Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Waited Long Enough For More STAR TREK?? Get Ready To Wait Some More!!

I am – Hercules!!

Deadline Hollywood’s Mike Fleming just put words to the dread I've been harboring for a while now: We’re going to have to wait longer for the next “Star Trek.”

The recent interview in which Bob Orci revealed franchise mastermind J.J. Abrams --  highly distracted this past year with (among many other things) “Super 8” -- had not yet approved the 70-page outline Orci co-wrote?  

That revelation almost seems to guarantee a new effects-swollen “Trek” will not be hitting cinemas in 13 months. Rather, Abrams will want to push Paramount's release date from June 2012 to at least December 2012.

Bruce Greenwood indicated last July that the plan was to start shooting in January 2011, which made perfect sense given the June 2012 release date. When February 2011 came and went without any “Trek” casting news, I suspect I wasn’t the only one who saw the Andorian alphabet on the wall.

The last “Star Trek” was long earmarked for Christmas 2008 – until it was bumped back to summer 2009.

As much as I'm jonesing for more Kirk and Spock, I can only root for another delay. Two years in, I do not want to find ourselves having waited three years for a shitty, slapdash “Search For Spock”-ish sequel. (I saw "Spock" this weekend on Syfy HD and could barely believe how much worse it was than I remembered.)  I suspect most fans would far prefer to wait three and a half years – or even four years – rather than get a rushed entry unworthy of the 2009 installment.

My hope, in fact, is that Abrams does what I seem to remember John Lassiter did with “Toy Story 2”: jump into the script with both feet, tell the studio to go pee up a rope with their release dates, tear away the story components he had reservations about, and even start from scratch if he has to.

I don’t want to go back to only every other “Trek” movie being any good.

The good news is Deadline also reports that Abrams will “shortly” announce he will again climb into the director’s chair for the next Trek. (Given that Abrams continues to produce Paramount’s “Mission: Impossible” movies – but handed off the directorial reins of “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” to Brad Bird – suggested we could by no means take his directorial involvement for granted.)

Find all of Deadline’s story on the matter here.



Follow Herc on Twitter!!

Follow Evil Herc on Twitter!!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 24, 2011, 7:31 p.m. CST

    It better have

    by Hellspike


  • May 24, 2011, 7:32 p.m. CST

    A late birthday present for AsimovLives!

    by D Ropaela

  • May 24, 2011, 7:34 p.m. CST

    I can wait.

    by Juggernaut125

    Just as long as it means they do a good job on the next film.

  • May 24, 2011, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Yeah, let's not crap this out

    by Astronut

    They went to a lot of work to set up NuTrek, why would the studio greenlight something half-assed? Quality breeds success as they say. I don't think Search for Spock is as bad as Hercules is making it out to be... granted it's no Wrath of Khan but what is? One thing I will say about it is that I always felt its run time was too short... the movie just sort of zooms through. IMO it needed at least two more acts... another 20 minutes worth would have made it more complete.

  • May 24, 2011, 7:45 p.m. CST


    by BSB

  • May 24, 2011, 7:46 p.m. CST

    jar jar's attention deficit finally pays off

    by animas

    hope this shit never gets made and orci rots in hell

  • May 24, 2011, 7:47 p.m. CST

    I love The Search for Spock!

    by Jake Pantlin

    I feel sorry for anyone who didn't.

  • May 24, 2011, 7:51 p.m. CST

    Herc, what's your objection to STIII:TSFS?

    by Aragorn II

    I mean, it's nowhere near as good as II, but I've always considered it the easy winner of "best odd numbered Trek" (not to damn it with faint praise or anything...).

  • May 24, 2011, 7:56 p.m. CST

    III was weak because it lacked scale

    by gmanca

    Every cool sequence or action scene was cut short or given a smaller effects budget even though the success of II should have made the filmmakers gung-ho.

  • May 24, 2011, 7:57 p.m. CST

    i thought star trek 3 was the last good trek film

    by robamenta

    trek garbage, 5, only thing good was the score...6..not bad, but very cheap looking. then all the next gen movies just horific the concept of spock coming back is rediculous...but if u can overlook that its very strong and visually very beautiful

  • May 24, 2011, 8 p.m. CST

    I agree, don't rush it

    by spidercoz

    I like Trek better as a winter movie anyway Also, fuck you Herc, SfS rules

  • May 24, 2011, 8 p.m. CST


    by BSB

    Which was why The Voyage Home was such a refreshing change.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:01 p.m. CST

    The Search for Spock is great...

    by DrPain

    I mean, come on, what's with the hate?? Awesome scenes: The docking of the Enterprise and the revelation of the excelsior (if my grandma had wheels!), Breaking Bones out of Prison then the whole stealing of the Enterprise which was very intense, Kirks son dies, The destruction of the Enterprise! Then the rebirth of Spock and the destruction of Genesis. Plus the entire scene on Vulcan was great, really dug the landing of the Warbird. The Search for Spock is great, sometimes I even prefer it to 2.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:05 p.m. CST

    gmanca, you're right

    by Astronut

    The budget was smaller if I recall, and despite some cool sequences, it showed. To this day I still get chills during the theft of the Excelsior when the captain says, "Kirk... you do this, you'll never sit in the captain's chair again..." Some awesome shit right there, bitches.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:06 p.m. CST


    by Astronut

    I fucked up. Been a long day.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Christopher LLoyd Klingon RULED !!

    by blueant

    Christopher LLoyds' Klingon RULED !! Perhaps the Search for Spock was weak in some areas' but that actor was aWeSome.

  • This is clearly written to bait and troll AssimovLives. Since there isn't much to add or discuss about this little tidbit, you might as well drum up some TB hits then, eh?

  • May 24, 2011, 8:09 p.m. CST

    And let's hope it doesn't have the TNG movie record

    by beane2099

    Said this before, and I'll say it again. I've been a Trek fan since the early 80's (Wrath of Kahn was the first movie I ever saw). But the crap that came out of the Trek offices in the late 90's and early 2000's was inexcusable. It just got worse and worse (with a few exceptions here and there, I'll admit). The TNG movies were unbelievable. Every time a new one came out we had hear "This villain is worse than Khan". The worst part of those movies is that they had amazing actors playing the villains but they were just horribly misused. I know there's ire out there about Abram's Trek, and those folks are entitled to their opinion, but I'll take it any day of the week over Rick Berman's Trek. The first five minutes of JJ's Trek was better than all 4 TNG movies put together. The things that folks like to knit pick JJ's Trek for (the blackhole, inplausibility of Kirk's promotion) have been seen in previous Treks (spatial anomaly dujour, Worf leaves Starfleet to join the Klingon empire and is back in uniform like nothing happened a week later, or how bout "we're the only ship in the quadrant"?). But again everyone is entitled to their opinion. I look forward to the sequel.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:10 p.m. CST

    bsb = BringingSexyBack?

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    What happened there?

  • May 24, 2011, 8:11 p.m. CST

    ST III was solid and better than reboot

    by DavidBanner

    I enjoyed Abrams movie, but it was a mediocre story. Pine channeled Shatner's Kirk, while putting his own touches in as well. But ST III was a MUCH better story than the Abrams. II,III,IV,and VI are the good Trek films.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:12 p.m. CST

    Oh, no doubt the Theft of the Enterprise is great

    by gmanca

    I love that sequence, the way Horner's swashbuckling piece fits the "piracy" of Kirk and crew along with the editing and tempo of shots, all top notch. It sucks that the best portion of the film is half-way through.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:13 p.m. CST

    Star wars Trek was terrible.

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    Just what you would expect from somebody schooled in the Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer academy of bad directing. Bob Orci needs a new line of work.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:17 p.m. CST

    I like all the TOS movies

    by spidercoz

    Yes even 5. Out of all of them it reminds me most of the series. Ridiculous, cheap, hammy, it had everything.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:20 p.m. CST

    "Kirk's pussy kid getting killed"

    by Astronut

    LOL, MAN!!

  • May 24, 2011, 8:22 p.m. CST

    How do Orci and Kurtzman keep on getting work?

    by sunwukong86

    it baffles me. Their scripts arent very good

  • May 24, 2011, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Yeah, I gotta give a shout out for ST III as well

    by lochkray

    Somebody already said it: Best odd numbered Trek movie. The final "Vulcan Mystical" Scenes were a little bit of a buzz kill, especially right at the end, but the movie was fun and solid. And it shows that sometimes, the pity remarks of a hero killing a villain are best when short and simple: I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU!!!! Then kick Doc Brown in the face, and watch him fall into lava - Classic.

  • He had his moments, yes, but if you look at his portrayal overall, he sort of comes up weak. Part of the reason I have always seen him as weak has to do with the whole "Jim from Taxi" thing... every time he starts talking I half expect him to go into his Jim persona with that face... you know, the one he made when he took his first bite of the marijuana brownie.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:28 p.m. CST

    Star Trek III the Search for Spock

    by goodguy

    Lately, I've found Star Trek III to be much more fun and downright watchable than II. Wrath of Khan was great, mostly because of Mantalban. But III was truly the film adaptation of the tv series. It's only problem is the horrible production design. The costumes and set design of the cantina are sad. But Lloyd's Kruge is intimidating and badass. Kirk losing his son and destroying the Enterprise is EPIC. And the score is unmatched. III and IV are the best of the trilogy.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:29 p.m. CST

    ALmost forgot. The other reason I thought Kruge was weak...

    by Astronut

    They just didn't give him enough meat in the script. There should have been at LEAST one more confrontation with Kirk leading up to the finale... another space battle or something. They were following Wrath of Khan for god's sake.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:30 p.m. CST

    Never understood the hatried for ST3

    by seasider

    ST5 I can understand, that movie was a mess. But SFS had the unfortunate task of being the follow up to Wrath of Kahn, the best of the series. While the movie does drag its heels a lot, there are some memorable scenes such as: Sarek and Kirk's mind meld, the death of Kirk's son, explosion of the enterprise and the land on Vulcan. I thought the movie was also a good setup for what happens in the next movie. Watching Kirk lose his son and then seeing the scene in Voyage Home where Saavik expresses David's heroics to Kirk gives it a real emotional weight. We also see that storyline play out in part VI. So while part III may very well be one of the weaker movies of the saga, it's an important because of the effect it has on the next 3 movies.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:36 p.m. CST

    It was going to be too competitive next summer anyway

    by BoyNamedSue

    You have The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers and a few others I can't remember off the top of my head...Star Trek "2" would have required a release date as far away from those other movies as possible to do the kind of business the last one did.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:40 p.m. CST

    It's been years since I've seen ST3. I hardly remember what it's about.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    But, they may be due to the fact that it's sandwiched between two superior films.

  • I love Shatner's acting in "Khan" and "Voyage" (and in a zillion other things) but his thespianics immediately following David's demise is just a laundry list of terrible choices. Also, people mock Worf's "Assimilate this," but I listen to Kirk's parting words to Christopher Lloyd and wonder which Paramount exec decided that key piece of dialogue could absolutely never be topped. I don't hate III, and I'll admit it has its moments, but in my view it has aged very, very poorly.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:41 p.m. CST

    "The word is no. I am therefore going anyway."

    by Acquanetta

    Wow, are we really trying to pretend that the rebooted Trek was better than STIII? (Or, for that matter, that the next film will be?)

  • May 24, 2011, 8:41 p.m. CST

    If They Can Make A Good Sequel It Will Be A Miracle

    by DeckardB26354

    The Star Trek reboot movie worked because it was energetic and upbeat even if not much of it made any sense and the story was kind of meh. I'm not surprised they are dragging their feet on a sequel. Now that the newness factor is over, they are going to have to come up with a compelling story to actually make the second movie good, and after so many movies and stories in the Trek universe, it's going to be really hard to come up with something that hasn't been done several times already.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:43 p.m. CST

    "i thought star trek 3 was the last good trek film"


    Fuck ... really?? 6 and First Contact shit all over it ... from a great height.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:44 p.m. CST

    Search for Spock was miles better than JJ Trek

    by GeorgieBoy

    It had more heart and logic that JJ Trek could ever hope for. I'm glad they're delaying the next cashgrab... er... movie. "Space... ...the Rehashed Frontier. These are the voyages of the gaudy-looking starship Enterprise. Its continuing mission: To explore new revenue streams and alienate longtime fans, to shine lens flare wildly for 2 hours, to repeatedly go where we've all been before."

  • May 24, 2011, 8:44 p.m. CST

    Be smart, Paramount.

    by Fixxxer

    Making STAR TREK cool again was a nearly impossible feat, but J.J. Abrams pulled it off despite a writers' strike and a patchwork script whose plot relied far too much on coincidence. Given the proper time and care, STAR TREK 2 could be something truly special, maybe even a best picture nominee, given the current format. If that means jettisoning Lindelof and Orci & Kurtzmann's script for something written by, say, Scott Frank or Frank Darabont (just spitballin' here), then so be it.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:45 p.m. CST

    Forget Lloyd! John as Maltz!!! Dan Fielding!

    by Pixelsmack

    Night Court and Trek III should have made love.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:45 p.m. CST

    Nick Meyer wanted nothing to do with III

    by BoyNamedSue

    Because he wanted Spock to stay dead, which is a decision I sort of agree with in a way, although later Trek films would have suffered without Nimoy. Meyer returned to write IV. But having said that, I'm fine with III and don't get the hate for it...It is what it is....a transition film....still far superior to the final two TNG films.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:45 p.m. CST


    by DrMorbius

    bsb changed it because most were addressing him that way anyway. AssLives isn't around right now cuz its time for him to 'rock' the 'goats' to sleep, and he doesn't want to lose count.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:47 p.m. CST

    TSFS was a charmer

    by mwharr

    I think Hercules, and many filmgoers have been so influenced by the current trend of genre films being too busy, over-designed, over-produced, over-the-top, sprawling and big that they have forgotten that film can also be just as effective understated, subtle, small and charming. TSFS has flaws but it is in no way shitty or slapdash. It's intimate, and an obvious character-based film with a lot of heart. Sorry Herc, just don't agree.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:48 p.m. CST

    JJ's TREK does not hold up to repeat viewings

    by Dark Knight Lite

    I'd rather have no TREK film in the near future than go back to PLANET COINCIDENCE on the good ship LENS FLARE.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:50 p.m. CST

    Jar Jar's Star Trek > The Search for Spunk

    by schizoschizo


  • May 24, 2011, 8:51 p.m. CST

    Herc: Since they don't even have an approved script yet.

    by cookylamoo

    It's not going to increase the quality of whatever they end up doing. It's just being stuck at square one. Length of time fucking around is not going to make this a better film.

  • May 24, 2011, 8:55 p.m. CST

    The only thing ST III was missing was.....

    by Chris

    a hot as balls THIN Kirstie Alley, She was fine back in the day before she got all puffy.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:01 p.m. CST

    STIII Excelsior theft was...

    by Sir Loin of the most exciting scenes EVER in Trek films. The pacing, FX, and music are superb. Still love it, especially the line, "How can you have a yellow alert in space dock?!" That captain got completely OWNED by Kirk and Scotty! LOL. It's never been topped, and that was back in 1983. Says something, doesn't it?

  • May 24, 2011, 9:02 p.m. CST

    Can you believe that woman is 60 years old??!

    by Astronut

    Her sexy fuck me eyes are amazing and sultry.Even right now. She has a comeback of sorts going on with that shit show Dancing with the Stars. If she had lipo and some nips and tucks she would be a fucking MILF at 60 years old, I swear to god.

  • You guys who think Star Trek III with Reverend Jim is a "good" film on any level must've seen a different film than me, possibly the Director's Cut from Bizarro World, because the one from my world was godawful.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:02 p.m. CST

    I called this back in 2009. JJ likes to start things...

    by Rebel Scumb

    but isn't big on staying around. He's like one of those dads who gets married, fathers some kids, then takes off and starts a new family in another town. Thats why I never understand all the haters of the JJ trek's concern. Its not like this was going to be the status quo for the next 40 years, none of these cast members are going to sacrifice the rest of their careers to doing trek until they're old and fat. None of them are going to be convention regulars. I would not be surprised if this movie doesn't happen at all. It served it function. Get the general public interested in Trek again. They'll get at most, one more movie out from this version. But more likely star trek will sit in the shelf for another few years and then someone will manage to resurrect it on TV. Which is where Trek belongs anyways.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:03 p.m. CST

    Finally someone mentioned First Contact

    by thepoohguy

    Best acting in any Star Trek movie. The scene between Alfre Woodard and Patrick Stuart where they talked about Moby Dick was amazing! I mean seriously, Patrick Stuart raised the standard of captain to a whole new level. Agreed that 7 and 9 were bad, but Generations and First Contact were awesome. Think about what those movies could have been if they had the budget of the reboot.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:07 p.m. CST

    You people are ridiculous. And wrong.

    by SydBarretsMyDad

    The only truly bad trek movies are 5 and insurrection. The end. The fact is that the movies are as hit and miss as the episodes were. But even bad trek is good. Just like blowjobs.

  • ...or should I say, "Porn Farr."

  • May 24, 2011, 9:08 p.m. CST


    by Astronut

    That was a hilarious analogy, man!

  • May 24, 2011, 9:11 p.m. CST

    Porn Farr FTW!

    by Astronut

  • May 24, 2011, 9:14 p.m. CST

    ST III Sucked for a simple reason

    by AssyMuffJizz

    ST III was a ridculous copout on one of the most affecting death scenes in movie history. why screw something like that up. But ST III is a fucking masterpiece comparared to Jar Jar Abrams BREWERY TREK. Fucking fuck thagt fucking fuck.,

  • May 24, 2011, 9:14 p.m. CST

    When Kirstie Alley was in good shape

    by Astronut

    I would have pummeled her balloon knot

  • May 24, 2011, 9:17 p.m. CST

    assymuffjiz, I see the reason you chose your screen name...

    by Astronut

    ... you obviously mimmic the number-one Abrams' hater on the TB boards.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:18 p.m. CST

    Trek III is fine

    by Georgepeppard

    Trekkies have horrible, anal personalities that make them prize generic shit like First Contact. As long as nothing too embarrassing happens, that's all that matters.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:19 p.m. CST


    by lochkray

    I have to disagree. I know and respect the pedigree of The Motion Picture, but it was bad. A mediocre 46 minute television pilot episode, padded out to, not just two hours but, nearly three freaking hours. Each piece of the puzzle was fine, it was just such a boring picture. Five was not good, but I find myself defending it from time to time. I'm never sure why, but there's just something I like about it. Maybe its just pity. Insurrection was uninspired, not actually bad. Nemesis was the awful one. Awful, awful, awful, awful.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:24 p.m. CST

    "My Father says you came back for me. Why would you do this?"

    by SmokieGeezer

  • May 24, 2011, 9:25 p.m. CST

    "Because The needs of The One, Outway The needs of The many"

    by SmokieGeezer

  • May 24, 2011, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Star Trek III is one of the best-Damn good movie...

    by Jobacca

    In fact,I actually kind of like 3 more than Wrath of Khan. The reason why is because 3 is all about the characters and their relationships. Basically the entire crew is willing to risk their lives and their careers on some crazy half-assed mission to rescue Spock and McCoy. Kirk risks even more-he sacrifices his son and even his ship all for the lives of his friends. The end,where they're all standing around on Vulcan re-introducing themselves to Spock? That shit gets me EVERY time. 2,3,and 4 all link together to tell an awesome story. 1 and 5 can go suck a Tribble though....6 is OK.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Take STIII anytime over MTV/GLEE/HIP JJTREK

    by SmokieGeezer

  • May 24, 2011, 9:28 p.m. CST

    3+ year wait does NOT mean better film

    by gamerawangi

    [My apologies if this has been pointed out in the above comments...] ST:TMP came out December '79. STII came out sumer of '82. Meaning only 2 and a half years between a movie that had all the excitement of a dead salmon, and one now considered among the best sequels (if not just plain best SciFi films, period). That's what I learned in film school. Just because you spent years making your "masterpiece" does not guarantee it'll be any good when it comes out. Conversely, spend 2 weeks making a movie that audiences love does not mean you didn't put a lot of hard work into it.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:28 p.m. CST

    "Dont call me Tiny"

    by SmokieGeezer

  • May 24, 2011, 9:29 p.m. CST

    When Kirstie Alley was in good shape...

    by schizoschizo

    ...I would've deeply explored her Jeffries Tubes.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:31 p.m. CST

    Trek III was a DeForest Kelly showcase.

    by Margot Tenenbaum

    It was hampered by the iffy recasting of Mr. Saavik. Spacedock, the Excelsior, the introduction of the Klingon Bird of Prey, the matte shots of Vulcan -- analog big studio SFX at their peak. It ended with the only real old school Kirk fistfight in the film series. Result: Hercules is a moron. I hope they never make a sequel to Abrams Trek and put the series back on TV where it belongs, executive produced by Ronald D. Moore. It is his destiny.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:33 p.m. CST

    jobacca, how does Kirk "sacrifice his son"?

    by Astronut

    I'm not following.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:34 p.m. CST

    Star Trek III minimized the impact of Spocks sacrifice

    by FrodoFraggins

    It was just there to cater to the fans who can't possibly deal with a loved character actually dying in a franchise. It also had to follow the only rewatchable Trek feature film.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:35 p.m. CST

    GOOD i say.

    by KilliK

    the longer JJ and Co delay this shit,the better for us since we wont have to suffer watching it.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:35 p.m. CST

    "a rushed entry unworthy of the 2009 installment." WTF?

    by conspiracy

    As if NeuTrek is some kind of fucking cinematic fucking masterpiece? Are we talking about the same fucking film here dude; you mean that Sugar Tit of film fluff that had a script that allowed for... 1. A Jim Kirk who went from unemployed redneck bar brawler to the most competitive, hard to get into, selective organization in the Star Trek Universe in less than 24 fucking hours? Even the Fucking Army takes longer than that..and all they require is you be about room temp. 2. A Starfleet that when trouble so mismanaged, understaffed, and strategically inept that the ENTIRE fucking fleet is too far away and they have to man their newest ships with green cadets? And THEN goes Hell bent for Leather into the unknown without even firing a god damned probe first to see what lies in wait? 3. Two ships that enter within seconds of one another into a wormhole/blackhole...yet come out the other side decades apart...and the bad guy, who is nothing more than a disgruntled miner...theorized and planned for said 20+ year discrepancy. 4. A series of random coincidences that served no purpose other than to get "The Names" all together on the ship at the same time. Coincidences that are not just improbable...but SO FUCKING ILLOGICAL that it fucks with the very being of who these characters are...such as... A Logical Vulcan...who when stranded on an Ice Planet..which Happens to be as close to Red Hot Vulcan as out Moon is too us (One ice...One Hot..both breathable atmosphere??); and whom has within the last 24hrs watched said "Vulcan" get destroyed by a bad guy whom he knows is going on a rampage...sits on his ass burning a fire (Where did that wood come from,,I didn't see trees on Ice Planet) instead of alerting the Starfleet personnel he knows are only 14km away? Thats Logical? Oh Fuck it...this could go on for 100+ bullet points. Sure it was a stupid fun kinda way, but it won't take a whole lot of Fucking Effort for it to be a "Worthy" sequel. I bet Orci Banged out that 70 page "treatment" in less than a week...while still drunk from the Cowboys and Aliens press junket.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:36 p.m. CST

    Kirstie Alley was in ST3? i thought it was someone else?

    by KilliK

  • May 24, 2011, 9:36 p.m. CST

    astronut...Kirstie was hot..Luscious Conical tits...

    by conspiracy

    and a ripe heart shaped ass. Too bad it all turned to Bon-Bon fed mush.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:39 p.m. CST

    @killik. Who said Kirstie was in ST3?

    by schizoschizo

    Did you misread something? Anyway, if I had millions of dollars and a time machine, I'd go back in time and cast her in my Star Trek movie, Star Trek 69: The Next Penetration.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:40 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Thanks for the info, sir. Interesting choice by him. As for the other one, say no more!

  • May 24, 2011, 9:41 p.m. CST


    by AssyMuffJizz

    bingo -- but it's a respectfull playful kinf of mimicry. And I think my source material is dead on right about GAY YGA ABRAMS BREWERY TREK. But if they have to make another NutrEK, how about adapting a version of MASTER & COMMANDER. That was a brilliant movie which could easily be transmuted into a TREK film. Stephen is like a combo of Spock and Mcccoy. And there are no redshirts who can be killed off without any consequences or gravitas.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Star Trek 3:The Search for Kristy Alley

    by Marlboroliteman

    The Search For Kristy Alley is a good movie but it could have been great if they were more ambitious with it.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Yes, ST3 ruined the significance and impact of Spock's death...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...but it also paved the way for some GREAT lines/moments in ST4.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:45 p.m. CST

    Who played Saavik in ST3?

    by KilliK

    i recall she was cute.

  • Anyway, Paramount losing its tentpole TREK movie is a big fucking deal for the studio. How long have the writers had to do this thing? Isn't Lindelof in the mix? Things sound a lot worse than "Abrams is super busy with SUPER 8." I think they're fucking stumped.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:47 p.m. CST

    @marlboroliteman. I wouldn't mind searching Kirstie's Alley...

    by schizoschizo

    ...with my penis.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:48 p.m. CST

    Nu Trek 2: The Search For A Good Script

    by KilliK

  • May 24, 2011, 9:50 p.m. CST

    Ugh... AICN Strikes Again / davidbanner

    by THX1968

    davidbanner is absolutely correct (among others) that Star Trek III was solid, terrific entertainment. I think you AICN guys get your scoops and set visits because you all expertly blow lilac smoke up current Hollywood's ass while trashing great entertainments of the past. JJ Trek didn't suck, but it just wasn't that great. Certainly not better than any of the original series cast members efforts, save Trek 5 (which I have a soft spot for, though it is admittedly not very good). Even "the Motion Picture" was better than JJ Trek, but I'm biased - I put Trek 1 right up there with Khan just for the sheer epic feel of it all. I have serious problems with JJ Trek. First and foremost Skylar/Spock was way, way too emotionally portrayed. Spock would never, ever get into a relationship with a fellow cadet/officer/whatever because it is simply not logical. Worse yet, it sure wouldn't be a human. Also, what's his face just isn't very masculine. Fanboys probably dug it, but he's far too effeminate in appearance. Next, the bridge sucked ass. Piss poor design there. It looked like an Apple store with spotlights blasting into your eyes. Give me a nice dark bridge. Blasting light into a wide angle lens only warps the image further. There's shots where McCoy's head in particular looks like a fucking marshmallow. Another thing, sure it was a swashbuckling adventure, but it was totally lacking that classic Trek heady quality. At least try to give the audience something to consider while shits constantly blowing up. Much less Star Wars, please, much more Star Trek. The rest of it was alright, I guess, though destroying Vulcan and Spock's Mom was very gimicky. That was done for pure shock value, period. It did nothing to propel sad sack Spock's arch that couldn't have been done another way. Yeah, JJ Trek wasn't that great at all, but AICN staff will continue to trash fine works of the past (original Trek films, Indiana Jones, Raimi Spider-Man movies, etc.) in order to make the trash of today more appealing (JJ Trek, New Spider-Man, etc.). Gotta keep those reboot/remakes/garbage coming! High time you AICN guys bite the hands that feed you. Your lame reviews don't count. You guys just don't have a grasp of film criticism let alone the English language - though I have to give props to The Wyrm, his critiques are quite cogent. My point is that when you post a photo of something that is clearly shitty (like the new Spider-Man) you should most certainly say so! Man, I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:51 p.m. CST

    Roberto and Alex have been on their baby...Cowboys and Aliend

    by conspiracy

    So now that it's about ready to hit the DVD Bins...they pumped out a 70 page treatment?! But you are right...the the story they shat out was subpar and now they are back to fucking formula as to what to do or how to do it.

  • May 24, 2011, 9:52 p.m. CST

    thats "Aliens" folks...blame the beer...

    by conspiracy

  • May 24, 2011, 9:58 p.m. CST

    The last good Trek movie? GALAXY QUEST. No fucking contest.

    by gruntybear


  • May 24, 2011, 10:01 p.m. CST

    JJ is hopefully being smart...

    by sai_justin

    and treating Star Trek as a one-shot. He caught lightning in a bottle, best not to ruin it.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:01 p.m. CST

    "Brewery Trek"

    by Tom Thatcher

    Amen. (I think I saw cement floors.) Abram's Trek was entertaining but made too many dubious choices to be taken seriously. Ensign promoted to Captain on his first mission? Uh, no. After a battlefield promotion, he would be confirmed as a lieutenant (at most) and shifted sideways to another ship. And making the ship 10X bigger inside just because? (Except we have never, ever, gotten a sense from any ST product of just how f'ing big those ships really would be. It doesn't matter if you make it 400, 1000 or a million feet long if you only show the bridge, the engine room, and 20 feet of corridor.) Entertaining, but don't think too hard about it.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:01 p.m. CST

    "My God, Bones.... What have I done?"

    by Billyeveryteen

    "You blew up our ride to kill a handfull of Klingons, Dipshit."

  • May 24, 2011, 10:03 p.m. CST

    well said, thx1968

    by Sir Loin

    Admittedly I'm a bit biased as I was born in 1968, but your observations are spot-on. That last film was NOT Star Trek. Abrams is a capable guy, but he was punked by Orci & Kurtzmann. 'Tis a shame, such a waste.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Wasn't STIII the 1st time we saw Horn headed Klingons

    by Phategod100

    I may be wrong but if i remember before then in TOS, Klingons looks like Russians with bad tans.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:05 p.m. CST

    No, gruntybear, you are so wrong. It's Master and Commander.

    by schizoschizo

    which, as I mentioned in another thread, is still the best Trek film.

  • But I guess that's the typical, mindless movie-goer of the 21st century. As long as it "looks" good, it's a great movie to them even if there's no substance to the plot and the acting is dull and stiff. Have at it, chumps. You all are the reason why movies, while they may "look" great, all SUCK now. Go live inside your CGI-laden, 3-D world.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:09 p.m. CST

    Seeing the first teaser trailer...

    by gamerawangi

    ...was the ONLY good thing about seeing "Cloverfield" in the theater.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:10 p.m. CST

    Why II, III, and IV are the best of the Trek films:

    by vroom socko

    It's because they form a trilogy connected not just narratively, but thematically. Starting with WRATH OF KHAN, we have a story about handling events beyond human control. For Kirk, this is aging, and by extention death. At the start, he's just turning 50 and is bitter about it. It takes the death of Spock to make him realise the value his life still has, as well as accept that there are going to be situations that he can't win. Khan, in comparison, faced a natural disaster that decimated his followers. Rather than accept that these events are beyond human control, he blames Kirk and goes on a roaring rampage of revenge that ultimately gets him killed. SEARCH FOR SPOCK, the film maligned by Hercules here today, is a film about recognising just what sort of events ARE in our control. The movie asks of it's heroes just what they're willing to risk, what they are willing to lose, in order to protect something or someone that matters the most to them. It shows the measure of personal sacrifice that people are willing to undertake for something that truely matters, the wellfare of friends and family. THE VOYAGE HOME, at the end, is about taking responsability for your actions, and making up for your mistakes. Whether it's the extiction of another species, or disobaying orders and stealing then blowing up Starfleet property, a truely noble and decent person will agnowledge their mistakes, even if they were made without malice, and atone for them however they can. As for the other movies, THE MOTION PICTURE is slow, pretensious, and too in love with itself. THE FINAL FRONTIER is a joke.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:10 p.m. CST

    First one was overrated...

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    Characters were dead on, but the story was abysmal. In Captain's Pike's words, "I dare you to do better." time, that is.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:13 p.m. CST

    Trek 3 was "Space Opera"

    by barneyshouldbeputdown

    That was Nimoy's intention, and he hit it. Everything about it is intended as larger than life. It definitely has scope - the assertion otherwise is ridiculous. And the themes are noble - it doesn't mitigate or minimize Spock's sacrifice - it AMPLIFIES, mirrors and illustrates it, with what his friends are willing to go through to MATCH his prior sacrifice for them. "Worse" than you remembered it? You just lost the respect of a lot of people now wondering if you really understand structure and storytelling half as well as you want us to believe you do. Trek 3 has weaknesses, but it holds up well alongside many other great films with similar themes of sacrifice and friendship. And several gutsy moves were made with this film, story-wise. The performers give some of their best moments in any Star Trek film or tv episode. Underbudgeted? Sure. Lloyd's Klingon a bit too nutty? Maybe. Sub-par? Hardly.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Damnit, hit reply too soon...

    by vroom socko

    As for THE UNDISCOVERED CONTRY, it was a shameless ripoff of the Andrew Davies directed film THE PACKAGE, starring Gene Hackman and Tommy Lee Jones. I can't even watch that one. Of the Next Generation films, the less said, the better. As for Abrams film, it was pretty to look at, has a solid cast, and was fun to watch. but ultimately it was also hollow, poorly written, and contrived. Will the next one be better? I certainly hope so.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Off Topic But...Where is the Kung Fu Panda 2 Review?

    by conspiracy

    You fuckers REALLY should move the Fuck out of motherfucking Austin Texas if you are going to do a Movie Review and Breaking News're 1500 fucking miles away from the action. I mean seriously...Back in the 90's, before the net was populated by the average fucking retards and their 75ur old grandmothers streaming Barnaby Fucking Jones you could get away with it because you really were one of the few games in what for the average user was a pretty small town But now...Shit has grown up...and you either get out the sticks and get Professional Fucking fast or just keep posting links to other peoples scoops until you are forced to close the doors.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:20 p.m. CST

    But I like "Search For Spock." (nt)

    by Triple_J_72

  • May 24, 2011, 10:22 p.m. CST

    I could wait 20 years for a new ST movie.

    by MapMan

    Because hopefully all those involved in the last 'film' will have moved on. Especially JJ. I don't understand the love for this man. He's thoroughly mediocre and has a poor sense of style (e.g. constant lens flare) and staging action shots (e.g. pretty well every shot in MI3). He's just not a great film director (however I will give him props for the L O S T pilot). Anyway he should not be the godfather of ST films. Why not hand the reins over to an up and coming director or an established one that would like a shot at it? Say Duncan Jones?

  • May 24, 2011, 10:24 p.m. CST

    ironeagle74..Want to know who the Studios are targeting?

    by conspiracy

    Follow Favreau on the build up to Cowboys and Aliens release. Where are these fuckers doing their promotion ? On Air with Ryan Secrest...thats where. THAT is the demo the studios want...American Idol viewers...people who watch endless TV and basically live their lives through sound bites and their smart phones. 13-21yr olds who are not bright or serious enough to get into a decent University...but will camp out all fucking night in the freezing fucking rain to watch fucking Twilight and push it to a 9 figure box office.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:24 p.m. CST

    Old Star Trek is like the girl you lost your virginity to.

    by schizoschizo

    ...yeah, she might've been a cool chick, and you're forever grateful to her and will always think of her with nostalgia, but she got old and fat, and her tits sag something awful. Jar Jar Trek is like your new secretary. Sure, she's fucking stupid, but she sucks a mean dick and lets you stick it up her ass.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:25 p.m. CST

    give us good TV instead

    by abe

    Who cares about ST movies? The interesting stuff always was in the TV shows. Maybe they learned their lesson with Enterprise. Just make good stories and we'll reward you with eyeballs. Nuf said.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:25 p.m. CST

    vroom socko

    by ATARI

    Excellent job of summing up my feelings.<br> <br> The only change I would make is "THE FINAL FRONTIER does not exist."<br>

  • May 24, 2011, 10:31 p.m. CST

    schizoschizo..Brilliant Analogy!

    by conspiracy

    The only problem with it in this case is that your Secretary may have been an ignorant but entertaining fuck at the time...but the nasty chancre that popped up on your cock a few days later made you regret doing her.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:32 p.m. CST

    I could never get passed the Reverend Jim as a Klingon

    by Ingeld

    It pulled me out of the movie, which is funny because I did not have the same problem with Back to the Future. I imagined the whole Taxi cast in Star Trek. Reeger as Captain Kirk. Latka as Spock. Louie as McCoy.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:32 p.m. CST

    Has anyone seen the Japanese "Super 8" poster?

    by Chewtoy

    Swear to god... nothing but lens flares. Japan must have serious "truth in advertising" laws.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:34 p.m. CST

    ingeld ..If only Nardo had been Saavik

    by conspiracy

    Now we're talking....Pon Farr THOSE Cans!

  • May 24, 2011, 10:41 p.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

    It's like Morbius said ... just registered my nick. How you doin, friendo?

  • Seriously, the first four Trek films are excellent. The fifth and sixth entries sucked. And the only good NextGen flick was First Contact. Abrams' Trek rocked.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:43 p.m. CST


    by Ingeld

    Yes! Forgot about Nardo and Saavik.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:44 p.m. CST

    LOL @conspiracy.

    by schizoschizo

    Well done!

  • May 24, 2011, 10:45 p.m. CST

    I've bet Ten Bucks that this gets pushed back to Summer 2013...


    ... there's no way Paramount will release this in competition with The Hobbit and The Man of Steel.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:46 p.m. CST

    And Ingeld, you forgot about Dan Fielding as Maltz.

    by Harlock999

    Not a Night Court fan?

  • May 24, 2011, 10:47 p.m. CST

    Nardo as Saavik? Perfect!!!

    by schizoschizo

    And I vaguely remember that Marilu Henner had no problem appearing topless in films.

  • He only needed to read Merrick's story from yesterday, jeez.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:49 p.m. CST

    vroom socko stop watching scifi films

    by KilliK


  • May 24, 2011, 10:50 p.m. CST

    Don't forget Dan Fielding from "Night Court"

    by Tom Thatcher

    as Maltz or whatever his name was. As ingeld says, Lloyd as a Klingon pulled me right out of the movie, although I completely accepted him in BTTF. This was the first time bony Klingons had any spoken lines, and you can see the beginnings of where the Franchise would go with them (Kruge killing the big worm with his bare hands then calling to the ship "Nothing to report here," for example.) But the drooling dog puppet was an unnecessary distraction, and even if w give the Franchise a pass on the uneven portrayal of the new bony Klingons, Lloyd and Larroquette were just too distracting as supposed adversaries.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:51 p.m. CST

    Now there's an idea...

    by catlettuce4

    Can we get Abrams to have Brad Bird direct Trek 2 like he did with the Mission Impossible thing? I guess I don't get it... why delay and delay waiting for this one director? There are lots of directors, and there should be another Trek being made by now. They successfully rebooted and are now losing that momentum.

  • The last Star Trek movie was complete garbage. It was an entertaining movie if you want to get lost in a banal, plot hole riddled, ridiculous excuse for a mindless action flick...but it was NOT Star Trek. It completely undermines everything Star Trek stands for. ... it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  • May 24, 2011, 10:55 p.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

  • Love that pull back shot of all the beloved characters on that Vulcan mountain, followed by James Horner's rendition of Alexander Courage's iconic theme. Always gives me goose bumps...

  • Were you the dude at 1:54?

  • May 24, 2011, 10:57 p.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

  • May 24, 2011, 10:58 p.m. CST

    I forgot about Laroquette too.

    by Ingeld

    He didn't register in my mind as much. Lloyd's distinctive voice did it for me. Okie doke , there captain. I don't think we minded him in Back to the Future, because he was playing an eccentric slightly mad scientist. That works well for Lloyd. A badass worm choking Klingon--not so much. I disliked the movie in general. The whole plot was contrived--and Spock resurrected was ever after in my mind a clone or a copy.

  • May 24, 2011, 11 p.m. CST

    "Genesis?!! Genesis allowed is not!"

    by Lao_Che_Air_Freight

    "Is Planet Forbidden!" I love ST3.. "The Commander of the Federation ship would like a truce to confer"..."Put'em on screen.."

  • May 24, 2011, 11:02 p.m. CST

    The Onion News got it right!!!

    by Sicuv Uyall

    No wooden acting. No overblown message of tolerance. No boring scenes of interstellar diplomacy. No overweight actors in tight costumes. Sorry everyone here was disappointed.

  • May 24, 2011, 11:06 p.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

    I can't tell you how many times I replayed that part. *giggle*

  • May 24, 2011, 11:10 p.m. CST

    schizoschizo-- you make a great case. Genius argument.

    by JD

    You obviously don't know Jack about Star Trek...or movies. Which was your favorite part? When Kirk's hands were really inflated like a cartoon or when "Spock" decides to jettison Kirk off the Enterprise for insubordination and almost gets him killed? Maybe you liked the fact that the captain of a mining ship can convince his whole crew to join him in blind revenge against people who tried to save their planet? Oh I liked how a single super nova threatened the galaxy (so stupid I can't even begin to explain...words mean things folks. These words when strung together make no sense) and old Spock decided to try and extinguish it by making a black hole to suck it up in. Thank goodness he failed, BTW or else it would have teleported back in time and destroyed unborn Kirk and crew completely changing history forever. Need I continue? liked the Green chick. Me too.

  • May 24, 2011, 11:16 p.m. CST

    "You're taking me to the Promised Land?"

    by YackBacker

    "What are friends for?" I love that exchange-- a perfect example of Bones and Kirk's sardonic banter. Also: "We have cleared space-doors!" Cue James Horner's pounding march. More thrills in that one moment than all of the new movie combines. Herc... go watch KUNG FU PANDA or something more your speed.

  • May 24, 2011, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Search For Spock

    by Henry Fool

    The big problems with Search For Spock were 1. No Spock until the last five minutes 2. Lt. Savik being recast. It was still a better film than Star Trek V and the theatrical cut Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The death of Kirk's son was some pretty harsh stuff for a sci-fi flick. Cold, clumsy and brutal, it felt like watching a real murder. There was no satisfaction to be had when Kirk finally killed Christopher Lloyd. The price was too high.<br /> <br /> Although, from Herc's perspective, I do have to admit that its been fifteen years since I last saw the film. Something I liked when I was twenty-one may not hold up quite as well at thirty-five.

  • May 24, 2011, 11:26 p.m. CST

    Anyone who doesn't like Star Trek 3 isn't a real Star Trek fan

    by Stegman84

    Most of the regular cast gave their best performances of the film series in that film. Deforest Kelley was just flat out fantastic and never gets enough props for his work in this one, and it was great to see him in such a front and centre role for once. We got our first real experiences with the new look/new style Klingons, one which would dictate how Klingons would be in Trek for the next couple of decades plus,and I have no problem with the casting because they all played the roles straight. You look back now and the Klingons in ST3 still match up with the Klingons as we now know and accept them. We a script that was all about the characters, that gave moments to everyone, and that actually had the balls to not only kill off Kirk's son, but also destroyed the Enterprise. They found a way to bring back Spock that actually didn't devalue his death, but instead had the rest of the crew potentially make just as big a sacrifice to save him as he had done in the last film to save them. And it opened up the Spock character to take different directions for future films to boot. There were plenty of great and memorable lines and scenes, the designs for the new ships was superb, the pace of the film spot on, it doesn't betray anything established in previous films or the show. As a film it actually fills in all the tick boxes, it's plot and character based, well paced, well acted and directed, looks damn good for the vast majority, especially given the very modest budget, follows the previous film seamlessly, while setting up for a potentially interesting sequel. It has big moments and small moments, both of equal power. I mean sure, it's not perfect. The Klingon dog was a bit weird and pointless, and not the best effects wise. The nod to the Star Wars cantina apparently bugs some people (doesn't bother me personally, despite the hodge podge of effects, some more sucessful than others), and it's a damn shame that Kirstie Alley didn't return as Saavik. Oh, and yeah, the Excelsior stalled starter motor noise was a bit cheesy. But honestly, these are small nitpicks in a damn fine film.

  • May 24, 2011, 11:26 p.m. CST

    @iamjackscompletelackofsurprise. I was wrong.

    by schizoschizo

    You must be the fat, old chick at :15. My bad. ;) Seriously, though, I was a huge fan of TOS growing up (my favorite episodes being "Mirror, Mirror" and "City on the Edge of Forever"), so yes, I do know my Trek, and managed an indie video store for a few years, pimping French flicks and obscure and/or hard-to-find titles not carried by Blockbuster, so yes, I do know my movies. That said, you should read my post on old Trek as the girl to whom you lose your virginity to get my current stance on old Trek versus Jar Jar Trek. But it's nice to know that we share common ground on green chicks.

  • May 24, 2011, 11:32 p.m. CST

    michael giacchino's score sucked ass

    by Chris

    Never came close to forwarding the visual narrative (the one possible exception would be the "Labor of Love" cue) like James Horner did with ST II & III. Don't believe me? Go back and listen to "Stealing The Enterprise" cue. It's godamn brilliant.

  • May 24, 2011, 11:33 p.m. CST

    I agree, Star Trek III hasn't aged well. It's a weak film.

    by Powers Boothe

    And that planet created via the Genesis Project giving life to a dead Spock is AWFUL writing. According to that sloppy logic, why weren't any of the people killed on the planet during the course of the film reborn too?

  • May 24, 2011, 11:36 p.m. CST

    Another piece of evidence to show my Trek cred...

    by schizoschizo

    ...I have autographed photos of Sulu and Scotty from an ol' convention. Sat in on their talks where they both badmouthed Shatner to the audience's delight. Also, at his autograph table, Takei was talking to me for so long that our talk held up the line and my best friend at the time thought that he was hitting on me (he kept asking me questions--e.g., I remember him saying I had an interesting look and asked me where I was from). This was before he came out of the closet.

  • May 24, 2011, 11:36 p.m. CST

    There is two kinds of Star Trek...

    by Chuck_Chuckwalla

    Star Trek The Motion Picture is on one side of the fence and the rebooted, prequel, sequel Star Trek is on the other. Both great films, IMHO. TMP is cerebral and true science fiction yet suffers from being boring as fuck. ST 11 is a fun ride, but doesn't have two brain cells to rub together, meaning that it lacks the big concepts that Trek is known for. I hope that the next one will be just as fun but has more to offer in the science fiction department.

  • May 24, 2011, 11:43 p.m. CST

    No, chuck, I'd argue that there are three kinds of Trek...

    by schizoschizo

    The two you mention, and all the shit in between. Wait, there's early Nicholas Meyer Trek--The Wrath of Khan--which I still love, although I haven't seen it in years. (Note to self: possible blu-ray purchase). Thought the dude (and this was before he started dressing like a guido-douche) knocked it out of the park with that one. So there are four kinds of Trek.

  • May 24, 2011, 11:54 p.m. CST

    I dunno, I like SEARCH FOR SPOCK more than Herc

    by bravogolfhotel

    It can be argued with some merit that it presses the reset button on WRATH, but I like the way it seems to make the fatalistic case that Kirk's youthful decision to focus on his career can't be undone; he can have his friends or he can have his son, but he can't have both. However, I do agree with his point that, at least superstitiously, hurrying a TREK movie to fit a date certain a year out is a bad idea. The health of the property really requires a solid effort that demonstrates that the first film was not a fluke.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:05 a.m. CST

    come on..............

    by Nasty_Nick

    Just let someone else Direct. This is a franchise. Why don't they get someone who is free to focus on one project and not piss around.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:08 a.m. CST

    What do you want, nerds?

    by Azlam Orlandu

    Abrams Trek is much better than any of the Next Gen films. Those films were shitty two hour versions of what was a great show.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:08 a.m. CST

    What do you want, nerds?

    by Azlam Orlandu

    Abrams Trek is much better than any of the Next Gen films. Those films were shitty two hour versions of what was a great show.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:08 a.m. CST

    What do you want, nerds?

    by Azlam Orlandu

    Abrams Trek is much better than any of the Next Gen films. Those films were shitty two hour versions of what was a great show.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:08 a.m. CST

    What do you want, nerds?

    by Azlam Orlandu

    Abrams Trek is much better than any of the Next Gen films. Those films were shitty two hour versions of what was a great show.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:19 a.m. CST


    by Chuck_Chuckwalla

    Point taken, there's a lot of shit inbetween and some of it is GOOD shit. I still enjoy watching Kirk and the Gorn go at it, even though that is one weak-ass fight.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:40 a.m. CST


    by Hercules

    boy, do I ever agree with you. while "Arena" is far from flawless in execution, its script is truly great science fiction.

  • I suspect you're just being contrarian, and if I'm right I commend the effort.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:47 a.m. CST

    This is good

    by PvtTOUCH

    I'm relieved they decided to get a tight script before rushing out a flick to make studio release dates. I rather wait a little longer to see a great movie than them rush out a turd like revenge of the fallen

  • May 25, 2011, 12:58 a.m. CST

    VFX time is what matters

    by locater16

    And, that's highly variable in this day and age. Remembering back to a vfx production interview they managed that in a relatively limited amount of time in terms of post. Of course it all depends on the budget, the vfx director, how many and which vfx houses have what time open. Summer next year might be seriously doubtful, but it's not entirely out of the picture.

  • I suspect you have no fucking taste whatsoever, and if I'm right I pity the future of sci-fi filmdom.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:23 a.m. CST

    A longer wait? Oh well!

    by Alincia

    I have no problem waiting a little longer for the next Star Trek film. I really enjoyed it, as I did with most of the Star Trek movies, and look forward to the next installment =).

  • May 25, 2011, 1:24 a.m. CST

    I love the ONN

    by MoffatBabies

    That clip makes me laugh until I get tears every time. Especially the woman in the bad Klingon makeup. And Search for Spock was preeeettty bad stuff. Nowhere near the quality of new Trek. Just face it and stop lying to yourselves. It was better than pretty much the whole shebang. And I grew up with Trek, the original series, loving it.. going to conventions, meeting people like Takei, collecting everything from books, maps, blueprints, comics, trading cards, action figures... you name it. Then spent years sticking with TNG as it gradually became watchable. Then years later, again giving every series a chance and only really enjoying DS9 and the last season of Enterprise ( liked maybe 5 or 6 Voyager episodes). JJ's Trek breathed much-needed new life into the "franchise" (if you will) and saved a doomed universe. Consider yourselves not only lucky anyone gave a shit enough to make another film, but also that you got Abrams instead of a no-name director directing a script made by committee for a limited budget. You got the best of all possible outcomes with that film. If you're a fan. If you're not, I'm not even interested in what you think about Trek in general, not to mention JJ's take on it. I think there's a huge difference between a FAN and someone who is addicted to nostalgia. If you're the latter, I feel sorry for you. We all love the old stuff, and it's may still be true that they "just don't make 'em like they used to". But most of the time, that's a good thing. I myself look forward to the much overdue death of forehead ridges and paper mache' caverns. Now if we could just find a way to kill the jumpsuit for good. Fucking pinkskins. You get what you deserve. Lucky for the rest of us, not what you want.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:29 a.m. CST


    by Koborover

    I love Lloyd as Kruge. Search for Spock is pretty good, but it feels downscaled from Wrath of Khan with bland set design and the awful 23rd century casual clothing the crew wears (and still wears in IV).

  • May 25, 2011, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Saw JJ's Trek again recently on DVD

    by ratpack223

    and must say, I wasn't really impressed. On the contrary, I thought it has lost a great deal compared to my first seeing the film. Actually I think in future times people will think of it as one of the not so good Trek movies.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:43 a.m. CST


    by philosophers


  • May 25, 2011, 1:44 a.m. CST


    by AssyMuffJizz

    AsimovLives was right aboout JJ's BREWERY TREK. He was right all along... The film doesn't even stand up to the least amount of analyssis. Why the AICN big boys insist on the myth that JAR JAR TREK is good is simply beyond me.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:46 a.m. CST

    SEARCH FOR SPOCK had a shitty, unbelievable basic premise

    by AssyMuffJizz

    Spock's consciousness in McCoy -- ok. Spock's body somehow reborn due to genesis -- pure retardation.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:47 a.m. CST

    It was still worlds better than the schlock that was NUTREK

    by AssyMuffJizz

  • May 25, 2011, 2:05 a.m. CST

    I don't know What's more Depressing

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Grown men arguing over whether a two year old Star Trek movie is better than a 28 year old Star Trek movie. Or the fact that I'm at least 2 years older than asimovlives.

  • May 25, 2011, 2:14 a.m. CST


    by vroom socko

    I'll stop watching SF, if you promise to read Jonathan Culler's Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction, as well as approach all fiction with a critical eye to underlying metaphor and deconstruction of the text. Or, conversley, you can enjoy movies in your own way, and let me enjoy them in mine.

  • May 25, 2011, 2:14 a.m. CST

    Mass Effect has pretty much replaced Star Trek in my eyes

    by lv_426

    I still like Star Trek, but nuTrek, while entertaining, was also a big let down in terms of presenting a good story. I am more interested I'm seeing what a Mass Effect movie will end up being. To me, if adapted well, Mass Effect will probably be closer to my idea of what a re-booted Star Trek should have looked and felt like.

  • May 25, 2011, 2:17 a.m. CST

    I Have. Had. Enough Of. You!

    by newc0253

    There are some great moments in III, not the least is the remains of the Enterprise burning an arc through the heavens and the return of Spock at the very end. And I like how Kirk dispatches Lloyd.<p> But Herc is right: even as a kid, i thought III seemed surprisingly cheap for a major motion picture release: from the lazy rainbow warp effect, the 8-bit atari effects, the shittyness of much of the genesis planet and Kirsty Allen's cheaper, non-union replacement.<p>

  • May 25, 2011, 2:27 a.m. CST

    wow -- sounds like we've stepped into another no win scenario

    by Boborci

  • May 25, 2011, 2:28 a.m. CST

    sounds like fun

    by Boborci

  • May 25, 2011, 2:36 a.m. CST

    I have no problems with delays...

    by bubcus

    ... if it gives us a superior product. I loved the new Trek film and would love to see them pull a "Toy Story 2" and raise the bar. Take your time, we've got enough great movies coming at us in the meantime.

  • May 25, 2011, 2:50 a.m. CST

    You're up late, boborci

    by bravogolfhotel

    You've been taking quite the beating in the comparison with THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK, and I can't say as I agree. For example, "Out of the chair!" is at least as good a moment as "That's what you get for missing staff meetings, Doctor."

  • May 25, 2011, 2:58 a.m. CST


    by Hercules

    work in a Cardassian crewman named Kourtney. make her work navigation for two minutes after Pavel hits his head. have Kirk scream, "Kourtney, I challenge you to be as good as Pavel!!" make Kourtney scurry away in a frightened manner after a resentful Pavel regains consciousness.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:12 a.m. CST


    by Hercules

    Kindly ignore all that. I'm so super-drunk. But let me say this: even though the reference to Archer's pooch was likely only meant to mock and disparage, I loved that there was a reference to the larger Star Trek universe. I believe the pleasure centers of more than a few fans would embrace tiny non-speaking cameos by the odd Ferengi, Bajoran or Trill. I COULD BE WRONG! xoxo h

  • Wrath of Khan and Master and Commander still rule.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:20 a.m. CST

    Trek III is one of the lesser Treks

    by kwisatzhaderach

    but it's like Lawrence of Arabia compared to Star Trek '09.

  • Oh, puh-lease!

  • May 25, 2011, 3:40 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    Right on.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:42 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    Exactly, and they had Kirk eating an apple because, "Hey, he was eating an apple in Wrath of Khan when he was telling the story of the Kobayashi Maru test!!" It's this sort of warped fanboy logic that sinks Trek 09 for me, alongside the bland direction and terrible script.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:46 a.m. CST

    Of course Paramount are probably looking

    by kwisatzhaderach

    at the international box office take ($127mil) and wondering "Eh, should we even greenlight this thing?"

  • May 25, 2011, 3:49 a.m. CST

    Herc - III IS better than 2009 Trek, and I like 2009 Trek

    by DiamondJoe

    I'm not being contrarian, I'm judging this on storytelling, emotional engagement and creative daring. While III suffers a lack of scope, from looking a little cheap in places and the odd weak performance, measure for measure it delivers the goods. The Enterprise being stolen remains probably Trek's most thrilling 5 minutes of celluloid. The scuttling of the ship and its plunge into Genesis comes a pretty close second. Kruge is an effective and scene-chewing villain. Kirk gets to batter someone for pretty much the only time in the movies. The decision to turn the crew to outlaws as a mirror of Spock's sacrifice in II is a brilliant piece of storytelling. The music is fucking great. The scenes of Genesis burning up - awesome. And the closing moments on Vulcan are perfectly pitched emotionally. 2009 Trek is a great, fun, vibrant action flick with a nice contemporary spin and thankfully ditches the portentousness of the last few movies and the later series. But some of the plotting is genuinely fucking woeful - NO ONE understands how the future ships came through the, ahem, "black hole" when the same "black hole" effect swallows planets and destroys Nero's ship at the end, and Kirk just bumping into Spock on the ice planet is a catastrophic piece of scriptwriting. Also, most of the humour is....well. Kirk stumbling about with a numb tongue and fat fingers? Oh, how we rolled in the aisles. Couldn't they have spent a few bucks on some kind of 'joke doctor' to polish the thing before they filmed it? That aside - the question that needs asking here is why did JJ Abrams commit to helming this franchise if he just planned to piss away his time working on other projects? Someone should tell him that the Trek movie was a big hit, y'know? There's a thing called 'momentum'. People (audiences, cast members) will drift away.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:54 a.m. CST

    Good sequels take time, like Bad Boys 2.

    by tonagan

  • So I'm happy with the announcement of the movie, will wait even until 2014 for its arrival as long as Paramount / CBS have me some happy nights with TNG Remastered! (Or BluRay Sets). So, Bob, this is all a win-win-scenario. For you, JJ and Paramount. Don't poker us now. Paramount gives you all the freedom you need, obviously. They pulled the hedgehogs out od their pockets. They wait, we wait. It will finally happen! They know, we know. Ah, and then we can feed ourselves with DS9 and Voyager Remastered... See? Pleeeenty of time for you guys....

  • May 25, 2011, 4:15 a.m. CST

    Oh, and thanks for making sure

    by wtriker1701

    Vulcan will never be a moon of Delta Vega ever again! ;-) Fun aside: Make sure, The Shat gets his proper appearance in your movie. MAKE THAT HAPPEN, please! You know, THERE's time running out for you... you'd regret that, I presume....

  • May 25, 2011, 4:16 a.m. CST

    "The question that needs asking here

    by kwisatzhaderach

    is why did JJ Abrams commit to helming this franchise?" <p> Money. If Super 8 is a smash I can't even see him returning for the sequel though, it would be below him.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:26 a.m. CST

    Kirstie Alley = Big Girl (Even when thin)

    by In Action Man Reborn Requiem

    Big Girl = Big Vagina Big Vagina = Bad Vagina Unless you're hung like Spectacular Bid you're not even going to touch the sides.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:46 a.m. CST

    Best Treks form best to worst

    by In Action Man Reborn Requiem

    Wrath of Khan Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (This should be the template for next JJ Trek) Search for Spock Voyage Home First Contact Undiscovered Country Generations Motion Picture Nemesis Insurrection Star Trek V: The Shatnering

  • May 25, 2011, 5:15 a.m. CST


    by Lampers

    Search for Spock is awesome. Pisses all over Trek 4: The Crew Go 80s. Don't get the hate, best Klingon moments in the entire series. And some of the Shat's best work.

  • May 25, 2011, 5:36 a.m. CST


    by hst666

    I have been with at two big girls that had very tight vaginas, and since this is an anonymous talkback, I am far from well-hung.

  • May 25, 2011, 5:50 a.m. CST

    That Onion video is gold.

    by hst666

  • May 25, 2011, 6:08 a.m. CST

    TSFS = the Empire Strikes Back of the Trek movies...


    - its the 2nd part in a trilogy (Genesis Trilogy of II, III, IV) thats very dark in tone, following a classic original (Wrath of Khan/Star Wars) and followed by a much lighter in tone conclusion (Voyage Home/Return of Jedi) - bad things happen (Kirks son is killed, NCC 1701 destroyed, crew become renegades....Solo captured, Lukes hand, Vader is revealed to be his father) - crews split into 2 before converging at the conclusion (Kirk and Co on Earth/Enterprise - David, Savik and Spock on Grissom/Genesis....Luke on X wing/Dagobah - Solo, Leia etc on Falcon/Cloud city) - Members are caputured by the villian and held to ransom (David, Savvik, Spock.......Solo, Leia) before the main guy (Kirk/Luke)comes to the rescue - Climatic fight between the main character (Kirk/Luke)and villian (Kruge/Vader) - Mysticism thats only believed in by main character (Kirk - Vulcans with the body transference...Luke - Yoda with the force) - Down beat film with a hopeful (though unresolved) ending leading directly into the next film. -the gag of the USS Excelsior's that has to jump in Hyperspace/warp and sput-sput-sputted = 'Millenium Falcon’ Plus the end fight on Genesis feels like something out of Temple of Doom with all the lava etc...i know it was more of a homage to Kirks TOS fistfights but it had that Indy feel to it too (and the end of Lord of the Rings 3 - i definatly got a Search for Spock vibe at the end when Frondo and Gollum fight on the cliff) In fact theres definatly a Star Wars/Empire/Raiders/Temple of Doom feel to Star Trek III - it was obviously influenced by those big movies coming out in the early 80s

  • May 25, 2011, 6:10 a.m. CST

    TBH, I can wait longer

    by AlienFanatic

    Thing is, I haven't seen anything yet from these writers that says they can create interesting characters in the Trek universe. All of the characters thus far have been either riffs on the originals, or "empowered" versions that fit today's social mores (Uhura, the strong, independent female). Perhaps that's all the originals were, too, but I expect ST:2 to be an action-oriented pic that, like the original, is skin-deep, emotionally. We'll get another summer blockbuster that cloaks itself in Star Trek, but is really just another, generic movie that moves from plot point A to plot point B. 1. Introduce an item, spoken of in an off-handed way, that ends up being critical to the resolution of the conflict. 2. Reference popular Star Trek icons in a nod to keep hard core Trekkers excited. This will keep the buzz high and dissent low. Maybe we'll see a tribble, or perhaps a Gorn, or maybe even space whales (or Shatner, though these days it'd be hard to tell them apart.) 3. Introduce a topical reference to a current hot topic. Maybe Spock's caught doing Space Marijuana, or they'll introduce the first Ferengi galactic President who is elected over some white, human on a platform of "Change" (in this case, meaning the monetary version), or the illegal immigration of Klingons. 4. Add Zach Galifianakis as a loose-cannon manchild reshirt. He takes the bridge crew on a bender, gets Kirk a Maori tattoo, and Spock ends up pregnant. 5. Kirk goes insane and is replaced by Cpt. Jack Sparrow. Whee. Hey, I can be a screenwriter, too! Ugh, nm. Star Trek 2 will be what it'll be, but I'm not all that excited about it. I expect Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan(!!!), the death of about half a billion extras, and no meaningful movement forward of the ST franchise. Boy, do I miss it on TV, though. At least there they didn't have the budget for all the eye candy, so they were forced to focus on making the characters interesting. Shit, I'm old and grumpy. Next thing you know, I'll talk about having to walk uphill both ways to watch ST on a wind-up, B&W TV.

  • May 25, 2011, 6:14 a.m. CST

    STAR TREK III was good, but not GREAT.

    by Lazerman21

    It had wonderful moments, and nods to the fans, it was the first one to give EACH minor charcter a little more something to do than say "Yes Captain". ANd my favorite scene in the whole thing was when Kirk was about to break McKoy out of the medical ward. "How many fingers am I holding up?" (As Kirk does the Vulcan salute) "That's not very damn funny . ." "Doctor you are suffering from a Vulcan Mind meld . ." "That green blooded son of a bitch . . it's his Revenge for all those arguements he lost." SO much going on in that scene alone made it good, but it was shot on the cheap . . and the sets scream it. . BRING on the next adventure, i cannot wait !!

  • May 25, 2011, 6:17 a.m. CST

    Trek movies best to worst - the official list


    classic (*****) II good (****) III XI VIII IV VI ok (***) I VII bad - but still ok (**) V X IX

  • May 25, 2011, 6:18 a.m. CST

    Well shit...

    by AlienFanatic

    Here I go making the comment about introducing some item that's a nod to the fans, and then I scroll up and see Herc begging Orci (geez, separate the journalist from the fanboy on occasion, please) to do just that. Why is it that Trek fans keep wanting to reference the past instead of embracing new, fun things? ST lives in a huge, huge universe. I'd love to see stuff I haven't seen before, rather than keep re-introducing the stuff I have. What bugs me, though, is that ST has always been about the characters and I have zero faith that any of the two-hour films are going to introduce anything meaningful. The movies have always been a way to use the ST characters in an interesting way, but to enjoy it you HAD to watch the TV show to get a deep back story. Now, without TV, I don't see how they can possibly introduce new characters that are deep enough to inhabit the ST universe. So what we'll get is a lot more pandering, plenty of references to Old Trek, and more cookie-cutter action picture tropes.

  • May 25, 2011, 6:38 a.m. CST

    all that matters is that AsimovLives is happy


  • May 25, 2011, 6:39 a.m. CST

    Better late than never I guess...

    by KillaKane

    Sounds like the cast have got other fish to fry in the interim. Pine, Saldana, Urban etc. Not heard much on Pete Travis's/Urban's Dredd since the response to those ropey Joberg vehicle shots, all quiet on the marketing front.I just hope there's a decent amount of post work involved on that show, and they can allay any fanboy doubters with a kickass trailer.

  • May 25, 2011, 6:51 a.m. CST

    Thanks Astronut!

    by Rebel Scumb

  • May 25, 2011, 6:58 a.m. CST

    Star Wars Smar Wars

    by rbottoms

    The worst Star Trek movies are still better than the best Star Wars.

  • May 25, 2011, 7 a.m. CST

    Star Trek III was an epilogue.

    by shutupfanboy

    There are great moments, but it clocks in around the 90 minute mark probably the shortest of the Trek films. My problem even as a kid was the Enterprise vs. the Klingon Bird of Prey. One exchange and thats it?! Star Wars has spoiled me for space combat. Yes, it was cheesy to get Spock back, but to bring him back they gave up a lot, so I am ok with it.

  • May 25, 2011, 7:06 a.m. CST

    STAR TREK III > STAR TREK (2009) for one simple reason:

    by YackBacker

    Spock actually gets laid in STAR TREK III. He only cuddles a girl in STAR TREK (2009).

  • May 25, 2011, 7:12 a.m. CST

    Star Wars > Star Trek

    by shutupfanboy

    I say that has a giant Trekker, but as far as movies go Trek I was boring as fuck more boring then Clones. Star Trek 5 was not as bad as episode I and Nemesis was abysmal end while Sith was fucking awesome. Even you take the best Trek films like 2,4,6,8 and the new one, I would still take the original trilogy. The original had a better theme, plot, special effects and villains. I will say Kirk, Spock and McCoy are greater then Luke, Han and Chewie though.

  • May 25, 2011, 7:13 a.m. CST

    Correction, STV was worse then Episode I.

    by shutupfanboy

    My bad.

  • May 25, 2011, 7:22 a.m. CST

    shutupfanboy- not a fair comparison

    by YackBacker

    STAR TREK is science fiction (light), STAR WARS is fantasy. It's like comparing hamburgers to sushi. Besides, you don't take into account TOS episodes that represent some of the very best stories STAR TREK has to offer. STAR WARS concerns itself with a very specific story arc, a hero's journey, etc. STAR TREK is based on the concept of space exploration and humanity reaching outward. J.J. Abrams tried to put STAR TREK in the STAR WARS mold in the last movie, but that aside, TREK and WARS are not even remotely similar.

  • May 25, 2011, 7:41 a.m. CST

    X3 is the perfect example of a studio rushing a movie out...

    by Judge Briggs

    Shitty ass movie.

  • May 25, 2011, 7:48 a.m. CST

    vroom socko

    by KilliK

    What is Jonathan Culler's Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction and why should i care? please explain

  • May 25, 2011, 7:48 a.m. CST

    Comparing movies to movies

    by shutupfanboy

    That is how it is. Its been going on for decades like that. Granted, Trek beats the shit out of Wars on TV. So, take your victory. X-3 was the worst fucking film I have ever paid money to see and I saw Battlefield: Earth, the Sphere, Lost in Space and other shitty movies. That movie offended me as comic book fan, a movie goer and as a human being. Fuck that team.

  • ...the world will end. JJ Abrams wants to go out with a bang, so he is literally waiting until the last possible moment to release his last movie, and the last movie of Mankind.

  • May 25, 2011, 7:55 a.m. CST

    "SAY THE WRONG SING TORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

    by Astronut

    That's what I always hear when Kruge/Reverend Jim goes off in that one scene.

  • May 25, 2011, 7:55 a.m. CST

    "get a rushed entry unworthy of the 2009 installment"

    by photoboy

    Let's be honest, STINO was rushed and unworthy of the franchise that spawned it. If Abrams wanted to make a Star Wars film he should have, instead of churning out a Star Trek film so dumbed down that it deserves to be on the same shelves as Michael Bay movies. I doubt the writers' strike can be blamed since Kurtzman and Orci fucked up Transformers without any strikes on. I give this "franchise" three movies at best before the audience loses interest and the cast start getting expensive. Hopefully then someone like Ron Moore or JMS can do a new TV series.

  • May 25, 2011, 8:06 a.m. CST

    "One exchange and thats it?! "

    by KilliK

    you do realise that the Enteprise was manned only by 4 men?.Hell even Scottie says so, that the ship was not programmed for combat. But i do agree that space combats are a scarcity in the movies.With the exception of ST2 and ST8,the franchise in the space combat department,as quantity and spectacle are concerned,is lacking. Who bets that the Borg will be introduced in NT3 or NT4?

  • May 25, 2011, 8:10 a.m. CST

    Trek 2009 is better than Star Trek III

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Just as The Living Daylights is better than Diamonds are Forever, but is that really an accomplishment?


  • May 25, 2011, 8:12 a.m. CST

    Star Trek III and Star Trek 2009 directed by

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Television calibur directors, so there's something they have in common.

  • May 25, 2011, 8:18 a.m. CST

    Not Surprised this is being pushed back

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Didn't the first Abrams Trek get pushed back as well (from Christmas 2008 to Summer 2009)?

  • Look, many of you may not like JJ Abrams as a person or director, but the dude knows how to make hit movies. If he wants Star Trek II to have more lens flares, then the script needs to fucking full of it! Abrams thought that Star Trek I didn't have enough lens flares! He insisted the next Star Trek movie have wall to wall lens flare. Orci didn't agree, and he hardly had any lens flare in his script. Fuck that shit! That's why JJ Abrams took his 70 page script treatment and wiped his ass with it. Then he wrote three words on it with his own shit: MORE LENS FLARE!

  • May 25, 2011, 8:29 a.m. CST

    BSB, Search for Spock doessn't come off as pretentous as say..

    by Stalkeye

    Super 8. Jar Jar's ET wannabe. TSFS was obviously a result of the disatisfaction and huge outcry from the public .(in regards to Spock's fate in WoK.) Lloyd (rev Jim) made for a great Klingon villian much better than freakin' Nero IMO. Then there's the eath of Kirk's son, The Enterprise's destruction and Kirk dishing out vengeance on The Klingons. One of the best ST films and not to mention how it surpasses all the TNG Films. BTW Super 8 looks like failure at launch.

  • May 25, 2011, 8:29 a.m. CST

    Search for Spock better than any TNG movie

    by GulDucati

    TNG movies were so shite.

  • May 25, 2011, 8:36 a.m. CST

    I love that Onion link up at the top....

    by kidicarus

    awesome. And yeah, Trekkies can eat it. The last movie was the only Trek film that didn't put me to sleep (excluding Wrath of Khan) so that in and of itself is an accomplishment.

  • May 25, 2011, 8:38 a.m. CST

    "drooling dog puppet was an unnecessary distraction"

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Kind of like that little alien thing hanging out with Scotty in Trek 2009.

  • May 25, 2011, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Best-Buddies Trek

    by Autodidact

    My biggest problem with the 2009 Brewery Trek, and there are a few, is old Spock informing young Kirk that he must become best friends with young Spock. I find it to be intensely lame, the same bullshit that went through the Star Wars prequels where it seems all the characters already knew each other going into the stories.

  • May 25, 2011, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Abrams notes to writers: This movie needs a mystery box.

    by knowthyself

  • May 25, 2011, 8:53 a.m. CST


    by spidercoz

    you're my new hero, nicely said

  • May 25, 2011, 8:54 a.m. CST

    @Astronut (your last rant)

    by AlienFanatic

    Man, relax. Seriously. Analyze why it is that people are SO obsessed with the Old Trek. I'm not one of those guys who hate the 2009 Trek, but I walked away largely unimpressed. Orci and the writers of Trek pay a nice lip service, but at the end of the day their job is to pay studio stooge and deliver a commercial script, not one with "vision." I agree that Trek fans need to divorce themselves of the idea that NuTrek (your term) needs to be respectful of OldTrek. The practical viewer will realize that Trek is one of Paramount's cash cows. The goal with Trek 2009 was to expand the audience to non-trekkers because the suits felt that Trek had run its course because old fans were tired of it. (I disagree, of course, and felt that Trek fans abandoned the franchise because the writing went to shit, not because they were sick of the Trek universe.) To expect vision from Orci and crew is to expect a marketing rep at Coca Cola to decide to change the world for the better using their advertising platform. Just like an ad exec, Orci and others are delivering a product, wrapped in a brand. They analyze what it is that makes Trek *feel* like Trek, give it a buff job, sign youthful actors that can reasonably approximate the TOS gang, and send it on its merry, moneymaking way. In the end, this isn't a franchise where they've given it to a visionary director (ala Batman) who wants to really delve deep into the source material. They gave it to a guy, and his team, who want nothing more than to be the Spielbergs of the 2000's, and they're enjoying success. If ever Trek is to return to its roots, it will HAVE to go back to TV. What some of us want is simply a return to character- and concept-driven Sci-Fi, which is frankly something that movies aren't meant to provide. JJ and crew will continue to chunk out their riffs on Trek, and they'll be entertaining for what they are, but they exist only because the original crew was written so well, and they're so beloved, that even the ghosts of the characters can continue to intrigue viewers.

  • May 25, 2011, 8:55 a.m. CST

    Star Trek II: The wrath of the mystery box.

    by knowthyself

    The crew come upon a giant box in space and spend two hours trying to find out what's inside of it. When they open it the movie ends.

  • If Abrams is going to fuck around like this, I think it'll be a perpetual delay that'll kill the project - the cast will fill their diaries up, or lose interest, or get too expensive, audiences won't care and the studio will can it. Cue a reboot in 5 years - hey Snyder, you busy? As a reference point - the Superman Returns sequel (which, I grant you, no one actually wanted). Singer made noises about how there was "so much more to explore" and all that guff, then decided to fart around on crappy projects like the one with Cruise's eyepatch, momentum was lost, no one gave a shit and they canned it. This will be the same. I have spoken.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:02 a.m. CST

    If anyone here seriously liked Star Trek IV - I have NO respect for you.

    by impossibledreamers

    Seriously. Save the Whales? A giant car muffler and hovering volleyball threatens Earth and the gang does it again by saving the whales?!?! I can't believe I sat through it and was even more shocked that the fan boys in the crowd were cheering!!! Folks have no standards...

  • May 25, 2011, 9:04 a.m. CST

    Orci hate?

    by HughHoyland

    Whats with all this hate towards Bob Orci? How many A list hollywood writters take the time to interact directly with fans online? He often does. I remember not long ago he chatted with a bunch of us while he was ON the set of Aliens and Cowboys. Thats pretty damn cool in my book. And as far as talent? The proof is in the pudding as they say.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:05 a.m. CST

    ok, shutupfanboy...

    by YackBacker

    Then let me just add that GODFATHER PART II kicks STAR WARS' ass. (shrugs shoulders) Comparing movies to movies is kind of silly without any real context.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:06 a.m. CST

    Star Trek IV was great.

    by knowthyself

    Get a sense of humor will ya.

  • Summer 2012 is fucking murder right now. I too can wait.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:09 a.m. CST


    by Astronut

    thanks man. I think the past couple of years filled with vitriol against NuTrek have just built up to a point where I had to get it out. One minute people bitch that their beloved franchise is not being handled by "fans" of TOS. Then, when someone like Bob Orci comes along — a SUPER TOS FAN, MIND YOU — and treats the characters in a respectable way, covers all the canon, reworks the ENTIRE SCRIPT so that fans won't be pissed at the alternate TOS universe being changed, and even puts in little nods to the fans, like the apple, like Archer's beagle, etc etc — people bitch about THAT not being good enough! No matter what these guys did, it would not have been "good enough." Because it is not the original cast and crew and it is not 1968. Time to get over the past, folks. The original series will always be here for us to watch till the day we die. But a new Trek is here for those people who don't sit on park benches and shake their fists at the clouds like a bitter old fart.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:13 a.m. CST

    STIV - Sense of humor? If you want funny sci-fi, watch Spaceballs

    by impossibledreamers

    Not much funnier than Voyage Home, but I can stomach it better.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:18 a.m. CST

    And what's with this Super8 shit anyway? I mean...

    by DiamondJoe

    ...this non-disclosure shit really only goes so far. I'm amazed he got away with Cloverfield. I'd love to have been at that pitch: Abrams: "I've got a great idea, we're going to do Godzilla, only with a really fucking shaky camera, some shite twenty-something actors and we'll only see the monster for, say, 20 seconds. And we won't tell anyone what its about for months. What say you, movie exec?" Exec: "Brilliant! Here's a load of cash - why don't you piss it away on some viral marketing instead of making a good film, I hear that's what they're doing now?" Abrams: "I'll try that, thanks..."

  • May 25, 2011, 9:19 a.m. CST

    Nimoy wanted Edward James Olmos for Kruge

    by Lou Stools

    Now, that would've been badass. I think the studio nixed it. Loyd was okay, but I kept seeing Father Jim also.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:21 a.m. CST


    by Brian Hopper

    The Search for Spock is obviously one of the best Star Trek films (and much beloved, as the consensus above demonstrates). A terrific story, beautifully told. Among the many admirable things about it is how the story focuses (uniquely among all ST films) on personal sacrifice in the service of friendship as opposed to saving the earth/universe/future etc. Do I have to add that it is in another league as a film relative to Abrams' bowel movement of a movie?

  • May 25, 2011, 9:25 a.m. CST

    get Jim Cawley to direct it

    by spidercoz

    I'm curious to see what he could do with actual talent and money

  • May 25, 2011, 9:26 a.m. CST


    by Astronut


  • May 25, 2011, 9:27 a.m. CST

    One of the great moments in all of

    by Brian Hopper

    Star Trek — and perhaps the greatest — is the shot of Kirk as he stares off in the middle distance listening to: "Jim, your life and your career stand for rationality, not for intellectual chaos. Keep up this emotional behavior, and you'll lose everything. You'll destroy yourself. Do you understand me, Jim?" The quintessential Kirk moment: pushed the limit, he knows he has no choice but to solve the problem another way. The look of inevitable insubordination on his face sums up everything about the appeal of the Kirk character, and Star Trek more generally.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock back to back

    by juice willis

    That's some classic shit. IMO each makes the other better. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one, except in cases when the many really love those few or that one. Each film is the antithesis of the other.

  • If these new Trek movies were any good they wold be able to compete against anything coming out against it - but, it looks like the people in charge are already well aware of everything we've been saying. And Herc - Stealing of the Enterprise, Kirk blasting the Klingon BOP as soon as it decloaked, Bones trying to charter a space flight, the crew each pulling off little act of sabotage, Kirk blowing up the Enterprise after David is killed -- Jesus, the only scenes in NuTrek people cheered are the ones that played or reminded people of the original crew.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:39 a.m. CST

    m6y, I could not agree more..........

    by Astronut

    I've thought that for years... that is one of Shatner's best moments ever. The camera slow-wwwly closing in on Kirk's face as the guy is lecturing him. You can just see the wheels spinning in Kirk's head as he is staring off into the distance, thinking about what he has to do, the sacrifices he has to make. Yup — one of my favorite moments in all of Trek!

  • May 25, 2011, 9:44 a.m. CST


    by Astronut

    Like a cowering little bitch? LOL You're reading too much into it. If they say the script is not ready, I can buy that. And yeah, they probably want Abrams' input to get him on board to direct. They're having trouble getting it right, I think. They don't want to fuck it up. Gee, imagine that... NuTrek is being handled by people who care about the source material! I doubt it has anything to do with cowering from competition next year.

  • And notice that I said the Second Coming of Star Wars not the Second Coming of Star Trek.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:56 a.m. CST


    by AssyMuffJizz

    Granted, NuTrek did treat at least a COUPLE of characters with some respect: namely, Kirk and Bones (what little we see of him). Spock, though, was WAY off base as written, though (from shooting Kirk off the ship to his head scratching romance with Uhura). The actors did the best with what they had, though. But, come on man. The plot and its moves were DISTRACTINGLY bad. It's one thing to think about plot holes in retrospect, but--at least for me--I was continuously shaken by the stupidity of the film's story as it shaped up (I won't get into details that have been discussed ad nauseum). There is NO Trek movie that has an act 2-3 so implausible to the point of laughable stupidity. It would've been easy to make the science and character motivations a teensy bit more plausible. But they didn't. And it was bad. Easily the worst of the whole lot.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:59 a.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

    Lucky for Kirk the space whale attacked in the next episode or there would've been a big bill in his mailbox.

  • May 25, 2011, 10:08 a.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

  • May 25, 2011, 10:16 a.m. CST

    boborci, Please REad if you're interested in improving the next Trek, Vol. 1


    Lose the Lens Flares. Lens flares occur when the sun reacts with a camera's lens. Therefore they call attention to the fact that this is a movie that is being filmed by a camera. The last thing you need in a fantasy film is to call attention to the fact that the audience is watching a movie and thereby break the illusion of the fantasy world that the film is trying to create. This is particularly important with a fantasy film where it is crucial that an audience member suspend his disbelief. Not to mention that when the lens flares occurred in Star Trek (2009) they were actually in completely animated sequences in which no actual camera was used making the artistic choice to include them all the more egregious. Your Welcome, Choppah

  • May 25, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST

    I have nothing....

    by Orbots Commander

    ....constructive to add to this topic, so I will just leave you with this: Vagina.

  • May 25, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

    saved the planet in IV? They gave him command of a starship. Just like in NuTrek. So yeah, Orci was consistent with canon.

  • May 25, 2011, 10:24 a.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

  • May 25, 2011, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Waiting for Chris Pine to acheive that patented

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    Shatner Stomach...

  • May 25, 2011, 10:33 a.m. CST

    George Lucas should have used more lens flare in the prequels

    by spidercoz

    Would have served to distract us from the abysmal performances of his lead and the crap storytelling.

  • May 25, 2011, 10:37 a.m. CST

    Astronut - Your theory is as valid as mine.

    by Professor_Monster

    Can it be they are working on the script - perhaps, but seeing how JJ had been behind a vast number of television shows - schooled in fast production and is surrounded by a team of people he trusts, and I'm sure the meat of what they want to do has already been discussed to the point where the writers were sent to do what they do - what you assume "could" be wrong - or at least on be partially true. Now, let's take a look at these numbers Budget: $140,000,000 (estimated) Opening Weekend: $72,500,000 (USA) (8 May 2009) Gross: $385,680,447 (Worldwide) So the entire run of NuTrek made what Pirates 4 did opening weekend. And contrary to what some may think - doubling a 140m dollar budget does not make a hit - not by a long shot. let's visit our friend The Dark Knight - Box Office Budget: $185,000,000 (estimated) Opening Weekend: $158,411,483 (USA) (20 July 2008) (4366 Screens) Gross: $1,001,921,825 (worldwide) (1 December 2010) Okay, Avengers will be hard to call seeing as how it is the first of it's kind but I'd say the hype is far greater - people are actually waiting in anticipation for Avengers ---- Nutrek, not so much. I think they pushed this back so as not to get eaten alive - so you at least agree they would have?

  • I'm curious.

  • May 25, 2011, 10:42 a.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

    If you need a fluffer, I'm your man.

  • May 25, 2011, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Abrams overbooks like an airline.

    by kabong

    He's afraid he will be discovered.

  • May 25, 2011, 10:52 a.m. CST

    I would take the Star Wars trilogy over the Godfather trilogy

    by shutupfanboy

    Jedi kicks Godfather III's ass. Everything else is a tie. I would take New Trek over Episode I, but I would take Phantom over I, V, IX.

  • May 25, 2011, 10:54 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    So Bob Orci is a good writer because he comes online and interacts with the fans? (Or, to put it more accurately smart mouths them and takes the piss) I was under the impression you had to be a good writer to be a good writer. I'm glad for you that you think The Island, Mission Impossible 3, Star Trek, Transformers and Transformers 2 have great screenplays though. <p> And Herc Star Trek III is miles better than JJ's effort. It's soulful, literate and true to the source material, something you couldn't say of the '09 hackjob.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:08 a.m. CST


    by Astronut

    I agree they * might * have... yeah. It's a possibility.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:14 a.m. CST

    "Which film is more entertaining, Star Trek or The Phantom Menace"

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Well overall Star Trek 2009, but there are individual action scenes that are in Phantom Menace that blow Trek out of the water (Pod Race, opening fight on the trade federation ship, Maul/Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan three-some). Sorry but I don't get excited seeing a Korean Sulu pull out his big phallic sword while shakey cam obscures what is going on. The score in Phantom Menace is 100 times better, but you know, that's like comparing the Rolling Stones to Nickelback. Both films contain terrible acting and horribly retcon the shit out of things that don't need retconned.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:20 a.m. CST

    SAAVIK should NOT have been in Star Trek III

    by Jake Pantlin

    Saavik should never have been recast. Once Kristie Alley decided she wasn't coming back, they should have simply made the new Vulcan girl a different character. She should have just been a nwe officer serving on the USS Grissom. It would have made no difference story wise, other than one or two lines of Saavik comparing David to his father. That could have been handled another way. Robin Curtis gets slammed for not being as good as Kristie Alley (which is unfair). Had she just been renamed and used as a new character, it would have served the story better.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Trek 3. I was SO bummed when Kristie Alley wasnt Savik

    by Knobules

    Instead the got some nasty looking girl who looks like some old mans pubic hair with a face.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Brad Bird

    by puto tenax

    Give him the franchise. Period.

  • It made me HATE that movie. And yeah, Christopher Loyd was a negative in ST:3 when I saw it the first time, over the years, it hasn't mattered as much. I can't say anything that hasn't already been better stated by others on Star Trek III's behalf.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:24 a.m. CST

    But in Abrams defense

    by Samuel Fulmer

    At least the guy was trying to retcon something that had been turned into a bunch of films and hundreds of television episodes. Lucas was going out of his way to make sure things in the prequels didn't match up with basically three previous films (since he's preaty much said anything expanded universe is not canon).

  • May 25, 2011, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Actress who replaced Kirstie Alley in Trek III

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Maybe one of the biggest casting blunders since Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Katie Holmes in Dark Knight.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:28 a.m. CST

    Just found this quote by Abrams:


    "I feel like in telling stories -- there are the things the audience thinks are important, and then there are the things that are actually important."

  • May 25, 2011, 11:30 a.m. CST

    And what do Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto do in the meantime?

    by Stan Gable

    I have not seen these guys in anything since Star Trek. That doesn't surprise me on Quinto but I really expected a lot more for Chris Pine - who knew that Kirk's dad would be the breakout star after his 5 minutes of screen time.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:31 a.m. CST

    The CHOPPAH shits, the Hand wipes.


    Rustle up some Braavosi whores for me, will you, Hand? I'll arrange a hookup with Hensworth for you.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Chris Pine should do another runaway train movie with Denzel

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Maybe a reboot of the 1985 classic Runaway Train, now with title song by Soul Asylum!

  • May 25, 2011, 11:33 a.m. CST

    Abrams wrote the comedy classic Regarding Henry

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I still laugh anytime I see a box of Ritz crackers!

  • May 25, 2011, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Regarding Henry, aka Harry Ford goes full retard.


    Brain damage from gunshot = backdoor retardation.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:41 a.m. CST

    I'm still waiting for someone to register "the_choppahs_backdoor"


  • May 25, 2011, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Zacahry Quinto sighting at Suncoast Pictures

    by Samuel Fulmer

    You know the one at the mall near you that has about two anchor stores left, a dollar store, and a bunch of kiosks selling dead sea products and cell phone cases. Quinto is offering to sign heavily discounted used copies of Heroes the complete series for a chick fil a combo meal, preferably the one that comes with coleslaw.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:42 a.m. CST

    assymuffjizz, i love THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK

    by AsimovLives

    Do your research better.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Um, excuse me, but what Abrams did was NOT Star Trek.

    by Yamato

    It shit on Star Trek many many times worse than Spielberg shit on Indiana Jones. Do not insult the great vision of Gene by calling that mindless Bay-esq (in the words of Captain Kirk) "boat load of children" piece of crap that was dreadfully given the name "Star Trek". Star Trek is about issues, it is about something. What Abrams did was take a group of special effects, brought in a bunch of twilighty actors (with all due respect to Simon Pegg) and make a cgi and fx orgy that had no poin...arrgh, even running down that abomination pisses me off. That's it, I'm out of here.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Phantom Menace > Star Trek

    by donkey_lasher

    I'd take Baby Anakin and Jar Jar against Coincidental Lazy plotlines any day.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:49 a.m. CST

    What's with the Star Trek III talk...

    by Carnotaur3

    ... when The Undiscovered Country gets ignored. That film doesn't get enough respect and it's a Meyer directed film.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:50 a.m. CST

    "a cgi and fx orgy"


    and the lens flares were the cumshots.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:50 a.m. CST


    by AssyMuffJizz

    Assy is growing away from you, Asi. He is becoming his own man. Perhaps even in a "Mirror, Mirror" kind of way... But, seriously. You don't think ST III and the genesis, Spock reincarnation thing was a little cheesy and implausible?

  • "Fucker's settin' up franchises."

  • May 25, 2011, 11:51 a.m. CST

    TIRED of The Hate for Trek III

    by Read and Shut Up

    ...Kirk steals his own ship. Kirk loses his son. Kirk sacrifices the Enterprise. Kirk risks his career to fulfill a promise to Sarek and Spock. Kirk hijacks a Klingon bird of prey. McCoy wonders if he's going insane. David's epiphany, and giving his life to save Saavick. And you think this sucks? I'm guessing you thought the whale episode was tits.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:55 a.m. CST

    I like The Undiscovered Country a lot

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I think the only thing that holds it back is its budget (like many of the post STMP films). A great send off for the original crew. It's my second favorite Trek film.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Samuel Fulmer, what are you talking about?

    by Carnotaur3

    Undiscovered Country had roughly the same budget as The Motion Picture. 30 mill.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:02 p.m. CST

    read and shut up

    by AssyMuffJizz

    All those things are indeed cool, but it's at the cost of a ridiculous--in fact insanely improbable--and cheesy overall premise. And it undercuts the sacrifice that Spock made in ST II (which is one of the most moving deaths in film history). JAR JAR TREK is fucking WORLD's worse than ST III. But still...

  • May 25, 2011, 12:03 p.m. CST


    by AlienFanatic

    I do have to call you out on this, "NuTrek is being handled by people who care about the source material!" I really don't see it. JJ has repeatedly explained that he wasn't a "Trek" guy. To wait for him does not infer that they want to do right by the Trek audience, but rather feel he will have good feedback about building in the right "hooks" for the viewing audience. I can't speak for the writers, but you are definitely inserting your own hopes into the process. As a cynic, I think this has more to do with ensuring that the second outing is successful to avoid hurting JJ's future film prospects. JJ's train is rolling with Super 8 and Orci's is rolling with Cowboy's. Neither of them wants a flop on their hands, and with their names attached, that could derail their careers.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:04 p.m. CST

    carnotaur3-30 million couldn't get you the same in 1991

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I think STMP was the most expensive film ever made in 1979, but by 1991 films like T2 were being made for 110 million. With inflation, 30 million couldn't get you nearly as much in 1991, plus I'm guessing the cast was getting paid more than they were on STMP.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:04 p.m. CST

    And I bring up T2

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Because I believe that at the time, it was considered the most expensive film ever made.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Mr Orci and or Kurtzman a few humble suggestions

    by TallanDagwood

    You will not please every fan of the series/franchise no matter what you do, so do not even try. But there are a few things you can do to please the casual and serious fan alike. First and foremost - highlight the true star: The Enterprise. Everyone and everything else is secondary. Star Trek without the Enterprise is simply a soap opera. Second: Get rid of the transporter than can beat a warp drive. Just pretend it did not exist Tertiary - More semi-naked green women

  • May 25, 2011, 12:13 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    No. The movie made it work very well. And i'm happy that more and more you are being your own man. I have a father's pride in that, son.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Fulmer, you're right...

    by Carnotaur3

    ... I wasn't thinking about the inflation. But I don't really get how it looked low budget. I think the assassination ending could have been stronger, so that is my only beef with the film.

  • And Quinto or Quato is terrible as Spock. He's the Brandon Routh of this group. Hired because he looks like a Spock action figure more than a young Nimoy.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:16 p.m. CST

    lv_426, i agree. Mass Effect is today's Star Trek.

    by AsimovLives

    And the Normandy ship is cool as hell.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Assymuffjizz...Agree About Spock's Death...

    by Read and Shut Up

    ...truly moving, even to this day. But the franchise wasn't going to move forward w/o him. Considering the budget/time constraints, III knocked it out of the park. Certainly not as epic in scope as II (hard to duplicate Kirk and Khan going toe to toe), so my feeling is they made III less grand and more personal. To me, III told a story of sacrifice - and man, it's dark. And Kirk's reaction upon hearing about David's death - the moment where McCoy tries to comfort him and Kirk, feeling truly alone, pushes him away - powerful stuff.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:21 p.m. CST

    "...highlight the true star: The Enterprise"

    by Astronut

    Sorry, but nope. The three main characters join as one unit... the most important element to the TOS universe. Did we need the Enterprise during City on the Edge of Forever? It's all about the characters (along with the plot). Without the characters you won't give a shit about anything. The E is * very * important, but it is not number one.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:22 p.m. CST

    Was Trek 2009 very profitable?

    by matineer

    I know Paramount took a charge against earnings for the promotional cost (openings, Orion girl parties, Enterprise project and more) and that the film cost $150 million. It didn't make oodles overseas, either. One of the problems with making a movie to appeal to non fans is that those new folks are not into ST book, models and other merchandise. The ST 2009 merchandise has (mostly) tanked. Don't know how the shirt replicas are holding up. I can't help thinking if Paramount really wanted this to happen it would be on track.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:24 p.m. CST

    mugato5150, you're so right

    by Astronut

    Sarek could have had the science team retieve SPock, but....... and we all know this....... that film would have lasted 30 minutes. heehee

  • May 25, 2011, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Re:Trek 3 - dont forget the future (no pun intended) Doc Brown,

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    Christopher Lloyd as the gonzo evil Klingon, putting his googly-moogly eyeballs into great effect. I think it's the most stagebound looking Trek, though, with the unstable planet looking rather fake most of the time. ILM did another stellar job with the limited effects.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:29 p.m. CST

    "I have a feeling you're going to be the death of me."

    by Samuel Fulmer

    "Don't say that master"...that stupid dialogue forshadowing in Attack of the Clones is like 50 percent of the dialogue in Star Trek 2009. One thing here and there is funny, but when so much of your dialogue rests on call backs to the original series, it's a little lame.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:29 p.m. CST

    boborci, Please Read if you're interested in improving the next Trek, Vol. 2


    Please hire a SME for the next script. A Subject Matter Expert who knows the Star Trek canon. Now, I'm not saying that you need to hire some Trekkie who built a life-sized replica of the bridge of the Enterprise in his parents' basement where he practices beating the Kobayashi Maru and can name every single episode title of every incarnation of Trek. That said, I actually think that AsimovLives would be an excellent SME. He seems to have a real grasp of all the problems with the first Trek in addition to having no end of constructive criticism for Abrams, et al.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:30 p.m. CST

    I do love STIII...

    by Lou Stools

    ...but Carol Marcus was a major omission. I know they left her out to pin the Genisis failure on David, but her absence didn't make sense. I would've at least liked to have seen a scene where Kirk goes to see her after David's death. Meyer did write an appearance for her at the beginning of VI, but it was cut due to budgetary concerns.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:30 p.m. CST


    by TallanDagwood

    Without a doubt 'The big three' drive the character and plot of the show. There have been some outstanding stories that centered around them. But my point is this: remove the enterprise. Remove the 23rd century setting altogether and keep those stories, and what do you really have? You will have an occasional darn good to great story that could easily pass as any old science fiction drama. But, when you add the element of the Enterprise, you bring in something not seen before. The greatest episode of them all (which is admittedly subjective) Balance of Terror starred not only the big three but featured the Enterprise. Wrath of Khan the greatest of all the films, starred the Enterprise.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Star Trek VI cheap

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I don't know it, just seemed like there were moments that could've been a little more epic (Kirk's trial, the ending assasination) with a bigger budget. Some of the sets and costumes looked a little cheap too, but then again, that's most Trek, and who knows, lightining is a factor too so maybe the DP didn't know how to light some of the props.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:38 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Actually, Kirk eating an apple duringthe Kobiashi Maru Test scene in Abrams TRek was not a nod to the fans. Abrams and Orci themselves explain it in the movie's DVD audio comentary. The truth is that they didn't even remembered that detail about Kirk eating an apple when he tells his story about how he beated the Test. They made Kirk eat an apple in that scene because, in their own words, it made Kirk look more like a punk-ass. If you want to know more, just pop the DVD and listen to their audio comentary in that scene. The fans of that movie don't even have that as an argument of how Abrams Trek mades nods and references to older Trek. Thjey just didn't cared. Nor they care that others know they they didn't cared.

  • That's the kind of stuff I say around the house every now and then. When the situation presents itself. I have to humor myself somehow.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Trek 2009 about as quoteable

    by Samuel Fulmer

    as episode 3,991 of Wheel of Fortune.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:48 p.m. CST

    @ tallandagwood

    by Astronut

    I agree with you on one hand about the E (otherwise it could be just another space opera) but IMO it is not absolutely vital to make a great Trek story. Love me some tactical space battles though...... IMO, hands-down the best sequence in ALL of Star Trek... tv, film or otherwise: The first encounter with Khan and subsequent strategic events involving the lowering of Reliant's shields in STII:TWOK God that is magic that NO one will EVER be able to beat. I don't care how much $$$$ they throw at it.

  • HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAW That is so funny!! And sadly... very true. (no matter how much I like NuTrek)

  • Amazing shit right there.

  • May 25, 2011, 12:57 p.m. CST

    @ astronut

    by TallanDagwood

    The lowering of the shields, the 'two days = two hours' and the chase through the nebula - with the swelling music, were phenomenal. The look on Khan's face when the shields go down is priceless. Truly a great cinematic moment

  • May 25, 2011, 12:59 p.m. CST


    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Just doesn't have the same ring to it. And it loses the Rolling Stones pun.

  • ....Abram's Star Trek was true to one of these rollicking, action packed adventure episodes or movies. It wasn't any less intelligent than Kirk going back in time to save the fucking whales, and I guarantee if the exact same movie was made but Abram's directed it, AsimovLives would have fucking hated it. Anyone that thinks that every episode was a forty five minute 2001 a Space Odessy forgets that half the episodes were just crazy ass, lizard punching, klingon smacking action packed fun. Tribbles anyone?

  • May 25, 2011, 1:02 p.m. CST

    astronut, another thing:

    by AsimovLives

    Orci may claim he's a fan of Star Trek. All this writers who are hired to do this franchise movies, be they ST or Thor or Spider-Man, Batman, whatever, they all claim they are fans of the stuff they are turning into a movie. It's all part of the marketing package. But that's them talking. The proof, the real proof is in the doing, is in the final product. And Abrams Trek is not a movie made by a fan. Abrams Trek is even pretty contemptous of Star Trek. So they made some references here and there to Old Trek, so what? All of them easy stuff to do if you just went to the Wikipedia entries of Star Trek, big deal. It's not the nods here and there that proves your fandom and dedication. It's other things, more important things like mood and themes, and understanding the spirit and the intention and purpose of the very thing they are working on. Which they didn't. I mean, they even got their starship captains' teenhood years wrong. They put Picard's earlier years on Kirk's. They can't even tell TOS from TNG. From Wikipedia alone i would know more then the makers of Abrams Trek. How bad is that? Orci is not a fan of Star Trek, and his movie is quite telling. But he is a fan of Star Wars, there's no doubt about that.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Star Trek III Was Good you dildos

    by picardsucks

    Not Great but Good. The death of the Enterprise, Kirk's fey son, the Bird of Prey (which was ruined by chronic overexposure in the piece of steaming pile of dog shit known as The Next Generation) Shatner showed some tremendous acting here as well. That moment when he stumbled into his chair was really heartbreaking Christopher Lloyd was also very good and menacing. Had he never been Rev. Jim in Taxi he would have gotten more praise The fistfight between Kirk and Kruge on the burning planet was to this day one of the best mano e mano (non Krav Magga Bullshit) fight scenes ever filmed. And Shatner did all his own stunts too. If anything the sets look tired and cheap, but Paramount spent $4.00 on sets back when it was filmed but the effects are still top notch Finally there was plenty of wonderful D Kelly scenes here. He was for all purposes an equal costar to Shat in this movie and he is wonderful in every scene. The Bad: Cheap sets (not the bridge sets but all the starbase and alien ships stuff) Savvik lite, poor choice for a replacement at the time and very much on the cheap Mega Death Star Starbase: very cool Didya know in the original story Pube Spock knocked up Savvik during the Pon Farr stuff ?? That should have been in the film. Yes Spock's death was cheapened. No getting around that but the plan was always to bring him back and they did it in a cool way.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:06 p.m. CST

    @ asimov

    by Astronut

    I will check it out. Even if this is true, the number-one problem I have regarding the case that that "no one behind the film's production ever gave a shit about Trek" is this: one person, Bob Orci He's a real Trek fan. Someone who gets Trek collectibles for Christmas. Who quotes shit and knows canon. He has interacted with Trek fans in person and online from Day One during pre-production, filming, and post. Always getting feedback. Asking people for their opinions. Being very humble, very polite. A true fan. Particularly of TOS. So when people attack him and accuse those behind NuTrek of not giving a shit, that's just incorrect. Bob — and I believe others as well —do care. That's how I see it.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:06 p.m. CST

    "Sir, she'll fly apart!!"

    by LeeMajors


  • It's actually more complicated than that. All Sarek was asking at that point was for Kirk to bring McCoy and Spock's katra to Vulcan, so Spock's katra could be at peace. Kirk and McCoy could have just taken some banked vacation time, made a side trip to Vulcan, dropped of the katra at Mt. Selayah, and gotten drunk. Basically, have a second funeral on Vulcan. At that point in the story, no one knew that Spock's body had regenerated, and they had no reason to even suspect such a thing because they didn't know that David had used protomatter in the Genesis device. Even the idea of going to the Genesis planet makes no sense, unless you accept that Spock's katra had a thousand light-year link with his regenerated child body with no consciousness in it.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:09 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    30 million dollars of 1991 were not the same as of 1978. Inflaction, baby.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:10 p.m. CST

    "Kirk. Enterprise."

    by LeeMajors

  • May 25, 2011, 1:12 p.m. CST

    tallandagwood, ABSOLUTELY.

    by Astronut


  • May 25, 2011, 1:13 p.m. CST

    samuel fulmer

    by AsimovLives

    The most expensive movie ever made will always be the russian film WAR AND PEACE, which, adjusted for today, it's 100 million dollars's budget would be like today's 500 millions. I think that, also adjusted to inflaction, the most expensive movie made in Holywood is still CLEOPATRA. I think what happened with T2 was that it was the first ever movie in which it had a declared budget of over 100 million dollars. That was it's first.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:13 p.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

    If you value Trek as being social commentary it didn't get much better than that. As revealed in the commentary, it was a perfect metaphor for the conspiracy between Hezbollah, Hamas and the Zionists drawing their respective sides into endless war.

  • I say that not to dump on you or embarrass you, but as a legitimate concept. It would prove Bob Orci's TOS fan worthiness once and for all. Hell, after what you just posted (re: Bob being a Trek fan phony) you even have ME in doubt. Whaddaya say?

  • May 25, 2011, 1:16 p.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

    Couldn't even see his face. Amateur!

  • May 25, 2011, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Spock: "They are dying, Jim"

    by LeeMajors

    Kirk: "LET THEM DIE!"

  • May 25, 2011, 1:19 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Undiscovered Country is about the fall of the Berlin War and the shut down of the Soviet Union,and the fear of the people who lived through that and were uncertain of their own future, and couldn't understand a world without a cold war. Basically, the utter fear of being made obsolete and a curio of history. I guess it helps that you saw that movie at that time like i did back then. It made it beyond obvious.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:20 p.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

    At once, Your Grace. It's unfortunate, but Roz is occupied at the moment. May I offer you DocPazuzu in her stead?

  • May 25, 2011, 1:21 p.m. CST

    It's great to see the love for STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK

    by AsimovLives

    QWhjat a fine movie, what a good movie! And how underappreciated! It's good to see time vindicating it. It's good to see the fans speak out agaisnt he fallacy of that nonsense notion that ST3 is a bad or weak movie. Incorrect! It's a fine movie on it's own, and a great entry on the ST saga. Anybody who doesn't feel a touch of emotion when Spock says "i am and i shall always be your friend" to Kirk in the final scene has no heart.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:22 p.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

    Sorry, I don't see that comparison.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:23 p.m. CST

    asimovlives-I understand the budget/inflation thing

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I may have not made it clear in my posts, but that was what I was trying to get through to the person who thought that STMP being 30 million back in 1979 was the same as Undiscovered Country being 30 million in 1991. Not adjusted for inflation, STMP was considered the most expensive film ever made in 1979, same goes for T2 in 1991, just like now I believe it's Avatar (not sure on that one???). But yeah so 30 million in 1979 was a hugely expensive budget, whereas in 1991 it was actually a kind of mid level budget. If I remember correctly Return of the Jedi cost 50 million, and that was in 1983, so something being 30 million in 1991 wasn't exactly a big budget unless it was for a non effects film like Bonfire of the Vanities.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:24 p.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

    People are Asimovliving the hell out of it here!

  • ... like, say, the ones everyone likes to bitch about in NuTrek... like, Kirk being a shit head punk and getting to be captain in 24 hours or whatnot... how about, oh I don't know, the ridiculous and far-fetched concept of SPOCK BEING REGENERATED FROM A CORPSE BACK TO A LIVING, BREATHING FETUS > CHILD > FULL GROWN MAN!!! AND ANOTHER MAN TRANSFERRING SPOCKS MENTAL GOODS FROM HIS BRAIN BACK INTO SPOCKS BRAIN! I MEAN, IF YOU CAN BUY THAT SHIT THEN EVERYTHING ELSE SHOULD BE AUTO-PILOT FOR YOU!

  • May 25, 2011, 1:27 p.m. CST

    Trek as social commentary

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Really at the core, that's what it is, that's why when you take it out, it's not really Star Trek anymore. Yeah there's a lot of times where i goes off the rails and becomes too much about the social commentary (much like a late era George Romero zombie film), but I'll take a film about something other than action and explosions. I think that's the reason why they've never really been able to make a proper new twilight zone show, the new incarnations are never able to capture the social consciousness of Rod Serling's original vision.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:31 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You had to be there then, pal.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:35 p.m. CST


    by The Hand Of The Choppah

    Yet I don't recall seeing any of you kneel when I walked into the room? Hmmm?

  • May 25, 2011, 1:37 p.m. CST


    by spidercoz

    I find it amusing that for all your ranting and raving against the newest Star Trek that you evidently not only own a copy of it but have watched it with the commentary track. Most people wouldn't devote so much time and money to something they hate so passionately. So which is it, are you simply a liar, a hypocrite, or just completely insane? I know what I pick.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:38 p.m. CST

    samuel fulmer

    by AsimovLives

    Michelle Nichols hereself told the story of how one day she meets roddenberry in his office and told him that she had figured out what the deal with his Star Trek show was: to create modern day morality plays under the guise of a space adventure. Roddenberry told Nichols she was right, but please don't tell that to the executives. Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman could had done the same thing. Yeah, they are making an action packed Star Trek movie, yes Mr Paramount Executuve guys, but subtly and inbetween the lines they could had stayed true to the bvery idea of what's Star Trek and done what Roddenberry did before. To do smart adventure. to do adventure with themes that explored and related to the times. Hell, Nolan is doing that with his Batman movies. If Abrams is such a talented and clever guy as the fans make him out to be, why couldn't he do that as well? Any hackboy can make an all action michael bay clone movie. It takes talent to do with what Roddenberry did when he created Star Trek. Abrams didn't proved himself worthy to wear Roddenberry's shoes. He just climbed on board with the shoes he stole from Michael Bay.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:47 p.m. CST

    asimovlives-You're right Abrams is Star Trek by way of Michael Bay

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Except I'll give Bay credit in that he is able to pull off some stunning images here and there in his films.

  • May 25, 2011, 1:55 p.m. CST

    Here We Go Again... Two Fucking Years Later...

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Newsflash! STAR TREK (2009) is set in an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE. From the Very Beginning. So all you "Haters" complaining that Kirk wouldn't act this way or Spock wouldn't act that way sound unbelievably STUPID. They tell you from the Jump Off: THIS IS NOT YOUR FATHER'S STAR TREK. It's a Different Universe! A universe where Brand Names such as Nokia and Budweiser still exist. A universe where Kirk isn't a "book with legs" who is tormented by Finnegan and who serves four years on the Farragut, but is instead a motorcycling hothead and Beastie Boys fan with "entrance test scores off the charts" who would rather pick fights with Starfleet guys in bars then be one of them. A universe where Spock seems less in control of his human side. And gets it on with the human Uhura instead of the human Leila Kalomi from "This Side of Paradise." A universe where the uniforms are different, the bridge is different, and the engine room is a brewery. What part of that do you Geniuses not understand? And then boborci and company compound your confusion in a very Trek fashion by creating an ALTERED TIMELINE in an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE by introducing Nero's crew and Spock Prime! So now Kirk has Daddy Issues. And Spock has Mommy Issues. And Vulcan and alot of Starfleet Crews are Destroyed. How much more "Star Trek" can you get? How much more focused on "character and complex sci fi concepts" can you get? You accepted the "Mirror Universe" where Spock has a beard and the crew are all trying to assassinate each other. You accepted the Alternate Universe/Timeline where Tasha Yar is still alive and goes back in time on the previous Enterprise creating the paradox of a Romulan daughter in the Prime Universe. You accepted that TNG episode where Worf is bouncing around between universes. A universe where he and Troi are married. A universe where Riker killed Locutus but the Borg are still winning etc etc. But you can't accept this Universe? WHY exactly? The Prime Universe still exists. In the Books and Comics and Video Games. They could do another TV Show in that universe anytime they want. They're trying to do something NEW with the movie franchise by Rebooting Everything and Starting Over. In a Whole New Universe. Maybe this Kirk and Carol Marcus never get together. Maybe Spock and Uhura get married and have offspring. Maybe Sulu or Chekov dies in the next movie. Anything can Happen. And you don't have to have memorized 40+ years of canon and minutia to understand WTF is going on. This is what I've been trying to get across to asimovlives for two years. He and I can agree or disagree on the coincidences and plot holes and things we might both find goofy. But to say no thought went into this movie is ludicrous. It's one of the most complexly constructed Star Trek screenplays ever written. And Half of you Haters still don't understand the basic plot set-ups TWO YEARS LATER!

  • May 25, 2011, 1:58 p.m. CST

    Asi, what you don't see the morality play in NuTrek?


    *The don't drink and drive message regarding Scotty who works in an Engine Room that is and actual Brewery and how he gets sucked into the pipes like that gluttonous fat kid from Willy Wonka. *How the smartest and nerdiest officer, Spock, is the one who gets to bang the hottest chick in the universe as opposed to the navel gazing rabble rouser bad boy, Kirk, who usually gets the girl. *How Nero, named for the Roman Emperor allows himself to be consumed with hatred so much so that he builds a time machine so that he can exact revenge on a single person, Spock, by committing genocide of that person's entire race and planet.

  • May 25, 2011, 2:03 p.m. CST

    killik, it's something called "a book."

    by vroom socko

    One that gives the basic mental tools on how to use critical thinking when reading/watching fiction. Useful when you want to engage with a story on a level beyond "stuff goes boom."

  • WHAAAAAAT-EVERRRR! What a load of crap. Abrams' Trek had plenty of amazing sequences. Nero's ship attacking, Hemsworth Kirk ramming it, the Enterprise unveiling, jump sequence, Vulcan being destroyed, The E coming in from warp speed to witness the decimation, Spock's time ship was bad-ass, the battle on the drill platform, the battle on Nero's ship, on and on......... For christ's sake, I swear to god sometimes I think you guys just live in a localized made-up world in your head and believe only what you * want * to believe. "There wasn't anything stunning or great looking in that movie..." If you repeat bullshit enough, it's like O.J.... you actually believe it.

  • May 25, 2011, 2:06 p.m. CST



    Ha! I would love to see the next Trek be an Adaptation-style movie about Kurtzman and Orci trying to write the next Trek and having to go to a screenwriting seminar and a Orchid Thief for help. "Star Trek: The Search for the Ghost Orchid."

  • May 25, 2011, 2:07 p.m. CST

    I can't wait!!!

    by Coughlins Laws

    To see what else is playing that weekend...

  • May 25, 2011, 2:07 p.m. CST

    Glad to see that DeForest Kelley is getting some shouts here...

    by DiamondJoe

    ...the guy was fuckin' great in every Trek film, especially III. And he even made Final Frontier almost watchable: "You really piss me off, Jim". Also pleased that sense is prevailing around here for once and that Search for Spock is being recognized as the damn fine film it actually is. Undiscovered Country too - the battle at the end absolutely kicks ass. The scene where the torpedo zips about as Chang's alarm rings, then it heads straight for him - awesome, awesome stuff. Shame they stole the whole idea in Generations and did it really shittily.

  • May 25, 2011, 2:08 p.m. CST

    "Risk...risk is our business!"

    by spidercoz

    That is what needs to be brought back. There were no boundaries being pushed, no real chances taken with the new Trek; something the show would do regularly. Abrams and co in charge of the franchise is like putting Riker in command of the D, all they know how to do is play it safe. Star Trek (X)II - The Quest for Mediocrity I'm hoping for a Spider-man 2 or X2, but I'm afraid we're going to get Iron Man 2.

  • May 25, 2011, 2:08 p.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil WINS

    by Astronut

    Every word is so true. Case closed, you whiny old reminiscing bitches.

  • May 25, 2011, 2:13 p.m. CST

    astronut-The visuals were bland

    by Samuel Fulmer

    And by visuals I mean actual framing and camera movement. Other than that lift scene at the start, it was all rather flat vanilla made for tv quality, and when it wasn't that, it was shaky cam lens flare hell. Wow they had that action in it, great. But the way it was shot was not at all impressive. I'm not saying it's bad, or even below previous Trek standards, but when everyone who writes for this site wants to praise Abrams to the high heavens, they act like he's got this great style, when in actuality, he's got none. He's a tv director who from the looks of Super 8 can only really deliver a visually stunning film when he's ripping off Spielberg. But hey, that's a step up, better than ripping off whoever the guy was who directed season 3 of Macguyver.

  • May 25, 2011, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Oh and for you Jarheads or descendants of Jarheads

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    You're watching a movie set in an Alternate Universe where a Human fucks a green alien Orion girl and a Vulcan/human hybrid fucks an African woman and they all bounce around in a ship that's faster than light and shoots phasers and can beam people off of planets, but Kirk can't get command of the Enterprise even after Pike and Spock sign off on it, because that isn't the way the American army or the Portuguese navy promotes officers on our planet three centuries earlier? Fuck Off. No really. With love. FUCK THE FUCK OFF.

  • May 25, 2011, 2:18 p.m. CST


    by Astronut

  • May 25, 2011, 2:19 p.m. CST

    "Where's the override? The OVERRIDE!!"

    by KnowItAllFromCali

  • May 25, 2011, 2:21 p.m. CST

    cymbalta, you seriously miss the whole point of Star Trek


    Sure, it's a fantasy world, but there are rules within that world. Otherwise, if you didn't have internal rules within fantasy worlds you just end up with, oh, I don't know, Star Trek (2009).

  • May 25, 2011, 2:24 p.m. CST

    DeForest Whittaker is indeed a great actor


    He deserved that oscar for Undiscovered Country.

  • that's fucking hilarious

  • May 25, 2011, 2:28 p.m. CST

    The problem does not lie with the alternate universe

    by AssyMuffJizz

    It has to do with the sheer NUMBER of obscenely STUPID plot moves and components (which I refuse to rehash for the millionth time). Sure, other ST stories played fast and loose with the laws of physics and basic storyline logic at times, but even the WORST of the past ST movies were masterpieces compared to the idiocy of Brewery Trek. It's too bad. Good cast. Now if only it had had a decent script...

  • Wish I could care about this.The more I think about that last Star Trek, the more I see that it wasn't very good at all. I'd rather rewatch any of the Next Gen movies over again. OK, I take that back. I'd never be able to watch Nemesis again...

  • May 25, 2011, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Problems with reimaginebootamakes

    by Samuel Fulmer

    You either stay too close or stray too far from the thing you're reimaginebootamaking. When they stay too close you wonder why bother, and when they stray to far you wonder why call it that. That's maybe the thing with the new Star Trek. They strayed so far in spirit from Star Trek that really other than character names and places, it could've just been called "Three out of four star JJ Abrams Summer 2009 action space project."

  • Like the last ep of Next Gen when all the sudden we're travelling at "warp 13"? wtfits?

  • May 25, 2011, 2:44 p.m. CST

    vroom socko

    by KilliK

    "One that gives the basic mental tools on how to use critical thinking when reading/watching fiction. Useful when you want to engage with a story on a level beyond "stuff goes boom."" then why havent you read it yet,since it is pretty obvious that you need this kind of training? start browsing the pages of that book pronto,boy.

  • May 25, 2011, 2:48 p.m. CST


    by KilliK


  • May 25, 2011, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Your pizza is ready.

    by KilliK

  • May 25, 2011, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Ah ok thanks Kirk.

    by KilliK

  • Dude, its the future, they may have changed the Warp names like they supposedly did between TOS and TNG.

  • You're entering a world of pain, Khan!

  • May 25, 2011, 2:57 p.m. CST

    Is this your Kobashi Maru homework, Kirk? Is this your homework?

    by shutupfanboy

    This is what you get when you fuck a Klingon in the ass.

  • May 25, 2011, 2:59 p.m. CST

    that was a joke man

    by spidercoz

    next time I'll be sure to use the appropriate tags

  • May 25, 2011, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Captain Riker treats objects like women!


  • May 25, 2011, 3:04 p.m. CST

    I read it three years ago, killik.

    by vroom socko

    I kind of had to when I first started working on my English degree. Oh wait, are you actually interested in a conversation, or have you just been an insulting ass for your own amusement? (I assume you're amusing yourself; you're certainly not amusing anyone else.)

  • This movie was/is aimed at the 12-25yr old demographic; whom by and large are the highest spending and least demanding audience there is. This is after all the same demo that spends $300-400 dollars every 12 months on a new version of their current phone and made a Madonna Clone a star. Give is a little Sex...Make it Sleek, pretty and "Kewl" looking...shove as much action, shit blowing up, and recognizable pop-culture lines and names as you can and THEY WILL SEE IT. Most of the people these films (NeuTrek,TransFormers,etc..) are aimed at have never even read a book, let alone fucking Shakespeare; and wouldn't appreciate story structure or a cohesive plot even if it showed them how to make their girlfriend squirt RedBull and Vodka out of her little girly pee hole. So Logic and plot holes and a multitude of implausible coincidences don't really bother them... After all their mom told them their being here was a random why shouldn't Spock be marooned on an Ice planet (where he builds a fire with wood he found on an otherwise treeless ice plain) within the same basic orbital plane and within visible distance from his own Super hot planet where he meets his now younger old captain who just happened to be marooned there by his younger self.. COULD happen

  • May 25, 2011, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Romulans! Fuck me.

    by shutupfanboy

    I mean, say what you like about the tenets of the Orion Space Pirates, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Hand ... Doc Pazuzu will do for the time being.


    Only stretched anuses can take the full CHOPPAH.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:21 p.m. CST


    by Astronut

    just. wow.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Sorry about that, astronut.


    Forgot to zip up. "Wow" is a frequent response, so don't be embarrassed.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:25 p.m. CST

    conspiracy, you have a point


    Set auto-destruct sequence. Command authorization code: "Worf-6-9-Poon-Tang"

  • May 25, 2011, 3:26 p.m. CST

    "What's a Klingon, Captain?"


    "Shut the fuck up, Scotty."

  • May 25, 2011, 3:30 p.m. CST

    "You Klingon bastards!"

    by film11

    While I sorta like TREK III as almost being the closest to the original series in tone, the death of Kirk's sone was COMPLETELY bungled by Nimor and Shatner. His death (which should have been a big dramatic moment) was almost a throw-away, background shot. You weren't even sure he was killed, if Saavik didn't say so. And Kirk's reaction was some of the worst acting I've ever seen from Shatner.

  • What did we (mostly) get from TOS? Like someone posted here earlier, we got fist fights with a rubber lizard guy, a furry ape man, brawls with Klingons and other aliens, thousands of squeeky fur balls, the wild west in space, a crazy mirror universe, black-n-white dudes, hippie space dudes, and a giant rubber pizza monster to name a few. But these episodes were all dealing with social and ethical issues, all of them. These are all 100% firmly planted as things that make fucking sense. Right. I'm an uber-fan of TOS but that doesn't fill me with rose-colored bias against NuTrek.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:31 p.m. CST

    Its ok Scotty, these men are Romulans, they believe in nothing.

    by shutupfanboy

    They are not going to do anything.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:33 p.m. CST

    Like Miss Tessmacher said...

    by Astronut

    ... sick, choppa. sick.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:35 p.m. CST


    by Astronut

    You read my mind. Yeah, they screwed the pooch on that one. Still love the film though, sparkle-confetti-lamp-from-Spencers-Gifts and all.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:40 p.m. CST

    The point of this Talkback then, is there anyone that agrees with Herc?


    Not even astronut who is a NuTrek apologist agrees with Herc that STIII is a POS.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:42 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Abrasm Tek 's greatest sin is that with the whole possibilities offered by the alternative universe premise, they just chosed the most banal route imaginable, and by the end,. just pulling a "reinstating the status quo", and have it exactly like in the original universe, by the most contrived way possible. It was an alternative univers,e so why not have fun with it? Why not make Spock the Captain and Kirk the number one? Why not make the whole film not an excuse to put the whole team at the same time in one plac,e but just have it being an adventure they shared, then go each their seperate way, and years later, when kirk finally gets to be a captain through his own merit, he chosed and handpicks the very people he once had a great adventure in the past, people who, all of them, became legends in their own right? And what the bloody hell is that deal of Kirk being made a captain 24 hours right after almost funking Academy? Even an hardcore Abrams Trek fan have to admit that rushing NuKirk into captaincy is a terrible idea and just plain wrong. At he very leas,t it robs so much potential for story for the sequel. I think Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman are now realising the mistake they made, or else why are they taking their sweet time? They put themselves into a gordian knot that not even Alexander The Great could bailt them out.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:45 p.m. CST

    And the Narada, what a piece of terrible design

    by AsimovLives

    It screams EEEEEVIL to the top of it's lungs. Yeah, right, no time for subtlery, hem? Shit, the Narada looks suspiciously like the asteroid in Armageddon, anotehr stupid design of soemthignwith spikes and pseudo-claws, so we primitive apes in the audiences can understand that it's "evil" and "bad". I'd like to know what brainiac will present a convincing argument of the wisdom and plausability of the design of the Narada as a mining ship. The bloody vessel was designed as to be a representation of a Dr Seuz's nightmare to scare the shit out of little children. "I'm so eeevil, buuuu!!!"

  • May 25, 2011, 3:52 p.m. CST

    ST III vs ST 2009 box office

    by Detached

    Even though everyone talks about what a "big hit" Kiddie Trek was, ST III probably made fairly as much in terms of inflation-adjusted box office receipts. (Granted, adjusting for inflation is something of an art, but still, the basic point remains the same). BTW, ST III set the record for highest box office opening up til that time. ST II had set it prior to that ($14.7 million). Incidentally, ST:TMP's official budget was $44 million, but that included the expenses for the aborted second TV series too (sets, etc). Most of you here are too young to remember, but take it from a Baby Boomer - the TOS films were "event" movies - FAR more than Trek 2009 was. That was just another big summer movie. The TOS movies were true "events" - when they came out, it was Big Stuff. Heck, Good Morning did segments every day for a WEEK on ST IV.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:52 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    THe navies of today have the same basic operationability and the same type of command structure that existed 3 centuries ago. You know why? Because IT WORKS! Is it too hard to imagine that in 3 centuries form now, the basic comamnd structure ina space navy would reflect and be in almost all ways similiar to ours? And you know why that makes sense? BECAUSE IT WORKS! And thatis what you ar enot understanding in your blind love for Abrams Trek. Just because it's fantasy doesn't mean it has to be founded on bullshit. Even fantasy needs plausability within it's own universe to work. you ar ebnot allowing yourself to see that jus for the love of a bad dumb movie that gets the basics of the universe it's suppsoedly set on. Just because it's a paralle universe doesn't means that common sense has to be thrown out of the window, does it? And then the movie is too coward and unimaginative to do some really cool and challenging things with the paral universe setting. The msot they got was getting Budweisser and Nokia back in the 23rd century. Big fucking deal.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:55 p.m. CST

    coughlins laws

    by AsimovLives

    You know a way to make Nemesis watchable? Imagine the villain of the movie but as Tom Hardy played the main character in Bronson.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:56 p.m. CST

    My Trek film order

    by Astronut

    If anyone perchance gives a shit (Next Gen films don't factor in, as they are crap) II: Wrath of Khan III: Search for Spock VI: The Undiscovered Country XI: NuTrek The Motion Picture IV: The Voyage Home V: The Final Frontier

  • May 25, 2011, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Watched the trailers posted up top

    by Samuel Fulmer

    The Trek 2009 looks like an advertisement for some Star Trek version of the Disney Star Tours ride, the Star Trek III one isn't half bad other than the cheesy voice over.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:59 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Nolan alsomade a Batman mvoie which was also aimed to appeal to the 13-25 demographics and he didn't need to dumb it to all hell, did he? He made the clever thing that any Star Trek movie OUGHT to do: be both appealing to the kids and the adults. Like, you know, what both the TOS TV show and movies did. And when that balalnce is achieved, you hit gold. Abrams and co, however, were so obsessed with the 13 years old demographics they forgot all other ages, even in teenhood.

  • May 25, 2011, 3:59 p.m. CST

    m6y- the "Kirk look"

    by Detached

    ... I'm impressed that someone else noticed that scene. Shatner displays more true acting talent and character revelation in that moment than in probably all of Kiddie Trek. But I would point that ST II, III & IV all have a similar moment. In II, it's when Kirk is in Spock's quarters, and Spock is telling him that "commanding a starship is your first, best destiny. An ;ything else is a waste of materiel." Then in IV, when Kirk is given back the Enterprise, he realizes he's returning to what he loves. And Shatner pulls it off perfectly in every movie. Wow.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:02 p.m. CST

    detached-STIII opened up in the Summer of 1984

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Much stiffer box office competition than what Trek 2009 faced, and it looks like it still grossed 80 million in 1984 dollars.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Now, about the death of Kirk's son...

    by Detached

    Look, when Shatner fell down in the captain's chair when David dies, he was so convincing that the studio crew ran onto the set to help him up after the shot ended. They didn't realize he was actually acting until he bounced up and said, "How was that?" Many people, including, as I recall, Mark Scott Zicree, feel that ST III is Shatner's best performance of the series. I don't know- his work in II is outstanding too. But there's no doubt he did a great job in III.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Narada looked bad ASS

    by Astronut

    I truly believe this: if Abrams made it look subtle and "just like a mining ship" (whatever that's supposed to look like... the Nostromo, maybe?), then you guys would be pissed it didn't look "evil" enough. I swear to christ you guys are insane with the rose-colored glasses NuTrek hate. I really like NuTrek... in many ways... but at the same time, I can fully admit to its flaws. And there are a bunch. But YOU guys.................. "You misunderstand us, Mr. Spock. We can dislike him and admire him, all at the same time..."

  • May 25, 2011, 4:08 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Are you so obsessed with the cardboard sets and the rubber lizzards you couldn't concentate and see the writing and dialogues of TOS? The awesome thing about TOS is that thanks to it's writing, dialogues and acting, it transcended the low production values it suffered from the usual low budget that all SF TV shows of the time had. And if you can't see tha,t if you can't enter into the groove, then why do you even bother with Star Trek? Yeah, Star Trek is so much more then a bunch of ddgy production values. In fact, what matters about Star Trek is all that is not about the dodgy production values. That's why it endured. That's why it caught the imagination for the last 40 years or so. That's why it inspired so many people to became scientists. And if despiste all thaty all you can be is distracted by the rubber lizzards, then you have a problem. No, the problem is not the show, friend, it's you, i'm afraid. Star Trek is a work of imagination. not just from the people who made it, but us the viewers. Now, tell me: with Abrams TRek, who after watchign that movie will be inspired to became an astronaut, a scientists, a astrophysic, a geneticist, an engineer? Who? I answer that: nobody. Tha tis where Abrams TRek failed, because it didn't followed the clue set by Star Trek: TO BE ABOUT SOMETHING and to INSPIRE FOR MORE. The praises you guys give of Abrams Trek is nothing more then what can be heard about Michael Bay's Transformers. No more, no less. If that suffices you, good for you, but you are not enjoying Star Trek. Not as it is. It's something else. The name alone doesn't suffice.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:10 p.m. CST

    Look, The Doomsday Machine has more

    by Brian Hopper

    human interest, drama, intrigue, intensity and scope than ST:INO — and I'm not even talking about the version with new CG fx. In fact, so does Balance of Terror and The Enterprise Incident and 10 or 20 other TOS episodes. Picking apart TOS because of cheesy fx or guys in rubber lizard suits — in order to somehow boost ST:INO — just misses the point. Abrams apologists have yet to take a hard look at ST:INO and ask themselves: How, how!, could Abrams & Co have screwed up Star Trek so badly? How could a reboot of one of the most intelligent entertainments ever, Star Trek, end up insulting the audience's intelligence so profoundly? Many of us (speaking for myself) were not against a reboot in principle. Look, what was Nicholas Meyer's relationship to ST prior to TWOK? Time After Time was a cool movie, but I even remember as a kid asking myself… why hire this guy? But he delivered. Abrams did not. It's that simple.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:14 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The fact the Narada is 10 times bigger then the biggest federation starship and that it has weaponry of 80 years in the future wouldn't suffice? It also had to look like a demented spider form hell as well? That's stupid. I'm sorry, but that's stupid. It's design for morons. If the only way to make a ship thretning is to make it look like Shelob ugly twin, then you have a problem. You know what would really make the Narada scary? If it had a competent intelligent capable commanding officer in change. Which it didn't. so i guess they had to over-compensate with the stupid evil spider looks. And really, what the fuck is the logic of a mining ship looking like a nightmare from The Silmarillion? Where's the logic in that?

  • May 25, 2011, 4:16 p.m. CST

    In a budget/box oficce ratio, ST3 managed to out-earn Abrams Trek.

    by AsimovLives

    Abrams Trek might had brough more cash, but it costed so much, much more.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Shatner's battle with the Gorn is a postmodern masterpiece


    of stoner humor. Stop dissing the Gorn! It's not a rubber lizard! It's a Gorn! Got that! Sheesh!

  • May 25, 2011, 4:20 p.m. CST

    My Star Trek list:

    by AsimovLives

    1- ST:The Motion Picture 2- The Wrath Of Kahn and Search For Spock 3- The Undiscovered Country. 4- Voyage Home and Final Frontier. (While overall Voyage Home is a better made movie, Final Frojntier has more thematic ambition. And the "save the whales" heavy-handness really rub me the wrong way, even when i saw the movie back then, when i was a full on enviromentalist). Yes, there's two ex equos in there. I can't put it any other way. There's thing sin WOK and SFS that i love so much that in the end both movies even out. In fact, in my mind, i can't see one without the other. They are like two parts ofthe same movie, spreaded out in two.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:21 p.m. CST

    Oh yes, i didn't included Abrams Trek there...

    by AsimovLives

    ... but that's a Star Trek movies list, not a Star Wars movies list.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:21 p.m. CST

    Asi, you misunderstand me

    by Astronut

    I * do * love TOS for its writing, cleverness, imagination, and inventiveness. And for dealing with the human factor, the social interaction, the ethical hurdles. The exploration, the mystery, I could go on and on. I do not give a shit about the low budget sets and sfx, I love TOS for its stories and character interplay. And the vibe. And the vision of the future. I remember watching some pointy-eared guy on tv while standing in my footie pajamas back in 1968. Literally I remember seeing it on tv. And later upon syndication I watched TOS every day after school. I love the Gorn, the Mugato, all of the cheesy stuff... LOVE IT ALL (maybe not black-n-white Frank Gorshin but..). I was merely pointing out that not all TOS episodes were "filled with Shakespeare" as many have talked themselves into believing. No, there was a TON of silliness and physical violence etc etc That's all I was getting at. Really and truly, I am a TOS fanatic and always will be.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:23 p.m. CST

    Wait, you don't like Next Gen either, Asi?


    You're dead to me.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:25 p.m. CST


    by Astronut

    thanks dude

  • May 25, 2011, 4:34 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I see Generations as a TNG movie with a Kirk cameo. Like in the pilot of DEEP SPACE 9, where Picard does a cameo, but it's Sisko's show.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:37 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    TOS is filled with Shakespeare. And sometimes they even directly quote him. Let me tell you a secret: It was actually Star Trek that made me curious and to check out Shakespeare. Thank you, Star Trek. What a show, it inspires both people to be scientists and to go read the classics. How many other shows can claim that?

  • In many ways, i like to pretend it doesn't exist, because if i do, then i have to remeber the stupid punk-ass lame ass Kirk's death shit. The Kirk's death scen has to be one of the most embaracing death of a hero in ever seen in a movie. The best comparison i can give is if Spock had died in the shitter, Don Simpson style. Fucking embaracing! I pretend it never happened!

  • May 25, 2011, 4:43 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    THe Narada didn't alos look nothignthe romulas would design either. Those romulans have this cool bird design iamgery to their ships is makes them have the coolest looking ships in the St universe. You might say "why a bird ship for a mining ship?". and i would counter-point "it at least makes more thematic sense then a fucking ugly spider, doesn't it?" I mean, really, there's lots of mean looking birds to inspire a bad evil romulan ship, aren't there? Tentacled evil spider? FUCKING LAZY!

  • May 25, 2011, 4:44 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Actually, it was 160 millions. Post-production CGI lens flares don't come cheap.

  • I think FIRST CONTACT is half a really good movie. The stuff with the borgs and Oicard in the ship playing Die Hard with the borg invaders is good stuff. The scenes on Earth, however... not so much. In fact, if the movie had been all about the stuff on Earth, it would had completly killed the movie for me. Now, there is a complain about FIRST CONTACT in that the movie does not do a good job at portaiting Picard as he really is, as he was presented in the TNG show. I agree. It's a jarring difference. But seeing Picard kick ass and seeing Patrick Stewart playing a 60something badass was very cool for me. As presenting Picard, it's a poor show, but as Stewart being a screen badass, it's great. I just ignore all the Earth shit. better that way.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Best Part of "Voyage Home."

    by cookylamoo

    McCoy being appalled at the thought of chemotherapy and giving the guy some anti-cancer pills.

  • May 25, 2011, 4:55 p.m. CST

    In ST, Goldsmith never topped his work in THE MOTION PICTURE

    by AsimovLives

    He still came up with an occasional cool theme, but it is all very overshadowed by his work on THE MOTION PCITURE. I can tell that on the other St movies it was a jobber work, but for soem reason THE MOTION PCITURE really ressonated with him and he made one of his top score works. It wasalso his thnak you to Robert Wise, who decades earlier gave Goldsmith the oportunity to show his quality when Wise hired him to compose the score for THE SAND PEBBLES. goldsmith was then a newbie, who had only worked for TV. THE SAND PEBBLES was his big break, and oh boy did Goldsmith took the bull by the hors and delivered what is one of his best score. It's so good, the movie's DVD even has a audio track dedicated only for the score and the musings of 3 music experts and fans of Goldsmith. Other then THE MOTION PICTURE, the moment when goldsmith also showed off his huge talent for creating theme and leitmotifs was whenhe creatd the theme tune for ST: VOYAGER. Say what you will about that show, but the opening theme kicks ass!

  • May 25, 2011, 4:58 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives This theme makes my skin crawl. It gives me goosebumps. It's pratially a hymn to the an optimism view of the possibilities of the human race. It's an hymn to the human race.

  • May 25, 2011, 5:02 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Great theme, not so good show. And the ship looked like the lid of a toilet.

  • May 25, 2011, 5:06 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    As i said before, there's plenty of bird magery that could worjk for an evil lookign ship without going so stupid-ass with the spider bullshit look for the Nasada. It's called consistency. And since the romulans are based on the roman empire, that eman every aspect of their society is directly dictated by the state. such societies are notoriously one-minded and monolothic in their imagery. All of the ST series took pains to present the romulans exactly like that. They were the counterpart of the Federation, more so then the klingons themselves. The captain of the romulan ship in BALANCE OF TERROR was an exception.

  • It's still one of the funniest thing i ever seen in my whole life. One unintentional funny aspect from Voyage Home is that the guys are looking for nuclear vessels in Alameda. Now, Alameda is a spanish name, and it sounds a bit similiar to thename of my own city of Almada. And on top of that, my home city has a naval base as well. It was as if the ST crew were looking for nuclear ships in my home town. It made me and my friends laugh like hell.

  • May 25, 2011, 5:19 p.m. CST

    Voyage Home is also a movie of two halves for me.

    by AsimovLives

    I love all the 23rd century stuff. Even the big bad probe, which is in fact a rehash of V'Ger, with an enviromental consciousness. And i lobve the way the movie handled the inevitable court martial that Kirk and his crew would had to face, despiste they saving the Earth. The movie did it very well, and quite cleverly as well. It rpesented the type of politicking that such a situation would do: they both punish kikr by demoting him to captain, which was in fact exactly what he wanted in the first place, which the Federation brass knew all too well. It's exactly the type of smart-ass reward diguised as punishement that the military can do so well. That's howeyou do it, not like in Abrams Trek. The half i have a problem with VOYAGE HOME is the Earth stuff. It sits so ill wih the rest of the move, it's as if it belongs to a different movie. Still, i can't help find it amusing and enjoyable the great capacity that Nimoy has to deliver hillarious deadpan comedy. I think nimoy has been terribly overlooked in his talent as a comedian.

  • May 25, 2011, 5:25 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    But both a barge and a war vessel have one thing in common: they have keels. THe thignwith the Narada is that it'sd a compelte break away of the romulan ship design, for no good reason. you cna reason tha the spedery tentacles of the narada is an armgrabber, but do you know that for sure? Did the movie evne gave you aclue of it's functional nature? No, it's like that so it can look EEEEVILL! It's design for morons, that's what it is. Had it had an obvious romulan design, it would work, because the federation people wouldn't know what it was, but we would. That's how you work a visual reference into a story. The Narada design is just a designers geekasm without any real purpose whatsoever. That's not good design, it's just lazy. If the Narada is suppsoed to be functional why not be it made like a cube or a sphere? Those are the most functional shapes. Ask the Borgs.

  • May 25, 2011, 5:28 p.m. CST

    Frakes and I think First Contact is the best ST film.

    by shutupfanboy

    I told him that and he said he couldn't agree me. The guy was one of the highlights of Megacon. Picard gets anger builds through the film to it finally explodes. Without question, its the best TNG Trek film. I love Khan and Undiscovered, but buying back Spock's death kinda hurts Khan.

  • May 25, 2011, 5:28 p.m. CST

    "A brewery? Really? Why?"

    by AsimovLives

    I have been asking that same question for two years. Not even the audio comentary provided an answer. Aparently, Abrams thinks that beer vats with viewscreens in it makes it the height of futuristic visual design. When i think that in the TOS TV show and movies they actualy bothered to build an engine room set, and for a far lesser budget, it just convinces me more and more of how inept and wrong Team Abrams was to make a ST movie.

  • May 25, 2011, 5:28 p.m. CST

    but asi...

    by spidercoz

    What about the fact that Kirk's court martial is being presided over by the President of the Federation? Doesn't that piss you off? I mean, that's NOT how things are DONE!!!

  • May 25, 2011, 5:31 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Of course the Prez would preside that court martial. Kirk's crew crimes were not minor offenses. It makes perfect sense. The dudes who made those TOS movies knew what they were doing.

  • May 25, 2011, 5:33 p.m. CST

    This talkback made me earger to re-watch Search for Spock.

    by AsimovLives

    OK, guys, see you all tomorrow. Tchau.

  • May 25, 2011, 5:37 p.m. CST

    The Brewery and the Narada

    by Coordinate_System

    I think that I read in the "Art of" book, that filming at the Brewery (and another industrial location) was forced on Abrams by the producers for budgetary considerations, and that Abrams was not happy about it. The pre-production art (as shown in the book) for the shuttle bay and Engineering were considerably more appealing (although the starship designs are disappointing). I thought that I read that according the the comic book prequel ("Countdown"), that a more conventional Romulan ship (the original Narada) served as a "seed" and the New Narada (onscreen ship) was "grown" using Borg tech. Can't confirm, as I haven't read Countdown, but there you are. And may that be the last time that I play Devil's Advocate.

  • May 25, 2011, 5:38 p.m. CST

    I love it

    by spidercoz

    Asi, your ability to rationalize is amazing

  • May 25, 2011, 6:02 p.m. CST

    Vulcans were highly religious people...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm a Tom Cruise "Scientology" sort of way. That Katra nonsense was almost unbearable. I wish that they had simply had Spock's body alive...needing McCoy to show up and give him the old medical college try.

  • May 25, 2011, 6:06 p.m. CST

    First Contact...

    by Detached

    I didn't like it even in the theater when I first saw it. The plot holes were **huge**. For insance, Starfleet won't let Picard engage in battle with the Borg because he was once assimilated. This, despite the fact that he commands the most powerful ship in the fleet. And it's not like the Enterprise is needed or anything- all the Borg are doing, after all, is attacking Earth. Naturally, all Starfleet would actually do would be say "Hey, drop Jean-Luc off at a planet on your way home. Riker, you're in charge for now." That's it, the end. After all, Riker had fought the Borg himself. Then at the end of the film, we see the Vulcans detecting the small warp signature of Zefrem Cochran from clear across the solar system. Yet, a short while later, they somehow completely miss the massively more powerful warp output of the Enterprise-E - even though it's so close to Earth it's actually visible from the Romulan ship! Yep, we can buy that. Or not. And there's more, but you get the idea. Brannon Braga never met a time travel "plot" he didn't like, and, as usual, it didn't really work.

  • May 25, 2011, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Chekov's face

    by film11

    We can assume he was on the crew of the Enterprise during "Space Seed." We just never saw him, anymore than we saw the "400 people" that Kirk was always saying were there!

  • May 25, 2011, 6:27 p.m. CST

    First Contact "plot holes"

    by shutupfanboy

    Starfleet didn't want Picard there, because he was an unstable which he became, so they were right to keep him away in some regards. Yeah, he stopped the Cube, but that thing was so badly damaged, they probably could have destroyed anyway. The Vulcans were not looking at the sky as they were partying with Cochran. Also, the Enterprise is 300 years ahead of the Vulcans. Ask Osama about seeing flying ships from 50 ft away, oh wait you can't.

  • May 25, 2011, 6:41 p.m. CST

    first contact plot holes II

    by Detached

    Yes, Picard was damaged goods - but so what? Just get him off the ship, and put Riker in command. The Borg were attacking Earth itself, after all, and Starfleet would certainly need all the help it could get in defending it. And while the Vulcans may have been spending time with Cochran, it more than stretches credulity that their automatic sensors would not pick up a warp signature that massive. After all, who would think the Vulcans were looking for warp signatures when they were clear across the solar system? They almost certainly were not (since they were far away from any life at all), yet they still detected Cochran's small warp field across a few billion miles.

  • May 25, 2011, 6:43 p.m. CST

    Khan & Chekov

    by Detached

    Yeah, it's always been assumed that Checkov was aboard the ship on the lower decks in the first season- that's why Khan remembered him. Compared to the holes in First Contact (let alone Kiddie Trek), that's a thimble compared the ocean.

  • May 25, 2011, 7:08 p.m. CST


    by Detached

    I often agree with you, but that was bad writing, not a bad military/Starfleet decision. No one is that stupid. The instant I saw it I thought, "That's ridiculous." You will desperately need the Enterprise-E in a battle with the Borg, so just put Riker in command. He had plenty of experience in fighting the Borg. It might have been different if the E-E had a second in command who had never faced the Borg - but even that would be a stretch (since many of the ships battling the Borg doubtless had never fought them before).

  • May 25, 2011, 7:14 p.m. CST

    mattman: worf

    by Detached

    i vaguely remember that - but as I recall, it was pretty stupid, and didn't really fly. I'll be the first to grant that most movies have plot holes, or at least questionable moments, but the ones in First Contact (and there were others) really didn't have truly viable explanations. You can say Khan knew Chekov from below decks, for instance, because that's quite plausable. But not using the E-E when Earth itself is at stake? No. Way.

  • May 25, 2011, 7:27 p.m. CST

    vroom socko what is your job?

    by KilliK

    just curious

  • May 25, 2011, 7:30 p.m. CST


    by AssyMuffJizz

    Yet -- you must admit that's a fucking nitpicking plot hole compared to the epic, toilet-galaxy sized plot-holes contained within NUTREK.

  • May 25, 2011, 8:20 p.m. CST

    well, mattman...

    by Detached

    We just have to disagree, I think. I understand the point about "damaged goods" and all that - it simply doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. All they had to do was simply not have Starfleet not communicate with the E, or have an Admiral say "Are you sure, Jean-Luc? How do you know you weren't co-opted by them in the past, and you aren't consciously aware of it?" Anything like that would be far superior to the stupid "Our home planet is under attack and you're the best weapon we've got - now please stay away!" That is so dumb it defies description. Granted, as, um, "assy" points out, it's not as bad as the crap in Kiddie Trek, but it still destroys any hope of realism for FC. And re Khan remembering Chekov- I believe the assumption there is that Chekov had more than just passing interaction with Khan when he was a "guest" on the ship. He may have been an escort, etc. That's kind of implied (or assumed). Well, it's fun to discuss, but I guess we aren't going to change anything. Maybe next time they'll consult us (as they should :)

  • May 25, 2011, 9:17 p.m. CST

    @detached - Agree with your comments

    by Brian Hopper

    on the good Kirk moments and on the nice job Shatner did in ST3. One thing that shines about Kirk in ST3 in particular is that it's Kirk at his most resourceful throughout the whole film… one-upping and thinking ahead at all times, such as his method for getting off the Genesis planet: Maltz! Jol yichu!

  • aye that was a very dumb moment in the movie which you cant simply ignore. They could have cut to Kirk personally inspecting the sickbay to see how Bones was doing and how many were injured/killed,Bones can understand how much guilty and sad Kirk looks while seeing all those young but injured crew-members,he tells him something apologetic ie that he shouldnt feel like that,that his actions saved the rest of the crew and the enteprise,Kirk nodes and then the sickbay door opens and Scottie enters while holding his dead newphew. But i dont know if that would have worked dramatically well from an editing perspective.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:35 p.m. CST


    by AssyMuffJizz

    That moment always makes me giggle. I think Scotty just finally kind of lost his shit -- he was being irrational. But that's what it is to. be... HUMAN.

  • that's the most retarded thing i have read in this talkback.So the Federation will let a starship to do whatever it wants and without communicating with the rest of the fleet,while a very serious space battle was happening in front of Earth? are you fucking kidding me?

  • May 25, 2011, 9:45 p.m. CST

    @Asimov - Your take on Goldsmith's work

    by Brian Hopper

    in ST:TMP and First Contact is right on the money… except you don't mention one thing: his work on ST5 is hugely underrated. I'm a big fan (and familiar with) almost all of his scores — everything from the masterful Patton to the guilty pleasures of Capricorn One and Bad Girls — and IMHO the main theme to ST5 is one of his best. I've met other Goldsmith fans who agree. On the topic of ST5, you refer in another post to its "thematic ambition" and I agree completely… though clunky in spots and problematic in the fx dept (among other problems), its screenplay is underappreciated, and its philosophical man-meets-God theme, besides being very Star Trek-y, is carefully and thoughtfully rendered.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:50 p.m. CST

    about scotty on the bridge

    by Detached

    meyer said somewhere or other that he took that moment from another movie- i forget what it was. it was something similar about someone being injured, and taken to a command loaction, or whatever. i (obviously) don't recall the specifics, but that's where it came from. i agree, i've also thought it makes no sense. it also imho didn't work to edit out of the theatrical cut the fact that that's scotty's nephew. it makes a whole lot more sense when you know that.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:51 p.m. CST

    i agree with picard's characterization...

    by Detached

    ... just not the supposed starfleet decision.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:58 p.m. CST

    I love Search for Spock

    by Nico Toscani

    I've never understood why people shit on it. It looks cheap but the character moments are awesome and, to me, what Trek is all about. I'll take it any day over The Voyage Home.

  • May 25, 2011, 9:58 p.m. CST

    @m6y- yes. in fact...

    by Detached

    ST III may as well have been called "kirk's search for spock." it really is about what kirk does to get spock back. yes, the crew assists him, but he's clearly the leader of the effort. ST III's big weakness is that it's a film of necessity, not an organic, ie, natural, sequel to ST II. meyer (& even shatner) felt that dramaticallly,. spock should remain dead. and nimoy wanted spock to die in ST II because he disliked TMP so much (the theatrical cut, anyway). but then he enjoyed ST II so much he wanted to come back. hence, ST III. i wish they had come up with something better than the whole silly "katra" business (you do realize it makes every vulcan functionally immortal), but hey. almost any answer was going to have problems- unless, i guess, they had tied spock's return directly into the genesis effect as a one-time event. anyway, since nimoy wanted to come back, they had to find a way to do it, rather than just come up with a purely good story, as in some of the other films... sorry, got a little long there... :)

  • May 25, 2011, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Another plothole in ST2 comes from the fact that Kahn

    by KilliK

    was very justified to be furious with Kirk or more precisely with the Federation for leaving them alone in that planet forever.If i recall correctly,in the original episode and by using a bit of common sense,Khan and his crew were EXILED in the planet by the Federation as a mean of punishment for their crime to hijack the Enterprise. So the Starfleet left a dozen of people in a remote,non-explored planet without medicine,food,tools and any other basic mean of survival.The planet was in Federation Space so the planet was under their jurisdiction,after all that's why they could leave Khan there without getting permission from anybody else.And Khan and his crew wouldnt have any problem to hijack another spaceship if it was unlucky enough to pass from there,so their threat was never stopped. If we take into account the above little facts,then common sense says that the Federation should have keep an eye on Khan for a sufficient period of time.First because the Federation follows a humanitarian policy and philosophy.They wouldnt have abandoned those people there,even if they were criminals,without looking after them in a way or another.Sending a ship there once every 6 month to see their situation and if they needed any help would have be the most expecting and logical thing for the Federation to do. They should have warned all the other planets and members of the Federation about the situation in that planet.They should have put some kind of guardianship in that planet so that they could warn other incoming ship about the danger in that planet and make sure that Khan wasnt going to leave from there. But the Federation did nothing from the above,which leads to a plothole because it is against anything that the Federation stands and acts as both a humanitarian and military union.It's agaisnt the true identiy of the Federation. So yeah not only Khan was right to be pissed with Kirk but his anger was based on a plothole of the movie.and that's a FACT.

  • May 25, 2011, 10:02 p.m. CST

    one last thing about kirk in st 2...

    by Detached

    ... it's really a shame they deleted the scene where he's in sick bay and says "we're only alive because i knew something about these ships that he didn't." such a great moment, and (again) perfectly and i mean PERFECTLY deliivered by shatner. the exact touch of regret, weariness, etc- all rolled into one...

  • May 25, 2011, 10:06 p.m. CST

    The "remember" scene in ST2 was added later in the

    by KilliK

    home cinema release or it was in the theatrical release too? did they added it after the screen previews and the initial dismantlement of the audience that Spock was killed?

  • May 25, 2011, 10:14 p.m. CST


    by Doc_Hudson

    Was in the crew list that Khan scanned when in the sick bay,....he had hours to surf the web too looking for porn. Sure it was a real fuck up,..but a plot hole,..hardly. Now Spock and Uhura getting it on in the academy, just blasphemy. nUtrek,...really was 90210 with warp drives and lens flares... The casting was fine,..just please dump the "look,it's a different time-line" BS. And for the love of dogs,...get someone who understands how music in film works.

  • May 25, 2011, 10:16 p.m. CST


    by Doc_Hudson

    It was there,...which,when you think about it,makes no sense for Meyer to have refused the plot for 3....if that was an arch that far back.

  • May 25, 2011, 10:35 p.m. CST

    Spock and Uhura...Worse than Blasphemy

    by conspiracy

    It's lazy fucking writing...and Just fucking stupid and pointless. Roberto and Alex did it because they needed some kinda "Romance" to appeal to the Tween Girl crowd who were gonna get dragged to this thing by their Parents or stinky fingered 9th grade boyfriends...and the Character of Kirk was/is untouchable when Twilightish/Doe Eyed, Mopey kissy kissy weepy romance is the subject. And, it provided an easy way to get Uhura on the Enterprise...

  • May 25, 2011, 10:37 p.m. CST

    a few years ago..this fucker would have been into quaduple digits.

    by conspiracy

    505 total posts? Fucking Amateur.

  • May 25, 2011, 10:37 p.m. CST

    Quadruple bitches...

    by conspiracy

  • May 25, 2011, 11 p.m. CST


    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I guess the main point I'm trying to make is: What we call "STAR TREK" is not one thing. It's many things to many people. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, right? For example, while you are definitely correct about Gene Roddenberry's own military past and you are arguably correct about Starfleet being based on an Earth military system, you are also incorrect about how militaristic Roddenberry wanted Starfleet to be onscreen. He was very unhappy with the "Navy" aspects that Nicholas Meyer brought to TWOK and the later films. Meyer saw Star Trek as "Horatio Hornblower in Space". Roddenberry saw Starfleet as more of a vehicle for scientific exploration and diplomacy and peacekeeping. The crews are only "soldiers" in a secondary sense. So he thought Meyer emphasized that too much. And Majel Barrett Roddenberry was very vocal after Gene's death about ST:DS9 becoming too much of a "War" show with the Dominion arc of later seasons. Star Trek isn't a military show in the sense that a show about an actual existing military would be. It's not NCIS or JAG. And as for your comments about the Narada? I think you're falling prey to that same tired Trekker impulse of wanting every Star Trek you ever see to conform to every Star Trek you've already seen. We've never seen a Romulan ship that looks like that. But we've also never seen Romulan miners who shave their heads and get face tattoos. Doesn't mean they can't exist. Does every Earthling look the same? For example, we've also never seen any non-White Romulans, but we know from Tuvok that there are Vulcans with brown skin, and the Romulans are basically Vulcans who never embraced logic. If a great Black or Hispanic actor was cast as the captain of a weird looking Romulan bird of prey in the next movie: would someone complain that isn't believable either? We have no idea what the Romulans from this new universe are going to be like. Their ships, their uniforms, their hairstyles, their whole society could be widely at odds with what we're used to seeing. Wouldn't Roddenberry want us to embrace change and diversity? Star Trek is whatever the people making it decide it is. It's not a religion or a cult. That's the last thing Gene Roddenberry would have wanted.

  • May 25, 2011, 11:17 p.m. CST

    Picard > First Contact > The Borg

    by Jake Pantlin

    Picard to Riker: "They believe that a man who was once captured and assimilated by the Borg should not be put in a situation where he would face them again. To do so would introduce an unstable element to a critical situation." I don't think Starfleet (by order of Admiral Hayes) thought Picard was damaged goods. I think that he was concerned about putting Picard in a situation where he would go up against a group of people that had physically altered and assaulted him. He was concerned about his mental welfare. That's understandable, to a point. The Borg had used Picard in their first attemp to assimilate the Earth by turning him into Locutus. Of course, the Admiral made the wrong decision. Picard is the man who figures out the Borg's weak spot and blows the shit out of it at the moment it is about to overtake the Earth's defences. The moment when Picard finds out the Admiral Haye's ship is destroyed, and he takes command of the fleet, is one of the best moments in the movie.

  • May 26, 2011, 12:34 a.m. CST

    i don't mind the delay...

    by droids22

    If it means a better trek film. I loved jj's trek film although i thought the bad guy was weak, as they are in every trek movie. Bald guy with tatoos sooo cliche! All the creature special effects we have these days and that's the best they could do?!?! Trek deserves better than that!

  • May 26, 2011, 1:02 a.m. CST

    Christ Asimov, how many more years are you going to Whine?

    by ganymede3010

    Holy fucking Christ. What a complete waste of time and energy.

  • May 26, 2011, 1:16 a.m. CST


    by eddieVroom

  • May 26, 2011, 1:16 a.m. CST


    by eddieVroom

  • May 26, 2011, 1:56 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Abrams shows no unhappiness about the -Brewery in the audio comentary. In fact he praises the location, and it even sounds as if it was him who made the decison and was proud of it. Did he changed his tune when even the fans mocked the brewery engine room? Sounds like him, bending to where the wind blows.

  • May 26, 2011, 1:57 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    And if it had to be a brewery, why not do it in style and go for a scotch brewery?

  • May 26, 2011, 2 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Even Nicholas Meyers admits that Khan remembering Chekov's face is a mistake. He just didn't made the necessary research, and it stuck. He's quite open about his movie's mistakes. Unlike Mr Abrams and his.

  • May 26, 2011, 2 a.m. CST

    Addendum to Previous Posting

    by Coordinate_System

    Direct Quote from ST: Art of the Film, pg 106: "J. J. Abrams' directive for the Enterprise engineering room was "make it functional and feasible," Chambliss* recalled. The production designer wanted to build a massive set, with huge power bay and catwalks, but budgetary considerations forced location work. A Budweiser beer plant provided various sections of the starship's engine room." (*Scott Chambliss, production designer)

  • May 26, 2011, 2:04 a.m. CST


    by Coordinate_System

    After looking through the "Art of" book, I can't find the quote about Abrams being unhappy about it. I'm thinking now, that I may have read it somewhere else. What can I say, at my age, memory is the first to go.

  • May 26, 2011, 2:13 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    St5 should also be comended for giving Kirk one of his greatest killer lines: "Why does God need a spaceship?". That line always cracks me up. It's not just that it's such a killer punk-ass funny line, but that with just that he went to the point and put things straigh in the story. In that scene Kirk out-rationalized Spock. No mean feat. Ofthe thing si have also to praise in ST5 is the wodnerful interaction between Kirk, Spock and Bones. Of all the ST movies, it's the one which clarly portaits the 3 fellas as really friends and not just old time comrads. Really friends who, when not in service, spend time hanging out with each other by go camping. The final scene where they are back to their favorite camping spot and sing "Row Your Boat" is quite moving. They learne dthe lesson that mroe improtant then a god who promises paradises, the best thing in life is the company of friends. An idea to live by. ST5 might ha ve a lot of faults, as it it, but it has a great, simple theme to it: the importance of your true friends in your life. ST5 is pratically a hymn to friendship. What's not to like about that? As such, i can overlook dodgy SFX when the heart of the movie is so great.

  • May 26, 2011, 3:25 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Ahh, the pains of age. I'm starting to feel those myself, too, my friend. Sure, it's just 40, but it's like the anterchamber of old age, isn't it? Well, seems the production designer, for once, had the right idea. But if they couldn't make a huge set, then why not make a smaller one, but still cool? I mean, it's a spaceship, mostof the engine would had to be a shieldered generatior, anyway. The room itself didn't need to be gigantic. The engine room shown in Star Trek: The Motion Picture was about right: it was big enough to be impressive, but it wasn't gigantic enough to make one think of scale problems, as in, an egine room that looked more like it belongs to the TARDIS then the USS Enterprise, if you know what i mean. There's no way to rationalize the huge size of the engine room of the Abramsprise, it's just too big for the ship's size. The engine rroom of the TMP's Enterprise does look like it belongs there, it can fit in there. The other thing that also rads right about the TMP's Enterprise is that the scales look or feel right. With the exception of the Hangar and the Louge , places which are deliberatly designed to carry a crowd, all other rooms are more thigh, as if limited by the space available. Which is true in any ship, including the big ones. No matter how big a ship is, space will always be limited.

  • What is a whiner of whiners, my friend? A whiner squared?

  • Jesus Christ goes to an hotel. He hands 3 nails to the innkeeper and says: "Can you put me up for tonight?" Religious theme jokes, always cracks me up.

  • May 26, 2011, 6:08 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Another plothole you failed to mention is how could the Federation missed out such a cosmic event as the orbital displacement of two planets? Today we can detect Jupiter and Nepture-sized planets orbiting other stars. We call them exoplanets. not only we can detect them, we can measure quite accurantly their orbital period and their distance from their mother stars. Astronomers says that in a near 10 to 20 years future we will be able to detect Earth-sized planets orbiting other stars, and not just in our galatic neighbourhood. And that's us today, in the early 21th century. Imagine their scanning abilities in the 23rd century Star Trek universe.

  • May 26, 2011, 7:45 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    There is a difference between militarism and military accurancy. ST:TOS was accurate about the correct military preceduals while being anti-militarist. Militrism has to do with an attitude and philosophy which clashes with the type of humanism that ST is renowned for. If you wan tto look at an example of militarism, look no futher then the example of ancient Rome and Nazi Germany, the two biggest influences on the depiction of the Romulans in ST. No, the Federation is not militiaristic. But it is a military institution with a very humanistic philosophy at it's core. It is a ideal military, and since ST is about an ideal human civilization, there you have it. but make no mistake, though the Federation is not militaristic, they follow typical military protocol quite stricktly. As it should.

  • May 26, 2011, 7:49 a.m. CST

    "Star Trek is whatever the people making it decide it is."

    by AsimovLives

    Roddenberry would disagree with it. ST is quite specific aobut what it is, and what it presents. It has a clear statement of intentions. And the ST bible was altready put to write as the TOS wa being made, as a guide for the writers. But i also think, like you, that Roddenberry was not amused with the level of fandom that the most extreme trekkies took the show. Like all extremists, they mistake the forest for the trees.

  • May 26, 2011, 8:06 a.m. CST

    Nicholas Meyers > Chekov

    by Jake Pantlin

    Nicholas Meyers had two weeks to turn in a script for Star Trek II to make it's deadline. Paramount hated the scripts that had been turned in before Meyers was on the project, and so Meyers hammered out a script. In 2 weeks! Even though he doesn't have a credit on the screenplay, everyone acknowledges that the man wrote the script, using bits and pieces from the other scripts that had worked. A slight oversight like Chekov not meeting Khan can be forgiven we you see the amount of time he had to get this done.

  • May 26, 2011, 9:39 a.m. CST

    Search for Spock is AWESOME...Herc's nuts!

    by TheFifthCylon

    Search for Spock is such an amazing movie! If Star Trek 12 is anywhere near as good as Trek 3, I'll be a VERY happy camper. I always said that out of ten Star Trek movies, there were three that were four star/must see films --- Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, and Undiscovered Country. After Trek 11 came out, I added that to the list and made it 4 'must see' films out of 11.

  • ....Arguing that all Romulan ship's should look like Birds is ridiculous. It's been made clear in many episodes of Trek that ship designs vary drastically depending on their function. Anytime we see a cargo ship or a civilian vessel they always look much different than military of starfleet craft. I mean, do you think they go around demanding everything looks like a fucking bird even if it's not at all practical. "Hmm, nice oil rig, but it doesn't look like a bird." Silly.

  • ...The Borg cube sure look cool and EVIL, but not a practical design at all.

  • May 26, 2011, 10:16 a.m. CST

    ST III - better on more recent viewing

    by VoiceOfSaruman

    Re-watching the early films (first four), Search For Spock was much better, faster-paced and action packed, funnier and emotional than I remembered; whether it was my bored 10 year old boy view back then, or the influence of endless criticism since, I had remembered it being not so great. But there's a lot of good things in the movie. Some of the elements of Spock's return don't work for me, but I don't think it was a cop-out to bring Spock back in general. I don't think you can have Trek without Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, on film at least. I don't think it cheapened Spock's ST2 sacrifice either. He sacrifices himself to save everyone else in ST2. In ST3, everyone else sacrifices their careers, the Enterprise, and risk their lives to save Spock. It makes for a good balance to me.

  • May 26, 2011, 10:37 a.m. CST

    "How can you be deaf with ears like that?

    by FlyingToupee

  • May 26, 2011, 10:45 a.m. CST

    "How can you get be deaf with ears like that?"

    by FlyingToupee

    I love ST III. Some of the best lines and moments for Deforest Kelley.

  • May 26, 2011, 10:53 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    There's nothing functional and pratical in making a mining shit look like Shelob's younger sister. That's nonsense. A cube is an extremely functional shape, because it's one of the best conservation of volume shape there is. In the future, when sspace ships will exist, their shapes will not be like the Enterprise or the Narada, but the simplest geometrical shapes so that they can seve two fuctions: maximum utilization of space and for structiral integrity. It's easier to make a stronger object using simple geometrical shapes like a sphere or a cube then with a tentacled Lovecraftian monstruosity. By all standards, the design of the Narada is nonsense for the standards of Star Trek, or any other standards. THe Narada is sesigned to look like a nightmare, to look EEEEVIL!! That design should only justificated if it had been the product of some alien spieces that had nothing to do with those already known in the ST canon. An unknown spieces, all bets are off.

  • May 26, 2011, 11:05 a.m. CST

    My take on the katra, based on ST3 alone is that....

    by AsimovLives

    ... it seems like an urgency measure. If Vulcans have a religion or a mysticism to them, it's based on their love for knowledge. They deitify knowledge. It looks like when a vulcan meets his final days, he tansmists his wisdom and body of knowledge to a selected group of vulcan masters though a detailed arcane cerimony. What happend with Spock was that he knew he was going to die due to his actions, but he's Spock, a legend of the Federation and his own home planet, all his body if knowledge couldn't die with him. So he did an emergency procedure, and did the best he could at the situation: he used Bones as a reservoir of his knowledge so that later it could be carried to Vulcan. Basically, Bones became Spock's backup hard-drive. When Kirk realised that there was a chance to recuperate Spock's body on Genesis, he jumped at the chance to save Spock's soul, which was, literally, inhabiting Bones's brain. I always assumed that since Spock died with his katra transfered, but without the proper transference procedual done, there was big chance his body was not really dead. Vulcans have such a pecular anatomy that what seems to be a terminal case for a human is merely a cold to a vulcan. And the vulcan's mind is such an integral part of the vulcan's whole being, i wouldn't be suprised that a vulcan can only truly die if his soul is deposited with all due proper cerimonial precedual. That the genesis device alowed Spock's body not only to revive but to regenerate and start all his life cycle all over again was what atually made it possible to download his katra from Bones and effectively bring Spock back. Basically, a katra is an emergency back-ups system for saving the vulcan's minds. That was my take on it.

  • May 26, 2011, 11:13 a.m. CST

    How long till the next NuTrek Talkback, Asi?

    by Astronut

    Hours would seem like days.............. by the book

  • May 26, 2011, 11:13 a.m. CST

    the Narada was a ripoff of the Shadow vessels from Babylon 5

    by spidercoz

    "a cross between a spider and your worst nightmare"

  • May 26, 2011, 11:25 a.m. CST

    "How many fingers am I holding up?"

    by spidercoz

    "That's not very damn funny."

  • May 26, 2011, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Spock wouldn't Fool around with a Human?

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Somebody earlier in this talk back actually said that. Hello? Leila Kalomi? HELLO? Zarabeth? Do you people even watch this show? If Vulcans didn't fool around with humans: Spock wouldn't exist. And if you go back and watch the first season, Uhura always has her "hailing frequencies open" when Spock is around. In one episode she asks why he never complements her on her looks. In another episode, she actually sings a flirtatious song about him in front of crew members while he accompanies her on that Vulcan instrument. I firmly believe the Spock /Uhura attraction is inherent in the original material. Blasphemous? I'm sure Leonard Nimoy and Nichelle Nichols were tickled by seeing that attraction consummated, even if other actors were doing it instead of them. I could probably find interview quotes to that effect if I wasn't too lazy to look. It sure as hell makes more sense than Nurse Chapel pining for Spock while Spock could care less.

  • May 26, 2011, 12:50 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "Hours would seem like days.............. by the book" Hysterical!

  • May 26, 2011, 12:56 p.m. CST

    Uhura was all over Spock in TOS.

    by AsimovLives

    The inflatuation seems to have died down by the 3rd season. The problem with the Spock/Uhura thing in Abrams TRek is that it pratically came out of nowhere, and it only exists for the sake of a cheesy joke, it's the pun for all those times that Kirk is trying to know Uhura's first name. As if the guy who could reprogram the Kobiashi Maru computer or who was sleeping with Uhura's roommate couldn't get it by other means except direct questioning. Yeah, right. Also, the Spock/Uhura romance in Abrams Tek has the unfortunate implciation that Uhura got her post at the Enpterprise because she armstrong her boyfriend for a post. Instead of behaving like a military and accept her post, she bitched about it to her boyfriend and made him reassign her. And Spock, like a bitch, did it! Uhura is a whore and Spock is her bitch. No, i have not much sympathy for the characters as depicted in Abrams Trek. I would root for Nero, if not for the fact he's such a fucking lame-ass villain. Who i am supposed to root in Abrams Trek, anyway? The black hole?

  • May 26, 2011, 12:58 p.m. CST

    mattman, one question:

    by AsimovLives

    Do vulcans only pork out during the pon far, or they can do it anytime? Becasue if it's only during pon far, Uhura had to wait 7 years for her next Spock meat injection.

  • ...examples, Cardassians/Bajorans, Ba'ku/Son'a,, okampa/Kazon...Other evil looking dudes Klingons, Borg, Gorn, list goes on and on

  • May 26, 2011, 1:13 p.m. CST

    Nichelle Nichols on Uhura/Spock relationship in TOS

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    "(In Abrams movie)Kirk was hitting on her a couple of times and he was hitting on everybody else because he was cute- and he knew it. She shined him off, but Spock fascinated her, her serious side. Now, this is me making my story on what happened, but he saw in her his human side and she touched a side of him that they were supposedly discreet about. Now, go back to my participation in Star Trek as Uhura and Leonard as Spock. There was always a connection between Uhura and Spock. It was the early 60's, so you couldn't do what you can do now, but if you will remember, Uhura related to Spock. When she saw the captain lost in space out there in her mirror it was Spock who consoled her when she went screaming out of her room. When Spock needed an expert to help save the ship, you remember that Uhura put something together and related back to him the famous words "I don't know if I can do this. I'm afraid." And Uhura was the only one who could do a spoof on Spock. Remember the song (in 'Charlie X')? Those were the hints as far as I'm concerned."

  • ...I know the cubes don't have traditional shield, rather heals like a living organism, but surely it would need some kind of protective hull to withstand the stress of faster than light space travel. Practical, I wouldn't say so, not at all, not for a star ship.

  • May 26, 2011, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Leonard Nimoy on Spock/Uhura in ST(2009)

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    "I was bemused by it when I read it in the script. I was amazed by it when I saw it on screen. I thought it was incredible... I was very jealous."

  • May 26, 2011, 1:38 p.m. CST

    Karl Urban on Spock/Uhura

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    "If I may just express some of my Star Trek knowledge here, there was, I do remember, one particular episode where Spock was playing, what was that instrument?... And Uhura was singing and caressing his ears, and it was one of the most hypnotic scenes in the original series. So I think, while that relationship wasn't developed, it certainly was there in subtext."

  • May 26, 2011, 2:16 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Why would a mining factory ship look like an evil spider? What's the logic in that? I know you love the movie,but admit it, the ship just looks like it does so it can look scary and EEEVIL!!! Instant villianry, just add water.

  • May 26, 2011, 2:19 p.m. CST

    "Uhura is a whore and Spock is her bitch."

    by Jake Pantlin

    Well, I wouldn't go that far... lol. Uhura knew that she was the most qualified person for that posting, and Spock chose to put her on another ship. In that case, Spock was the one in the wrong. The fact that the interpretor he assigned for the Enterprise didn't know the Romulan languages, and Uhura did, firmly illustrates that point. I would say in this case, that young Spock was thinking about what was best and easiest for him, and not what was best for the ship. Uhura was right to call him on it. It also goes to show that young Spock was not ready for command. Neither was Captain Kidd... er... Kirk. If anyone should have been made Captain it should have been --- Captain Pike! So what if he is in a wheelchair? It's suppose to be the 23rd century! The wheelchair should not have prevented him from staying on board as Captain (the film never states if this is a permanent condition). A starship Captain doesn't have to beam down on every away mission - a First Officer can do that for him. It was an easy cop out. Sure, it was a nod to TOS by having him in a wheelchair... how cute... but that didn't mean he had to be assigned a desk job on Earth. He was still more than capable of being Captain of a starship, where maturity and intelligence are what is most needed by a Captain.

  • May 26, 2011, 2:20 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Those races are evil because they have funny facial protuberance? That's racist, dude. In fact many times ST takes pains for us the viewer to see beyond appearance. A lesson that Abrams has yet to learn.

  • May 26, 2011, 2:22 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    In Abrams Trek, Kirk acts like how Picard was when he was a young cadete at the Academy. Abrams and Co goofed up and they put Picard's youth in Kirk's. What's in Abrams Trek is not Kirk but a young Picard like 30 years before he was even born.

  • ...I mean come on, they would never have made the Bajorans look like Carbassians, So'ma like Ba'ku etc etc...They often make the bad guys look more alien and grotesque, and the good guys look pretty, you can't deny it

  • May 26, 2011, 2:28 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You think in space a hull would need to be sleek and stramlined? Sea ships and airplanes are strreamlined and alongated in design because for aerodynamics and hydriodynamics. They are shaped to offer the elast resistance to the mediaum they travel in. Same with cars, who have to be aerodymanic as well. To what a spaceship need to be aerodynamic to? It's travels in vaccum. A spaceship willeb shaped to the form that will be the most convinient and efficient. a spaceship will be shaped like a cube, a sphere or a cylinder if that's the shape that most serves it and offers the better spatial efficiency. You get your ass that future spaceships will not look like sleek rockets, but will be purely functional looking, and a cube is an excelent functional shape. Sorry to ruin your romantic dreams of the future of space traveling vehicles.

  • May 26, 2011, 2:28 p.m. CST

    That's Racist dude ha ha ha, come on!

    by FreeBeer

  • May 26, 2011, 2:28 p.m. CST

    "I was very jealous."

    by AsimovLives

    Is Nimoy tired of being married to Michael Bay's cousin?

  • May 26, 2011, 2:33 p.m. CST

    "Why would a mining factory ship look like an evil spider?"....

    by FreeBeer

    ...I'm not saying it was made specifically to look like an evil spider, it was made to look I'm look ugly and imposing like a factory or power station, a big machine rather than a sleek exploration ship, interceptor or war vessel

  • ...No Asimov, but it would need a smooth hull with no fissures in order to achieve faster than light speed surely, or else it would be torn apart

  • Spock never returned it, but one can tell that the attention that he got from her amused him. In the episode "Charlie X" where Spock plays his harp and Uhura sings a bawdry song, she makes no effort to hide the sexual nature of her song and to whom it's addressed. It makes for quite a funny moment. And it also shows that Michelle Nichols, before she was an actress, was a trained singer and dancer (Josephine Baker is her idol). I think that having Uhura and Spock have their "relationship" merely platonic and uncorresponded on Spock's side was a nice tough of the show. Making it into a real relationshion in Abrams Trek is just one of those things that the movie suffers from, it's bluntness and it's literalness. Nothing can be subtle and understated in Star Trek now, everything has to be blunt and on-your-face, thanks to Abrams. Another reason why he's so wrong for Star Trek and why his movie is so wrong and bad. That guy did nothing right in the movie.

  • ...Not romantic, realistic. Sure, space craft travel in a vacuum, a cube would no protective hull would be just fine if it wasn't for the stresses of faster than light speed upon it, would tear itself apart.

  • May 26, 2011, 2:53 p.m. CST

    Star Trek ships travel at Warp; they are not FTL

    by Jake Pantlin

    They don't travel faster than light. At best starships travel at sub-light speeds when not at warp. The ship rests in a "bubble" of normal space as it travels through warp. The idea of warping space is that it is a way of traveling "faster than light" by warping space, creating a short cut for the ship to pass through. The actual ship is not traveling faster than light. Essentially, it is creating an artificial wormhole.

  • May 26, 2011, 2:57 p.m. CST


    by spidercoz

    So the fact that AlternaKirk grew up without a father would have no impact on his life? I'd say the difference is pretty spot on.

  • lol what the fuck? it will torn apart from what forces?

  • .....I also presume a ship would be longer rather than taller, so that the entrance to the worm hole could be as small as possible. The larger the worm hole the more power required, so building a space craft like a tower block wouldn't be very efficient. Then again, we're all talking out our arses here, nobody knows what the ideal design for a subspace traveling craft would be.

  • Good call because they were my top three favorite Trek Films of all time and the irony would be that these films were based on the original series/ensemble cast not the fluff that is derived from JJ's version and certainly not that Next Generation crap. (well, first contact was OK for a Terminator ripoff.) and notice that all three had the most memorable villians from the charismatic Khan singh to Christopher Plummer's Vengefu Shakesperian Chang ("Cry havoc, and let loos the dogs of war"!!!) another reason why TUC stood out to me was due to the political intrige and Kirk dealing with his inner demons (his animosity towards the Klingons.) A perfect swan song from the original cast only for TNG Generations to shit on Kirk's legacy.

  • May 26, 2011, 3:09 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Again you are thinking of rockets. Are you certain that classic rocketry is what will put us to the stars? I don't think so.

  • May 26, 2011, 3:14 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    He greaw up with a great father figure: Captain Pike. So you think that just because a guy grows up without a biological father will automatically turn into a macontent? That's storytelling for retards. You know what's another retard thing in Abrams Tek? Why didn't Wynona kirk married Pike? why did she married some guy who antagonized with his son? Did her hubby's death stole her wits? Bullshit! That this Nukirk asshole became an asshole because he didn0't grew up with a biological father HE NEVER KNEW is scriptwriting for retards. It's stupid, it's dumb, it's idiotic, and it's cliched beyond belief! It's a cliché older then the hills. Poor NuKirky not having a father so he became a punk-ass asshole, that crap doesn't convince me in the slightest. It's stupid and lazy.

  • May 26, 2011, 3:15 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Considering that subspace doesn't exist, so no.

  • May 26, 2011, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Asi, What's up amigo?

    by Stalkeye

    ope you had a blast on your Birthday. (Any spirits/wines during your celebration?) Anyways, on to business: " the Spock/Uhura romance in Abrams Tek has the unfortunate implciation that Uhura got her post at the Enpterprise because she armstrong her boyfriend for a post. Instead of behaving like a military and accept her post, she bitched about it to her boyfriend and made him reassign her. And Spock, like a bitch, did it! Uhura is a whore and Spock is her bitch." Now I know why you had such a disdain for NU Trek's Uhura.(or Uwhorera as you may her. LOL) That post was funny and it has merit due to the fact that the relationship between Spock and Uhura was blatant and felt a bit forced. Now I can't comment on the suble feelings the two had between each other in TOS, Since it's been well over decades since I have seen the series. (wasn't a Trekie fan.) but from what i have read in your posts, yeah the in-your-face-relatiionship was unwarranted. Good analysis (as usual)

  • ...but as I said, when it comes to this stuff we're all talking out our arses. Nobody knows what the ideald esign would be

  • May 26, 2011, 3:35 p.m. CST

    ok asi...

    by spidercoz

    I guess it's totally unprecedented in the history of mankind that a boy who never knew his real father would grow up rebellious. Add a stepfather and, well, I don't know how it is in whatever goat-herding land you come from, but in these parts it's all too common for stepparents and stepkids to not get along. And Pike? Yeah that makes sense. You're assuming Pike had a personal relationship with Kirk's family. The only thing ever said or even implied was that Pike knew George beforehand, compiled the report of the destruction of the Kelvin and then took an interest in Kirk after the fact.

  • May 26, 2011, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Subspace is basically inspired by quantum theory

    by FreeBeer

  • May 26, 2011, 3:47 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You know that compact shapes have more structural strengh then others which are made of different proportions, don't you? A cube is a compact shape. So, more structirally sound then the rocket or scary spiders shapes you prefer and by some fancy you believe to be more realistic. Which aren't.

  • May 26, 2011, 3:51 p.m. CST

    "Nobody knows what the ideald esign would be"

    by AsimovLives

    No, not nobody. You. don't project what you do not know uinto others. There's this people who are very good at doing calculations called SCIENTISTS who can do what you think nobody can. I trake my inspiration for knowledge about the future os spacecrafts from those scientists. You take it from JJ Abrams. I wonder who might be closer to the truth?

  • ...And as I said, we're all talking out our arses because NOBODY KNOWS what the best design for a interstellar traveling star ship would be

  • May 26, 2011, 3:55 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The birthday was OK. It was a day well spent, with family and friends. The best part was by rhe end , for diner i took two pals for a drive, we went through a mountain winding road and arrived at this city called Setúbal whose speciality is seafood. The car ride was quite nice because i have a VW Eos, which is a cabrio (i think you call it a convertible, it's also sold in the USA and they ar all made in my country Portugal). So we opened the top and and we drove through a mountain's winding road, totally chilling out and enjoying the moment. A good way to enjoy the last rays of sun of the day. It was a good day.

  • May 26, 2011, 3:57 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I know not enough of TNG to have a definitive opinion of it. I heard that it had a slow start, took it's time to find it's own footing, and that while there are brillant episodes, there's also as many pretty bad ones. I do admit, i do like Captain Jean-Luc Picard. I might like him better then Kirk. Picard sounds more like my kinda guy.

  • May 26, 2011, 3:59 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Valid scientific theory? You mean HYPOTHESIS which have yet to be verified, don't you? Where you learned about this verified theories? From Bob Orci's salespitch bullshit? You are learning science from Orci?

  • Same can be pretty much said of Star Trek TOS I'm afraid AsimovLives. I love all Trek show bar Voyager and Enterprise, but all have their fair share of stinkers. Not every episode was a min 2001 Space Odyessy, many were just plain silly Flash Gordon or cowboys and indians stuff with nothing at all meaningful to say.

  • May 26, 2011, 4:04 p.m. CST

    "those spidery arms are probably for used for the mining process"

    by AsimovLives

    For what? For grabbing? What would be the use of long arms to a miles wide asteroid? All the ship would need was to land on it, nothing more. And in a future civilization which they play with gravity liek a toy, what's the need of those arms? to grab for dear life on the asteroid? It's bullshit, man! The only reason why the Narada looks like it does is, yes,to look frightning. Becasue that's how hacks like Orci and abrams do,they go forthe simpliest shortroute way. Wht have the trouble to write a convincing dangerous villain, when all you need is him commanding a ship that looks liek a spider. God forbid the size alone not being intimidating! The Narada design is another of the exaples and clues of the movie's terriblines, and how low the filmmakers think of their own audience. "See, this ship is eeevil,. it looks like spider! BE AFFRAID!!!!" Go suck a lemon, Orci and Abrams!

  • Um, yeah AsimovLives, hypothesis yet to be proven is EXACTLY what THEORY means. That's why it's called a theort. And no, I learned this stuff off some guy called Stephen Hawking, you might have heard of him?

  • May 26, 2011, 4:11 p.m. CST

    um, no, that's not what a theory is

    by spidercoz

    a theory in the scientific sense is a formalized model that has withstood testing and observation

  • Where's that? Snow-Whiteland? Kids who are from families where the dadis not their biological dad they became automatically rebelious about their stepfathers? What kind of morons live in your place? Do those retards take their life lessons from dumb ass stupid movies? Sicne when a guiy being a stefather instrad of a biological fathe rmakes him less apt to raise a family? That shit hapepnsij dumb ass stupid crap movies and TV shows. It's short-cut storyterlling for morons! It's moronic and cliched. Yeah, because just because a fella is a biological father he's suddently perfectly equiped to be a great dad, and a stepfather is unable to raise a child. What bullshit! NuKirk being a rebelious asshole because he was raised without a biological father is just stupid. It's storytelling for morons. Those hacks Abrams and Orci wanted to make Kirk into Picard and just couldn't come up with a reason for his rebeliousness so they come up with the oldest cliche in the book. Instant drama, just add water. God forbid that Kirk would had a rebelious streak because, like, he is rebelious by nature, without some lame ass contrived bullshit cliché faux excuse like "poor little orphan nancy". Poor little orphan Kirky!! Poor Kirky boy!!! It's all ass, that's what it is. Everything in Abrams Trek reads like a parody. Only it's supposed to be taken seriously, instead of the joke that it is.

  • May 26, 2011, 4:19 p.m. CST

    dude, you sound like an idiot

    by spidercoz

    you're twisting words around, changing cause for effect, and making up arguments wait, are you Glenn Beck?

  • May 26, 2011, 4:20 p.m. CST

    quantum theory, the new magic.

    by AsimovLives

    I wonder how many times Orci and Kurtzman come up with half-arsed quantum theory for their show Fringe to "expain" the stuff that shows up in it. Hell, the show already makes a bullshit use of the concept of fringe science for it's own title. Pseudo from Pseudoscience should be it's title. Quantum theory, or rather, the complete misunderstanding ad misuse of it, it for today what genetics were in the 1990s and atomic radiation was in the 1950s 60s. Magicking bullshit based on science that they know nothing about. You have to present some nonsensical explaantion for why this stuff is happening in this episode? Just pop quantum theory, that will do. Quantum theory, just add water.

  • Why would a cop in the ST universe need to be fully armoured from head to toe on Earth? What kind of a plac eis that where Kirk grw up? Is it fully inhabited by the marauders from MAD MAX? Everybody is shooting each other all over he place? The place is a warzone? What the fuck is the deal with the fully armoured cop? Again, the armoured cop is another example of how completly clueless that Abrams Team is about the ST universe. I wonder what excuses the Abrams Fans will bring now to justify Abrams's cluelessness and not-give-a-shit attitude to this movie.

  • In the same universe where space traveling is banal and a daily occurence. JJ Abrams, the master of coherence. NOT!

  • Abrams a creative genious my ass!!

  • JJ should have just had young brat Kirk go over the cliff and put the movie out of our collective miseries right then and there.

  • About Chekov, yep he was on the lower decks with a HUGE crush on Masters(Khan's girlfriend). He even confronted him, and Khan properly humiliated him. I think she was his tutor. Speaking of tutor's, Savik(who is half Romulan, hence crying and shocked emotions) was Scotty's nephews tutor. Apparently he was crushing hard on Savik(as was I), and wanted to see her before he died. You know, for what its worth. Still, retcon is retcon.

  • May 26, 2011, 5:21 p.m. CST

    asi, you're the parody

    by spidercoz

    you have ranted yourself retarded

  • May 26, 2011, 6:59 p.m. CST

    Now here is some cool Trek news!

    by Jake Pantlin

  • May 26, 2011, 7:09 p.m. CST

    ST III being so uneven

    by DougMcKenzie

    I guess the biggest problem is when you get down to it, is that the story and script were not enough for a feature length film, and that caused a lot of the "all over the place" aspect it has. The set pieces like the stealing of and destruction of the ENT are the heart of the story, but the rest was all padding and most of it did not work. Also for the younger TBers, imagine walking into a movie and seeing Jerry Seinfeld or Ray Romano as the heavy and you will understand why us older people had such a problem with Lloyd as Kruge. He's too broad and hammy and not the least menacing. For us he is so identifiable as a sitcom actor that it's hard to imagine him doing anything else.

  • May 26, 2011, 7:44 p.m. CST

    Lloyd was awesome as Kruge!

    by Jake Pantlin

    One of the better Trek villians in the films, without a doubt. 1. Khan 2. General Chang 3. Commander Kruge 4. Borg Queen ______ 5. Nero 6. Soran 7. Shinzon 8. Ru'afo (Son'a) I don't consider Sybok a villian, so I didn't list him. He was just misguided, and may have even been receiving telepathic messages from the false "god" to go to the center of the galaxy.

  • Dude, again! Trek has been using pseudo science since its fucking inception, if you're going to diss the new Trek for using "magic" science then you should diss almost every Star Trek episode since day one!

  • ...Quantum theory? String theory? Many of the greatest minds on the planet agree on these "hypothesis", just because they havn't been proven to be true doesn't mean their not accurate. And also, I MAY WELL be talking out my ass, but so is AsimovLives, so i'm in very good company!

  • ...There really is way, way, way, way, way, WAY more to life. And I've just realised I've spent a retarded amount of my time justifying your loser-esque lunacy. Let us eat cake god fucking damn it!!

  • May 26, 2011, 8:30 p.m. CST

    Sorry Asi, didn't mean it friend, quite, quite drunk

    by FreeBeer

  • ...I'm not "projecting" anything, I'm stating a fucking fact. There isn't a scientist in the world who can predict what craft would be best suited for the kind of interstellar travel depicted in Star Trek, because scientists don't even know if it's possible yet, and certainly don't know what kind of forces they would have to build such a craft to withstand. They can predict what current space craft might evolve into, craft that use our present means of propulsion, craft that can travel only so fast using thrust. If youre saying there is even one scientist that has suggested we need a bird or a fucking cube to travel faster than light or through worm holes you're a god damn liar. (And a whole lot of the criticisms you lay down at Abram's feet can be applied to previous incarnations of Trek. e.g making the villains look EEEVIIIL, exploiting "magical" Quantum Theory. Course, when somebody points this out to you you seem to ignore them)

  • May 26, 2011, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Another Khan plot hole was...

    by NoHubris

    ...that it's out of character for Khan to be such a horrific failure in exile based on everything that was said (and written) about the extraordinary super human abilities he had, along with each and every member of his entire botany bay crew.

  • May 26, 2011, 11:18 p.m. CST


    by Coordinate_System

    "Ahh, the pains of age. I'm starting to feel those myself, too, my friend. Sure, it's just 40, but it's like the anterchamber of old age, isn't it? " It sure is. But what the heck, I've had a good run. "Well, seems the production designer, for once, had the right idea." Unfortunately, the designs for the bridge are an ergonomic/Human Factors nightmare. Much better suited as an arcade rather than a vessel's command center. As for the TMP's Enterprise, I love that ship. Kirk's view of the Warp Core, while looking down from an upper catwalk, is just great, although I would prefer a *blue* Cherenkov radiation-like glow instead of a white one (however, in reality you really wouldn't want to see that first hand).

  • May 26, 2011, 11:31 p.m. CST


    by Coordinate_System

    I like this explanation of warp drive: Less math intensive explanation:

  • May 26, 2011, 11:51 p.m. CST

    Asi...hows it going dude? i See the old trek

    by southafricanguy

    debate/war is still ongoing lol.... I dont hate JJ's trek the way you do, but reading some of your posts It is indeed hard top argue that nothing seems to have had much logical thought attached to it. Indeed, why the fuck is the policeman wearing armour out in the middle of the midwest farming country in a utopian future? And why the hell is a mining vessel designed and equipped like the Narada is? Orci and Kurtzman said that Borg tech was used to make it...but that alone begs the question of why the fuck would the Romulans use captured Borg tech on a mining vessel? Anyway.....

  • May 26, 2011, 11:51 p.m. CST

    Asi...Btw..did you ever check out Deep Space 9?

    by southafricanguy

  • May 27, 2011, 12:01 a.m. CST

    My trek list is 1) UC , trek at its best imho, acting

    by southafricanguy

    as a mirrot to real world events and making comments on them, plus I like when trek hops into other genres such as a murder mystery... 2) WOK, what can be said? Great villain, good thematic material, good character work etc.. 3) FC, while it is a bit flawed, the Borg are simply the best adversial alien race ever presented in trek imho. They are actually scary, and a real threat to the federation, sure its pretty much a rip off of Aliens, but its one of the best rip offs of Aliens. And besides, if you are going to steal..steal from the best.... 4) SFS, imho it has indeed aged a bit bad, but its such a companion piece to WOK, that it simply has to be watched together, and it does a fairly nice job of carrying forward the themes and ideas from WOK. Not great, but still good. 5) TMP so long as its Wise's director's cut, which imho fixed a lot of the problems with the theatrical version. Its pacing is somewhat tighter, the characters are better fleshed out, and the new little fx touches are nice. The crew appear to be from a different tv show as they are so damn stiff, and the production design is often just FUGLY (sooo 70s leisure suit..), but the model work is indeed spectacular..

  • May 27, 2011, 12:06 a.m. CST

    6) TVH....yeah, its a biy goofy, but the thing about

    by southafricanguy

    trek was always its ability to switch to other genres, and it suprisingly works as a comedy. Plus, imho it works as a conclusion to the story started in WOK.... And...well I dont really rate the others as being all that good. generations, Insurrection, Nemesis, and the final frontier are all just simply bad. They have some moments, but they are pretty much embarressing for any trek fan to watch with non-fans with all the lame shit in there.....

  • May 27, 2011, 12:14 a.m. CST

    And JJ's Trek? Well....I kind of liked it when I first

    by southafricanguy

    saw it, but I found that the more i thought about the film, the more glaring the plot holes, and lack of logic became. Plus, I dont like that it really is just a remake of Star Wars.... I still think its fun, I like fx, the score was fairly good, and that the one thing JJ got absolutely right was the cast. Aside from Pegg, who was a terrible Scotty for me, every one of the actors nailed their parts. Pine suprised the hell out of me, as I thought no-one could ever replace the Shat. Quinto was good, but no Nimoy, Urban was a revelation as Bones (I never would have thought a Kiwi could convince as a Southern country doctor..), Saldana was a good modernized version of Uhura, Cho was a good Sulu..etc.. Now if we can just get someone else other than Orci and Kurtzman...and Lindelof for that write a good script for trek, then we could have something really awsome with this cast....

  • May 27, 2011, 2:14 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    It's easy to call me retard if you don't pay attention to what is said and you hare fanatically devoted to a dumb movie filled with bad decisions. That's just too easy.

  • May 27, 2011, 2:17 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    That retcon was basically made void when Meyers' himself admited that it was a goof he did with Khan remembering Chekov. He admited to the mistake and did it publically in his audio comentary for WTK. With all the regular crew people to chose, he just picked the only wrong one. what's the odds of that? It was just bad luck. Meyers, like many, including me a while back, we jsut assumed that Chekov was there from the begining. He's such an integral part ofthe enterprise crew, he's such apart of ST it does come as a suprise to many, like me, that he only showed up in the second season.

  • May 27, 2011, 2:22 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I'm sorry, but Lloyd playued a very good vilalin in ST3. And just he fact the actor was once better know for a comedy role is not a suficient reason to be taken out ofthe scene. I knew Lloyd before with the Back To The Future movies (i only saw ST3 the same year that ST4 was released). It still didn't ruin it for me. So what if the actor was once ebtter know for a comedy role? If i had to go by that, then i couldn't have enjoyed THE TRUMAN SHOW because the lead role was played by a guy who made two movies whenre he talked with his ass. Or i couldn't enjoy ONE HOUR PHOTO bwecause the lead character was played by a guy who before had dressed as a midle-aged english nanny. Nonsense! Kruge is a really good villain and Lloyd played him to the nines.

  • May 27, 2011, 2:25 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    What you do not know is that half the stuff said in technobabble of the ST actually exists and do have the similiar efftrcs that the characters blab about. The only difference is that we can't do the pratical effects to them that they can. To your suprise, most of the technobabble is actually based on known science. Of course, later shows like Voyager started to abuse it so much they entered into Bob Orci territory. Btu before that, yeah, much of the technobabble actually makes sense, if only because in ST they can actually put it to practice, which we can't today. What you do not udnerstand is that a lot of though went inot the makingof the older Star Treks, instead of Abrams Trek on which none was.

  • May 27, 2011, 3:08 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Do you know what theory actually means? And i mean the scientific term, not the colloqual term that everybody misuses. And the difference between theory and hypothesis?

  • May 27, 2011, 3:11 a.m. CST

    and freebeer...

    by AsimovLives

    ... as for the harsh language, forget it. I didn't took it as an insult. I decided to be more civil with everybody and avoid as much childish name calling as i can (though task, but i'm comited). Think nothing of it, friend, really. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't be friendly. Just because we are passionate about our posistions doesn't mean we can't be friendly. It's all cool, friend. And i hope the booze was good.

  • May 27, 2011, 3:22 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Worst yet about the Borg explanation is that since in Abrams Trek, the future events are set EVEN BEFORE TNG, it means the Borg had not yet entered the galaxy quadrants occupied by the federation and the romulan and klingon empires. I don't know much about DS9, i'm affraid, with the exception of a few episodes here and there. I watched the Tribbles eposide, which was an hommage to the TOS, and a very funny one at that.

  • So lil Kirk almost crashed and fell into an abyss with his car. He jumped at he alst moment and still was draged and almost fell to his death. The armoured cop finally arrives and what does he do? Does he rush to see if Lil kirk is injurd and needs medical assistence? Does he call the medic corps for urgent assistence for possible physical injuries and psychological trauma? "The kid might be injured, i should call for medical assistence. Nahh, fuck the kid! I'll just bust his balls!" So, instea dof the cop doing what any cop would do in such a sytuation in which a kid almost died, no, the armoured cop just goes on his most evil Robocop voice and bust Lil Kirk's balls. Really, who the hell write this crap? Who the hell writes this crap? It's one thing to write simple unambitious lightweight entertaiment, it's another to write dumb ass stupidity.

  • May 27, 2011, 3:58 a.m. CST

    southafricanguy, you know what is sad?

    by AsimovLives

    What's sad about Abrams Trek is that it is possible to make a good story out of the premises they presented in that movie. There's some elements in it that if there had been put some though to them it could make for the basis is a simple but effective movie. If they had weeded out the bullshit, taken out the Michael Bay and the Felicity crap, and given the story to be developed by other people other then Orci, Kurtzman and Liddendorff (and Abrams for that matter), and ersa the self-contraditory nonsense, the coincidence nonsense, and all that stuff that clahses with what's known about ST, and a good simple story could be made, one that could restart ST but without pissing all over the legacy. And it would be so easy to do that. It's all there. All it would take wa a bunch of creatives who would give a shit, who cared for this movie other then just using it as a career springboard. People who would believe in what they were doing. Is that too much to ask?

  • ...What I was trying to say, clumsily I admit, was that String Theory, Quantum Theory are valid theorys, just because they haven't been proven practically doesn't mean it's "magic" science. They are widely accepted thoerys. And come'on man, a giant hand made out of energy was based on solid science? More so than anything in Abram's Trek? Sorry, did you ever see Star Trek before? Lots of "magic" science in that my friend. And yes, the beer was most good!

  • ...Doesn't Cowboys and Aliens look pretty awesome? I agree Orci and Kurtz.. aren't the greatest writers in the world, hell I fucking hate the Transformers films, but I did enjoy Iron Man and Trek (hated Transformers with a passion though, but I was never a fan of the sours ematerial anyway. A cartoon series written for the soul purpose of selling toys? Not the classic people make it out to be I'm afraid.) I find it nuts how heatedly I am arguing the virtues of NuTrek considering it is far, far from being even in my top 100 movies of all time, I guess your incomprehensible hatred of the harmless summer movie that is really no worse than most blockbusters just brings out the barrister in me.

  • ....something along those lines, I get the jist anyways. Isn't this a movie site anyways?

  • May 27, 2011, 11:10 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The science of Star Trek, of classic Star Trek, is extrapolation of the time's science and put in a time where it could be pratically used. This might sound weird, but in fact the idea of Star Trek was to depict an accurate future set in a few centuries from now. Accurante in the way Roddenberry and his team believe how society and science would march on. Your explanation of theory is good enough. i think the problem so many of us have is to see the diffeenc between what's a theory and what's theoretical physics. The usual problem is that non-scientists take this definitions, which in scienc ehave precise meanings, and they take them from their own colloquial definition of those terms, like theory. This is why we have those creationists who think they are making a big point in their argument when they say that Evolution is just a theory. Yes it is, as much as, say, the theory of gravity or the theory of electromagnetism. I really liked IRON MAN. No, it didn't had the same team of writers as ABRAMS TREK. Thank goodness! IRON MAN is precisely what i say about a good entertaiment mvie that can be fun without being dumb, that treats it's audience with the respect it deserves. IRON MAN is fun. Abrams Trek isn't. If Abrams Trek is to be compared with Iron Man, is only to point out in what Abrams Tek failed, and what Iron Man did right. "Isn't this a movie site anyways?" The beauty of the subject of movies is that it can spread into any other subject in existence. Movies can be a made about everything there is. Everything can be made into a movie. Why do you think i'm as much a movie geek as well a SF, an astronomy and history geek as well? It's all related.

  • May 27, 2011, 11:11 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You know, i'm loving this polite conversations we are having lately. The hell if we agree with each other or not. Who cares, really? The chat is what matters.

  • May 27, 2011, 12:10 p.m. CST

    and it's not agreed to be correct, it's PROVED to be correct.

    by AsimovLives

  • May 27, 2011, 1:38 p.m. CST

    What is a scientific theory [from Wikipedia]

    by KilliK

    A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1] A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2] In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment. The term theoretical The term theoretical is sometimes informally used in lieu of hypothetical to describe a result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been adequately tested by observation or experiment. It is not uncommon for a theory to produce predictions that are later confirmed or proven incorrect by experiment. By inference, a prediction proved incorrect by experiment demonstrates the hypothesis is invalid. This either means the theory is incorrect, or the experimental conjecture was wrong and the theory did not predict the hypothesis. I hope the above will clarify for you the things a bit about what is scientific theory and what not.

  • ...But Iron Man was just as silly no? When Jeff Bridges yells "Stark managed to build this with a box of scraps" I actual thought to myself "Actually, thats kind of dumb." I mean it would be the equivalent of someone building a nuclear reactor using bits and pieces, thought that was as silly as anything in NuTrek

  • ...I DO like Iron Man, but it has as many flaws and dumb plot points as NuTrek, so I don't really understand how you can hate one and not the other

  • May 27, 2011, 4:24 p.m. CST

    nope,you are wrong there freebeer.

    by KilliK

    Tony just built his armor and was eager to test it.Jarvis warned him that they should take into account all the variables before taking the suit for flight,but Tony the brash guy he was,ignored him and flew away. Stark is a multi-dimensional character,he is not simply genius.So his actions doesn have to follow logic and common sense the whole time. So yeah that's is not a plothole,on the contrary it is an inspired script moment which exposes some aspects of Stark's multi-layered personality.

  • May 27, 2011, 8:32 p.m. CST

    Freebeer you keep misinterpreting the scenes in the film

    by KilliK

    Tony when he wore the mark2,NON-finalized, suit for the first time,he wanted to do a quick flight test with it.And as we see in the movie, he did just that by flying in low height where the freezing problem was non-existent. Then he got carried away with his excitement and tried to break the high height flying record in his experimental suit. It is not that he wore the suit from the start to do exactly that,to break the record, but at the same time he ignored such an important safety factor.He was simply being careless and excited with this new experience during his flight test,and last time i checked that is not a plothole. As the freezing problem with Ironmonger is concerned,yeah that is a plothole.From the moment that the scientists gave to the armor the capability to fly in high heights,they knew the problems that arise in those heights during flying and they should have added the necessary protection against those problems. so yeah that is a plothole,but in Tony's there is none.

  • ...Don't know how Stark could just add it in later, seems like he would have to build a new suit from scratch.

  • All the 24 satellintes that make the global position system orbit the Earth at a geostationary orbit 10,000 kilometers high. To mantain that orbit, they have to travel fast. And as the theory of relativity shows, the faster you travel the slower time is for the traveller. As all those satelittes have internal clocks, they have to compensate for the discrepency that they have with the clocks on Earth. And it does add up quite a lot. A year they accumulate almost an hour of differenc,e that that difference, if it wasn't compensated, would make the whole GPs system useless.

  • May 28, 2011, 2:51 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "As for not outrunning an old car... who says he couldn't? What was he supposed to do, get in front of it with his little bike and get run over?" If it was a robot and if getting him overrun would prevent a kid from being into a dangerous syteuation, as he surely would know, given where the id was going, yeah,that would be the proper course of action. Robots in ST are notorious for their penchance for self-sacrifice. Vague my ass, that's a guy in a armour suit, not a robot. Abrams can kiss my ass with his claims of vagueness. It's not vague. Abrams can't do subtle. Not the guy who co-wrote Regarding Henry and Armageddon. He wouldn't know how to do it. And you are right,that whole scene is absolutly unnecessary. What we learn of Kirk in that scene we also learn in the later bar scene when he first meets Uhura, and they achieved the same with just a few lines of dialogue. there was no need for what must had been an expensive car chase sequence which involved so much logistics and special effects. It's one of the reason why i say this movie is so badly though out and so badly made. This is the kind of stuff that should had been cut off right at the scriptwriting phase. The movie is not bad because it is a silly armoured cop. Or an unnecessary car chase. Or a brewery as an engine room. Or dodgy dialogue every 5 minutes. Individually they are just bad patches. But the movie is terrible because of the whole combination of all those bad things which add up. And as is the case, a collection of terrible dumb decisions throughout the movie is more then just the sum of it's parts. They all far outweight the supposedly good things one could find in the movie. Time will be harsh on this movie. If it's lucky, the movie will be ignored and if anybody will bother to even comenton it, is merely as a curio, as a weird tangent inthe history of The Star Trek Franchise.

  • May 28, 2011, 2:59 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    My take on Bridge's character is that he's kinda like Bill Gates. Bridge's characrer mgith had been a scientist once, and he still retains some of his science knowledge, but he has spent so much time in the executive office he's now an executive and not a scientist anymore. As is aid, that's my comparison with Bill Gates, who's that. Gates is seen as this programing genious, but in fact he was always more a salesman and a executive then a programer and computer technicial itself. I think that's what the movie aims at. Stark, for all his womanizing and bad biy antics, he's still very close and very into the science and technological side of things, he's still works as a scientist. Bridge's character was a suite. He was far behind Stark, so much so he needed a team to build a suite for him, he couldn't evne know wehere to beging, possessing only the barest theoretical knowledge about it. Adn this is why Iron Man works. It was actually well though out. Abrasm Trek had no though to it. Iron Man is not a silly movie. It's a proper fun movie with a fantastic but fun concept, as they should be. The word silly is terribly over-used here, and misused about too many movies like Iron Man. It's as if people are excusing terrible movies by lumping them together with really good movies that work like Iron Man. And then call Iron Man silly too in the hope to make the bad movies look good thanks to the company. But that's wrong and it doesn't work.

  • May 28, 2011, 3:03 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    My take ism that if evne Stark couldn't predict the seriousness of the frezzing problem and it only became aparent when he tested it, then the other guys who made Bridge's shite, who the whole bunch of them could even compete with Stark in a cave,then i'm not suprised they hadn't figured out the frezzign problem as well. And remember, in the movie, Bridges also uses his suite untested. So there's that. He's at the same phase as wehn Stark was when he did his first test run. Consider that. As a screenplay, Iron Man really works. It's not a masterpeice of the craft, but it's quite thigh and well thoughout, and not the dumb rush job of Abrams Trek. The people who wrote Iron Man actually knew what they are doing.

  • No i wouldn't. Those guys have nifty tools in the ST universe, starting with the tricorder. With that line, you just proved you still are not too well aware of the nature of my objections and criticism of Abrams Trek.

  • ...Really, why cant you read?

  • ...Not saying that is the case, but how do you know otherwise?

  • ROFL what? have seen at all the movie before criticizing it,boy? Tony DID make a new suit (or rebuild the previous one),the MARK 3 which was the finalized model without the bugs and the weaknesses. His first test flight was with the MARK 2,he saw the problem with the freezing in high altitude flying and he changed the original materials of the suit with others which would withstand the low temperatures. It's all in the movie boy,next time pay more attention before start complaining about plotholes.

  • ...And so he did rebuild a suit from scratch, my mistake, but doesn't explain why he, or the rival team of scientists didn't incorporate it to begin with. It's a basic, basic feature of any machine designed for high altitude flight. What, they didn't know it get's colder the higher you go up. Anyway, as I said, the one that really bothers me (well, it doesnt' but it's as bad as any ridiculousness in new Trek) is the building an energy reactor in a cave with scraps thing. That, my friend, is dumb. As I say above, far dumber than a hover bike not being able to over take a car, there is no reason to believe it's super fast other than thinking "Hey, it's futuristic, why isn't it zipping past Kirk like Luke Skywalker's convertable?

  • May 29, 2011, 12:41 a.m. CST

    Oh boy....

    by KilliK

    "...And so he did rebuild a suit from scratch, my mistake, but doesn't explain why he, or the rival team of scientists didn't incorporate it to begin with." Because Tony Stark is not specialized in building high altitude aircrafts but electronics and general mechanics as it was clearly shown in his introduction in the award ceremony. Moreover he built a suit who also could fly,not an aircraft aimed to fly on the stratosphere.And it is very clear in the movie during the design and the construction of the suit, that he was clueless and inexperienced as to how to approach and what to expect from the newly incorporated flying capabilities of the suit. In fact if you have read the IM comics,you would know that Tony Stark's armor, despite his genious,was not perfect and had many weaknesses because of unexpected factors that Tony hadnt foreseen while he was designing it. And that was one of the beauties of this comic series,the armor was evolving because of the technology progress and because Tony was determined every time to make the armor better and less vulnerable especially if he was beaten in a combat.At some point he even had different armors for different types of missions: space,water,stealth,underground,etc But then volume 4 came and it fucked everything with the character... So are we clear Freeber that you are wrong to insist that it is plothole that Tony didnt think of the freezing problem beforehand,or are you going to remain on denial? cheerio

  • May 29, 2011, 1:05 a.m. CST

    "Scotty." "Sir?" "The doors Scotty!"

    by Dogmatic

    "Aye sir, I'm workin' on it!" Rare look of panic on Kirk's face......I don't care what anyone says ST3 is 5th on my list behind ST2, ST6, ST reboot and ST:G

  • May 29, 2011, 1:06 a.m. CST

    "Maximum transwarp drive in 5,4,3,2,1....weearrrbloop

    by Dogmatic

  • May 29, 2011, 1:07 a.m. CST

    Last of if not the best line of all the ST films...

    by Dogmatic

    "My God Bones. What HAVE I done?" "What you had to do, Jim. What you always do. Turn death into a fighting chance to live." LOVE that line.

  • May 29, 2011, 2:03 p.m. CST

    Nope you are only on denial little boy.

    by KilliK

    Being a genious doesnt mean that you know or expect everything.Let's take a real life example. The tragedy of the Challenger mission.Some parts of the missile system were of lesser quality and not suitable to withstand the extreme forces of the flight. The eggheads knew the natural properties of those materials and that they might not be strong enough,but those geniuses also assumed that they would sufficient enough to do their job during the mission.Ofc that was not the case and we all know how the mission ended up. But that terrible accident lead to the official adoption of new laws concerning the better security of the space flights: laws concerning what materials should be used,etc things that were not taken into account and with much seriousness before the accident Savvy? do you get it? now go google a link to tell me that this is not how it happened in order to prove me wrong ,boy.

  • ...You're focusing on the thing that i said didn't bother me as much as the building of a energy reactor in a cave, now that is nonsense

  • from helicopters to gliders are build with special anti-freezing alloys to withstand the low temperatures and inevitable freezing which occurs during a stratospheric altitude flight.Because you know a helicopter can accidentally fly to the stratosphere and freeze... ROFL...LOL..keep going boy,your insistence amuses me.

  • May 30, 2011, 1:40 a.m. CST

    Well if you believe that cold fusion is not a myth,

    by KilliK

    then i dont see how the creation of an energy reactor with scraps is far-fetched,especially in a fantasy movie. Cold fusion supposedly doesnt need expensive high tech equipment to create it,you can do it with simple chemistry lab equipment. So why we shouldnt believe that something similar Tony did in the cave? well?

  • ...Why does a hover bike not being able to overtake a 21st car bother Asimov, and the invention of a medalion sized cold fusion type reactor from a box of scraps (sorry, it IS far fetched) does bother him, so much that it is a deal breaker. The cop in armor bothers him more, why? Fall all you know the helmet acts as a computer displaying information and augmented reality, and also acts as protection, he IS on a type of motor bike. Why is it ridiculous that he can't over take the car? For all you know all future hover vehicles have a lower maximum speed limit than today's cars, it HAS been brought under concideration, even today, that street vehicles should be built with lower maximum speed limit. And there is a difference between cold fusion (if it's at all possible) being a cheap fuel alternative and it being so easy to make you could make it with a simple lab kit.

  • May 31, 2011, 1:22 a.m. CST

    Because dear boy IRL a highspeed bike is always

    by KilliK

    going to catch even a highspeed car,not to mention a car built in the 1800s. A flying,flying ffs,bike not being able to catch a car with an chemical-fueled engine made 300 years ago,well that is the equivalent of nuking the fridge. Besides how the hell did Kirk find the gas for his car? did they still have gas in the 23century? LOL And as cold fusion goes,have you read about the original experiment? they didnt use fancy equipment to do it or some huge nuclear reactor. And how about fuel cells? their basic technology is not that complex.And there are a lot of other power-sources which can be built in a very basic level with even homemade materials and tools.Chemical batteries anyone? Solar-powered engines? yep. And Stark wasnt using only scraps to make a miniature reactor,he also used state of the art high-tech missiles . Capice?

  • ...And as for your "sure tis easy to build cold fusion cells even though we havn't managed to make one yet" argument, whatever...

  • May 31, 2011, 11:47 a.m. CST

    It's not a fancy future bike.It is a bike built

    by KilliK

    with the technology of the 23th century.Unless in JJ's ST universe everything is not what seems to be.Maybe the Enterprise is operating with a gas-fueled generator too.who knows. And the bike also flies.And lass time i checked flying vehicles are capable of traveling larger distances than ground moving vehicles at the same time.or is this also a myth? And about my cold fusion example,you simply didnt get it.If in our real world,there is a possibility that you can create this kind of energy sources with simple materials and tools,then it is more believable for this thing to happen in a fucking fantasy movie. Unless you consider as plotholes the flying bike and the Enterprise,because these things dont exist in our real world,no?