now, the TBs are overrun with the same small group of HATE ranters who try to outdo one another in the pushing of their HATE envelope. There is no tolerance amongst these guys for an "opinion." They just try to come up with "clever" (*cough) ways to RIDICULE those who disagree with thier limited viewpoint. </p> I miss the good ol' days, bro! Back in 1998...when we were trying to figure out the plot of EPISODE 1. It all changed when some idiot made the claim that George Lucas "raped his childhood." The ridiculous "rape" rants have only gotten worse.

  • May 22, 2009, 12:41 p.m. CST

    industrykiller

    by BendersShinyAss

    for shame on you. shame. shame. I am literally gob smacked at your reasoning. go sit in the corner and think about what you have done. you are a sad sad talkbacker this day. just change your talkback name now. you'll be missed.

  • May 22, 2009, 12:49 p.m. CST

    ccchhhrrriiisssm

    by son_of_ebert

    do you have anything productive to contribute?

  • May 22, 2009, 12:50 p.m. CST

    son_of_ebert

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Yes. <p>Do you contribute anything except NAGGING about every movie or opinion that you hate?</p> I didn't think so.

  • May 22, 2009, 1:09 p.m. CST

    son_of_ebert...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Anyway, I will admit that you are much more congenial than the other guys who flood the TBs with their hate rants. I don't mean to criticize you unfairly. You do say some intelligent things. <p>I just miss the days when a small handful of ranters didn't control the direction of every TB. </p>

  • May 22, 2009, 1:30 p.m. CST

    YEAH LETS MAKE TALKBACK BORING AND PRETENTIOUS!!

    by HaterofCrap

    YEAAHHH!!!!! must meet the high standards of shithead #377474!!

  • May 22, 2009, 1:31 p.m. CST

    YOU FUCKTARD JJ ASSLICKERS

    by TITBAG

    I WASN'T EXPECTING THIS NEW TREK TO BE THE NEW WRATH OF KAHN. <P> WHAT I WAS EXPECTING IS SOMETHING THAT HAD AT LEAST HALF THE SUBSTANCE OF A WIGGLES EPISODE. <P> YOU PATHETIC TOOLS. THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT LIKE THIS FILM ARE THE AGE GROUP THAT'S SLIGHTLY TOO OLD FOR MILEY CYRUS. <P> WE AREN'T HATERS. WE'RE PEOPLE THAT WERE EXPECTING A MODICUM OF COMMON FUCKING SENSE FROM THIS PIECE OF DONKEY SHIT. <P> BUT PLEASE. DON'T LET ME GET IN THE WAY OF YOUR FUCKING CIRCLE JERK YOU HOMOS. IS THERE ANYTHING I CAN GET YOU? SOME MORE 2-PLY TISSUE? SOME MOTION LOTION?

  • May 22, 2009, 1:32 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "I JUST BEAT MAJEL SENSELESS"

    by TITBAG

  • May 22, 2009, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Rakafraker

    by brightgeist

    "respectfully disagreeing" with each other is not a virtue. there is ALWAYS, on every subject matter, ONE TRUTH, and ONLY ONE TRUTH. and I think it's very healthy when people discuss a topic until they reach that truth.

  • May 22, 2009, 1:33 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "I JUST BEAT MAJEL SENSELESS..."

    by TITBAG

    "..FOR AGREEING TO DO A VOICEOVER FOR THIS TRAINWRECK OF A FILM"

  • May 22, 2009, 1:34 p.m. CST

    TITBAG

    by brightgeist

    DAMN RIGHT DUDE

  • May 22, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "NIMOY JUST CALLED..."

    by TITBAG

    "BEGGING FOR MY FORGIVENESS. I ALMOST CONSIDERED GRANTING HIM A PARDON. UNTIL I SAW HIM IN THAT OTHER GODAWFUL JJ SHOW FRINGE. FUCK NIMOY, THAT PRICK."

  • May 22, 2009, 1:38 p.m. CST

    JJ, you should do the next X-Men movie...

    by H_woodExecMakingStupidDecisions

    Or Terminator movie...pllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

  • May 22, 2009, 1:38 p.m. CST

    MattmanReturns

    by brightgeist

    well it's not necessarily correct what you say about intelligent alien life. in fact, when you consider how evolution by natural selection works, it is quite likely that intelligent, space-traveling beings on other planets would have developed to look quite similar to humans (or to what humans will look like when they begin to really travel through deep space)

  • May 22, 2009, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Dr_PepperSpray

    by brightgeist

    well said. although I actually have to DEFEND the movie on one count (even if it hurts me)... Kirk's dad stayed on the Kelvin for exactly one purpose: to destroy the torpedoes fired on the escape pods. it can be seen in the scene (if you know where to look) that he phasers the torpedoes while he flies on his collision course. I think that dissolves most of your critique about that scene. still, the rest of what you say is quite true.

  • May 22, 2009, 1:47 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "I JUST RENTED INSURRECTION"

    by TITBAG

    "AND PROUDLY HAIL IT AS A MASTERPIECE AFTER THIS NEW ABORTION. GRADING ON A CURVE IS FUN! RIGHT MAJEL? OH, SORRY. MAJEL IS STILL RECOVERING FROM THE BEAT DOWN I GAVE HER FOR DOING THE COMPUTER VOICE."

  • May 22, 2009, 1:53 p.m. CST

    IF YOU SCRAPED THE MOLDY SHIT OFF OF...

    by TITBAG

    ...JERRY GOLDSMITH'S ROTTING ASSHOLE, YOU'D JUST ABOUT HAVE SOMETHING THAT EQUATES TO THIS NEW FILM SCORE. DREADFUL. POSITIVELY DREADFUL.

  • May 22, 2009, 1:56 p.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by brightgeist

    you didn't quite get it. yes, on DS9, the Starfleet personnel has to pay for clothes or food with credits, but that's because they are dealing with NON-FEDERATION businesses! Garak, the tailor, is Cardassian (hardly a Federation member) and Quark, the barkeep, is Ferengi (not exactly Federation either). the way I have always understood it, a planet has to achieve a certain degree of technological AND social sophistication before it can join the Federation, and I am sure it is an integral part of that requirement that the planet has reached a Resource Based Economy (no money, all the planet's resources are distributed according to the people's needs, and so on). so, that means that Federation member worlds don't use money. and certainly there's no money in use on Earth! that is definitely said several times in the shows. and yes, Sisko's dad does work in his restaurant and then GIVES AWAY the food for free. because that's his way to contribute to society! if you find that concept so hard to believe, you should definitely look into The Venus Project (www.thevenusproject.com)

  • May 22, 2009, 2 p.m. CST

    Dr_PepperSpray

    by brightgeist

    I agree, it should have been explained. my explanation would be that the Kelvin did quite some damage to Nero's ship, and they had their hands full restoring life support or something... still, it's strange... I mean, where did those escape pods go? were they picked up by a Starfleet ship? if so, why didn't that ship go on to destroy Nero's ship? okay, maybe Nero's ship was repaired by then... but if so, then why didn't Nero pick off the escape pods? well, another one on the long list of points that don't make sense

  • May 22, 2009, 2:14 p.m. CST

    NOBODY CARES BOUT HANDFUL OF HATERS SAND IN VAGINAS

    by G100

    Seriously. They spend so much time trying to rubbish the Movie they are clearly obsessed and have nothing better to do.<p> <p>They also prove the Onion Stereotype is 100% accurate.

  • May 22, 2009, 2:20 p.m. CST

    quite a handful

    by brightgeist

    at least in this TB, I'd say there are at least as many people who didn't like the movie as there are others

  • May 22, 2009, 2:44 p.m. CST

    When is UP being released in theaters?

    by liljuniorbrown

    Just wondering because it answers another question I have... When is Harry going to stop sucking Star Treks dick and move on to something else?

  • May 22, 2009, 2:47 p.m. CST

    brightgeist...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Yes, and the bulk of the STAR TREK haters are confined to this TB (amongst other TBs) to repeat their HATE over and over and over and over again... <p>They sound like broken records. We heard them the first 1000 times...but they continue.</p> I'm glad that STAR TREK is moving ahead without them.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:10 p.m. CST

    TITBAGS MOM

    by joshuavance1701

    Told me he has a very small inverted penis, He's pre-op. I tried getting more out of her while I was banging her tired cunt but fucking an armless, legless torso and spinning her around my fat cock is grueling work. Here's a hint kids - Titbag works for a rival studio hah hah hah hah. Hey Titbag, your film Shitinator sucks J.J.s circumsized nose. You tired queerbait.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:11 p.m. CST

    NEW TREK IS GREAT

    by BringingSexyBack

    What's the problem?

  • May 22, 2009, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Brightgeist

    by joshuavance1701

    Don't quit your day-job man, film is definitely not for you.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:13 p.m. CST

    There is no problem BSB

    by joshuavance1701

    Three or four fags have multiple handles and they are in awe over the fact they are failure to launch in life. Either that, or they are waiting for their other teste to drop.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:14 p.m. CST

    JOSHUA

    by BringingSexyBack

    I find it incredibly odd how you would defend Trek and bash Terminator in the same breath. The same reasons you use to support Trek are easily, and appropriately, applicable to Terminator.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:16 p.m. CST

    I CAN COUNT ON ONE HAND THE NUMBER OF TREK HATERZ

    by BringingSexyBack

    Yes, they sure are a vocal bunch. Titbag's one of the funniest haterz around. Hopefully we can all unite and bash Bayformers with the same zeal and volume.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Well there's a fundamental difference BSB

    by joshuavance1701

    A. Trek was fun. Terminator wasn't. B. It's clear everyone involved with Trek honored and genuinely cared for the source material, McG shit all over the legacy of Cameron. Star Trek focused on the core integral characters, re-introducing them, Terminator meandered with completely arbitrary and redundant new characters. <p> The film is a big shitfest Deux-ex Machina that ends essentially as it begins without advancing the Terminator mythos in any way, shape or form. Star Trek at least took chances and didn't recitify everything done by the end of the film. Vulcan is gone. Spock Prime is isolated in another universe. Amanda is dead. They at least had the sack to attempt some-thing groundbreaking. Terminator was filler-material.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:20 p.m. CST

    JOSHUAADVANCINGONABRAMSASSHOLE

    by TITBAG

    I'M GLAD YOU ENJOYED MY MUM. THAT'LL BE $5 YOU CHEAP FUCKING PRICK.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:24 p.m. CST

    ALL THIS ADVANCED TRANSPORTER TECH..

    by TITBAG

    ...AND THEY CAN'T PULL ONE SKANKY THIEF HAS-BEEN ACTRESS OUT OF THIN AIR? OMFG. <P> THE LEAST THAT PRICK ABRAMS COULD HAVE DONE WAS GET THAT FLEA RIDDEN CUNT TO SHOW HER AGING, SAGGING TITS. FFS.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:25 p.m. CST

    5 bucks TITWHORE?

    by joshuavance1701

    You mean she's gonna pay ME for the honor right? Sorry dude but she wasn't worth it. Oh and , I'm your dad Titbag. Sorry to have bailed on you like that but, at least I mailed you everyday. I dodged child support though so tell her to stop fucking sending me nude pictures. It's distasteful.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:31 p.m. CST

    JOSHUA

    by BringingSexyBack

    Well, Terminator is not supposed to be fun. It's supposed to be grimy and dark, and in this case was barely so. The one commonality between ST and TS is eye candy spectacle. On that score, they both delivered. <P> I agree that TS had a pretty fucking poor cast. Totally weak. It was left up to Bale, Worthington and Yelchin to carry the movie, and the rest were either poorly directed (look who the director is after all) or didn't care enough. Well, Moon Bloodgood looked like she gave 100%. <P> JJ is simply the better director, ST was far better edited, and he had more talent to work with. Still, TS wasn't as bad as the critics are making it out to be - we'll just agree to disagree.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:33 p.m. CST

    ccchhhrrriiisssm

    by brightgeist

    suuuure, all the "haters" of the new TREK in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD are ALL in this TB, and everybody else LOVES the movie. that is VERY realistic. but if it makes you happy to think so... makes sense, actually, that you have a strong ability to kid yourself... after all, one needs that same ability to believe JJ's STAR TREK movie is good :-D

  • May 22, 2009, 3:33 p.m. CST

    Are you really that ignorant?

    by joshuavance1701

    Christ almighty for people bitching about plot-holes you fuckers sure don't spend any time trying to you know, reason it out prior. <p> Kirk and Sulu were falling from fucking SPACE, Chekov had time to get a transporter lock on them before they impacted the ground. Chekov knew they were falling. Amanda and the Vulcans were stationary, he had a lock on them, the ground gave way beneath Amanda and it fucked his lock on up. The distance she fell to her death was less than the distance Kirk and Sulu fell through the atmosphere. He couldn't maintain a lock on the Vulcans and Spock in addition to re-locking the Transporter on Amanda. You stupid tired sack of shit.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:38 p.m. CST

    joshuavance1701

    by brightgeist

    LOL, that's funny, cause my day-job IS film! :-D you probably won't believe it, but I work as an editor, camera man and compositing "artist" (although I don't claim to make "art" as such)... mostly commercials, music videos, corporate image films and stuff like that... check out our showreel at www.wuger.com

  • May 22, 2009, 3:40 p.m. CST

    Oh I get it now

    by joshuavance1701

    It's simple envy then. You make commercials and J.J. makes multi-million dollar films. That's fair enough. I guess the old axiom is true, critics are failures at whatever they are critiquing. I grant you that then.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    joshuavance1701

    by brightgeist

    who are you talking to about the transporter? I never complained about that... one of the few things that actually made sense... I especially liked how they threw in a line for Chekov right before he beamed Kirk and Sulu out, something like "compensating for gravitational pull"... otherwise I would have complained that Kirk and Sulu should have impacted the transporter pad with the same kinetic energy that they were falling with

  • May 22, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    OMFG

    by TITBAG

    YOU DOUCHEBAGS WHO THINK THAT THERE'S ONLY A HANDFUL OF HATERS NEED TO LEARN HOW TO FUCKING READ. AND COUNT. <P> HERE'S A BREAKDOWN YOU HOPELESS TARDS: <P> NEARLY HALF THE POSTS ARE 1ST TIME REPLIES FROM ENLIGHTENED MEN STATING THAT THEY HATED THIS DINGLEBERRY OF A MOVIE. <P> THE BULK OF THE REMAINING POSTS ARE MADE BY THE SAME 5 OR 6 COMPLETELY CLUELESS JJ ASSRIMMERS WHO KEEP INSISTING THAT THEY LOVED THIS FILM AND THAT IT WAS 'REALLY NEAT'. <P>

  • May 22, 2009, 3:43 p.m. CST

    joshuavance1701

    by brightgeist

    yeah, that's a total BULLSHIT argument, because then I would have to hate EVERY movie, wouldn't I? no, I only hate crappy movies. hey, and maybe I as a "filmmaker" in the broader sense even have a little more capacity to actually RECOGNIZE a crappy movie than you do? hmmmmmmm

  • May 22, 2009, 3:43 p.m. CST

    OH, AND LET'S NOT FORGET....

    by TITBAG

    ....THE 3 OR 4 OF YOU THAT KEEP REPEATING HOW THE 'ONION' GOT IT RIGHT. FFS. STOP SUCKLING YOUR MOMMY'S TEETS AND PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU ARE WATCHING NEXT TIME.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:44 p.m. CST

    The transporter comment

    by joshuavance1701

    Was for ass-douche Titbag. Hey Titbag, yes people hate this movie. Enough for 193 additional screens to be added to the count. In it's third week of release screenings are being added for DEMAND, suck on that shit you festering turd boy.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:52 p.m. CST

    I have a sneaking suspicion

    by joshuavance1701

    You DO infact have a hate fetish for every movie. Though I bet you liked Event Horizon and The Core didn't you? Or I bet Blade Runner is your ideal vision of the future. It's "realistic" hah hah hah. I bet you have Star Wars technical manuals and Andrew Proberts E-mail address don't you? Why don't you admit you are pissy we avoided the bullet of a two hour yawn fest Captain Archer movie. Or even worse Janeway. Audiences just love being treated to philosophical musings on warp conduits and subspace anomolies. You know, extended close-ups of peoples faces talking the most banal uninspired throw-away shit a failed science teacher can envision. Man, and here I thought "I" was a Star Trek geek, you fuckers LIVE the stereotype. Maybe now that Trek is popular you may actually live a bit and experience that lovely creature woman?

  • May 22, 2009, 3:53 p.m. CST

    brightgeist...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    I didn't say that all of hte TREK haters in the world are frequenting this exact forum. I will say, however, that the bulk of the people in this forum are TREK-hating radicals who really need to get a life. <p>There is a small handful of TBers who are flooding this (and other) TBs with their HATE-induced rants. Not only do they flood their board with their hatred for this movie...but they point their outlandish hatred toward anyone who disagrees with their opinion (which just happens to be a minority of film goers). </p> Some of them spend hundreds of posts...effectively repeated the same hate over and over again. Can't they just say that they didn't like the movie...why...and just leave it at that?

  • May 22, 2009, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Nimoy made the difference...

    by NoHubris

    ...and I'm pleased to see that JJ Abrams understood that. Some filmmakers would have foolishly tried to proceed without him.<p>Without Nimoy, the alternate timeline story would have not worked at all IMHO.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:55 p.m. CST

    You must have me confused Pepperspray

    by joshuavance1701

    I work for the government as a statician, and sell original paintings. Though I make more money selling my paintings.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Those few HATERS of this film...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    ...are just angry that the public liked this movie...and find their opinions so irrelevant. <p>It must suck to realize that their opinions are ignored by so many...and the TREK train has passed them by. </p> Since this film will pass $200 Million by next weekend, who cares what these ranters think? We have moved on without them.

  • May 22, 2009, 3:58 p.m. CST

    www.tinyurl.com/badtrek

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    What hate-filled Trekkies really wanted from a new TREK film. <p> LOL! </p>;-P

  • May 22, 2009, 3:59 p.m. CST

    oh, and by the way...

    by brightgeist

    I never had any desire to work in major motion pictures, because A) that would have meant that I would have to leave my home, which I don't want to, because living here really ROCKS, and B) during my career so far I have gotten some glimpses of big movie production and frankly I wouldn't want to work on big movies even if I got the chance to go to Hollywood... it's simply too much pressure, too much money involved... I have my own company here, I work about 4 hours per day, can easily make a comfortable living with that, and I will never get a heart attack from stress :-) so no, I don't consider myself a failure. if you define "success" as making big hollywood pictures, you're brainwashed. I define "success" as living a happy, stress-free life.

  • May 22, 2009, 4 p.m. CST

    Chrrissssmmm

    by joshuavance1701

    Trek is adding screenings for it's third week of release. Wolverine is dropping 900 screenings. Star Trek will endure through the summer.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:02 p.m. CST

    CHRIS PINE IS THE NEW DANIEL DAY-LEWIS

    by BringingSexyBack

    You mark my words.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:03 p.m. CST

    NEW TREK 2: DIE HARD ON A SPACESHIP

    by BringingSexyBack

    Everybody will like!

  • May 22, 2009, 4:04 p.m. CST

    Hey brightgeist

    by joshuavance1701

    You claim to be a Star Trek fan, yet seem perfectly content for it to maintain it's previous steadily declining niche market. You should be jumping for joy at this new film. Star Trek will transcend generations now and will endure and continue. Do you WANT Trek to be relegated to the national archives as a sad byproduct of the 20th century? Would that maintain your sense of personal entitlement and ownership of a failed franchise? I've got news for you man, Star Trek was DEAD before this film was released. Rick Berman killed it. Mediocrity killed it. Formulaic safety nets killed it. Star Trek is something it hasn't been in a LONG time, culturally RELEVANT, and you being a Star Trek fan bitch about it? Shame on you man, shame on you.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:06 p.m. CST

    ADDING MORE SCREENS

    by TITBAG

    WHAT CAN I SAY? THERE'S A LOT OF TEENAGE GIRLS AND BUDDING PONCEY FAGS WHO WANT TO SEE KIRK'S PACKAGE. <P> IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE YOU

  • May 22, 2009, 4:06 p.m. CST

    CHRIS PINE IS THE NEW NELLIE BOTTOM DDLEWIS

    by TITBAG

    FXD.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:08 p.m. CST

    Dr_PepperSpray

    by brightgeist

    you are clearly confused, man. I'm not the Psych major, that's joshuavance1701. and I'm not in the USA, I'm in Austria. also, I'm not a film student. as I wrote somewhere above, I graduated from a college/university (majored in video and film production) with a MultiMedia engineer's degree, and I've had my own company since 2003 now. get your facts straight. by the way, we shouldn't be arguing, because we both don't like the movie ;-)

  • May 22, 2009, 4:10 p.m. CST

    STAR TREK NEVER HAPPENED

    by BringingSexyBack

    Didn't you guys listen to Spock Prime? Long live New Trek.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:11 p.m. CST

    MENTIONING BLADE RUNNER..

    by TITBAG

    ...IN THE SAME BREATH AS THIS NEW FLY COCK OF A MOVIE IS SACRILEGE AND ONLY GOES TO SHOW THAT NOT ONLY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND STAR TREK, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SCI-FI AT ALL. YOU'RE BANNED, PIG FUCKER.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Man

    by joshuavance1701

    You people are just fucking anti-populist proceeding from the fallacious belief something popular must be inferior. You liked Star Trek better when it was just you that liked it evidently. We understand. You know, something "sacred" you could hold close to your heart. Something to distinguish yourselves in your own pretentious elitist minds from everyone else. You fuckers wouldn't know art if it slapped you in the face with it's dick. I've got news for you imbeciles, Star Trek , is a PRODUCT. A FRANCHISE. A MEAL TICKET. It isn't a philosophy or way of life. It is an entertainment medium. Gene Roddenberry would laugh his asses off at you people.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:21 p.m. CST

    joshuavance1701

    by brightgeist

    you are making a VERY serious miscalculation of my character here. just because I consider myself to be a STAR TREK fan, that doesn't mean that I have any interest in preserving the INSTITUTION (franchise) STAR TREK as such. sure, I'm happy if STAR TREK continues to give me more great stories. but if the survival of STAR TREK means that it has to be DUMBED DOWN like this, then I'd rather let it die in peace.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:21 p.m. CST

    speaking of tourette's-addled toerags

    by mr. smith

    there's one a couple of spaces above me. take your meds for fucksake.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:21 p.m. CST

    It isn't a philosophy or way of life

    by son_of_ebert

    http://tinyurl.com/penjgn<p>"Star Trek is very philosophical. What better way, then, to learn philosophy, than to watch Star Trek, read philosophy, and hash it all out in class? That's the plan. This course is basically an introduction to certain topics in metaphysics and epistemology philosophy, centered around major philosophical questions that come up again and again in Star Trek. In conjunction with watching Star Trek, we will read excerpts from the writings of great philosophers, extract key concepts and arguments and then analyze those arguments. The questions that we will wrestle with include: I. Is time travel possible? Could we go back and kill our grandmothers? What is the nature of time? II. Could reality be radically different from what "we" (I?) think? Could we be brains in vats? III. What is the relation between a person's mind and his functioning brain--are they separate substances or identical? Can persons survive death? Can computers think? Is Data a person? IV. What is a person? When do we have one person, and when do we have two (think of the episodes where people "split" or are "fused")? V. Do people have free will, or are they determined by the laws of nature to do exactly what they wind up doing, while believing they have free will? Or both? What is free will? "<p>Pretty narrow for an artist joshuavance1701..<p>as an aside, feel like sharing any links to your work?

  • May 22, 2009, 4:28 p.m. CST

    joshuavance1701

    by brightgeist

    again, you're wrong. I would have LOVED SO MUCH for this new TREK to be both good AND popular! when I heard (before I'd seen it) that it resonates well with "regular" audiences AND trekkies, I was totally looking forward to finally being able to talk with more people about this beloved franchise of mine. but, alas, turns out THEY like it now because it's been tailored for the stupid masses.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:36 p.m. CST

    For those saying "The few people who didn't like it"

    by IndustryKiller!

    It's a lot more than a few. I bet at the end of the day it doesn't make as much money as the first Transformers, and prevailing opinion on that piece of shit is that it is just that, a piece of shit.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:40 p.m. CST

    FAILING FREQUENCIES OPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by TITBAG

  • May 22, 2009, 4:41 p.m. CST

    joshuavance1701

    by brightgeist

    oh, and HOW GREAT that YOU know (and tell us) what STAR TREK really is! thank you so much! it's not like I've been a TREK fan for 20 years and MAYBE I know for myself what STAR TREK is, for me. no, I surely need an idiot like you to tell me it's a franchise, a product. I got news for you: perhaps STAR TREK always used to be a VERY CLEVER combination of both entertainment AND philosophy. perhaps that's why it appealed to different kinds of people, those who like an adventurous sci-fi series and those who like some intellectually touched entertainment. and, only perhaps, you have always been a member of the former group, which is why you STILL like the new TREK. but (and please try to understand this now, even with your not-so-intellectual mind) the new TREK isn't that clever combination anymore. is has now been reduced to adventures in space with starships and fistfights. sure, for people like you, nothing has changed, because you never even saw the more intellectual aspects to begin with. but for us, who liked to be entertained AND inspired to think by STAR TREK... for us, everything has changed.

  • May 22, 2009, 4:52 p.m. CST

    AHEAD WARP FACTOR FAIL!!!!!!!

    by TITBAG

  • May 22, 2009, 4:59 p.m. CST

    IndustryKiller!, you too are an idiot...

    by Alan_Moore

    Your logic is very flawed. Star Trek was never expected to make as much $ as Transformers. Transformers was a behemoth from the word go, whereas Trek films have traditionally been B movies that made modest money, or even flopped in a few cases. The fact that Trek has perfomed at this level is an amazing turnaround that is stunning and very satisfying to old fans like me. And critically speaking, you are way off on the public's perception of these movies. Transformers was aimed at children and currently has a score of 57% on rottentomatoes.com. Star Trek is holding steady at 95%! It has a better script, period. And a better director and cast. It is exceeding all box office expectations. The sequel in 2011 is likely to be huge. Deal with it. You obviously know very little of which you speak.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Alan_Moore

    by brightgeist

    since when is box office success any measure for quality?

  • May 22, 2009, 5:12 p.m. CST

    ALAN MOORE STFU

    by TITBAG

    IN AN AGE WHEN HANNAH MONTANA FILM MAKES $100BILLION ON OPENING DAY, I'D SAY THE 'PUBLIC PERCEPTION' AMOUNTS TO JACK.FUCKING.SHIT. <P> GOD. WHAT A FUCKING TWAT YOU ARE.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Alan_Moore

    by brightgeist

    since when is box office success any measure for quality?

  • May 22, 2009, 5:18 p.m. CST

    Alan_Moore

    by brightgeist

    okay, you say STAR TREK has a better script than TRANSFORMERS. please tell me the GLARING PLOT HOLES and inconsistencies with long-established character personalities in the TRANSFORMERS script.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:27 p.m. CST

    I actually AGREE with you Alan Moore on some points

    by IndustryKiller!

    On most of your points about Trek v. Transformers, except for the script which is about equal, and I wasnt trying to tie them together in any way other than to say how much money a film makes at the box office is totally fucking meaningless to it's quality. Yet people still bring up box office dollars over and over and over and I've had enough of it.

  • May 22, 2009, 5:40 p.m. CST

    I CAN ONLY LAUGH....

    by TITBAG

    ...WHEN SOME TOOL CLAIMS TO LIKE THE NEW TREK, THEN REFER TO THEMSELVES AS AN 'OLD FAN'. <P> OBVIOUSLY WAY TOO MUCH VICODIN AFTER THAT MASSIVE HEAD INJURY INVOLVING AN OUT OF CONTROL DILDO.

  • May 22, 2009, 6 p.m. CST

    Goddamn you fucking virgins

    by drturing

    so someone made a star trek movie that people can enjoy. jesus fucking christ go masturbate to pikachu drawings or something.

  • May 22, 2009, 6 p.m. CST

    Haterz vs Uberfans...

    by Bones

    So, here is something that someone will have to explain to me: Why is it that when someone expresses that they didn't like the film, then explains WHY they didn't like the film they are a HATER--when the most common comeback to that disappointment is "You guys suck! Quit Whining! Get out of your parent's Basement! We hate you!"<p> I mean, who is the hater here?<p> I try very hard not to make any personal attacks toward anyone (except when I responded back in kind to Chris--but then that was provoked), but to explain my disappointment as clearly as I can.<p> The venomouse attacks are mostly directed from the Mob to the people who are daring to stand out against something they didn't like.<p> The OMFG YOU ARE SO STUPID defense is not a defense at all, and it isn't much of an argument either (didn't Monty Python teach us this?).<p> I think, in the end what we are seeing is a clear division in what we all think of as Star Trek--and that is fine. I do wish that if they are going to have two universes to play in that they would create new content in both universes, but that will probably not happen.<p> Oh well. There will be many more bad movies coming out this and other summers to argue about, hopefully we can do it in a way that is not a personal attack.<p> Now, back to more DS9!

  • May 22, 2009, 6:11 p.m. CST

    *sigh*

    by brightgeist

    back to more DS9... those were the days of GREAT STAR TREK :-)

  • May 22, 2009, 6:17 p.m. CST

    Brightgeist...

    by Bones

    I have four of the seven seasons and am watching them in order, with the fifth on the way.<p> Outside of the original series, it is my absolute favorite Star Trek...

  • May 22, 2009, 6:17 p.m. CST

    haters

    by brightgeist

    it's true, I only "hate" the movie, I don't hate the people who like it. but they certainly seem to hate us. what did we do?? it's not our fault that the movie sucks. we're just saying it how it is.

  • May 22, 2009, 6:18 p.m. CST

    I thought Trek was just fine.

    by Sal_Bando

    I had fun w/ it. I've been a lifelong casual fan of Trek-it's pretty good, but I see it for what it is. <p> You ask me to watch it or Twilight Zone or Mash or say Charlie Chan movies, I'll take those over it any day of the week. <p> Ditto watching da Sawks or da Cubs play. But if you wanna know-did I like what they did w/ this new reboot of Trek? why yes. It's pretty good. There' nothing wrong w/ it, really. Someone call the WAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMbulance here. morons.

  • May 22, 2009, 6:20 p.m. CST

    IndyKiller.

    by Sal_Bando

    You must learn to get over yourself. Your fucking opinions are just that-your own fucking opinions. Because you pontificate about a given movie, pro or con it's no matter-doesn't mean fuck-all to Anyone save yourself. You like hearing yourself bloviate. That's great. So do I. So does everyone else here. But for chrissakes your pomposity here REALLY gets outta hand. <p> I eagerly await your spooging over the next installment of the Hulk.

  • May 22, 2009, 6:22 p.m. CST

    Lunchbreak and you guys are still at it?

    by Rakafraker

    Thanks for your post above, ccchhhrrriiisssm. brightgeist, you just lost a fan. One truth? Black or white? C'mon! Seriously? You were joking, right? The only truth is that there are many sides to every story, good or bad, better or worse. Maybe the truth that I missed is that douche-baggery runs deeper than I thought.<p>Yeah, I do miss the days before everyone thought that they're tough (tell me where you're at and I'll come and punch you in the face) and people could agree to disagree instead of resorting to name-calling (fuck all you haterz in the ass). I guess it's easier to do when you know that their won't be any reprecussions.<p>That said, I'll fight anyone who disagrees, and then call you and your mother (what the heck, your whole family, too) every name in the book and then you'll all see that I am the king of the world, and everyone else is a total fucking loser.<p>Mike Judge, how could you make such a shitty movie that is so right on the money (Idiocracy). You deserve a kick in the crotch (Owww, my balls!).<p>Remember kids, we all know when you're being a douchebag, so re-read that post before you hit enter.<p>rant deux fini

  • May 22, 2009, 6:32 p.m. CST

    Bones

    by brightgeist

    cool :-) I have every episode of all 6 TREK series on DVD, and DS9 is my absolute favorite of them all.

  • May 22, 2009, 6:37 p.m. CST

    brightgeist

    by FeedTheGoat

    I don't hate you for hating Star Trek. I'm just grateful you're here to tell me "how it is" otherwise I wouldn't have a clue if the movie I watched was good or not.<p>Also, if you read your own 6:17 post back to yourself out loud it may give you an insight as to why other posters might "hate" you.

  • May 22, 2009, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Rakafraker

    by brightgeist

    my statement about "one truth" may require some explanation. of course, I don't mean there's on simply black-or-white truth about questions like "is the new STAR TREK good or bad". I mean, there IS one true answer to that question, but it's definitely neither "black" nor "white", if you know what I mean. the answer to the question may be very complex, but there's still ONE TRUE answer. I think it's just out of laziness or fear of conflict that people say "let's agree to disagree". there is a definitive answer to EVERY question. sometimes the answer is very easy to find (does 1 + 1 = 2?). sometimes it takes some work to arrive at an answer (how good or bad is the new STAR TREK movie?). and in some cases, it's almost certainly impossible to ever KNOW the answer (does god exist?). and still, we know that there IS an answer. god either exists or he doesn't. THIS is an example where there's in fact a black-or-white answer. regarding STAR TREK, there isn't. but there's an answer nonetheless. and I think we've made at least SOME progress towards that answer in this TB.

  • May 22, 2009, 6:47 p.m. CST

    FeedTheGoat

    by brightgeist

    I'm not telling anyone "how it is". all I'm saying is how I FELT ABOUT THE MOVIE.

  • May 22, 2009, 6:52 p.m. CST

    The new Star Trek was OK, but...

    by matineer

    as a big fan I had reservations. Yes, it had pacing and energy and fine SFX, particularly the ending shots of Enterprise and the "Jupiter" shot. But it also had a thin story, particularly Nero and his motivations. The Vulcans came off as helpless and bullying, with little of the regal authority and ethics of previous Trek. Spock gives in to Kirk's bullying much too easily. Kirk's space rebel provides key battle information, but he shows no tactical brilliance to explain his meteoric rise. SPOILER And the perfunctory offer of mercy to Nero is dismissed with mocking indifference to Kirk and Spock's essential human compassion. Yeah, I know they're both younger here. Can't say that much about the actors because it'll take some time to digest the performances. How do they stack up considering they are playing younger, less experienced people. Plus the script had few long exchanges. Despite the talk of changes what works best is Classic Trek; the talks on the bridge; thrilling rescues; the nomenclature of Trek - warp drive, Starfleet Academy, the Enterprise herself. What worked less for me was the added gore, sexless sex. Some of this reminded me of "Corbomite Maneuver" -- the ship under attack. Which is good. Where did 150 million dollars go? It had to be special effects -- they were dazzling and brief -- because this Big E had fewer standing sets than the 1960's TV show. They did the minimum bridge, corridor and transporter room, but sickbay could have been ER with set dressing, and that engineering set (a brewery) could have only fit into that hull via Irwin Allen 4D physics (love Irwin Allen stuff by the way). The "Starfleet Outpost" Spock and Kirk entered had tile flooring and they came through a crash door like your local high school, complete with plastic bullhorn mounted in the corner. Look, even in Trek III, a low budget Trek, the space bar looked distinctly Trek, down to the glasses. It's the same in the Star Wars universe, everything is designed. At this price, Trek should be no different. The costumes worked well, though the originals seemed to fit better. The pullover idea is a good one, though. Miss great individual Trekkian costumes like the duty jackets in STII, or the Vulcan costumes in the original movies. Look, I'm a biiiiiig fan. At least I can say the movie kept my attention. That's rare these days. As an action movie I'd rate it pretty high. As Trek, well, it could have had much more heart. Enjoy your weekend.

  • May 22, 2009, 6:59 p.m. CST

    I'm sorry, let me burn some insense and we can hold hands

    by IndustryKiller!

    Give me a break. This isn't Meet the Press, there aren't laws of candor and why should there be? One thing and one thing only matters, the ability to back up your point with details, if you can't do that I could care less to hear about your griping about being insulted. Some people SHOULD be insulted. This is a country full of people who have become far too comfortable with being intellectually bankrupt philistines. I'm insulted by the constant and vacuous praise for awful genre films that purposefully butcher the spirit of their original idea for the sake of NOTHING but a cheap buck. That's more insulting to me than anything anyone can say and if you praise it then you're part of the problem.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:02 p.m. CST

    Bwwwwah hah hah hah

    by joshuavance1701

    This fucker likes Deep shits nine and has the audacity to try to lecture someone on what constitutes quality science-fiction? Dude go back to your fucking new age Bajoran spiritual enlightenment that festering piece of shit series sucked just as bad as Voyager and Enterprise, it only gets a free ride from certain Trek fans under 21 years of age because of massive space battles, everything else is entirely disposeable fluff, who are the cunts jumping on Star Wars' bandwagon now?

  • May 22, 2009, 7:06 p.m. CST

    Hey Titbag ponce boy

    by joshuavance1701

    Hannah Montana fucking bombed at the box office dude, 100 million first day my white rosey ass. As far as box office being relevant, well shitheads if a movie is THAT fucking bad it usually dissapears rather quickly , you know, sort of like WATCHMEN. There's plenty of uninspired Indy films that are "high-quality" being produced for film-whores such as yourselves.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Matineer--

    by Bones

    Thanks for your points. It seems that those of us who had a problem with the movie all noticed the same things.<p> You would think that if they were going to make a Star Trek movie, then they might use some of the talented people who worked on the previous shows, like the amazing Mike and Denise Okuda, who not only designed the graphic design for Star Trek for the last 23 years, but also would be great resources when it comes to continuity--like Star Trek Chronology and Encyclopedia.<p> Now, that doesn't mean that you have to be slavish to the old Universe, but they would be able to help with things that wouldn't be affected by the time travel or finding the proper Trek terminology for Galaxy-threatening disasters. They even know real scientists who could corroborate or dismiss the writers' ideas.<p> Well, if they wanted it to make sense.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:13 p.m. CST

    That's the whole POINT BONES

    by joshuavance1701

    The new film is a departure from the shit we've been spoon fed under the banner of Trek under Bermans watch for the last 23 years. FUCK Berman era Trek. It sucked horribly. You guys have become so accustomed to mediocrity passing itself off as quality science fiction you are defending and longing for the shittiest period in Trek history bar none. Good fucking riddance. Star Trek is about Captain Kirk and Spock and the starship Enterprise not the convoluted hackneyed shit that raped the name Trek Berman produced. Fuck Benjamin Sisko. Fuck, Kathryn Janeway, Fuck Jonathan Archer. hell, fuck even Picard and his PC dispassionate starship Ramada Inn.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:22 p.m. CST

    THESE PARAGRAPHS AND PARAGRAPHS..

    by TITBAG

    ..OF RATIONALIZATIONS ABOUT HOW THE MOVIE ISN'T 'THAT BAD' ARE EVEN MORE FUCKING MORONIC AND MIND-NUMBING THAN THE 'I LOVED THIS MOVIE' POSTS. BECAUSE THE PEOPLE POSTING THAT DRIVEL ARE NOTHING MORE THAN SPINELESS COWARDS. <P> IT SUCKED, ASSHOLE FENCE-SITTERS. THE SOONER YOU ACCEPT THAT, THE QUICKER YOU CAN GET BACK TO SOMETHING THAT REMOTELY RESEMBLES REALITY.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:24 p.m. CST

    THE WORST FUCKING EPISODE..

    by TITBAG

    ..OF ENTERPRISE WAS BETTER THAN 99% OF THIS NEW FILTH. AND THAT, DEAR NONCES, IS TRULY SAYING SOMETHING.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:25 p.m. CST

    titbag summarised

    by quantize

    WEE WEE POO POO SHIT FUCK CUNT I HATE THIS MOVIE, MUMMY HELP ME, I AM RIGHT, WEE WEE POO POO you're a fucking loser and every single person with an ounce of taste knows you're a piece of shit. suck on your hate. explode you shit stain.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:27 p.m. CST

    joshuavance1701

    by brightgeist

    why am I not surprised that you don't like WATCHMEN, the most important movie of our time? well, I guess all the philosophical, intellectual themes must have been pretty hard to digest for an infantile person like you.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:31 p.m. CST

    WENT TO BURGER KING AND GOT THE CHEKOV BOBBLEHEAD..

    by TITBAG

    ..I TOOK IT HOME, DOUSED IT WITH LIGHTER FLUID, AND BURNED IT ALIVE AS YELCHIN'S HORRIBLE FUCKING RUSSIAN ACCENT WARBLED OUT OF THE THING: <P> ENSIGN CHEKOV, PAVEL ANDREIEVICH, SIR" <P> FUNNY THING IS, THE THING DID A BETTER JOB OF ACTING THAN THAT SUPER TWINK ANTON DID. <P> NEXT UP: I SMEAR SHIT ON THE SPOCK BOBBLEHEAD AND RUN IT OVER WITH MY LAWNMOWER.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:35 p.m. CST

    WHEN YELCHIN FIRST OPENED HIS PIE HOLE..

    by TITBAG

    ..AND UTTERED THE FIRST BIT OF THAT 'ORRIBLE DOCTOR ZHIVAGO AFFECTED ACCENT, I SWEAR TO FUCKING GOD I THOUGHT THE OTHER ACTORS WERE GOING TO START CRACKING UP. TRUE STORY.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Joshuavance1701--

    by Bones

    Not only do I like Deep Space Nine, I love it.<p> Because it has great characters, social commentary, a sweeping story arc and works as a great counterpoint to TOS and Next Gen.<p> The great thing about DS9 is that they are stuck on the space station and have to live with the consequences of their actions wheras the Enterprise can go to some planet, Kirk can break the Prime Directive every week and tell planets what they are doing wrong and then move on without thinking about it.<p> That was the great thing about DS9's Mirror Universe episodes, because they showed the consequences of Kirk's interferance and how that played out for the humans in that universe.<p> Actually, if you think about Wrath of Khan, it is very similar--the whole plot is dependant on Kirk's cavalier attitude and how it comes back to bite him in the ass. Kirk maroons Khan and never thinks about him again, whereas Khan spends every day of his exile thinking about what he will do to Kirk when he finds him.<p> They tried to find that level of depth in the new film with Nero's obsession with Spock--but because they don't take the time to develop the backstory, it rings shallow and false.<p>You could have replaced the destruction of Romulus with Nero being obsessed with Spock not wanting to date Nero and never calling him back and it would be pretty much the same level of exposition that they gave him.<p> Sure gives that whole "SPOOOOCCKKK!!!" that Nero screams a whole different spin, doesn't it?

  • May 22, 2009, 7:37 p.m. CST

    Bones

    by brightgeist

    LOL, and I totally agree

  • May 22, 2009, 7:43 p.m. CST

    JOSHUAADVANCINGUPTHEMOUNTAINOFFAIL:

    by TITBAG

    DS9 FUCKING RULED. <P> I DIDN'T THINK IT POSSIBLE TO FIND ANYONE AS UTTERLY CLUELESS AND PEDESTRIAN AS CCCOOOCKKANNDDBALLLS, BUT THERE YOU STAND. KING OF THE MORONS.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:46 p.m. CST

    SHIELDS UP!!!!! FAIL ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by TITBAG

  • May 22, 2009, 7:48 p.m. CST

    I know you just didn't say Watchmen is "important"

    by joshuavance1701

    "Watchmen the most important film of our time?" <P> And with that statement, ALL invariably comes to be revealed. You have effectively negated and rendered null and void, any thing you have said, and anything you can POSSIBLY say. I won't even hazard a response to such a statement so callously concieved. <p>It's fairly clear now what the mindset is of a select few, but I digress. Well kids, it's off to see Trek again, see you bitches for the sequel.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:51 p.m. CST

    TITBAG: MY MOTHER SUCKS COCKS IN HELL KARRAS

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 22, 2009, 7:52 p.m. CST

    JOSHUAI'MJJSCUMBUCKET

    by TITBAG

    IT'S OFF TO SEE TREK AGAIN, AND THEN YOUR DUMPSTER DATE AFTER? <P> IT'S FRIDAY NIGHT ALREADY? DAMN!

  • May 22, 2009, 7:52 p.m. CST

    "I won't even hazard a response to such a statement"

    by IndustryKiller!

    Yeah Joshua, that might take some *GASP* thought and reasoning!!!!! I wouldn't want you to strain yourself coming up with a well detailed argument, better sit this one out too.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:53 p.m. CST

    TELL YOUR DATE NOT TO USE HIS TEETH...

    by TITBAG

  • May 22, 2009, 7:55 p.m. CST

    I'M TAKING OFFERS...

    by TITBAG

    I'LL BE TAKING ALL OF THE BURGER KING TREK BOBBLEHEADS AND MELTING THEM TOGETHER TO FORM A GIANT COCK IN THE SHAPE OF JJ'S HEAD. <P> OFFERS FOR THIS MASTERWORK OF FINE ART WILL BE ACCEPTED STARTING IMMEDIATELY.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:57 p.m. CST

    Oh yes Bones

    by joshuavance1701

    You are damn skippy, Deep shits nine most certainly works as an effective counter-point to original TRUE Star Trek. It perfectly demonstrates as a counter-point good Trek, versus Shit Trek. You guys have been out to sea or playing in Bermans sandbox FAR too long. You have lost all perspective. Maybe you just like homogenized bland neutral by the book paint by numbers Star Trek - interchangeable Captain Shum on the starship shucks or space station shits. <p> I like it when Star Trek is focused and true to itself. Star Trek, is about a Captain named Kirk, on a starship called Enterprise, conducting a five year mission of exploration. Simple, concise, to the point. <p>You guys seriously need to stop posting Gay Kirk-Spock videos on Youtube, it's distasteful and insulting.

  • May 22, 2009, 7:59 p.m. CST

    TITBAG

    by joshuavance1701

    Dammit man is your Mom still living in that dumpster? I told that bitch to get a job and an apartment. Evidently turning tricks didn't pan out. Ah well, once a whore, always a whore. Wouldn't you say ShitBag?

  • May 22, 2009, 8:03 p.m. CST

    THE FIRST THOUGHT I HAD AFTER THE FILM ENDED...

    by TITBAG

    ...WAS THAT THOSE PRICK AICN STAFF REVIEWERS WHO WENT ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND FUCKING ON ABOUT HOW GLORIOUS THIS NEW TREK WAS NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT: <P> 1. WORST PLOT IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA <P> 2. APPALLINGLY BAD SCIENCE <P> 3. UTTERLY IMPLAUSIBLE CHARACTER MOTIVATIONS. <P> 4. WORST PLOT IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA <P> 5. WORST PLOT IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA <P> 6. WORST PLOT IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA <P> 7. WORST PLOT IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA <P> 8. WORST PLOT IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA. <P> 9. APPALLINGLY BAD SCIENCE <P> 10. HORRIBLE RUSSIAN ACCENT.

  • May 22, 2009, 8:07 p.m. CST

    you know, josh...

    by brightgeist

    I am usually QUITE an optimist, and also quite self-confident. but I just thought about EXPLAINING to you the importance of WATCHMEN, and... well... for the first time in years I knew I wasn't up to a task. it would be like trying to get a totally ignorant talkbacker to understand the meaning of a movie that actually says a lot of important things about today's society. no, wait, that wasn't an abstract enough analogy. let me rephrase. explaining to you, josh, the importance of the movie WATCHMEN, would be about as difficult than teaching a piece of dogshit to fetch a stick. you, too, have quite a bit of human DNA inside you, but that obviously doesn't mean that you're capable of human tricks, such as using your brain.

  • May 22, 2009, 8:13 p.m. CST

    oh, and josh...

    by brightgeist

    so you're a fan of the original STAR TREK series, and you also like the new STAR TREK movie, right? and you think there's continuity between the two, don't you? then why is it that in BALANCE OF TERROR everyone on the bridge is shocked when they see that Romulans have pointy ears like Spock, but in the new movie, no-one even reacts AT ALL when Spock mentions the common ancestry of Vulcans and Romulans?

  • May 22, 2009, 8:13 p.m. CST

    Joshuavance1701---I say "bullshit" to you, sir.

    by Bones

    Star Trek is far more than rehashing the same characters over and over. Do you know who decided that was true?<p> Oh yeah, Gene F*cking Roddenberry--and the millions of fans who followed him in 1987 with The Next Generation and beyond.<p> Star Trek is the idea of a future where The Federation exists, where Earth is at peace and is now focusing it's energies to explore and learn from the universe, where people are allowed to let their greatest talents blossom and inspire their future--and where adventure is not only on the Starship Enterprise, but around every corner on every planet.<p> I am really sorry for you if you can only see one (Statistically) small part of the entire Star Trek universe as the real Star Trek--now made even smaller by this new half-assed adaptation.<p> Because, that is all this film and it's sequels will ever be, adaptations of adventures that may be "dated" by when they were made, but who's influence is felt in not only every other Star Trek show and film ever made--but every science fiction show and film made in the last 40 years.<p> Keep your idea of Star Trek small if you want. Bend over and take what the new films gives you, if you so desire. I choose to embrace Star Trek from the period of it's greatest success, when there were hundreds of hours of great stories rather than two hourse of mediocrity.<p> But, that's just my opinion, right?

  • May 22, 2009, 8:15 p.m. CST

    JOSHUATHUMBUPHISASSTAKEITOUTANDSMELL...

    by TITBAG

    ...IS REALLY JUST ANGRY THAT 'GLEE' WILL ONLY BE SHOWN ONCE BEFORE IT VANISHES INTO OBLIVION, THAT FUCKING PILLOW BITER.

  • May 22, 2009, 8:17 p.m. CST

    HOURS, not houres..

    by Bones

  • May 22, 2009, 8:19 p.m. CST

    dammit, Bones...

    by brightgeist

    that's also my opinion :-)

  • May 22, 2009, 8:22 p.m. CST

    he's like all those people...

    by brightgeist

    ... who thought the entire rest of humankind in THE MATRIX universe existed on the Nebuchadnezzar. and when we saw Zion in RELOADED, it was too much for them.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:03 p.m. CST

    oh come on..

    by dengreg31

    "WATCHMEN, the most important movie of our time?" You've got to be kidding me.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:03 p.m. CST

    oh come on..

    by dengreg31

    "WATCHMEN, the most important movie of our time?" You've got to be kidding me. It's not even the most important graphic novel... damn good one tho.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:08 p.m. CST

    Brightgeist

    by joshuavance1701

    It helps to pay attention to the fucking movie if you are trying to convey a thought. Nero corrupted the timeline by appearing when and where he shouldn't have been, in the 23rd century. By appearing, the timeline ruptured and an alternate reality was created. The telemetry of the Kelvin and the survivors not only clued Starfleet in on Romulans, it introduced advanced 24th century technology. This coupled with George Kirk dying results in the Enterprise being launched far later, and far more advanced than it originally was. George Kirk contributed to Constitution class vessel design and without his presence the configuration of the ship was changed. <p> No one reacts to the common ancestry of Vulcans and Romulans in the film because there is no surprise element. Ayel appeared to the crew of the Kelvin thereby altering when Starfleet get's it's first glimpse of what exactly a Romulan looks like. Think man, think.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:12 p.m. CST

    The Narada attack on the Kelvin

    by joshuavance1701

    Induced prematurely Winona Kirks labor, resulting in Kirk being born on the shuttle, not on Earth, where he would have been had the Kelvin went along on it's merry way and not encountered the Narada. <p> Enterprise was built in Iowa rather than San Francisco to commemorate and honor the sacrifice of the Kelvin, of which George Kirk was from Iowa. <p> You got no plot holes you God damn whores. You've got nothing.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:15 p.m. CST

    The Romulan Ayel...

    by Bones

    Anyone else notice his names is basically Romulan Ale?<p> Ha. Another "great" joke from Orci and Kurtzman...

  • May 22, 2009, 9:21 p.m. CST

    Hey "Bones"

    by joshuavance1701

    is that the best you got? Come on fuckers time to put up or shut up, STUMP ME. Where are these plot holes you hack face fucks?

  • May 22, 2009, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Joshuavance1701--

    by Bones

    For the last time, the problem isn't plot holes that have to be retroactively patched because they didn't think of it the first time around--it sin't so much the PLOT (what there is) as it is the WAY they made the film that I have the biggest problem with.<p> The Script, the Production Design, The Direction, The Cinematography, The Special Effects, The Editing, The Music--these were where it fell down for me.<p> Which is pretty much the whole movie.<p> I didn't mind Vulcan's destruction, George Kirk naming James or Sarek telling Spock that he loved Spock's mom...Those were the few highlights for me that felt fresh in a sea of regurgitated plot points and dialogue. Well, quotations rather than dialogue--but you know what I mean.<p> The film actively rides the Nostalgia wave, but there really isn't much more to it than that.<p> Again, that's my opinon...

  • May 22, 2009, 9:27 p.m. CST

    Actual Plot Holes...

    by Bones

    How about Nero sitting on his ass for 25 years waiting for his sexual obsession Spock rather than trying to kill young Spock or take over the sector with his advanced technology? That is kind of a massive one.<p> How about transporting to a GODDAMN STARSHIP MOVING AT WARP SPEED from a stationary point using a low-powered Transporter? How does that one throw you?<p> How about an ungradutated Cadet being made Captain because there are seemingly no serving officers on the USS Budweiser?<p> I await your answer.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:27 p.m. CST

    Ungraduated...

    by Bones

  • May 22, 2009, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Ahh illumination

    by joshuavance1701

    So there aren't glaring "plot holes" now all of a sudden, so all along you are just pissed it's a Kirk-centric film and not one of the other series of characters and just your own arbitrary designations and preferences. <p>Well you're right, it's your opinion and that's about it. <P> I tell you fuckers what, I guara-ndamn-tee you my left ass cheek has forgotten more about Star Trek than any of you fucks have or ever will know. So where are these fuckers like Ben Stein or Bright national socialism or whatever the hell he calls himself? Where is ShitBag and that idiot Asimov, come on you fuckers bring that shit. Come on give me a plot hole so I can inform you. Stop talking the shit and bring it, so I can embarass your asses into seeing Wolverine again.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:36 p.m. CST

    I gave you a few holes already...

    by Bones

    Bring it.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:38 p.m. CST

    And, it isn't so much that it is about Kirk...

    by Bones

    As it is the fact that I (once again so you can catch up) didn't like the filmmaking.<p> Now, some of the other guys aren't as worried about that as the SUPER MASSIVE PLOT HOLES (Ha! I made a Muse reference) and I won't deny that there are plot holes.<p> It just isn't my primary concern.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Alright Bones

    by joshuavance1701

    If that's the best you got then your ass is handed to you pal. <p> The Kelvin rammed the Narada causing massive damage and adequate distraction for the shuttles to escape. During repairs the Klingons intercepted and imprisoned Nero and his crew for TADA 25 years until Nero escapes and decimates a Klingon fleet before returning to greet Elder Spock as he arrives from the future. Didn't you notice his mauled ear. That bitch Titbag must have nibbled a bit since he is a common prison fuck. <p> Elder Spock introduced, TADA future technology to young Montgomery Spock. Say, how LONG exactly was Montgomery Scott flying around the 24th century in a SHUTTLE Captain Picard "loaned" him? Long enough to perhaps develop a formula FINALLY for transwarp beaming? It doesn't explicitly state, nor does it need to, when exactly in the future Scotty develops the technology. OR gives it to Spock. <p> You've got to be shitting me right? Kirk saves the entire Enterprise crew from being decimated by the Narada, Captain Pike, selflessly dives for Sulu, beats Spocks computer simulation for the Kobayashi Maru (remember ass fucks the hearing was interrupted with the emergency, no decision or verdict had been reached) and was promoted First Officer by Pike. it was hardly a cadet Kirk to Captain scenario I dont know what film you fucks watched. Besides, It is a precedent some graduates are Lieutenants, Saavik, Kirk, etc. So just because it doesnt state a rank for Kirk, doesn't mean he was a fucking Ensign like Chekov. Like I said, you got no fucking plot holes.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:41 p.m. CST

    And technically, it ISN'T a Kirk-centric film...

    by Bones

    It is an Alternate Universe Kirk-Centric Film That I Don't Care About.<p> Well, really it focuses on the Two Spocks...but who cares anymore?<p> I really think you are hilarious.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Oh and

    by joshuavance1701

    Wesley Crusher was given a position DRIVING the fucking Enterprise and he wasn't even IN Starfleet. I don't want to hear a fucking thing about Kirks ascension.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:47 p.m. CST

    Trek was enjoyable, but doesn't stand up to scrutiny

    by Dark Knight Lite

    The more I think about the whole "Planet Coincidence" sequence, the more it aggravates me. The level of AICN fellatio for this film is sickening, and is provoking a backlash. We are guaranteed a sequel, so lay off the relentless shilling. Dark Knight Out.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:51 p.m. CST

    Nero and the missing years...

    by Bones

    ...would have been a good explanation, had they bothered to include it in the f*cking movie...but they didn't. And if they had been in prison for 25 years, why didn't the Klingons tear the Narada apart for parts?<p> Spock introduced a Transwarp Equation, not new technology. Doesn't change the fact that it would require a Transporter of IMMENSE POWER to transport over long distances and at Warpspeed--by which time, The Enterprise would have been at the Laurentine system or wherever. BUT, through the power of IGNORING WHAT ISN'T CONVENIENT TO THE SCRIPT (similar to the quick montage of walking to the Icebase which would have taken hours or a day) Scotty was able to do what no ship in the history of Star Trek could ever do, when even the ships in the 24th Century could only ever beam from the upper atmosphere.<p> As to Kirk--she should have still only been a Lieutenant or Commander at the end of the film--Or they should have just had Pike say that Kirk would be the ship's next commander and ended 2 years later with Kirk assuming command.<p> What is one final time-jump between friends?<p> But, the didn't...and the holes still exist.

  • May 22, 2009, 9:53 p.m. CST

    Can't We All Just Get Along like the Great Bird wants Us to?

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    joshuavance is right about the plotholes. You guys keep complaining that we aren't adressing your problems with the story, but your problems mainly indicate that YOU WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION. No matter how many times we correct you on these things, you keep on calling US the idiots.<br /><br /> For example, the most obvious "coincidence" in the movie is the bringing together of Kirk, Spock Prime and Scotty on the ice planet. But this was not some "random planet" where they all happened to bump in to each other. They all have specific reasons for being there which are explained in the scripted dialogue. Scotty has been given a shitty posting. Spock was left there to view Vulcan's destruction. And Kirk was dropped on the nearest planet with a Federation base and told he will be rescued if he stays in the pod. Spock leaving him there rather than putting him in the brig is NOT bad writing. It is further evidence that Spock is emotionally unstable and not up to captaining the ship.<br /><br />The fact that their reasons do not "coincide" with each other makes their meeting coincidental, but would you rather they DIDN'T meet? How would you bring them together? The audiences clearly enjoy the monster sequence, Spock's rescue of Kirk, their mind meld and conversation which, again, EXPLAINS HALF OF THE SUPPOSED PLOT HOLES YOU KEEP REGURGITATING IN THESE TALKBACKS, and their meeting with Scotty. If you don't buy into it, so be it.<br /><br />And last but not least, Anton Yelchin, who is of Russian descent, has said in interviews, that he considered doing a more realistic accent, but felt the more comedic approach would pay bettter tribute to Walter Koenig and the campy fun of the original series. So please STFU about Chekov's accent.

  • May 22, 2009, 10:03 p.m. CST

    More like

    by joshuavance1701

    mere convenience to your weak argument, not script. Some of you fucks clearly just like debating for the sake of debating, I have zero desire or intention to try to convince anyone that didn't like this movie to infact like it. A veritable slippery slope ensues. We can write a treatise indefinitely on the merits of plot, pacing, LIGHTING, dialogue, consistency, adherence to Trek canon, film proficiency ad nauseum. The bottom fucking line is, when you cut through all the bullshit, those with such a grudge against this film were predisposed to, and are simply pissed the film isn't what THEY wanted it to be- and for that, you are nothing, nothing but incessent assholes and dickheads completely anhedonic and lacking in joy. Nimoy called it magnificently about you fucks. You cunts would be content with another Nemesis dooming Trek to another 5 or 10 year hiatus. Thank GOD almighty these types aren't involved in the creative process and are relegated to hackneyed arm-chair critics. May Kirks fat swollen bloated hands punch your sole nut forcing the other to drop.

  • May 22, 2009, 10:03 p.m. CST

    I disagree with josh however

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    about Deep Space Nine. I really enjoyed that series. Behr and Moore and the rest got out from under Roddenberry's meddling and Berman's distraction with Voyager and produced some really fun and thought provoking television. It's definitely the most subversive Trek we've ever seen.

  • May 22, 2009, 10:26 p.m. CST

    Thanks for the insults, Joshuavance1701...

    by Bones

    But, you didn't answer my points.<p> But that is okay, I didn't expect you to.<p> Cymbalta--thanks for being civil, dude. I honestly am looking for discourse that doesn't devolve into name-calling, and you deliver. You'll notice that I don't question the destruction of Vulcan (although they did create a brand new planet to be conveniently next to Vulcan), how Spock and Scotty find each other, the Kobiashi Maru scene (which was better than originally scripted and shot, since Kirk didn't even reprogram the test--he got the Orion girl to do if for him)--my main beefs were with how the film was made.<p> Personally, would I have preferred the film to be about someone other than remaking Kirk and his era? Sure.<p> But, I began to accept the project for what it was as I found out more and more--but I can't get behind how they executed the Enterprise design or sets (or lack thereof...come on guys, you have to admit it looks crappy when they are off the clean bridge and hallway sets)--but I completely understand that it isn't an issue for most.<p> I am not attacking people for likeing the film, but I am defending my right to NOT like it--and I am keenly interested in what people actually like about it.<p> But, honestly, most people's answers about why they like it is summed up as Good Dumb Fun.<p> And I don't mean to be the voice of dissent--but I guess I require more from a Star Trek film. That's just me.

  • May 22, 2009, 10:30 p.m. CST

    To Clarify...

    by Bones

    In the final film, Kirk reprograms the test--but there is a cut scene where the whole reason he is making out with the Orion babe is so he can get her to help him reprogram the test.<p> It was a lot more fun to have him just be the big stud on campus--and I am glad they made the change.<p> See? I can find a few things to like...just not the whole film.

  • May 22, 2009, 10:43 p.m. CST

    Still arguing, lol

    by jae683

    Oh, and for the record, that corner animation is the most disturbing yet. The guy that creates those must be seriously warped.

  • May 22, 2009, 10:55 p.m. CST

    Shut up, JarJar.

    by kabong

    Your crap works on the drugged out freaks of Hollyweird--hence, your career--but the rest of us have functioning brains.

  • May 22, 2009, 10:59 p.m. CST

    Its ironic that there are Dark Tower fans here . .

    by Mundungus

    Bitching about the plot holes in ST and how time travel was handled so poorly in ST. Oh fuck is the Dark Tower a jumbled mess of plots holes, abandoned plot threads, and multiverse illogic. I liked the Dark Tower but damn, some people are giving King a lot more leeway than this Trek film. I guess it is a lot easier to say that you wasted two hours on a movie than twenty five years waiting for King to finish his opus, only for meh? <p> and don't flame me back or I'll send the Crimson Santa after you, EEEEEEEEE!

  • May 22, 2009, 11:01 p.m. CST

    JarJar's Star Trek is a STAR WARS copy

    by kabong

    <P> <P> http://tinyurl.com/otb4g4 <P> <P>

  • May 22, 2009, 11:05 p.m. CST

    Actually Bones

    by joshuavance1701

    In the deleted scene Kirk creates the patch and Gailen simply agrees to open it in the 23rd century equivalent of E-mail and download it to the simulation. The work was still all Kirks reconfiguring the Kobiyashi Maru scenario. Sorry pal, no dice.

  • May 22, 2009, 11:09 p.m. CST

    It definitely has its Flaws

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    But some of its "flaws" are part of its charm. I like the use of realistic locations. I like the fact that Scotty's base looks exactly like a crappy base on a planet nobody cares about. Even in the 23rd Century a place like that might look like something out of Carpenter's THE THING and not like the Federation's version of a luxury hotel. <br /><br />I like the fact that they tried to make the inner workings of a ship look like the inner workings of a ship and not like every other room on the Enterprise. I liked the visual contrast. It shows that while decisions are being made on the bridge, the real work is being done by sweaty nervous people in an enviornment that is not designed for aesthetics. It's not what TREK fans are used to seeing, but it is what non TREK sci fi fans ARE used to getting from BSG, Firefly, Farscape, the Alien films etc. etc. I give Abrams a pass on that one, though he could have used something besides a brewery? <br /><br />I think the NEXT film will give us more of what Trek fans expect, with added energy from a younger cast and the success of the first film. Trek should always be FUN and never be DULL. It can be philosophical without being ponderous. It can be futuristic without resorting to technobabble. Abrams and his gang have given us that sort of thing on ALIAS and LOST and FRINGE. If they didn't entirely succeed to everyone's liking with this film, they certainly didn't fail as miserably as some of you keep insisting.<br /><br />The box office is proof that people are enjoying this movie and telling others to see it. And their reasons for enjoying it aren't any less intelligent than your reasons for not enjoying it.

  • May 22, 2009, 11:12 p.m. CST

    So Bones hands you your ass on plot holes Joshua

    by IndustryKiller!

    And all of the sudden you aren't interested in convincing anyone about the film or debating it's merits. Give it a fuckin rest man. I mean Jesus the best you got is "The enterprise was built to commemorate hte Kelvin in Iowa." What thin blue fucking sky did you pull that one out of? Also if you really wanna apologize for some plot holes go up to my post that says "PLOT HOLES" in big bold letters. The ones Bones mentioned are nothing compared to those that I listed.

  • May 22, 2009, 11:15 p.m. CST

    Thats debatable Cymbalta

    by IndustryKiller!

    Enjoying the film does not make you unintelligent. I enjoyed hte film. It's got a great cast, some brilliant visuals, and breezy exciting directing. But when guys liek Joshua say "there are no plot holes" that makes him an idiot. If you can't be realistic, like you seem to be, then your reason for liking it are stupid.

  • May 22, 2009, 11:37 p.m. CST

    Everybody's Right (But Only the Haters are Pathetic)

    by emvan

    Almost every work of art has flaws. To begin with, it's the aspiration of all great art to be entertaining as hell AND profound as hell, but this is a combination reserved for the likes of Shakespeare and Philip K. Dick and a few others. In most cases, one is going to be sacrificed for the other. <br><br>And the same principle of tradeoff applies to more specific aspects of a work of art's purpose. In the case of Star Trek, sure, one can imagine a genius script that contained the classic Trek moral seriousness while simultaneously rebooting the franchise and establishing a new set of actors in the familiar roles. But given a choice between the two, it is clear what the priority of the filmmakers was -- and what it should have been. And it's not like every great episode of TOS had the moral depth of "The City on the Edge of Forever"; there were pure butt-kicking action in eps like "The Doomsday Machine." If you were let down that this movie lacked the gravitas of some of the best of TOS, is that the movie's problem--or your own?<br><br> Sometimes the "flaws" in a work of art are intentional on the part of the creators, because allowing them gives freedom for desired strengths. Most obviously, in a science fiction movie, precise scientific rigor is often an impediment to exciting storytelling. As a former physics major I'll be the first to testify that the "red matter" made no fucking sense at all, in terms of contemporary physics. It didn't bother me a bit. It served the purpose of the plot and it wasn't impossible (because the Standard Model of physics is almost certainly wrong in big, important ways), and that was sufficient.<br><br> Folks have pointed out that the music wasn't great, that the Scotty-in-the-water-tubes sequence was kind of ludicrous and that the design of the engine room problematical, that his sidekick really didn't work, and probably a couple of other flaws. I would agree with all of these. I still loved the movie, because they are small flaws that didn't come close to undermining my overall delight.<br><br> The intent of this movie was to cast new, talented actors in the iconic TOS roles and set the stage for a series of movies featuring them, while telling an exciting story and not negating the original canon. Period. They succeeded brilliantly. Quinto IS Spock, Pine IS Kirk, and above all Urban IS Bones. (That Pegg may not be Scotty may or may not be a misstep; we’ll see.) <br><br> So, for the most part, the haters get to keep their ball and go home and play by themselves. For some unknown reason they wanted a different movie, and for reasons that all too sadly clear, the real but minor flaws are going to stick in their throats like peanut-butter-coated action figures while all that was glorious about the movie is going to pass through their systems unobstructed like Gatorade on the eve of a colonoscopy. People use “pathetic” as a general pejorative but I really mean its original sense: I truly feel sorrow for the haters, whose brains are close to broken. What a sad life.<br><br> Oh, yeah: the haters are wrong about the “plot holes.” But those complaints are an after-the-fact rationalization to justify their dismissal of a movie everyone else seems to love.

  • May 22, 2009, 11:41 p.m. CST

    Nah Industry Killer

    by joshuavance1701

    It just occured to me it never ends prick and I don't have the luxury of time to indulge endlessly in responding to every single entirely forced perceptual fallacy someone pulls out of their ass, its a perpetual back and forth. I loved the film, some didn't, there's no point throwing bones to the wolves. Where some see plot holes others see inferences, where some see shoddy science others see science FICTION. It's no different than someone trying to convince me to like Terminator 4, it sucked in my mind. More or less it's all about a mickey mouse pissing contest on here, whereas some should be more concerned about impressing their girlfriends,or hand, rather than anonymous posters on an internet chat forum.

  • May 22, 2009, 11:42 p.m. CST

    Industry Killer

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I scrolled up and read your plot holes post and most of them are the Exact Same Plot Holes that we keep explaining over and over and over again. Watch the film again when it comes out on DVD with the SUBTITLES on and you will see that the film's script ANSWERS all your QUESTIONS. The fact that some of you don't enjoy or approve of the answers you're given is a perfectly valid response. Pretending or Ignoring or Denying that the Answers are there in the first place is NOT. <br /><br />The main plot point that some of you seem completely oblivious to is: Nero doesn't want to KILL Spock. He wants Spock to LIVE with the knowledge that his planet was destroyed and there was nothing he could do to prevent it. And he doesn't go looking to kill Spock as a child or warn Romulus a hundred years in advance because, FOR THE HUNDREDTH FUCKING TIME YOU IDIOTS this is an alternate universe, not just an alternate timeline in Nero's. He can't go back to his universe and neither can Spock Prime. The Spock in this universe is not to blame for what happened, and in this universe Romulus may never be destroyed. He wants to torture Spock Prime the way he was tortured, and punish the entire Federation that isn't even the same Federation. He's a crazy angry vengeful Romulan. Of course his actions are illogical.

  • May 22, 2009, 11:44 p.m. CST

    What a fucking cop out emvan

    by IndustryKiller!

    If I'm wrong about the plot holes then explain them. They weren't an after the fact realization, I saw them plain as day AS I was watching the film. Don't be a fucking punk and toss it off as an aside in closing. Methinks you know you've got absolutely nothing in terms of an argument. And if you think Quinto IS Spock then it's obvious you dont understand the source material. There is absolutely no way Quintos rage-a-holic sociopath drama queen SPock becomes Nimoys Zen master logic driven SPock. I mean he's already like fucking 3 when this film takes place. He's not just emotional, he's more emotional than anyone else on the ship. Does he suddenly find himself after meeting Kirk who magically turns his life around. *rolls eyes*

  • May 22, 2009, 11:49 p.m. CST

    Hey Industry Killer

    by joshuavance1701

    Why don't you go wrap your car around a tree and burn and rot in hell you fucking 15 year old piece of shit. You are a SAD COCKSUCKER to post OVER AND OVER AND OVER about you not liking a movie. Did your fucking worthless life depend THAT MUCH on this film for happiness? You tight penny pinching pussy are you crying about having lost 8 bucks? Mother Fucker I sat through Terminator I want my two hours back. You emotionally ill fucker everyone gets you dont like the movie take your sandy beach pussy and go watch Watchmen you obtuse piece of flotsam.

  • May 22, 2009, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Industrykiller...please man...

    by Bones

    Thanks for the support! But, let's not pick too hard on Cymbalta, alright? He is one of the few guys who is presenting his support of the film in a way that isn't outright insulting.<p> I think we have pretty much hit the wall, where the only thing left is people saying "I like the film--screw you guys who don't" or "I hate the film--screw you guys who do".<p> Which is a real impasse.<p> I got into a discussion with someone on another board about FATE and DESTINY in Star Trek--and how so much of this film is about those two things. I took the approach that Fate doesn't really have a place in Star Trek, and this other person argued that it certainly did, as was seen in First Contact and DS9.<p> My rebuttal was that in First Contact, people from the future were pushing the events to fit the mold that was needed to form their future (and possibly they always did if it was a predestination paradox) and in DS9 it was actually the machinations of the Wormhole Aliens who live outside of Linear Time--it wasn't true fate. But in this film, Fate and Destiny (or self-correcting timeline) kind of serve the purpose of The Force in this film and seem to be pushing all of the original character together to combat the incursion of Nero--and it bothers me, as it implies a kind of intelligence or will moving everything toward a forseen goal...and that kind of goes against the Humanist Ideals of Star Trek.<p> I honestly hope that when they continue this series, they avoid previous storylines and let them unfold in a completely different way.

  • May 22, 2009, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Oh, and "Plot Holes" Defined

    by emvan

    A plot hole is something that can't be made sense of. A mere gap in a movie's narrative is not a plot hole if reasonably intelligent people can think of reasonable explanations to explain the apparent omission or oversight. Storytellers are not obliged to tell you everything.<br><br>It goes without saying that it's especially not a plot hole if the storytellers have explained elsewhere exactly how the apparent gap is filled.<br><br> The "plot hole" debate here will go on endlessly because the haters are defining the term differently from everyone else. They are demanding that the narrative on screen cross every T and dot every I. That's the way children like their stories to be told, and it's actually often bad storytelling when adults are watching.

  • May 22, 2009, 11:54 p.m. CST

    Bullshit CYmbalta

    by IndustryKiller!

    Where are the fucking explainations. The ONE things I mentioned you responded to was barely even a plot hole so much as a gap int he logic in terms of character. And My gripe wasnt that Nero didnt kill Spock, its that he randomly and conveniently maroons him on a planet he apparently knows nothing about (given he didnt know there was a federation base nearby that would allow him to easily escape) instead of making him watch in a place he couldn't possibly escape from and foil Neros plans, like, maybe, Nero's ship. It's worse than a fucking Bond villain leaving to let a slow moving machine kill Bond unsupervised and it's just more lazy writing i.e. ALL the ridiculous coincidences I mentioned (and you chose not to acknowledge) and the vague red matter plot device.<P>As for the alternate universe stuff I dont know who you are responding to because that wasnt one of my complaints, Im well aware that they are in an alternate timeline. If you think that's one of the thing I listed then you need to read a little more carefully, because it flat out isn't.

  • May 22, 2009, 11:57 p.m. CST

    Forget it Emvan

    by joshuavance1701

    They know nothing of inference, extrapolation, correlation or creative bridging. They need everything spelled out for them laundry list style.

  • May 22, 2009, 11:59 p.m. CST

    Umm no Cymbalta

    by IndustryKiller!

    Most of these guys ideas of a "reasonable explanation" is an apology made up out of the ether. For instance Joshuas totally unsubstantiated reasoning that the Enterprise was built in Iowa as some kind of fucking tribute to George Kirk. You can't just make shit like that up. Just like you can't make up an origin for red matter, or why black holes allow you to time travel, or why of all the times and places Nero popped out it HAPPENED to be the place where Kirk was about to be born, or how Nero happened to be outside the black hole waiting at the random moment Spock came through, or how Kirk just coincidentally stumbles upon the cave Spock is in......jesus I could go on but Ive made my point. None of these things has ANY explaination that doesnt have to be completely invented from scratch by the viewer. Ergo it is a silly plot hole, or AT LEAST insanely lazy screenwriting.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:01 a.m. CST

    ahhh "creative bridging" Joshua

    by IndustryKiller!

    Is that what you call inventing whole unexplained sections of a script. Man you should have worked for the Bush administration with spin like that.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:02 a.m. CST

    Hey you dumb sack of shit

    by joshuavance1701

    I didn't make it up it came from the fucking writer of the movie Bob Orci over at Trekmovie that is responding to a Q and A you troubled fuck. The Riverside shipyard was to honor George Kirk who was FROM riverside Iowa. Now go burn and rot in hell.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:05 a.m. CST

    I'm just Tired of this Whole Debate

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    It's like we're not even watching the same movie! You guys that don't like it think the people that do have their brains turned off, when it's abundantly clear that you guys are the ones who weren't paying attention.<br /><br /> 2/3 of your problems are dealt with in dialogue during the Kirk /Spock mind meld. Did you go to the bathroom during that scene? Were you so pissed off at coincidences that you ignored the entire backstory? I'm tired of getting so worked up over this that I'm cursing in all caps over a Star Trek movie. Emfan and Bones are the only ones making sense at this point.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:09 a.m. CST

    Joshua, odd he didn't put it in the movie then

    by IndustryKiller!

    I don't give a fuck what he says in an interview, he could have made that shit up on the spot to apologize for his own pathetic screenwriting. I mean thats not even in any way inferred. They could have put a sign or something that said "George Kirk Memorial Station" or a simple line. If hes so sure of it why isnt it in the film?

  • May 23, 2009, 12:12 a.m. CST

    Dr_PepperSpray...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    You wrote: "Star Trek is dead. New Trek is not Star Trek." <p>Here's a little Nietzsche for you: If Star Trek IS dead, then you are the killer. You and your obsessive, fanatical colleagues who use every opportunity to belittle any attempt to breathe life into the franchise. You have proven that Trekkies are irrelevant in this world of cinema -- and impossible to please. </p> The good news? STAR TREK is not dead. It is alive and well...and earning new fans with every viewing of the new film. It is only "dead" in the eyes of impossible-to-please Trekkies.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:13 a.m. CST

    Maybe

    by joshuavance1701

    You missed the Kelvin saltshaker Kirk played with. It wasn't a toy he pulled out of his pocket you know. Go see the movie again and this time actually watch it, to hell with the third bag of popcorn you don't need it.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:19 a.m. CST

    Thats some fine dodging Cymbalta

    by IndustryKiller!

    You're just dodging my points because you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. I watch the SPock/Kirk scene and the answers to my question arent in there. They didn't answer a thing about red matter, time warping black holes, why a race of people with limitless space travel didn't evacuate their planet when the supernova that was already edging toward them became imminent, or how Spock could have so grossly miscalculated when the supernova was going to hit Romulus (in fact this is tossed of with the line "and then the unexpected happened" and is brushed aside completely). If its so obvious, fucking explain it with the information you claim was given in that scene. ANd don't just try to brush off the coincidences, they are every bit as egregious as any other lazy bullshit screenwriting device. Im taking you to task cymbalta, step up or keep your mouth shut.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:21 a.m. CST

    Industry Killer

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Chance and Coincidence exist in the 21st Century in our universe. Would it be more realistic if they ceased to exist in the 23rd and 24th Centuries of a fictional one?Is there any explanation for red matter that would possibly satisfy you? It's a macguffin. And if a space anomaly that sends two different ships to an alternate universe twenty five years apart is too great a sci fi conceit for your mind to grasp, why are you watching Star Trek? Apparently it wasn't "dumbed down" enough for some of you?

  • May 23, 2009, 12:23 a.m. CST

    You can't say people are impossible to please

    by IndustryKiller!

    when their complaints are well documented and well supported using specific points from the film. Trekkies rent relevant? WHat group of moviegoers is relevant. Discerning Audiences in general arent fucking relevant as the awful quality of anything is rewarded with gabs of money and only a total douche bag would celebrate that kind of idiocy.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:24 a.m. CST

    Okay, IndustryKiller!, Here's One

    by emvan

    "How come the only survivors of the planet Vulcan were on some random mining vessel when the Vulcans have LOOOONG had limitless space travel? Was it some sort of Vulcan religious holiday when that supernova hit and everyone just flatly refused to leave? Give me a fucking break"<br><br> Leaving aside the fact that you called the Romulans "Vulcans" three straight times ... this is typical of the level of "plot hole complaint" I'm seeing here. There is a level of simplistic stupidity (sorry, got to call a spade a spade) here that makes it real hard to not reply in ALL CAPS, but I will exercise restraint.<br><br> Who the hell says that Nero and his ship are the only survivors? Why would the presence of a hundred or a thousand other such ships, all captained by sane, non grudge-holding captains (some of whom may have even been caught in the black hole and gone back in time), affect the story in any way? Why would any competent storyteller bother mentioning the presence of all the non-pissed-off survivors? Why would Nero care about the other, unmentioned survivors?<br><br> Another poster began his "plot hole" list with the assertion that George Kirk died in vain because he could have put the ship on auto-pilot. A conclusion he apparently reached because we didn't get a specific scene or shot in which it was mentioned that the heavy damage to the ship included damage to the auto-pilot. Now, since it could be inferred incredibly easily that Kirk stayed on the ship to pilot it because the auto-pilot was indeed out, it actually would have been brutally obvious and bad filmmaking to slow down that action sequence with an "auto-pilot is out" segment when everyone can fucking figure that out.<br><br> As I said, these are not complaints about "plot holes" -- these are almost entirely complaints about simple, omitted, aspects of the story whose existence EVERYONE ELSE is correctly inferring and whose inclusion in the movie would have justifiably been assailed as dumbing down.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:27 a.m. CST

    Wow--I must be tired.

    by Bones

    The last line of my last post had nothing to do with the rest of it.<p> Alright, kids. I am off for the night. Please, play nice...

  • May 23, 2009, 12:27 a.m. CST

    Thats what I thought cymbalta.

    by IndustryKiller!

    It goes to show nothing the screenwriters could have come up with would have disappointed you. If chance after chance isnt enough of a lazy storytelling device for you. As for the 25 year gap, I fucking get it full well, what I dont get is how Nero, after having flown around the galaxy doing nothing for 25 years, just HAPPENED to be in front of that black hole the random moment SPock came through. It's not like he knew when it was gonna happen, you're telling me he just got lucky? But I guess thats more chance for you. And red matter is a macguffin? No shit. But it's as fucking lazy, mysterious, and completely unexplained as you could possibly have in a film, just a cheap deus ex machina to move the plot along.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:31 a.m. CST

    Because hte film SAYS they are the only survivors

    by IndustryKiller!

    of Romulus emvan. So fuck off on that point or try again. As for the George Kirk thing its not one of mine, and I dont agree with it. But thanks for leaving all my other major complaints completely unanswered

  • May 23, 2009, 12:34 a.m. CST

    And One More "Plot Hole"

    by emvan

    "how Spock could have so grossly miscalculated when the supernova was going to hit Romulus (in fact this is tossed of with the line "and then the unexpected happened" and is brushed aside completely)"<br><br> OK, the exact time that the supernova hits Romulus is going to be determined by an incredibly complicated computer model of the exploding star, right? And Spock is not infallible, right? And you know from chaos theory that extremely small errors in initial conditions can cause gross differences in the results, right?<br><br> And yet somehow you don't buy the fact that Spock's model of the supernova could have been incorrect? Or you would have preferred we stop the movie for Spock to explain that he had a computer model and that he must have made some error in the initial conditions that led to the supernova going off before he thought it would, when anyone with a functioning brain can work that out in thirty seconds?<br><br> Again, you are not complaining about "plot holes," you are complaining about efficient storytelling that doesn't stop to spell out every easily inferable detail.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:36 a.m. CST

    Two more Things

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Emvan is exactly right above but in fact THE FILM CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AUTOPILOT ISN'T WORKING. It shows the malfunction on George Kirk's workstation screen AND I think the computer announces it? This ignorance of what the film makes perfectly clear is why we are, to quote Kirk: "Laughing at the superior intellect."<br /><br />And Industry Killer, Nero isn't just pissed because Romulus was destroyed. He's pissed because his poor miner's family was still on the planet when it happened.Of course the Romulan higher ups probably escaped. This is the kind of social commentary /political allegory that Trek fans swoon over but are completely oblivious to in the movie. The poorer Romulans are basically hit by Hurricane Katrina.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:36 a.m. CST

    Hey Emvan

    by joshuavance1701

    They actually love the film, but are searching for others to explain to them why. Just drop it man they aren't worth the typing.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:45 a.m. CST

    "There You Go Again"

    by emvan

    The film can't and doesn't say anything about how many Romulan survivors there are, because the film has no omniscient narrator. The Federation can't know because it hasn't happened yet. Nero may have stated his ship was the only survivor (I saw the film twice and absolutely don't recall such an assertion), but that's meaningless; he would have deep motivation to believe he was alone. And the storyline, as I pointed out, doesn't in the least depend on his ship being the only survivor (as if there's a difference between the death of, say, 6,000,000 Romulans and 6,001,000); it just depends on his rage over the planet's destruction.<br><br> BTW, I found nearly all of your other "plot holes" equally as stupid (coincidences aren't "plot holes" either, they're coincidences, and I agree that the coincidences on the exile planet are a minor flaw) and feel no obligation to demolish them one-by-one.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:48 a.m. CST

    Shit Happens on Star Trek Industry Killer

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    McCoy just happens to accidentally shoot himself full of a drug that makes him go crazy in "City on the Edge of Forever". He just happens to jump into the Guardian of Forever and change the future. Spock just happens to figure out a way to find him and stop him. Kirk just happens to fall in love with the woman who has to die. <br /><br />Boy, that Harlan Ellison is a shitty writer isn't he? Fuck him and his time travel bullshit. Alternate timeline my ass! ;^) <br /><br />

  • May 23, 2009, 12:54 a.m. CST

    Dr_PepperSpray

    by emvan

    I thought the whole point of crashing the Kelvin into the Narada was to prevent the Narada from firing on the escape pods. It doesn't not make sense to me that the collision could cause enough damage and chaos aboard the Narada to do so.<br><br> "why Star fleet didn't investigate the occurrence thoroughly since we're told no one but Kirk seemed to recognize the whole lightening in Space thing."<br><br> Who says they didn't investigate it thoroughly? There's probably an entire Warren Report-sized cache of documents. But who says the details would be common knowledge among everyone on board? We are given specific reasons as to why Kirk and Kirk alone has all the pieces of the puzzle. Pine in theory knows the "lightning storm in space" reference but he's apparently too busy running the ship to remember it; recall that he wrote his dissertation on the Kelvin years ago but Kirk read it very recently.

  • May 23, 2009, 1:09 a.m. CST

    Coincidences

    by emvan

    You know jack shit about writing if you think they are always the sign of laziness. Coincidences do happen in real life. Any human being could tell you a story about one that had a significant impact on their life. The skillful writer knows just how much coincidence a given story can stand (one rule of thumb is that you're allowed one major one per novel).<br><br> In this case, it's probably a coincidence that Scotty is on the planet near Vulcan, but maybe not; it is a punitive assignment but you might want to send the brilliant young engineer to an outpost near a scientific mecca. And it's probably a coincidence that Spock is near the Federation outpost, but maybe not: the outpost may well be in a spot that has the best or most frequent view of Vulcan, so that's where Nero would leave him, and/or Spock himself may have been headed for the outpost. It's definitely a coincidence that Kirk runs into Spock's cave, but, hey, shit happens. The whole sequence strikes me as unlikely but not to the degree that it's a deal-breaker; I can take it with a grain of salt.

  • May 23, 2009, 1:12 a.m. CST

    I was JOKING Dr. Pepper Spray

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I find it amusing that these people would NEVER hold a show they claim to love written by an award winning science fiction writer to the same standards that they're holding a film they clearly don't love written by the guys who gave us TRANSFORMERS? <br /><br />No film is Perfect. I can shoot holes in CITIZEN KANE till the cows come home. Why does Bernstein tell the story of the first day at the newspaper when the Flashback shows HE WASN'T IN THE ROOM? How can he tell the reporter what Kane and Leland were talking about when he was walking in and out with the guys carrying the furniture? <br /><br />And that breakfast table montage showing years of Kane's marital troubles is really cool, but who the fuck's point of view is that from? Are we supposed to believe Charles Foster Kane came to work every day and told Jed Leland about what he and his wife argued about over their cornflakes? <br /><br /> And if there was nobody in Kane's room when he died, how do we know his last word was "Rosebud"?!!!

  • May 23, 2009, 1:21 a.m. CST

    Dr PS, WTF?

    by emvan

    Pike did not witness or escape the Kelvin attack. He wrote his dissertation on it. For him to recognize what's happening before Kirk does, he has to pick up on *one specific detail* from that 20-year-old paper. That detail has been stressed for OUR benefit as viewers but was not necessarily more than one detail out of hundreds in his report. It's unlikely that he's re-read the paper since he wrote it (have you ever re-read any papers you've written for school?), whereas Kirk has probably read the paper over and over again, as the document of his father's heroism. It's set up beautifully.<br><br> When I see the movie a third time I will watch what Pine is up to at the moment that Chekhov quotes the "lightning storm in space" description. I'll bet that he's reasonably distracted.

  • May 23, 2009, 1:37 a.m. CST

    Wait for the Director's Cut / Deleted Scenes

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    We'll get Spock's birth scene, Nero and his crew escaping from the Klingon Keystone Kops,the uncensored threeway with Carol Marcus and the Orion girl,a half hour of Kevin Smithesque scenes of Romulans bitching about 25 years of waiting for Godot, I mean, Spock. And the mind meld scene will be twice as long and include a power point presentation where Spock uses a laser pointer and gives a chemical analysis of the origins of red matter. The movie would be even more successful with an extra hour of exposition.

  • May 23, 2009, 1:40 a.m. CST

    by Dingbatty

  • May 23, 2009, 1:44 a.m. CST

    Fucking shit keyboard...

    by Dingbatty

    anyhow, I doubt any of the actors or imagery of the reboot will be iconic, will inspire the dedication of Trekkies/Trekkers whatever. It'll probably be a minor facet of the conventions, or a splinter group. The upcoming online game looks mostly like TNG.

  • May 23, 2009, 1:46 a.m. CST

    I seriously doubt any of these actors are in it

    by Dingbatty

    for the long haul. They'll have to do TNG reboot within the timeline (though I suspect new Trek will be in the future of the original).

  • May 23, 2009, 2:02 a.m. CST

    Dingbatty: Long Haul?

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    The new actors are ALREADY signed to do sequels. With a 2 to 3 year window between movies, we'll be seeing them for at least a DECADE. Get used to them. There will still be books, comics and games set in the original Universe. And I would be surprised if these actors do more than one convention a year each (if any). They're working movie stars. And they will be warmly embraced if they do go. They've rescued the Franchise.

  • May 23, 2009, 2:12 a.m. CST

    so...

    by davywankenobi

    Some are complaining that the Federation didn't "hunt down the Romulan ship" when it destroyed the Kelvin. You do know that at this point in time the Federation and the Romulans were in the middle of an intergalactic cold war right? Who's to say the Federation didn't think that the giant ship didn't scoot on back to Romulus? No one had any idea that it was displaced from an alternate reality. It would have been like barging into Soviet borders in the mid-60's looking for an advanced jet fighter. And space is huuuuuuge. Even if they knew it wasn't some top secret Romulan warship then they had to know they could have looked forever for it and not found it. Yes, somebody should have picked up on the "lightning storm" aspect but the "main fleet" was of in the "Lorintian(sp?)" system. After the initial reports, I'm sure all communication was stopped by the drill anyway. My big plot hole was how well armed the "mining vessel" was. They must have some pesky pirates in space for a non military craft to be that well armed. 47 Klingon war birds? I hope the whole "imprisoned" by the Klingon thing gets cut before the dvd because that would truly be a plot hole for me. Why/How could the Klingon's hold a ship of that size for 25 years without raiding it and exploiting the technology? We'll see when it comes out. This is a FUN movie guys. Plot holes not withstanding. You only hurt yourselves when you don't allow yourself to have a good time. Wolverine was far more disappointing and Terminator Salvation was much less fun. Relax and enjoy guys.

  • May 23, 2009, 4:14 a.m. CST

    Two more movies, tops. They won't

    by Dingbatty

    be in it as long as the original cast.

  • May 23, 2009, 4:32 a.m. CST

    I enjoyed Star Trek but Leave the fucking Dark Tower alone...

    by kendragon

    Some books should never be filmed.

  • May 23, 2009, 4:46 a.m. CST

    I don't answer questions...Nero was blue collar

    by darthSaul666

    Or did you miss that about Nero? No flowery dialog.....That's because he was mining for 20 years; Hence, no time for Shakespeare. I had never seen a blue collar Romulan before. I thought chopper was pitch perfect.... Shit sakes!!! Star Trek by JAY JAY was awesome!!!! Fuck the haters who try to be smart about it......I grew up on TOS and it had fucking Space Hippies...... let me repeat, SPACE HIPPIES!?!

  • Seriously, the amount of mental gymnastics people are doing to gloss over the plot holes is laughable.

  • May 23, 2009, 6:52 a.m. CST

    I THOUGHT THE REMANS DID ALL THE MINING WORK

    by BringingSexyBack

    This ain't canon, JJ!!!

  • May 23, 2009, 6:54 a.m. CST

    SPACE HIPPIES

    by BringingSexyBack

    is exactly what the sequel needs to up the ante. I hope Bob is listening.

  • May 23, 2009, 6:55 a.m. CST

    WHY IS THERE NO VIDEO GAME FOR THIS MOVIE?

    by BringingSexyBack

    That would be one I would actually want to play.

  • May 23, 2009, 6:58 a.m. CST

    CYMBALTA - HOLY SHIT YOU'RE RIGHT

    by BringingSexyBack

    How DID they know about Rosebud when no one was in the room?

  • May 23, 2009, 6:58 a.m. CST

    MY FIRST SEXUAL EXPERIENCE WAS WITH A DRESSER KNOB

    by BringingSexyBack

  • May 23, 2009, 8:06 a.m. CST

    Yeah, ok, let's tear down great movies,

    by jae683

    to make this crappy one look good.

  • May 23, 2009, 8:20 a.m. CST

    OMFG.

    by TITBAG

    HERE'S A RUN DOWN OF THE LAST 50 POSTS WHERE SOME CLUELESS MORON PRATTLES ON AND ON ABOUT HOW THERE ARE NO PLOT HOLES. READY? <P> BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH <P> BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH <P> BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH <P> BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH <P> BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH <P> BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH <P> BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH <P> BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH <P> I'MACOMPLETEFUCKINGMORON. <P> <P> IT'S BEYOND CLEAR THAT THOSE OF YOU STILL DEFENDING THIS ABOMINATION SIMPLY HAVE A TOUCH OF THE DOWN.

  • May 23, 2009, 8:21 a.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "EVEN THE ANGELS ARE CRYING"

    by TITBAG

  • May 23, 2009, 8:25 a.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY:"I JUST CALLED NICHOLAS MEYER"

    by TITBAG

    "AND APOLOGIZED THAT I WAS KIND OF A TWAT TO HIM ABOUT TREK VI. I TOLD HIM I'D JUST SEEN THE NEW JJ TREK AND DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHIT REALLY WAS."

  • May 23, 2009, 8:36 a.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "I'D RATHER SIT THROUGH...

    by TITBAG

    ....1000 VIEWINGS OF THAT HORRIBLE DUNG HEAP LAST SEASON OF BSG, THAN AGAIN SIT THROUGH EVEN 10 SECONDS OF THE NEW TREK. <P> IF THAT'S NOT HATE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. <P> MAAAAJJJJEEELLL! BRING ME MY FUCKING TEA YOU CUNT!!!"

  • May 23, 2009, 8:43 a.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "PEOPLE THAT LIKE THE NEW TREK HAVE NO SOUL"

    by TITBAG

    "IT'S CONFIRMED."

  • May 23, 2009, 9:11 a.m. CST

    RODDEBERRY: "I WISH TREK HAD DIED WITH ME"

    by BringingSexyBack

    "Too late for that but at least I have Majel to kick around again!"

  • May 23, 2009, 9:13 a.m. CST

    THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS PLOT HOLES

    by BringingSexyBack

    Just logical paradoxes.

  • May 23, 2009, 9:15 a.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "HAYDEN PANETIERRE FOR JANICE RAND"

    by BringingSexyBack

    "If you care to redeem yourself JJ, make it so!"

  • May 23, 2009, 9:24 a.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY:"EVEN AFTER SHATNER FUCKED MAJEL"

    by TITBAG

    "I WASN'T AS ANGRY AS WHEN THE CREDITS STARTED TO ROLL ON THE NEW TREK. TRUE STORY."

  • May 23, 2009, 9:30 a.m. CST

    CHINA DECLARES:

    by TITBAG

    "WE HATE THE NEW TREK SO MUCH, EVEN WE AREN'T GOING TO MAKE BOOTLEG COPIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

  • May 23, 2009, 9:32 a.m. CST

    TITBAG and jae 683

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    It's interesting how noone in here has been able to DISPUTE any of the ANSWERS to these alleged plot holes that joshuavance, emvan, myself and others have repeatedly pointed out are right there in the film. Are you actually READING any of our posts? Or do we have to call you SHITBAG and gae 683 to get your attention?<br /><br />Here's your homework for the weekend: Name TEN Favorite Star Trek Episodes of your choosing that: <br /><br />1. Don't involve Time Travel or Alternate Universes. <br /><br />2.Have no chance encounters or coincidences. <br /><br />3. Have an antagonist who never makes any mistakes and whose motivations make perfect sense. <br /><br />4. Don't involve malfunctions or anomalies that occur out of the blue. <br /><br />5. And clearly explain the origins of all the science involved in enough detail that noone can be confused or feel the plot has holes. <br /><br />Post your responses here. Extra Credit for swearing and using ALL CAPS.

  • May 23, 2009, 9:36 a.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "I WATCHED NEW TREK"

    by BringingSexyBack

    "And I can confirm that, yes, it is torture. Absolutely it is torture."

  • May 23, 2009, 9:37 a.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "IF I COULD TRAVEL BACK IN TIME"

    by BringingSexyBack

    "I would terminate my teen self to prevent New Trek from happening."

  • May 23, 2009, 9:57 a.m. CST

    "City on the Edge of Forever" was CRAP

    by NoDiggity

    I'm not trolling here. It was crap. One of the worst, most retarded, episodes of the old series ... badly acted, massively illogical, depending on the retarded idea of Alien Artifacts designed to send things back in time, even though sending things back in time just causes horrible trouble that has to be fixed by going back in time! And it's responsible for the worst in Sci Fi TV since, the Time Travel reset button (though Voyager, typically, made their TT episodes more watchable and fun than much previous to Voyager). Oh, and Edith Keillor was ugly.

  • May 23, 2009, 10:17 a.m. CST

    before you diss red matter

    by Dreamfasting

    Read up about "red mercury" and remember that the best Trek devices are scaled up versions of something odd about the real world.

  • May 23, 2009, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Dark Tower

    by shb600

    J.J. Abrams Please film staring with Roland's life in time order or at least start with Wizard and Glass which is by far the best and most accessible book.

  • May 23, 2009, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Dr_PepperSpray...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    You're correct. Pike explained that he was a rescued crew member. He later wrote a dissertation on the subject. <p>The Narada was firing on the escape pods, but the Kelvin, under control of George Kirk, used phasers to intercept the missiles.</p>

  • May 23, 2009, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Dr_PepperSpray...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Well, he was probably a new recruit on the ship...and had no idea what was going on. Younger Pike wasn't in the bridge...wasn't an officer...and wasn't in the "loop" about it. The only reason that Captain Pike seemed to not realize what was going on was because he had not intercepted the Klingon communication about a light storm.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Industry, somewhat agreed

    by necgrey

    First, I don't know this necgray person. From what I recall, he was a jerk who called Hercules the Wonderful out on what he considered bullshit and got banned. Necgrey (me) loves Hercules the Just and Wise and doesn't at all feel that some AICN administrators abuse their power because they are spineless shits who can't tolerate dissenting opinion. <p> Now, I agree that a lot of mainstream garbage gets made because the average audience has a tendency to buy into it. Where I think we disagree most is who gets the blame and how much blame there is to give. And possibly what movies are at fault. For instance, I don't at all agree with your notion that Orci and Kurtzman are cynically cashing their checks thinking they "got one over" on the filmgoing audience. I'm pretty sure they think what they do is good. I liked Star Trek, but my biggest complaint was the unnecessary and over-the-top comic relief. When I saw it on screen I said to myself, "Ah, from the writers who brought you pissing Transformers..." But I don't think they did that to be dicks. I just think they're artless about their comic relief. You make it sound malicious, but I think you're way overreacting. <p> Likewise with the moviegoing public. Do they too often seem to beg for dumbed-down, crass garbage? Yeah, it seems that way. But you make it sound like it's an effort. Like they purposely avoid critical thinking about their entertainment. But you and I and others like us have made an effort to BE critical thinkers about entertainment. It's something we're passionate about. If John Doe who works 8+ hours in a factory job doesn't give a shit about preserving the artistry of film, how can you get mad at him? His passion isn't your passion. What if he was a motorcycle enthusiast and you said "Harleys are awesome", and he got pissy because he thinks Harleys are populist pieces of shit? Would he be justified getting angry at you? No. He has a right to get angry, but it's not justified. <p> That said, I know some of your wrath is directed at THESE people, this site, the fans who have said they liked the film. Fair enough. I see your points and don't disagree, but none of that stopped me from enjoying the film. Too many people are complaining about fealty to the source material of ST:TOS, and I think that's kind of silly. And although I thought the comic relief was unnecessary and artless, I didn't think it ruined the movie. I also thought there were some holes in character logic. But again, doesn't ruin the movie for me. It makes it 3 1/2 stars instead of 5. <p> I should also apologize for the "skinny jeans/Iron & Wine" thing. Hipsters aren't all bad and Jim Jarmusch has made a film or two that I thought was worth some of the drawers-pissing indie-fanboy hype he gets. I just find it easy to get pissy about indie film. That was me doing the pot-kettle...

  • May 23, 2009, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Dr_PepperSpray...plot holes...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    If we want to over-analyze the supposed plot holes in this movie, we might want to go back to every other TREK incarnation and do the same. STAR TREK is, after all, one giant plot hole. From the "late 20th century eugenics war" to the uncountable holes in the series, STAR TREK has just been soaking in the crossed fingers of hardcore Trekkies who are willing to look the other way. <p>The writers are, after all, "Deuce ex Machina." </p> I thought that this film had less plotholes than some of the other Trek films out there. The difference is that these supposed plot holes are mostly nitpicking while the plot holes of the other TREK incarnations are much more glaring yet ignored.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:22 p.m. CST

    *Deus ex Machina

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    (type)

  • May 23, 2009, 12:25 p.m. CST

    BTW...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    You can go to YouTube, type in STAR TREK PLOT HOLES or STAR TREK MISTAKES and find quite a few videos that show the extent of plot holes in the STAR TREK universe. <p> It is, after all, only a work of fiction. </p> It is just a movie...that many people thought was entertaining.

  • May 23, 2009, 12:35 p.m. CST

    FUCKING BLACK*COUGH*PLOT*COUGH* HOLES

    by TITBAG

    OFMG. <P> HERE'S A RUNDOWN OF ALL YOU NANCY-BOY FAGGOTS WHO KEEP INSISTING THERE WERE NO PLOT HOLES. <P> READY? <P> "I LIKED THE NEW TREK. IT WAS REALLY NEAT. I LIKED ALL THE FLYING SPACESHIPS. SO DID MY DADDY. CAN I HAVE SOME ICECREAM?"

  • May 23, 2009, 12:40 p.m. CST

    interesting how the mind works...

    by brightgeist

    after 36 hours of non-stop work I'm actually thinking that I might like the new STAR TREK if the extended version or deleted scenes in the blu-ray give me explanations for some of the major inconsistencies. I should get some sleep... things will be back to normal in the morning, and I'll see clearly again how much the movie sucks

  • May 23, 2009, 12:42 p.m. CST

    scenes in the blu-ray

    by brightgeist

    whoa, there's stuff in this blu-ray! LOL... man, I should really get some sleep :-D

  • May 23, 2009, 1:13 p.m. CST

    Cymbalta, NONE of my plot holes were answered

    by IndustryKiller!

    None of them, so how the fuck can I re-dispute the undisputed? The ONLY thing that was tackled was whether or not Neros ship were the last ROmulans left alive, which old SPock says they are. So thats that. You guys didn't explain anything else. You say "Oh coincidences happen" thats a cheap bullshit apology. They don't happen THAT conveniently over and over and over again so specific exciting things can happen. You give carte blanche to any filmmaker to use some insane deus ex machina device to fix anything they are having trouble writing. It's like if at the end of Star Trek Nero is just about to kill Kirk when he trips and hits his head and dies. Do things like that happen? yes they do. Is that how youw rite films, no, because its fucking lazy lazy lazy. Just like insanely important event after insanely important event occuring for no other reason than the plot cant move forward unless it conveniently happens. Don't fucking sit there and ask me to answer to things you have not addressed.

  • May 23, 2009, 1:14 p.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by jae683

    Give me a break. Stop soft-peddling this crap. The plot holes are obvious, and they've been rehashed over and over here already. Nothing you've said has disputed anything, except your fanboy rhetoric.

  • May 23, 2009, 1:38 p.m. CST

    The big picture

    by EX_MAN_WOLF_MARINE

    JJ has created a Trek that appeals to the masses. Typically the masses get bored after three movies (many were bored by the first), and they aren't going to support a new TV show. The cost of doing a Trek movie is so high that it has to bring in the masses in addition to the fans, and it won't be able to continue to do so. Box office will drop for the next two movies, and that will be the end of Star Trek. Funny how so many credit JJ with saving the franchise when I'm pretty sure he's created something that will crush the franchise under its own weight.

  • May 23, 2009, 2:25 p.m. CST

    good point, Titbag

    by necgrey

    YOU ARE VERY CLEVER AND WELL-SPOKEN! I AM GLAD THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING COGENT POINTS IN LOWERCASE HAVE GENIUSES LIKE YOU TO MAKE THEIR CAPSLOCKED HOMOPHOBIC POINTS FOR THEM! WELL DONE!

  • May 23, 2009, 3:06 p.m. CST

    killer, it's time to see another movie.

    by mr. smith

  • May 23, 2009, 3:19 p.m. CST

    i withdraw my previous goodwill

    by mr. smith

    some folks seriously have no joy in life. killer, no one needs to be insulted, you certainly don't have the market cornered on intellectual superiority. if you did, you would have made your point and moved on. no none here has to justify liking a movie to any other self righteous snob who thinks they've cornered the market on quality criticism. bullshit. hey everybody, guess what i'm off to do? show some friends the new star trek movie! think i'm an idiot? i could give a shit. get a life. i'm out.

  • May 23, 2009, 3:51 p.m. CST

    COCKANDBALLS4THEDEVIL

    by TITBAG

    I'VE GONE BACK AND RE-READ EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR POSTS. <P> I'VE REGISTERED ON THIS FORUM PURELY TO INFORM YOU THAT YOU ARE A COMPLETE CUNT.

  • May 23, 2009, 3:54 p.m. CST

    NECGREY

    by TITBAG

    YOU HAVE NOT USED THE WORD 'COGENT' PROPERLY. <P> FAIL. <P> THE REST OF YOUR POST IS ACCEPTABLE. BARELY. YOU MAY REMAIN.

  • May 23, 2009, 4:03 p.m. CST

    MR. SMITH

    by TITBAG

    AFTER YOU SHOW YOUR FRIENDS YOUR NEW STAR TREK MOVIE, WILL YOU LUBE UP YOUR ASSHOLE BEFORE THEY RAPE YOU? <P> BECAUSE...UM....IF THEY HAVE EVEN A SMIDGEN OF TASTE THEY ARE GOING TO FUCK YOU BUT GOOD. <P> JUST SAYIN'. HAVE FUN. GIVE US A FULL REPORT.

  • May 23, 2009, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Many people find any POS movie entertaining.

    by kabong

    That doesn't make the movie good.

  • May 23, 2009, 4:44 p.m. CST

    TITBAG

    by Continentalop

    You might be a nice guy, you might have some good points, but I just want to say that calling a bunch of guys "Nancy Boy Faggots" on a JJ Abrams Star Trek TB that YOU YOURSELF are posting on could be considered a little 'the pot calling the kettle black.'

  • May 23, 2009, 6:33 p.m. CST

    Not a Trek fan at all..

    by Giant Ape Balls

    The cod philosophy always put me off, but this was great fun if a little silly (why not save his planet rather than hang around (or did he understand time/space thing-a-mi-bob?))

  • May 23, 2009, 7:16 p.m. CST

    Well, no JJ, you should have minded the script. Of course, who

    by empyreal0

    ...millions of dollars in returns. I'm not saying it was a BAD script; it was mostly good. Child Spock's introduction was awesome. BUT the few problems with it were very distracting. Bones' excuse to get Kirk on the ship and Spock's horrible decision to abandon the captain's seat and not pick a successor (leaving Kirk to call dibs) is absolutely plot leading character by the nose. That is bad (ie, lazy) writing. Oh, and the "red matter" thing was less McGuffin, more Deux ex Machina, and really felt like a lazy substitute for a bit of clever science fiction. Apart from that, the movie was great. 95% spot-on casting, a great visual sense, and an iron-clad alternate universe explanation to avoid being roped in by canon. The devil's in the details.

  • May 23, 2009, 7:17 p.m. CST

    cut off...

    by empyreal0

    should have been "Of course, who am I to argue with (millions of dollars in returns)"

  • May 23, 2009, 7:19 p.m. CST

    Dr_PepperSpray

    by empyreal0

    Apart from being done with Abrams, I totally agree.

  • May 23, 2009, 7:21 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "SIT BACK, RELAX..."

    by TITBAG

    "...THEN JUST BEFORE THE MOVIE STARTS, TAKE A LARGE HAMMER AND SMASH YOUR SKULL UNTIL IT'S COMPLETE MUSH. THEN YOU ARE READY FOR THIS EXPERIENCE."

  • May 23, 2009, 7:37 p.m. CST

    necgrey

    by empyreal0

    "Like they purposely avoid critical thinking about their entertainment." No? Call me cynical, but I think you'd be surprised. Although I agree it's probably less common than specialized knowledge in other areas taking precedence, or pure apologetics (especially on a movie website), I have met plenty of people who tell me they hate movies that make them think and would rather turn their brain off when they plop their ass in their seat. It's depressing. That said, these problems didn't ruin the movie for me either, but I too (like IK) get irritated by the message that this kind of success sends - that as long as the movie makes a big return, there's nothing wrong with cutting corners or using lazy cop-outs. I think IK is so angry because he wants people to know that there are audience members who DO care about these things. His voice may be drowned out by big waves of money, but I tend to agree and I think we have every right to voice our complaints.

  • May 23, 2009, 7:56 p.m. CST

    yes, toerag, it was a well lubed reacharound

    by mr. smith

    and a good time was had by all. thank god you finally noticed me, i was getting a little jealous. fucktard. much luv. now say something really cleaver in all caps, that'll show me!

  • May 23, 2009, 8:03 p.m. CST

    empy, the point is

    by mr. smith

    killer is pointing his arguments at the wrong source. i didn't write the fucking movie, nor did anyone else here. make your point, have a spirited discussion, then get on with life. quit trying to convince someone that likeing star trek is indicative of some deep personality disorder. i didn't like watchmen. one of my best friends loved it. once we said our piece to each other, we had a pint and went on to the next subject. that's what real people do. honest to christ, what was the point of the "people have other options" speech if you are just going to beat someone over the head for liking a movie? fucksake. and the less said about that ranting piece of garbage toerag up there the better.

  • May 23, 2009, 8:27 p.m. CST

    "arguments pointed at the wrong source"... well, yes. mostly.

    by empyreal0

    Technically, JJ did indicate in his interview that he reads the site. Not like I expect him to have the time or the slightest inclination to read every forum post or take any of it to heart because, as the subtext of your post indicates, opinions are like assholes. So you're mostly right; it's pretty much pointless to belabor the point. My argument is more along the lines that some of what IK is saying (and I believe the reason for all his anger) is based not merely on opinion. Yeah everyone knows art is (almost) purely aesthetic and unless you're a Randian, aesthetics is subjective. However, problems like inconsistent characterization are more than subjective. The degree to which it offends him is subjective. It really seems to piss him off. Me, I find it disappointing. But I think we can both agree it didn't kill the movie for either of us.

  • May 23, 2009, 9:28 p.m. CST

    If You Don't Like the Movie

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Just Say: I Didn't Like the Movie. Don't Blame your Dislike on Plot Holes that don't actually exist. Some of the alleged problems are arguable, but 2/3 of the ones you guys keep bringing up are just examples of you not paying attention. <br /><br />For example, empyreal0 just made reference to Spock leaving the captain's chair without naming a successor? He didn't have to. Pike made his first officer Spock acting captain when he went over to Nero's ship and he made Kirk Spock's second in command. It was a battlefield promotion. And I'm not picking on empyreal0 whose post is otherwise solid, just using him as an example. <br /><br />People keep bitching about Kirk getting the Enterprise when he's fresh out of the academy, but the film clearly states that Pike, who has been promoted to Admiral, exercises his perogative to hand the ship over to Kirk. And as near as I can tell, and feel free to prove me wrong, THE FILM NEVER SAYS WHAT KIRK'S RANK IS. He was obviously on a command track. If he wasn't on suspension for cheating on the Kobayashi Maru, he might have been assigned as first officer on one of the other ships. People are whining like he's an ensign lower on the totem pole than Chekov or something.<br /><br /> Starfleet considers age, ability and experience when assigning rank. Pike says Kirk's entrance exams are off the charts, and he completes a four year program in three years. He voluntarily takes the "No-Win Scenario" three times (when as McCoy clearly states he's only required to take it once) because he's determined to find a way to beat it. Kirk clearly outranks everyone but Pike and Spock as soon as he walks onto the bridge. If he didn't, Sulu or Uhura would say something. This is clear as day, right there in the dialogue, and how many people have been completely and utterly WRONG for trying to make an issue out of it?<br /><br />I never said they're are NO plot holes in the movie. I just keep shaking my head and chuckling at how many things are not only implied or inferred, but CLEARY STATED IN DIALOGUE OR SEEN ONSCREEN that you guys somehow missed completely?

  • May 23, 2009, 9:39 p.m. CST

    @cymbalta....

    by DrMorbius

    ...Your post regarding SHITBAG and GAY 683 was NICE!!!

  • May 23, 2009, 11:08 p.m. CST

    IndustryKiller!, you're still quite dumb...

    by Alan_Moore

    "I wasn't trying to tie them together in any way other than to say how much money a film makes at the box office is totally fucking meaningless to it's quality." What you said is that Trek wouldn't do as well as Transformers, which is an idiotic way to attempt to discredit the movie, since Trek has never before been regarded as a true, A-level, big budget franchise. Also, I notice you didn't comment on my pointing out Trek's wonderful reviews and 95% rating on rottentomatoes. Most people, including me, appear to love the movie. It's making audiences happy and winning new fans while all the other summer blockbusters so far are letting people down. Star Trek is back, bigger than ever before, and it deserves its moment in the sun. You're nothing but a hater, and not a very bright one at that.

  • May 23, 2009, 11:42 p.m. CST

    Sorry to pile on Industry Killer but...

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    As I stated in a previous post almost all your "plot holes" concerning Spock, Nero, Red Matter etc. are dealt with in Spock's mind meld /conversation with Kirk. They are not dealt with in enough detail to satisfy some of you. But they ARE dealt with. <br /><br />They are dealt with in greater detail in the prequel Graphic Novel, which is a fun read, but there is no way to know how much of that backstory was filmed for the movie. I would assume there were deleted scenes which will hopefully be included on the DVD. But short of making the film a half hour longer, I don't see how your questions could have been answered in the way you want them to be. <br /><br />Should they have frontloaded all the Nero/Spock Prime stuff, robbing the film of its powerful opening? Should they have brought the film to a dead stop so Spock could explain red matter to the audience? He doesn't need to explain it to Kirk. THAT'S WHAT THE MIND MELD IS FOR!<br /><br />And I went over to CHUD and read that Devin piece on continuity glitches that you thought was so insightful. ALL of his points can be refuted with one simple fact that cannot be repeated enough apparently: <br /><br />THIS IS NOT AN ALTERNATE TIMELINE. SPOCK AND NERO HAVE TRAVELLED INTO AN ALTERNATE REALITY. THEIR PRESCENCE DID NOT CREATE THE REALITY. IT WAS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. THEY HAVE ALTERED THE NATURAL COURSE OF EVENTS IN THAT UNIVERSE BUT THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW WHAT TO CHANGE OR COURSE CORRECT, BECAUSE FOR THE UMPTEENTH FUCKING TIME YOU ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER DICKHEADS: IT WAS ALWAYS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S NOT THEIR UNIVERSE TO BEGIN WITH. PAY ATTENTION TO THE FUCKING FILM NEXT TIME!

  • May 23, 2009, 11:48 p.m. CST

    Quint

    by rodmandirect

    Like the site, like the comments - glad to be a part of it

  • May 23, 2009, 11:55 p.m. CST

    Alan Moore......Industry Killer....

    by DrMorbius

    ...TITBAG, and the other HATER went over to AssholeLives cave (didn't know caves had basements) for their weekly CIRCLEJERK, otherwise known as "Saturday Night" (cue the Bay City Rollers music). His mom will be serving grilled cheese sandwiches and he will be sharing his voluminous library on Auto-Fellatio with all.<P>All of them stroking off to a picture of JJ Abrams sitting on a pile of money, then with their mouths AGAPE for the SNOWBALL BUKAKE finish!!!!<P>Then next "Saturday" the cycle begins anew(cue the LION KING soundtrack "The Circle of Life".

  • May 24, 2009, 12:10 a.m. CST

    The movie was good but Pine needs brown eyes like Shatner!

    by EvilDoeR

    I mean come on get their eye color right JJ!

  • May 24, 2009, 12:26 a.m. CST

    Spock Prime as written by the Haters

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    "Greetings everyone. My name is Spock. Not your Spock. A different.. well nevermind that now. I need you to fly your ship around the sun several times so we can go back in time and erase the past 25 years of your history because it wasn't supposed to happen that way. Well, some of it wasn't. At least it didn't in my Universe. And my Universe has to be the correct one. You see there's an angry Romulan flying around with technology that's a hundred years more advanced than yours, but if we get there at exactly the right instant I can stop him with this red stuff. Then I can go back to my technobabbled future, and you guys can remake every episode of my old TV show on the big screen exactly the way they happened 40 years ago because if there's one thing this franchise needs, it's more of the same."

  • May 24, 2009, 12:52 a.m. CST

    Titbag: yes, I did and empyreal0

    by necgrey

    TITBAG, LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF COGENT AND USE IT IN MY SENTENCE AND YOU WILL SEE THAT I DO, IN FACT, USE IT CORRECTLY. DUMBASS. <p> Empyreal0, I'm not suggesting you don't have a right to get aggravated about mainstream film being dumbed down. What I object to is the blatant superiority complex demonstrated by those taking up the argument like IndustryKiller. Who makes a rational case for why the film doesn't hold up, but then goes on a personal insult tear. Is it necessary to be shitty about your argument? No, it's not. <p> As for your cynicism about people not wanting to think, again I don't disagree necessarily. I also know people who *purposely* avoid critical thinking in film. But they are the vast minority. My father, for instance, doesn't think critically about films. Does he purposely do this? No, he doesn't. He's not avoiding critical thinking, he just DOESN'T critically think about film. And there's no reason for him to do so. It's not his passion. He doesn't care like I do. And you know what? He doesn't have to. Even MORE to the point, it's part of the risk WE take by getting passionate about mass produced commercial art. <p> What it boils down to, for me, is I'm fine with guys like IK making intelligent points about a film when it's warranted. But when he cops an attitude and gets pissed off and rails against the dying of the fucking light, I consider that ridiculous and unwarranted.

  • May 24, 2009, 2:13 a.m. CST

    If this new STAR TREK is "dumbed down"

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    why are random people who may have never seen ANY Star Trek before able to immediately grasp and enjoy the complex concepts involved (time travel, parallel universes,time space distortions etc. etc.) while you haters can't even get it through your thick heads that there's no way to course correct the story back to your precious canon minutia because it takes place in a different universe? Maybe you're the ones who've been dumbed down by memorizing the Star Trek Encyclopedia like it was the Torah and the Talmud?

  • May 24, 2009, 2:20 a.m. CST

    empy, i agree

    by mr. smith

    on this we see eye to eye. way to be civil. kudos!

  • May 24, 2009, 6:15 a.m. CST

    DrMorbius, if IndustryKiller ran off...

    by Alan_Moore

    ...with his tail between his legs, like that other complete moron who called himself "conspiracy," then good riddance. The world is too full of people who have that winning combo of ample hatred plus an intelligence deficiency. And I'm sure everyone has noticed how such individuals tend to be the loudest. Screw that. I'll never suffer such wastes lightly, nor should anyone. On the contrary, fools like that need to be slapped down as hard as possible. Come on back, conspiracy ... tell us again how Star Trek is going to be this year's Superman Returns, but you paid to see it and kind of liked it anyway. Please allow us to chuckle some more at your stupidity. And you, IndustryKiller ... the only thing you're capable of killing is your own credibility. Join a 6th grade debate squad and you might fare better there. Probably not, though.

  • May 24, 2009, 7:42 a.m. CST

    The music was awesome...

    by The Penultimate Gunslinger

    I really don't get criticisms of this film's music - I thought it was absolutely breathtaking (if you'll excuse me for using such a gay term)

  • May 24, 2009, 8:21 a.m. CST

    "HI, I'M SPOCK...."

    by TITBAG

    "...INSTEAD OF RAMMING MY SHIP INTO NERO'S, OR BLOWING UP MY SHIP BEFORE NERO CAN GET HIS MITS ON IT, I'M GOING TO LET THE RED MATTER FALL INTO HIS HANDS." <P> WHO GIVES A SHIT WHAT HE DOES WITH THE STUFF? <P> THERE WAS A TIME WHEN I WOULD HAVE GIVEN MY LIFE FOR FAR FUCKING LESS, BUT HEY...THIS IS JJ'S SCRIPT. HE'S GOT NO FUCKING WELL IDEA WHAT MOTIVATES OR DRIVES ME. ABOUT AS MUCH AS THAT BIG-NOSED PRICK UNDERSTANDS IS THAT I'VE GOT POINTY EARS AND AN ENORMOUS FUCKING COCK. <P> HELL, MAYBE THIS WAY I'LL EVEN MAKE IT INTO THE SEQUEL. I NEED CASH - ESPECIALLY WHEN MY HORRIBLE MINDFUCKING AWEFUL PHOTOGRAPHS HAVEN'T SOLD."

  • May 24, 2009, 8:39 a.m. CST

    PLOT HOLES, SCHMOTHOLES

    by BringingSexyBack

  • May 24, 2009, 8:40 a.m. CST

    THE NARADA CAUGHT SPOCK PRIME'S SHIP WITH A TRACTOR BEAM

    by BringingSexyBack

    Ramming was not an option.

  • May 24, 2009, 8:43 a.m. CST

    THE NARADA LOCKED OUT SPOCK'S COMPUTER CONTROLS

    by BringingSexyBack

    Blowing it up was not an option.

  • May 24, 2009, 8:55 a.m. CST

    OMFG. IT'S SPOCK FFS.

    by TITBAG

    HE WAS THE MACGYVER OF HIS AGE. A LITTLE CHEWING GUM. A COMMUNICATOR. INSTANT BOMB. <P> FOR THE LOVE OF RODDENBERRY'S HAIRY BALLS, THERE'S THIS CONVENIENT SHIT ON BOARD CALLED RED FUCKING MATTER. THERE'S NO WAY THAT SPOCK - MUTHAFUCKING SPOCK - COULDN'T FINDA WAY TO DETONATE? WE'RE EXPECTED TO BELIEVE THAT? <P> OMFG. <P> A FAIL BEYOND FAIL. <P> THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. A TOTAL AND UTTER LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF JJ & CO ABOUT WHO THESE FUCKING CHARACTERS ARE THAT THEY JUST SAVAGED. NONE. ZERO. JESUS. HOW MANY FUCKING TREK EPISODES ARE THERE WERE THEY EVEN JUST TAKE A STUPID PHASER AND PUT IT ON OVERLOAD? OMFG. <P> SERIOUSLY FFS. WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS NOTHING SHORT OF TOTAL GROSS INCOMPETENCE ON THE PART OF THESE FILM-MAKERS. A TOTAL CASCADE EFFECT STARTING WITH THE KELVIN SCENE. IT'S ALL SO FUCKING GOD-AWFUL THAT BY THE TIME THEY EVEN GET TO SPOCK'S CAPTURE IT'S SIMPLY "WOW. WE HAVE NO TWATING IDEA WHAT WE ARE FUCKING WRITING HERE, SO LET'S JUST GO WITH EAT. THE HANNAH MONTANA GENERATION WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIFFERENCE." <P> YIPPEE.

  • May 24, 2009, 9:02 a.m. CST

    THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TREK AND TERMINATOR S:

    by TITBAG

    IS THAT TERMINATOR SALVATION SIMPLY DISPENSES WITH THE NOTION OF A PLOT ALTOGETHER. <P> A WISE MOVE, ACTUALLY. <P> THE UTTER FUCKING AICN MORONS WHO HAVE PANNED TS WHILE PRAISING TREK ARE COMPLETELY CLUELESS CUNTS. BOTH MOVIES ARE TOTAL SHITE. <P> HAIRY'S REVIEWS ARE A PERFECT EXAMPLE: 800 PARAGRAPHS POINTING OUT THE FAILINGS OF MCG AND THE TS PLOT. THE TREK REVIEW? 800 PARAGRAPHS POINTING OUT HOW CUTE JJ IS AND THAT THE FILM IS REALLY 'NEAT' AND 'FUN' AND HOW HE WONDERS IF JJ IS CIRCUMSIZED.

  • May 24, 2009, 9:18 a.m. CST

    You tell 'em TITBAG. God, I hate apologists.

    by jae683

    They stretch the thinnest of excuses over the gaping plot holes and convince themselves that it really is the 'perfect' movie. They should click their collective heels together and utter 'There's not place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home.' Maybe, just maybe, one day, if they believe in it strong enough, it'll come to pass. Of course, by then, the 'paddy wagon' people will come with those wonderful white coats and cart them off to the padded rooms where no one gets hurt, and none of this will matter.

  • May 24, 2009, 10:13 a.m. CST

    jae 683

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    You seem like a rational, civil person. Which plot holes are you referring to? Be Specific. When people like TITBAG say: Why didn't Spock do this, or why didn't Nero do that, that ISN'T a plot hole. That's you trying to rewrite the movie to please yourself.<br /><br /> Why doesn't Nero kill Spock when he has a chance? Gee, why doesn't every movie villain kill the hero as soon as they capture them, instead of giving them an opportunity to be the hero?<br /><br /> Why doesn't Spock Prime act like Clint Eastwood or some 80's action hero instead of acting like Spock? Because he's Spock. Dealing with a crew of Romulans armed to the teeth who are half as old as he is.<br /><br /> Why doesn't he sacrifice himself like George Kirk does instead of living to counsel Kirk and his younger self in scenes that fill everyone in the audience that isn't drinking Haterade with warmth and joy? Gee that would be uplifting. How many times does Spock have to die in this franchise to make SHITRAG happy? <br /><br /> I firmly believe that most of the people who are complaining about plot holes were so angered by the admittedly coincidental chance encounter of Spock and Kirk in the cave that they sat there grumbling to themselves and proceeded to IGNORE THE EXPOSITION AND BACKSTORY CONTAINED IN THE SCENE. Chance encounters and coincidences are not plot holes. They are real life occurrences. Every two car accident on the road today will be a chance encounter and a coincidence. If one of the two drivers had left ten minutes earlier or later it might have never happened. <br /><br />Could that scene (and many other scenes) have been handled better? Absolutely. Do the millions of people coming out of this film with smiles on their faces worry about such things? Absolutely Not.<br /><br />Noone is paying them to be a film critic or a frustrated screenwriter. And noone is paying any of you to do that either.

  • May 24, 2009, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Thanks JJ, cast and crew

    by Stunt Vocalist 709

    I've seen it three times and still want to see it again while it's on the big screen.<p>Thanks for giving Star Trek its balls back.

  • May 24, 2009, 11:10 a.m. CST

    StuntVocalist...

    by DrMorbius

    ....yes, and if TITBAG, IndustryKiller, DrPepperSpray, AssholeLives, jae683, et.al., would have been born with any BALLS, maybe they wouldn't HATE FOR HATES SAKE!!<P>You IMBECILIC CUNTS!!!

  • May 24, 2009, 11:21 a.m. CST

    SPOCK HAD NO PHASER ON BOARD

    by BringingSexyBack

    Overloading one was not an option.

  • May 24, 2009, 11:24 a.m. CST

    BSB: YOU WERE AMUSING AND NOW YOU ARE NOT.

    by TITBAG

  • May 24, 2009, 11:28 a.m. CST

    "HI, I'M PRESIDENT OF ROMULUS"

    by TITBAG

    "OH. A SUPERNOVA. HMMM. LET ME SEE. I'VE GOT THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS AND SOME OF THE BEST PILOTS IN THE QUADRANT BUT I'M GOING TO SEND THAT SENILE OLD VULCAN SPOCK LONGPASTHISPRIME IN OUR *COUGH*FASTEST*COUGH* SHIP." <P> "I'M AS MORONIC AND RETARDED AS THIS SCRIPT I'M IN. BECAUSE OF MY UTTER AND TOTAL FAIL MY PLANET IS DOOMED." <P> "WE ONCE RULED SPACE. NOW WE CAN'T EVEN STOP ONE OLD FART FROM MAKING A COMPLETE ASS OUT OF HIMSELF."

  • May 24, 2009, 11:31 a.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "COMPLETE LACK OF HUMANITY IN NEW TREK"

    by TITBAG

    "THOUGH I DO WONDER IF SALDANA HAS A NICE LITTLE TRIANGULAR BUSH. THAT WOULD BE NICE. I HATE CHICKS THAT SHAVE THEIR COOCHIE AS BALD AS A 9 YEAR OLD. FUCKING DISGUSTING."

  • May 24, 2009, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Speaking of Mission Accomplished LOL

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld ( or is that Ronald DUMsfeld?): "You deal with the FILM you have, not the film you WISH you had." <br /><br /> Every single "plot hole" you people have presented me with so far is answered by the film itself. You don't like the answers because you don't like the film. You have a right to your opinion. You also have a responsibility to have an INFORMED opinion. Half of you are making faulty observations based on a misreading of the material. The other half are making pointlessly convoluted technobabble script revision suggestions to a film that's already MADE and seems to be doing quite well without them, thank you very much. <br /><br />How is Kirk NOT on the command track? Does the film you claim to have watched say that? Or does it say exactly the opposite right from the jumpoff? <br /><br />He's the son of a Starfleet Hero, recruited by Pike, Captain of what will become the fleet's flagship, SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT PURPOSE: To BE a Captain Someday. Pike sees Kirk as a diamond in the rough. A prodigy. A more cocky, less nerdy Wesley Crusher. And he's RIGHT. And the film spends the next hour and a half showing how right he is. <br /><br />You people who want a fictional construct set in the 23rd and 24th Centuries to function exactly like our military can "Horatio Hornblow" me. Starfleet doesn't work that way. Never has. Never will. Picard can make the teenage son of his ship's doctor an acting ensign on the bridge, but Admiral Pike can't hand his ship off to a man who's gone above and beyond the call of duty to earn it? HE SAVED THE PLANET EARTH! What kind of Jerk de Soleil gyrations do you killjoys have to put yourselves through mentally to deny what's RIGHT THERE ON THE FUCKING SCREEN?

  • May 24, 2009, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Criticize plot elements all you want

    by MattmanReturns

    Your argument is still thin. Loved the characters, acting, action, and JJ's overall direction. (Yeah, I liked the lens flare too... the movie had a bold, flashy style). And judging by its persistantly solid box office, it looks like the rest of the world agrees with me. A few plot holes, which every Star Trek movie has, do not ruin a great experience. You're just harping on what little there is to harp on. Why does it piss you guys off that so many people like this movie?

  • May 24, 2009, 12:51 p.m. CST

    shitheadbag

    by joshuavance1701

    Is a fucking used condom. A paltry, smelly, trisby 21 chromosome lacking douche-fuck. There was more heart and humanity in the first 10 minutes of Star Trek than his entire pirated DVD collection of wank-fest Joe Bob Briggs Sci-Fi original movies. <p>Fuck you dude, fuck you long, fuck you hard, and fuck you running. You are a boil, a festering tired little cunt that is pissed Terminator BOMBED. Go to hell, go directly to hell, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. (besides of which speaking of 200 bucks tell that shithole Mom of yours to stop leaving voice messages on my Answering machine , it was a one nighter what doesn't that bitch get??)

  • May 24, 2009, 12:53 p.m. CST

    SHITBAG: I'M A PEE PEE BOY

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 24, 2009, 12:54 p.m. CST

    SHITBAG: MOMMY I'M SCARED SLEEP WITH ME TONIGHT

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 24, 2009, 12:55 p.m. CST

    SHITBAG: DADDY IS THIS NORMAL TOUCHING

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 24, 2009, 12:56 p.m. CST

    SHITBAG: HOW MANY TO BE SEATED MR. ABRAMS?

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 24, 2009, 12:58 p.m. CST

    SHITBAG: DAMN SHITINATOR WAS A DEEP MOVIE

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 24, 2009, 12:59 p.m. CST

    SHITBAG: DO YOU WANT FRIES WITH YOUR ORDER?

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 24, 2009, 1:03 p.m. CST

    SHITBAG: WHY WAS DR. SPOCK SO SAD MOMMY?

    by joshuavance1701

  • May 24, 2009, 1:20 p.m. CST

    SHITBAG: MY FAVORITE EXPLORER IS

    by joshuavance1701

    PONCE DE LEON

  • May 24, 2009, 1:27 p.m. CST

    RODDENBERRY: "I DON'T KNOW WHAT FUN IS ANYMORE"

    by BringingSexyBack

    "Because I'm dead."

  • May 24, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST

    DESPITE ADVANCED TECH, ROMULUS DID NOT POSSESS RED MATTER

    by BringingSexyBack

    which was the only solution to saving their planet. Other than relying on the Federation, they had no other option.

  • May 24, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST

    Hey BSB

    by joshuavance1701

    Did you see Shitbag on the Rotten.com jerking McGee wizz off? It was hilarious man Shitbag had fecal matter all around his mouth. I think he knocked his own teeth out too like Margot Kidder. He was going on and on about how Star Trek was the best movie of the summer and McGee felt betrayed, so he squeezed another 6 incher in Shitbags mouth.

  • May 24, 2009, 1:37 p.m. CST

    I liked Shitbag better

    by joshuavance1701

    when he was Brannon Braga - Hey Shitbag , I knew Brannon Braga, and you are no Brannon Braga.

  • May 24, 2009, 1:39 p.m. CST

    JOSH

    by BringingSexyBack

    I know Titbag can be inflammatory but I think we can resolve differences by reasoned discourse. Let's see if we can't alter the course of this talkback.

  • May 24, 2009, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Additionally

    by joshuavance1701

    It wasn't a typical "supernova" that was threatening the quadrant despite Ben Spockobi's nomenclature.<p> Alot of people are assuming it was Romulus' own star that went supernova but I say thee, nay. There was a supernova elsewhere and it began a fatal self-propogating chain reaction that not only destroyed Romulus, Remas, and their own star, but it threatened to engulf the entire galaxy, hence Ben Spockobi's proceeding rapidly on the work of neutralizing before other star systems suffered the same fate as Alderaan er, Romulus heh heh.

  • May 24, 2009, 1:44 p.m. CST

    Reasoned Discourse?

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Tried that. Didn't work. Of course I can always slingshot around the Sun and try it AGAIN...

  • May 24, 2009, 1:50 p.m. CST

    I have to wonder

    by joshuavance1701

    Which death from a ground level sucked worse, getting blown away on Romulus, or getting sucked into nothingness on Vulcan. Black holes....suck.

  • May 24, 2009, 3 p.m. CST

    sexy, i've been trying

    by mr. smith

    but we are far into the minority. too bad really.

  • May 24, 2009, 3:10 p.m. CST

    TITBAG IS THE MESSIAH OF TRUTH

    by HaterofCrap

    his words will echo through the ages!!! all the non believers will be doomed to watch star trek OVER AND OVER in their own personal hell, the one that they wont even know they're in! not even red matter in a tube of vodka will save you.

  • May 24, 2009, 3:19 p.m. CST

    So did Harry pay JJ or vice versa?

    by Glory_Fades_ImMaxFischer

    To keep this interview at the top of the que now for what, 4 days?

  • May 24, 2009, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Wow. I see the talkback kept it's tone while I was gone...

    by Bones

    Nice to see everyone kept their cool, didn't name-call or disintegrate into mindless back-and-forth insults.<p> Sigh.<p> But, then again if people actually kept their cool and had a reasoned discourse it wouldn't be an AICN Talkback, would it?

  • May 24, 2009, 3:20 p.m. CST

    I made this in honor of Star Trek

    by onaps6453

    http://easyurl.net/c99b2 Fascinating...

  • May 24, 2009, 3:28 p.m. CST

    Cymbalta, STILL the artful dodger. Alan Moore & Necgray

    by IndustryKiller!

    What do you mean it was "explained int he mind meld. NONE of that was explained in the part of the mind meld that that the audience was shown. You're completely full of shit. Unless you mean that it was explained in some offscreen part of the mind meld, in which case you're just another apologist. Probably a bit of both. And if you can't think of a way to give red matter more depth than random plot device #8 then it's your own screenwriting ignorance getting in the way. Because there are plenty of way to do it without going into a 5 minute exposition. What your implying is a total exaggeration of what is necessary. <P>The fact of the matter is you STILL refuse to answer a single question with ANY degree of specificity and then you proclaim "NOPE NO PLOT HOLES HERE!" Denial ain't just a river in Egypt my friend.<P> As for your aspersion that everyone loves the film, I don't fucking care what an apathetic public and a mainstream critics cabal that generally regards genre film making as the stuff of children only think. That's irrelevant here, what is relevant is whether you can defend the film on it's merits. <P> And Nec_gray, you're less cynical than me maybe but the light isn't dying, it's dead. We have no great genre filmmakers left to rely on. Even Spielberg has began insulting his audience with utter garbage like Indy 4, which was probably the worst film of his career, and he said he did it "For the fans"> So that is what fan service is now, terrible filmmaking and writing. And people LOVE it. Look at the box office for SPider Man 3 and tell me thats not terrible for the film industry. Then we get Dark Knight and Iron Man, you think maybe its turning around, and then the abhorable Wolverine makes a killing. THis is bad for art, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

  • May 24, 2009, 3:53 p.m. CST

    One mans plot hole

    by joshuavance1701

    Is anothers aura of mystery and allure. The term plot hole is very subjective entirely dependent on the perception of a viewer. <p> See kids, if you dot every I and cross every T, you run into basal exposition territory and grind the narrative to a halt. <p> Is it a plot hole when Old Ben Kenobi skirts and dances around the issue of his relationship and knowledge of Lukes Father assholes? You guys are simply arguing semantics and nothing more. <p> If Obi-Wan had sat down and had a 15 minute monologue explaining his discovery of Anakin, subsequent training, battle on a volcano for the benefit of the audience, GONE would be the mystery and allure that caused a generation to wonder how the fuck this old man knew Anakin and what that big fight was like. You guys are nothing more but murdering inference. Apologists my fucking ass, Star Trek has been universally praised by critics and is a RESOUNDING finanical success so FUCK. ALL. OF. YOU. <p> Sniff sniff. Watchmen BOMBED. sniff sniff. Wolverine BOMBED. sniff sniff. Terminator is a flaccid BOMB. <p> You guys STINK of jaded cynicism. I fucking love it! Come on, give it to me, CRY some more about plot holes and dissapointment. PLEASE, I love laughing at you. Humor me, bitch and moan some more PLEASE.

  • May 24, 2009, 4:11 p.m. CST

    watching MI3

    by animas

    it seems to be directed just as poorly as Trek. Horrible camera work and lighting. Its strange because the Lost pilot was so good compared to these turds.

  • May 24, 2009, 4:26 p.m. CST

    why defend or attack?

    by Bouncy X

    if you liked the movie then you did....if you disliked it then you did, the end. why is it soooo important for so many to make people see their opinion? will they die if nobody agrees with them?

  • May 24, 2009, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Wow...TREK topped ANGELS & DEMONS!

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    And will almost certainly top $200M by Friday. <p>This movie has legs! </p>

  • May 24, 2009, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Alright, IndustryKiller!...

    by Alan_Moore

    ...since you're so hung up on "plot holes," let me ask what you consider good Star Trek? Let's start there. And you say we're casting "aspersions" that audiences love the film? LOL. First of all, you don't know the meaning of that word. An aspersion is a derogatory remark. Are you a kid? If so, I feel bad about beating up on you for being so ignorant. Anyway, based on Trek's weekend haul (finishing ahead of Angels & Demons, now up to over $183 million) and its holding steady at an amazing 95% on rottentomatoes (A&D and Wolverine have both sunk into the dismal 30's), it is not an "aspersion" to say that most people love the movie, it is a fact. So give up, already. You're coming off as nothing so much as the nerd left out of a cool kids party, standing outside and shouting, 'I didn't wanna be invited anyway!' But at least you're not as pathetic as Conspiracy...

  • May 24, 2009, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Notice how Noone has taken my Challenge

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    of posting TEN Favorite Star Trek Episodes that have NONE of the problems they ascribe to this movie? <br /><br />Noone's even attempted it.<br /><br /> I pointed out how "City on the Edge of Forever", one of the most beloved episodes, is loaded with the same problems. Nothing.<br /><br /> I respond point by point to Industry Killer's alleged plot holes, tear Devin from CHUD a new one, invite dae 683 to provide his list of plot holes? No response. Crickets chirping. <br /><br />Industry Killer: Here we go AGAIN. In the mind meld/cave discussion scene I saw,and unlike you, PAID ATTENTION TO, Spock explained: <br /><br />Who he was <br /><br />Who Nero was <br /><br />What happened to Romulus<br /><br />The purpose of the Red Matter <br /><br />How Nero wound up in Kirk's universe <br /><br />Why Spock arrived 25 years later <br /><br />How he was captured by Nero <br /><br />How and why Nero stranded him on the ice planet<br /><br />What Nero was doing with the Red Matter and Why he was Doing It <br /><br />The Answers are There. You just don't like the answers. Denying that they're there makes you look even stupider than every thing else you post. There are elementary school kids who've never seen a Star Trek episode who have less problems following this plot than you do. Whatever you do, don't go on Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

  • May 24, 2009, 7:04 p.m. CST

    Hi, I'm Captain Kirk

    by joshuavance1701

    I'm.... from the new Star Trek film. A... little... film you. may. have. noticed, eating... up the box office AND spanking....spank-king competitors. <p> I.......... want to sincerely thank..... everyone for coming to see our film aaaaand hope..... you.... attend it several more times. WE plan... on... having many more adventures and. look. forward.... to entertaining audiences for years to come.

  • May 24, 2009, 7:17 p.m. CST

    Star Trek is about PEOPLE

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Always has been. Always will be. <br /><br />It's not, as Harlan Ellison once said, Roddenberry's one and ONLY plot where the crew encounters God and God is ambivalent, malevolent or a child. <br /><br />It's not about seeing how many computers Kirk can talk to death.<br /><br />It's not 45 minutes of Berman /Braga technobabble about science that not only DOESN'T EXIST, but given the average IQ of the haters in this talkback breeding the next generation of humans, is probably NEVER GOING TO. <br /><br />Is it possible, as Dr Pepper Spray says, to "tell a story where the weight of believability rests on the sci fi elements and not on the characters"? Sure, if you care more about concepts than PEOPLE! If an explanation of Red Matter is more thrilling to you than a green skinned girl in a bra and panties. <br /><br /> Science Fiction is not about Science. It's about how human beings are affected by science. How they respond to it. How it helps them grow or retards them. How it saves them or destroys them. It's just another way of looking at People. <br /><br />2001 is not about the Aliens and their monoliths. It's about Dave Bowman and Frank Poole and their relationship with HAL. And how that relationship is fatally compromised.<br /><br />The ALIEN movies are not about the Aliens. They're about Ellen Ripley. Her victories and her losses. Her pain and sacrifice. The AVP movies suck because they have no heroes for us to follow. They've stopped being about people. <br /><br />And STAR TREK is about people. Their cocky drive to go where no one has gone before. (Or, in the case of the green girl, where several people have already been.) Their battles with logic and emotion. Their desire to make friends and the enemies that stand in their way. <br /><br />JJ's film is about PEOPLE. And that's why PEOPLE are responding to it, in ways this franchise has never seen before. You guys keep saying the fact that we like this movie says something about us. What does the fact that you dislike it so intensely say about you, and your ability to deal with: PEOPLE?

  • May 24, 2009, 7:36 p.m. CST

    Green breasticles

    by joshuavance1701

    I was seriously liking me some green breasticles. That Orion slut was smoking fine.

  • May 24, 2009, 7:39 p.m. CST

    I'm starting to like Titbag

    by quantize

    He's obviously his own worst enemy...a couple of drinks in him and he's the life of the party, shitting his pants and falling over the furniture..keep it goin douchebag.

  • May 24, 2009, 7:55 p.m. CST

    The problem is not TITBAG

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    It's that the people who claimed for over a week that we had no concrete responses to their complaints have elected him to be their spokesperson and slunk off to lick their wounds.<br /><br /> I post carefully thought out reasoned responses to their diatribes and all I get back is some kid calling me a CUNT in all caps. Can I get an amen?

  • May 24, 2009, 8:54 p.m. CST

    Mister Burns...

    by Jared Syn

    ...your campaign has the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?

  • May 24, 2009, 9:16 p.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil...

    by cloneomat

    Well put. Thrilled to hear someone vocalizing that! I nominate u for president of Hollywood. Or at least head of the Sci fi division.

  • May 24, 2009, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Well, then can someone answer...

    by ClarenceBeaks

    why Nero waited 25 years to attack Vulcan or Earth for that matter?<p>What was Nero doing for 25 years between attacks on the first starship and attacking Vulcan?<p> Why the Federation never once pursued Nero and his crew for the attack on the Krevin?<p> Many people enjoyed the movie but came out asking more questions than going in. A friend of mine went back a second time only to see if he had missed anything due to the lousy plotting/writing.<p>My opinion is that JJ and crew threw everything but the kitchen sink out to the audience just to keep them off balance. It worked. Many people are now beginning to question what the hell did they saw in the movie theatre.

  • May 24, 2009, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Leonard Nimoy was wasted in this movie

    by ClarenceBeaks

    They didn't need his presence onscreen at all. Talk about wasting a character. If they wanted a reboot then by all means reboot without using Nimoy. You didn't need him around at all.<p>Of course the one thing they had to use was the proverbial time travel effect. With that sort of toy they could play the movie anyway they wanted. I might have respected them more if they hadn't gone this route. Just reboot and start fresh. No, the screenwriters and Abrams took the easy way out. Now, with time travel anything goes instead of laying a concrete base to go with.

  • May 24, 2009, 9:42 p.m. CST

    Where the hell was it said that Nero...

    by ClarenceBeaks

    was imprisoned on a Klingon ice planet? If so then how did he escape? How did he get captured?<p>Please don't tell me that I have to wait for the dvd missing scenes or read a comic book. Face it.That was sloppy writing all the way around.

  • May 24, 2009, 9:49 p.m. CST

    One thing I will say about this movie:

    by ClarenceBeaks

    There must be something wrong with this script to have such a debate over it. I see questions and answers from both sides in a positive light. Still, to have such a debate really makes one question the final product including yours truly.

  • May 24, 2009, 9:51 p.m. CST

    joshuavance1701

    by DrMorbius

    Sorry Joshua but I accidentally saved TITBAGs life the other day!<P>I killed a SHIT EATING DOG!!!

  • May 24, 2009, 9:54 p.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by DrMorbius

    AMEN

  • May 24, 2009, 10:02 p.m. CST

    "apologist"

    by necgrey

    Fuck that and fuck people using it as an insult. I've read posts using it on AICN for the longest time and I see it here and you know what? It's used as a derogatory term and there's nothing in the definition that is inherently bad. So stop using it as such.

  • May 24, 2009, 10:11 p.m. CST

    Cymbalta--

    by Bones

    Not everyone who disliked the film wants to get into a yelling/name-calling match.<p> I still can't get a clear answer about the super-powered Transporter thing. They could have had a line of dialogue from Scotty saying that he had been bored and building an experimental Super-Transporter--but they didn't. Alos, just a single line of dialogue talking about the "phantom ship" attacking the borderes for 25 years would have taken the place of the whole Klingon Prison subplot that was cut out an not even glossed over. They could have even done it in voiceover.<p> My problems with the film are not the plot--it is how they executed the film. I understand that I am in a minority, but I know others who feel the same way--and their lack of enjoyment had more to do with BeerVats, Nokia phone/radios, Budweiser beer, Warehouse Cement, Giant Hands, Lens-Flare and JJ's direction rather than percieved holes in the plot.<p> I guess in the end people didn't notice those things when they got caught up in the action and the breakneck pace of the film--or they never cared to begin with. But for me, all of those things kept pulling me out of the film and kept making me think I was seeing a bad Sci-Fi network film that somehow cost $150 Million.<p> The film (to me) didn't look or feel like Star Trek--but I guess the majority rules.

  • May 24, 2009, 10:12 p.m. CST

    by GreenRiver

    "why Nero waited 25 years to attack Vulcan or Earth for that matter? What was Nero doing for 25 years between attacks on the first starship and attacking Vulcan? Why the Federation never once pursued Nero and his crew for the attack on the Krevin?" Most likely answer: He didn't have red matter to attack with. He had to wait 25 years for Spock. If he'd gone on the offensive without the red matter, maybe he would have become too conspicuous and the powers that be would have had time to marshal their forces against him. In that case, he would possibly get destroyed and would never get a chance to use the red matter against the Federation. So he tried to lay as low as he could before he had a chance to obtain his ultimate weapon bwahahahaha. Maybe the Federation DID try to hunt him down but he evaded them by going deeper into space. Maybe he was attacked by all sorts of crazy shit that we just haven't heard about because it has little to do with the actual story. Interestingly, maybe they WILL go into his captivity in the sequel (which was cut from the movie). Maybe the Klingons will have all sorts of crazy technology because they copied it from the Narada. They would be KICKASS Klingons. Why not????

  • May 24, 2009, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Bones

    by DrMorbius

    I take it that you believe its possible to "beam" someone from orbit down to a planet. Why is it impossible to believe that Scotty is smarter than other engineers and was working (experimenting) on beaming people onto a spaceship in warp?<P>If a transporter pad is needed to "beam" people to someplace, why isn't one needed to receive them at their destination?<P>You can believe (accept) the former, but not the latter?

  • May 24, 2009, 10:33 p.m. CST

    Dr. Morbius - it is a matter of distance...

    by Bones

    it is a matter of distance and energy. Beaming happens when a ship is focused on a stationary point. Then it takes a great deal of energy to project to that one point.<p> The Enterprise is moving away from the planet--AT WARP SPEED-- and they take a shuttle's power and try to beam to a ship that is moving faster than the speed of light.<p> Bullshit.

  • May 24, 2009, 10:36 p.m. CST

    BTW...

    by GreenRiver

    Let's nitpick the greatest Star Trek movie of all.... Has anyone figured out how Khan could have know Chekov? Why the nicey nicey Federation never checked on his progress? Why a great captain like Kirk never raised the shields after it was obvious he should do so? Why Khan said Kirk would be marooned alive for all eternity when it was obvious that the Federation would likely just go get him one day? Why Kirk said Khan would have to "come down here" when Khan had no problems being up the Genesis device (so why would he have to go down there instead of just being him up)? Why Scotty brought his dying nephew to the bridge instead of sickbay? Why HE JUST HAPPENED to meet his ex lover and estranged son along with his archenemy in one plot and in one movie?

  • May 24, 2009, 10:36 p.m. CST

    Greenriver,

    by ClarenceBeaks

    thanks for the reply. Appreciate at least someone throwing out some answers without being a dick. Thanks.

  • May 24, 2009, 10:38 p.m. CST

    There you go again Cymbalta

    by IndustryKiller!

    None of the things you posted that were explained in the mind meld have anything to do with any of the plot holes I posted. None of them. If you are going to try again I must insist you BE SPECIFIC and answer only the questions I asked. <P> Now I will say this, we agree on one thing. For the most part the characterization int eh film was very solid. I wasn't thrilled about emo Spock, I don't see him eevr becoming Nimoys Spock, but everything else about the characters I loved. It's what actually got me to enjoy the film despite its obvious logic fallacys

  • May 24, 2009, 10:38 p.m. CST

    Sorry

    by GreenRiver

    being=beaming (dumbass)

  • May 24, 2009, 10:40 p.m. CST

    To Clarify..

    by Bones

    Had they gotten into the Shuttle (which could have been a super-powered Warp Shuttle because Scotty is Scotty), had Spock Prime pilot the shuttle at warp and then beamed them from the shuttle to the Enterprise, then it would have made some form of sense.<p> But they didn't.<p> Instead, after trekking for hours in the snow, walking into the 20th Century Grocery Store Backroom that was Scotty's base and using a low-powered shuttle Transporter (when Shuttles shouldn't even have transporters)they somehow make it onto the Enterprise, which has been at full warp THE ENTIRE TIME, and they aren't missing any pieces and somehow connect with a room (even if Scotty ends up in the Water filtration system).<p> Again, I say Bullshit.

  • May 24, 2009, 10:52 p.m. CST

    Khan is not Kirk's arch-enemy, by the way...

    by Bones

    Kirk's archenemy is the Klingon people. Kirk is Khan's archenemy.<p> Kirk never thought about Khan after he left him on Ceti Alpha V. And that is the mistake that fuels the whole story.<p> Now, ret-conning has fixed most of the holes in Star Trek II the same way that Orci and Kurtzman are trying to do damage control with the new film. Chekhov was a person in the lower decks who had a run-in with Khan offscreen, and Khan also remembered him when he memorized the personel log and technical manuals of the Enterprise.<p> Kirk didn't have the sheilds up, because he was momentarily senile (his own words)--he recognized that something was wrong, but didn't recognize how wrong he was.<p> Scotty was emotionally upset and was searching for McCoy--okay that one is a stretch, it was in the film simply because it was a strong image.<p> Now back to the new film, it is interesting that everyone keeps saying to read Countdown to get Nero's backstory when Orci just admitted that it isn't canon and was written after the film was finished--it is the first bit of Ret-Conning to tie into the film, as there will no doubt be other debatable answers to tie up questions they didnt' bother to include in the film...<p> It is, after all, the Star Trek way.

  • May 24, 2009, 10:59 p.m. CST

    But Bones...

    by GreenRiver

    C'mon, it's not just Kirk who would know about Khan. OF COURSE he would tell the Federation. And Khan would be THEIR responsibility. I have some GOOD IDEAS about why they'd keep that classified, but why wasn't it EXPLAINED in the movie? And yeah, I guess Kirk just wasn't on his game, but what about my other points you didn't mention?

  • May 24, 2009, 11 p.m. CST

    Greenriver, my points aren't nitpicks

    by IndustryKiller!

    The entire plot of the new Trek unravels under them. The whole plot. But yeah Khan ain't perfect. The whole Chekov thing is completely absurd.

  • May 24, 2009, 11:15 p.m. CST

    Industry...

    by GreenRiver

    I often lurk around here and I often agree with your posts. But I disagree with your position on Star Trek. The plot isn't the movie's strength, but the dialogue and the acting and the special effects more than make up for it. IMO. A few unexplained plot points and coincidences just are not enough for me to get worked up when it comes to Star Trek 2009. I loved the film. I mean, I see crazy coincidences and unexplained occurences all the time in movies...even great ones that get great box office and reviews...but it's not worth getting worked up over...so why am I here on aintitcool? I dunno...just for shits and giggles I guess...

  • May 24, 2009, 11:16 p.m. CST

    More WOK points...

    by Bones

    The Federation might not have realized how much of a threat Khan was--and never thought about it since he was marooned on a backwater planet--so backwater that they never bothered to update it's solar system models at the Federation's Central Stellar Cartography section.<p> I grant you, it is a lame excuse.<p> Khan claimed they would be marooned alive because he was insane and he was being theatrical while monologuing during the revenge he had plotted for years, Count of Monte Cristo-style.<p> Kirk thought that by pushing Khan's buttons that Khan would want to face him in person and have a hand-to-hand battle, just like the old series (after all, it was a ploy that had worked before)--but the BRILLIANCE of the movie is that they never meet in person, throughout the ENTIRE film.<p> Find another film where the Hero and the Villain never have one scene together? KICK ASS!!<p> Finally, Everything in the film from the plot, the characters and the dialogue are there to emphasize the theme of Star Trek II: Aging, Death and Rebirth--and the consequences of our actions.<p> Kirk cheats on the Kobiyashi Maru test so he can win at any cost, chooses Starfleet over Carol and David and then during his adventures he maroons Khan.<p> The consequences of those actions are that David uses Protomatter and gets Carol's project to work, their project brings them in contact with Khan and Khan gets to introduce Kirk to an actual no-win situation--the Death of Spock.<p> It all ties together because of a very strong theme, and everything in it is to reinforce it.<p> This works because Nicholas Meyer is a brilliant guy who has studied classic myth & literature and was at the top of his game at the time (compare Wrath of Khan to Undiscovered Country sometime to see the difference), whereas Orci and Kurtzman don't have a strong central theme other than Destiny and Making a New Family to Replace your Old one.<p> Also, since this is all happening in an alternate universe, there is no real threat since we already know how the other characters lived--and (at least for me) I never felt a connection to these new versions of the characters.<p> Again, that might just be me.

  • May 24, 2009, 11:19 p.m. CST

    Oh, and new Kirk is jock Douchebag...

    by Bones

    I hated how his character was written in the new film. Again, my opinion onlu.

  • May 24, 2009, 11:38 p.m. CST

    You hated new Kirk, Bones?

    by IndustryKiller!