Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Paramount To Release First Nine Minutes Of STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS One Month From Today!!

I am – Hercules!!

On Dec. 14, the first nine minutes of J.J. Abrams’ “Star Trek: Into Darkness” will find its way onto 500 Imax screens playing “The Hobbit.”

The rest of the movie hits screens May 17.

I will be first in line for this. The first nine minutes of 2009’s “Star Trek,” featuring an angry Romulan from Picard’s era and Thor and one of those hot doctors from "House," were pretty awesome.

The same guys who scripted 2009's "Star Trek" are back for the sequel.

Will we finally be able to confirm that Britisher Benedict Cumberbatch inherits the role of Khan Noonian Singh from Ricardo Montalban?

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
  • Nov. 14, 2012, 6:43 p.m. CST

    Better than the 3 frames we've already seen :D

    by Sir Loin

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Cool! Can't wait!

    by DarthJedi

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 6:46 p.m. CST

    That colon makes the title so much less offensive

    by Autodidact

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 6:50 p.m. CST

    by ben sheppard

    abrams better take note

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 6:51 p.m. CST

    I need a list of the screens...

    by DarthSisko

    so i know if I'll be able to see it!

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 6:56 p.m. CST

    9 minutes of lens flares....yippppeeeee!!!

    by kindofabigdeal

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 6:59 p.m. CST

    Cumberbatch isn't Kahn

    by Logan_1973

    He's Smaug.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:01 p.m. CST


    by AzulTool

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:03 p.m. CST

    why the lens flare?

    by robamenta

    because he was trying to copy the style of a micheal bay movie. not only the lens flare but the intensely stupid script as well. in other words. abrams is a total hack

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:12 p.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    Yeah, no thanks.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:13 p.m. CST

    Wish I had a dime

    by Glenn

    for every time you guys use "lens flares" and "hack." One way to signal you're a sheeple is to reflexively use these terms ad nauseum. Think of something new. All you're showing us is there's a reason why you're a fan and not a screenwriter/director/what have you. You guys are no longer annoying, you're boring. Maybe discuss "why" you hated the lens flares? "Because they suck" is not an answer.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:21 p.m. CST

    There's no colon in the title

    by Nem_Wan

    Star Trekkin' Through the Universe

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:21 p.m. CST


    by HughHoyland

    Can't wait for this. Been way to long since 09. :]

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:22 p.m. CST

    So... this whole article is relevant weeks from now.

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:23 p.m. CST

    Muppetface, Because of all the uproar

    by Glenn

    he said that, but it was a good choice, and it's given the movie an identity. Your average lay-filmgoer most likely couldn't articulate whether it bothered them or not. The original star treks, in all their derivations, I always felt the production design was a tad flat and the graphics/lightboards somewhat laughable, so anything to kick up the energy, without resorting to snippy editing and Robert Downey Jr smart-assery, was welcome. And the movie was well-lit, good solid job of cinematography. If you just mean, once again, the 'lens flares', then say that.

  • When in reality they are dumb, and total douches. Go on, tell us how you love to listen to jazz and how much the first Matrix film mirrored Kafka's earlier works.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:29 p.m. CST

    this will make me happier than when I was tickled...

    by tickled_by_elmo

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Cumberbatch should play Gaiman's Morpheus

    by Monolith_Jones

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:34 p.m. CST

    Watch it be nine minutes of opening credits.

    by Doctor_Nefario

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:34 p.m. CST

    So, they rip-off Star Wars and Wrath of Khan for Trek09,

    by Just_Some_Guy

    and then it looks like they will rip off The Dark Knight for this sequel. It even has the word "dark" in the title!!! These Trek movies remind me of the Austin Powers movies in how they parody other movies.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Those first few minutes...

    by Sacredfun

    Wow. Complain all you want, but the opening is so much exquisite tearful drama. I love the heart that J. J. brought to Star Trek. Looking forward to more. :)

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:36 p.m. CST

    Ugh. Hated this when they did it for Dark Knight.

    by aeternitatis

    Really don't like this sort of promotion. The Dark Knight's opening plane sequence had much less impact when I saw the full movie since I'd already been wowed by it months before. Movie losses momentum when its first 10 minutes are a re-run.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:37 p.m. CST


    by Glenn

    yeah I just read that article this morning too. Glad you picked up on it.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:37 p.m. CST


    by The_Mad_Groper

    Why release 9 minutes of a movie which we havent even had a TRAILER for yet?!?!!? Drivin me nuts!

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:39 p.m. CST

    LOVED the movie, HATED all the updated designs

    by ElPalabraUltimo

    I went into the "Star Trek" reboot absolutely ready to hate the shit out of it (on my birthday, no less)...and walked out of that theatre blown away. Yes, it had some bullshit in it (particularly the whole Scotty's in the engine pipes scene...that was fucking atrocious!), but in general it was fun and did an excellent job recapturing the spirit of the characters (which was always the most important thing about Trek really...even bad episodes like "A Piece of the Action" are watchable because the character interactions are so well defined. But all that said...this is the first iteration of "Star Trek" where I never bought a fucking thing. I didn't want one of the phasers, or a communicator, or a model of the Enterprise (okay...I bought ONE thing, the Hot Wheels Enterprise at Half Price Books, mainly because we never got a good shot of it in the movie, and I desperately wanted to try and love the damn thing). Well, I couldn't. The rejiggered Enterprise is a complete mess. All the proportions are off, the lower section is comically undersized relative to the gigantic saucer and engines...sadly, it is a truly botched opportunity, almost like the designer just took all the different Enterprise designs over the years, cut 'em up, threw 'em in the air and voila...job done. Same with the communicator...the communicator is my favorite sci-fi prop, and every iteration has appealed to me (even the clunky "Khan" one...what the fuck is up with that anyway, they made it bigger and clunkier as time went on?!), but this thing was takes a special genius to fuck up such a classic design beyond all appeal. I saw one on discount at Target...and passed it by. Same with the Tricorder (I have no words for it), and the phaser (the least offensive of them, I mean it's real real hard to screw up a zap gun with a barrel and a handle...though the pivoting emitter was pretty fucking ghey). So...acting in the movie was pretty wonderful, the script served the characters well, though the plot was dicey...but the design work (including the lens flares, they were part of the production design)...shit.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:40 p.m. CST

    sheeple 2

    by Glenn

    By the way, glad you can sheeple-quote someone else's article about what's faux intelligent. You're now meta, congratulations.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:48 p.m. CST


    by Glenn

    I dunno what to say to a whole 6 paragraphs basically stating that a movie bummed you out because it didn't inspire you to buy its toys. How old are you? Sure, I bought the phaser that shot little plastic discs, when I was 5 -- ok, my babsitter bought it for me -- but, um...ahem... I guess I'm well past caring about such design things. There's some weird wonky stuff in Blade Runner -- are those Tyrell Pyraminds really sound in their foundations, tilting like that? -- do those advertising blimp ships really need to look like beetles? -- so I don't know what to tell ya. As long as it's not too far off the believability grid, I'm good to go with the story... and I have a few caveats with Star Trek, but my objectivity goes out the window as I'm friends with a few of the folks involved. (Cue the "Oh brother, Rumourd thinks he's a big shot, fuck him, idiot" -- no, they are the bigshots, I'm at best a middle shot and my much slighter bank account will attest to that).

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Seems like they think they hit it out of the park

    by Amfpsych

    They must at least have confidence in those first nine minutes

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 7:55 p.m. CST

    The Undiscovered Country was on TV the other day

    by performingmonkey

    Nothing Abrams could do could move me in that way. THAT is Trek.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 8:02 p.m. CST

    Go Fuck Yourselves, Haters

    by Kytas

    Was JJ Trek perfect? Not even close. Did it rescue the franchise from eventual oblivion? Completely. Yep. JJ, Orci, et al managed to introduce Trek to a whole new audience. Face it, if JJ Trek had flopped, we may have never seen another TV series, movie series, nothing. Ever. It takes just one generation to before the coveted 18-35 demographic grows up with no familiarity with the franchise. So be thankful for its success, bury your petty qualms with the flick, and then go fuck your whining selves. Fucktards.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 8:02 p.m. CST

    Undiscovered Municipality

    by Glenn

    That's Trek, eh? Even the super cheesy ending with the thwarting and the posing?

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 8:02 p.m. CST

    if anyone cares

    by jon pertwee

    the entire hobbit soundtrack is streaming at

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 8:05 p.m. CST

    Spot on, elpalabraultimo

    by Kytas

    I concur.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 8:05 p.m. CST


    by Glenn

    Hey, Asshole -- (I agree with you. Nice job.) :-) How's that for a good story reversal?

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 8:10 p.m. CST

    As long as it's NOT Kahn...

    by Lord Elric

    I'm in.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 8:37 p.m. CST

    Title scroll from Star Wars episode 7, here it is...

    by UsultheMahdi

    Star Wars Episode 7 The Wookiee Incident Anger! Chewie, excited at the prospect of the birth of yet another child is confused and angered when the child is born a human/Wookiee hybrid. Chewiee, suspecting Han is the father, beats Han nearly to death, only stopping because of the life debt he owes his longtime partner. When a paternity test proves Han i s not the father, Chewbacca sinks into a deep depression, refusing even to groom himself. On Mygeeto, searching for the Kybur crystal, Luke Skywalker encounters a unit of Wookiee human hybrids. Barely escaping with his life, Luke remembering a reference to Kamino cloners from master Yoda's holochron, heads off to investigate. Meanwhile on Yavin IV, Leia Organa Solo is completing her Jedi training under the tutelage of Jedi Master, Mara Jade Skywalker. Adding one more to the number of the new Jedi order...

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 8:41 p.m. CST


    by ThisBethesdaSea


  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9 p.m. CST

    SW ep. 8 title scroll...

    by UsultheMahdi

    A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... Star Wars episode 8 The Wookun Feint Armless! After three years in a coma, Han Solo awakens to find he is paralyzed from the neck down. The result of Chewbacca's rage over a hybrid child. Chewbacca now an outcast from the Wookiee community over grooming issues, lives on the floor of Kashykk, ever in danger. As hybrid hordes, known as Wookuns, overr un system after system, exterminating all in their path, the new Jedi order,led by Luke Skywalker, search for the origin of these mysterious hordes. On the moon of Dantooine, Ben Skywalker, and the twins Jacen and Jaina Solo discover a young Sith Lord claiming to be Darth Sidious, who revels the truth behind the devastating hybrid warriors...

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9:04 p.m. CST

    autodidact, yes, it does! And is the colon official?

    by Jaka

    Because it's not a terrible title with the colon. Without the colon it's one of the worst joke movie titles EVER!

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9:08 p.m. CST

    SW ep. 9 title scroll

    by UsultheMahdi

    A long time ago, in a galaxy far,far away... Star Wars episode 9 Serenity of the B'omarr Hope! Scientist, funded by Lando Calriseen, have found a neurotoxin that slows down the Wookuns. Aided by this deadly weapon, new republic troops, now led by Mara Jade Skywalker, are overtaking the Wookun hordes. Han Solo, in despair over the death of his wife Leia and son Jacen, the loss of his best frie nd Chewbacca, and the disappearance of his daughter Jaina, heads to Tattooine to join an order of B'omarr monks that occupy Jabba's former palace. To contemplate whether he or Greedo shot first. Meanwhile, Darth Sidious dispatches his new apprentice, Darth Suun, to destroy the neurotoxin facilities on Calamarri...

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9:10 p.m. CST

    lord elric

    by DrMorbius

    Relax dude ... I can honestly state that there will not be a character named Kahn in the new Star Trek movie. It's possible it might have Khan in it though.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9:10 p.m. CST

    Did it rescue the franchise from eventual oblivion?

    by Jaka

    Uhhh, no. In fact, I'd go so far as to say what it did was write itself into the need to either a) reboot again in the not too distant future, b) find a way at some point in the future to tie the movies back into the original continuity, c) end. <p> Did the Trek movie universe need a facelift? Yes. Did it need to have it's history re-written? Fuck no. They blew up Vulcan in the time of Kirk and Spock? Do people really not understand how much other Trek lore that erased in one swoop? It makes no sense and it never will. <p> 'Oh no, Jaka, it's you who doesn't get it! It was an 'alternate' version/future/timeline thingy, so nothing changed.' Fucking bullshit, nonsense, lazy beyond WORDS convoluted storytelling. 'We don't like what has taken place over the LAST FORTY YEARS!, so we'll just make an 'alternate' reality.' Cunts.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9:12 p.m. CST

    The Bad Robot Hack Pack bait and switch

    by Odkin

    If it's anything like their first film, these first 9 minutes will be the best and only memorable part of the entire movie. Drama and emotion for 9 minutes, then 2 hours of BS techno-fringe pseudo quantum CRAP.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9:28 p.m. CST

    JJ must know he has something mindblowing here

    by David Duchovny

    Something that will cause all of geekdom to spooge and drool at the end of this nine minutes--and then have to wait until May to see how it plays out. This is brilliant marketing ya know if he really does have something cool in there. Of course if it's not as cool as he thinks it is, it could also be an epic fail.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9:29 p.m. CST

    Just as long as it's filled with ridiculous, insane coincidences

    by Raptor Jesus

    We have to maintain continuity with the first movie.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Well, now I know I can be at least 9 minutes late to the Hobbit

    by Just_Some_Guy

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Did the MIB show up with a neuralizer in here or something?

    by 7pointedstar

    Didn't Karl Urban let slip that Cumberbatch was playing TOS villain Gary Mitchell forever ago? Why is anyone still saying he might be Khan?

  • ...including Urban's statement. He did so himself. But yes, he did say that at one point.

  • wont bother to waste time on a more of the same.

  • There are too many spoilers as it is in a 2 1/2 minute trailer these days, but to have the ENTIRE OPENING SCENE spoiled? I don't get it. It's total blue-balls.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 10:29 p.m. CST

    PLEASE shut the fuck up about the lens flares...

    by Mikey Wood

    ..please. PLEASE! Fucking...PLEASE. ALL of you. Just PLEASE...SHUT...THUHFUHK...UHHHHHP. shutthefuckup. SHUT THEFUCKUP.

  • LENS <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> FLAAAAAARRRRRES!!! <p> <p> <p> But honestly, I don't give one wet turn about the lens flares. They don't even come close to being an issue compared to all the problems with that movie that do bother me. I did notice that JJ actually uses lens flares in some of his other movies, though. Something I would never have noticed if it wasn't for all the harping on them people do in Trek talkbacks.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 10:44 p.m. CST

    I liked the lens flares

    by skiprat1

    ... to me, they made the sets and overall look and feel a lot less clinical, while finally making the bridge of the Enterprise feel futuristic. Yes, previous Enterprise bridges looked like a ... star-ship bridge I guess, but this time it felt more like a natural progression of today's tech. As opposed to the Enterprise D for example, whose bridge seemed to take its cue from a beige Toyota Camry.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 10:48 p.m. CST

    WTF??!! Not a word and now THIS CRAP?!

    by da-giez

    This makes NOOOO Sense JJ... Ruin the opening??!! Like I want to pay $10 for that, then walk out on the Hobbit... Giez

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 10:49 p.m. CST

    Once upon a time...

    by Mikey Wood

    ...STAR TREK was sitting on the beach with his girlfriend. I'm sorry...let me rephrase that: his friend who is a girl. And she looks great. GREAT. Nice tits, gloriously round yet firm ass. And he wants to put his penis into her vagina. Badly. Bus she ain't having it, see, because while he's a great guy...he's kind of...well...a candy ass. So this big dude comes walking over and kicks sand in STAR TREK's face and gets the chicks number before walking away ass manly and satisfied knowing that all he needs to do is call STAR TREKs chick and she's going to ride him like a commuter bus during rush hour: SLOW, SWEATY, and LOUD... Chick says to STAR TREK, "Look...STAR TREK....You're a nice guy. People like you...but you're outdated. Outclassed. You're kind of a candy ass and people have been making fun of you since the 60's and it isn't going to stop until you grow a pair." So STAR TREK goes and starts taking weight-gain suppliments and working out...He starts to bathe regularly and dress well...He changes his personal attitude. He grows some balls. So he meets up with his lady-friend again and watches as, again, the big guy walks up to kick sand in his face only THIS TIME...THIS TIME STAR TREK breaks the big guy's arms off and feeds them to him before pulling his skull out through his ass. He turns to his lady friend and simply looks at her with a look that causes her to have the most intense and sensual orgasm she has ever had in her life. THAT is what JJ Abrams' STAR TREK is. It's STAR TREK with balls. Sleek, sexy, exciting...'re either going to grow a pair WITH IT and enjoy the ride or you're going to keep living in your moms' basements never knowing the touch of a woman and crying yourselves to sleep.

  • First of all, Star Trek has ALWAYS had balls. Second, JJ Trek has no more balls than any other Trek. In fact, the balls it does have are more cheesy than previous Trek, and previous Trek specialized in cheesy. I'll even challenge you to explain why you think JJ Trek has more balls. Keep in mind that my response is going to be an extremely deep knowledge of everything bad ass that every cast member of EVER Trek series or movie did over the previous FORTY YEARS. lol. <p> Look, I agreed up above, as I've been doing from day one, that the Star Trek movie (and hopefully tv) franchise needed a facelift. It did, for sure. But JJ Trek is a bassackwards, convoluted mess of INSULTING proportions. And it has no more balls than anything that came before it. Not in character design, set design, special effects or anything else. I mean, what, a darkly lit set makes something bad ass? Did you see Nemesis? A lens flare makes something bad ass. Uhhh... moving on. A fight makes them bad ass? Because, geez, nobody in a Star Trek episode or movie in the previous forty years EVER got in a fight? The villain? Oh yeah, I forgot, no Star Trek movie or tv episode had a good villain before JJ Trek. Khan, the Klingons and the Borg were all pussies. <p> Man, I could just go on forever. And truthfully, so could half the people who post in these Trek talkbacks. I know this, because we've been doing it for many years already. What it's going to come down to will always be a simple difference in opinion and tastes. But what cannot be debated is that Trek WAS bad ass for forty years before that last movie and NOTHING can change that. What I hope does change is their approach to the next, and future, movies.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 11:18 p.m. CST

    jaka...Couldn't possibly disagree with you more.

    by Mikey Wood

    So we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 11:19 p.m. CST

    Star Trek 9 was my 3rd favorite trek film

    by iluvsyfy

    The story was crisp and well paced...the character introductions were great and entertaining, especially Spock's, Uhura's and Bone's...(so what if they are different than Trek canon, this is an alternate timeline)...The prologue scene was emotional...the intro and construction of NCC1701 was well done...the weakest link was Nero, Trek needed a better villain. I consider myself a Trekker (not Trekkie)

  • I wouldn't mind him as Khan or some other villain in a future film.

  • their Shit Trek movie are.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 11:57 p.m. CST

    mikeywood, cool, I totally respect that

    by Jaka

    And that's for real.

  • lol - I never would have believed that was true, but there's a comment just a few above this from somebody whose name I will not glorify by repeating it who couldn't possibly be anything else.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 12:10 a.m. CST

    @jaka Exactly!

    by Brian Hopper

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 12:32 a.m. CST

    m6y, that's hilarious that you think AICN still attracts plants

    by Mattman

    Have you seen the size of talkbacks lately? Paramount's money would be better spent on a site that can actually deliver it's news and weekly columns on time. This place is a graveyard.

  • AICN would definitely still be one of those places. And honestly, this idea that AICN is dieing is some sort of attempted self- prophecizing, I believe, but it's really not true. There has always been a few talkbacks that got a lot of hits and a lot of talkbacks that only got a few hits, first of all. But there also didn't used to be as many talkbacks in total. These days a lead story will slide right off the front page within the first day or two. They used to sometimes sit there for days. Another thing is that there hasn't been anything to draw huge talkback numbers for quite a while, probably since Lost ended. The Hobbit and Star Trek talkbacks are always large, though not huge. But look at the Star Wars talkbacks. When there's something people want to discuss, they're still here. Lastly, sure, there's fewer people here now than at than during the sites busiest days, but there is still plenty of people here. And there will always be far more people who visit the site and don't post comments than those who do. <p> Now, obviously, there is slightly fewer people here. No argument there. But I don't get why there's a crowd who keeps talking about how dead it is. Like, maybe if you commented on topic instead of predicting doom somebody would respond to you, then you could respond back, etc. Ya know?

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 12:47 a.m. CST


    by Glenn

    Thank you for the lens fl%$& comment. I wanted to write that but held back. People really need to get their priorities straight. I'm also amazed that people are on here actually believe the studios give a crap enough to bother with plants. Unless you're talking of the hydroponic variety, then they LOOOOOVE that shit.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 12:57 a.m. CST

    Obviously a non-plot centric prologue

    by John Brown

    I guarantee you those first 9 minutes will give away NOTHING. It will be the Enterprise on some random mission, meant to show us how they've grown as a crew since the end of Star Trek: Into Lens Flare. It will end with some teaser thing that hints at the main plot of the film, but we will learn nada.

  • To think otherwise is to walk through life with one eye closed. I've worked with media companies who pay people to sit at a computer all day doing 'research' of this type. A small seed planted on even a marginally popular website CAN have a huge affect. It's not as weirdly conspiracy theory-like as some people think, but it does exist.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 2:46 a.m. CST

    Also, I meant to say in the last post...

    by Jaka

    The cost is MINIMAL in comparison to what studios and other large scale corporations spend on pretty much every other portion of their budgets. ONE prime time national tv spot on a major network, during a highly rated show costs as much as the yearly salary of somebody riding a desk doing 'research'.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 3:25 a.m. CST

    Put that Onion vid before every single Star Trek talkback

    by David Cloverfield

    EVERY SINGLE STAR TREK TALKBACK. It helps to keep things sane.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 3:26 a.m. CST

    My theory: Cumberbatch is Colonel Green

    by photoboy

    My guess is that when they couldn't get Benicio Del Toro for Khan they decided to change the story and instead have Colonel Green be the one who fled Earth on the Botany Bay. I think it would make for a nice surprise if we're all expecting Khan and instead get a totally different super-villain from that era.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 3:29 a.m. CST

    My money is still on Cumberbatch as Lazarus

    by tangcameo

    Due to his resemblance to the original actor/character and the fact that JJ Abrams likes his stories set in more than one universe (Lost, Fringe).

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 3:36 a.m. CST

    This is total BS

    by Dreamwriter

    I sure hope it isn't playing in front of HFR IMAX showings, because if it is I need to sell my damn tickets, I don't want Star Trek completely ruined for me just because I want to see The Hobbit.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 3:45 a.m. CST


    by Briestro

    Somebody up top said nutrek was their 3rd favorite Trek film. Mine as well. I only like 2 and 6 better than 09. #1)People are bitching relentlessly about JJ's overuse of lens flares, but it was WAY worse in Super 8. Way. Worse. It's a stylistic choice. It didn't bother me one bit in nutrek, but in super 8 I did find it distracting. #2)Yeah, the script was pretty weak, but the movie was pretty badass regardless. This is a testament to the new cast, which, for the most part, were great. #3)The movie did what it set out to do. Why are people bitching about retconning? If this film were only marketed to those of us who know continuity, it wouldn't have done 1/10th as well as it did. We needed this film to do well. #4)The movie blew the fucking Star Wars prequels away. Absolutely. This I found wonderful tbh. #5)Would I rather Peter David or J Michael Straczynski wrote the script? The Reeves-Stevens? Or Diane Duane? Or even Michael Jan Friedman? Of course. I only wish. Any of you who have read 1/10th of the Trek novels I have know that the best stories are in the books, always have been. Maybe one day we can get a film version of a few of the REALLY kick ass Trek stories, but I'm not going to bitch because nutrek isn't Spock's World, Q Squared, Federation, Shadows on the Sun, or Prime Directive. #6)Stop bitching about the writing, please. Did any of you actually watch the last 2 series? They were the most unwatchable pieces of shit ever created, which is why Star Trek had been dead for 5 years. Again, the movie did what it set out to do. People actually got interested in Trek. A lot of people did. Maybe it didn't turn any ain't it cool news talkbackers from hating Trek, but I personally know TONS of people in New York who actually watched TOS, TNG, and Deep Space simply because of that film. Random thoughts from a Star Trek fan going on 32 years here. I'm 38, and got into TOS when I was 6. By age 8 I was reading Trek novels. It's always been a huge part of my hobby life. JJ Trek was fucking awesome, shitty plots aside. The film WORKED. Stop bitching, I've forgotten more about Trek than 99% of the nutrek bashers have ever known. And. I. Loved it. Big fuck you to the haters! I'm looking forward to the new film, and yeah, I sure hope it's not Khan, but I'm not going to hate the movie if it is simply based on that. If I think they blew it this time, believe me I'll say something. I'll be first in line. B

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 3:51 a.m. CST


    by T

    A better title

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 3:52 a.m. CST

    I really don't understand the haters for JJ's trek...

    by bubcus

    The movie was great. Yes, there were some science flaws and some other issues but it was a fun popcorn flick with charm, wit, great special effects, intensity, and a beautiful soundtrack. It made non-fans WANT to see more Star Trek films and shows. I look forward to the next outing though I'm not keen on Paramount releasing the first 9 minutes. I'd rather just have a trailer.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 3:53 a.m. CST

    One clarification

    by Briestro

    Yes I mentioned JMS, who has never written a Trek novel. I know. In fact that only JMS Trek story that I have ever seen was 1 issue of the DC comic. Babylon 5 is my favorite sci-fi series of all time. That's why I mentioned JMS. Call nutrek STINO all you want, but it did invoke a badass cheer from me. B

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4 a.m. CST


    by Briestro

    *In fact THE only JMS Trek story.... wtb edit button! :D B

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4:03 a.m. CST

    I'm with briestro...

    by bubcus

    Well said, sir. I am in full agreement.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4:06 a.m. CST

    lol 1 more thing

    by Briestro

    I didn't hate the writing half as much as the music. yeah, here I go again, I do admit I bitch about GiaCHEES-O all the time. I think he's a terrible composer, but he's a pro, and I have never scored a film. Yes, I'm a composer who does it for fun. I respect MG for his ability to meat deadlines, even if I actually think he's a total hack. I wish JJ didn't use this guy, as much as I wish he'd have Peter David write the screenplay. Flame away. I know there are a lot of talkbackers who revere MG. B

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4:09 a.m. CST


    by Briestro

    wtb that fucking edit button B

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4:11 a.m. CST

    this site is anti cinema these days

    by popboy

    and is anti tv to a certain degree.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4:15 a.m. CST

    Bubcus...well...I for one did not hate it, I think

    by southafricanguy

    the cast is excellent, and it moved at a good pace and was fun.....but thats just it...thats all it was. I can understand why many did not care for it......the script put it bluntly...dumb. Full of stupid convenieces and contrivances.....Trek has always been smart and played with big ideas or weighty questions....JJs trek did neither. Furthermore, its trek trying too damn hard to be Star Wars.....trek is NOT star wars.....its always been more mature, more intelligent...but JJs trek was dumbed down in that regard to focus on action and spectacle.....why could it not have had both?

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4:16 a.m. CST

    Lastly....Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof truly are

    by southafricanguy

    the shittiest writers working right now....

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4:19 a.m. CST

    Did you see Prometheus?...did you see cowboys

    by southafricanguy

    and Aliens?.....did you see the Transformers movies...all shitty movies that bear their names......

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 5:44 a.m. CST

    coincidences justified

    by Gatsby Seeker

    the coincidences of kirk tripping across Spock and Scotty are odd but no more so than McCoy meeting Kirk or Checkov being assigned to the Enterprise or that a major fed ship is named Enterprise. Even the character of Spock is amazed....but isnt that what science fiction is all about? As to lens flares....lets be rid of them...or have them really toned down. The future may look like an Apple store...but the far far future could be more creative

  • Do you realize that Star Trek Nemesis was about an emotionally damaged Romulan in a supership with a superweapon setting out to destroy Earth, then Star Trek 2009 was about an emotionally damaged Romulan in a supership with a superweapon setting out to destroy Earth? I'm not defending it, just don't act like retreads aren't par for the course in Trek films. You'd have to go all the way back to Star Trek VI to find a true original idea.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 6:48 a.m. CST


    by my liege

    You can't retcon it be Green on the Botany Bay. Everything pre-Nerada arriving in the first movie remains unchanged. You can only mess around with stuff AFTER that point.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 7:05 a.m. CST

    I don't want to watch one minute of STID, let alone nine!!!

    by Just_Some_Guy

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 7:06 a.m. CST

    Y'know, I would give STiD a chance if Orci wasn't involved

    by Just_Some_Guy

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 7:07 a.m. CST

    I can't freakin stand that arrogant prick

    by Just_Some_Guy

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 7:18 a.m. CST

    @ lox4444

    by Ray Tchoulakian

    Your comparison isn't really accurate. Shinzon was a clone of Picard, though he had allied himself with the Remans and rebelled against the Romulan Senate. He definitely wasn't Romulan, and to paraphrase both his words and Picard's words, he was neither Reman nor human. He wanted to destroy Earth because he had already conquered the Romulan Empire, and wanted to conquer the Federation as well. Nero was full-blooded Romulan, and wanted to destroy Earth because his planet was accidentally destroyed by Spock's efforts to save it. Their motivations and plans were entirely different. And no, I don't want to see Khan in Into Darkness.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 7:21 a.m. CST


    by my liege

    "Nero was full-blooded Romulan, and wanted to destroy Earth because his planet was accidentally destroyed by Spock's efforts to save it." - Yes, let's destroy Earth because a Vulcan tried to save us all. Watertight logic right there.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 7:58 a.m. CST

    as I told Orci before

    by animas

    I will never spend a penny on anything he writes. But I might pirate that shit just to criticize how bad it is, hahaha.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 8:09 a.m. CST

    Quick shout to those who still complain about ST's plot holes...

    by Lord Elric

    Read the comic book prequel/prologue thing. It's a great bridge and also sets things up more clearly. Should have been filmed. Imho.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 8:11 a.m. CST

    @ my liege

    by Ray Tchoulakian

    I never said Nero's motivations or plans passed the logic test. In fact, when I first saw Star Trek 2009 I loved it, but its quality has steadily declined for me over the last 3 1/2 years, largely in part to the lack of logic in Nero's character, and the overall lack of story in the movie. Bottom line is, I agree with what you said. I was just trying to point out that Nero and Shinzon weren't that similar to one another. And I still have high hopes for what is in store for us in Into Darkness.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 8:15 a.m. CST

    Is the purpose of this to encourage late arrival?

    by menacingphantom

    Or early smart phone use?

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 8:17 a.m. CST

    lord elric: Seriously?

    by menacingphantom

    The plot holes are unfixable by anything short of "it was all a dream". On the other hand, who cares? Anyone who complains about ridiculous plot holes in Star Trek has never seen the original series. It practically requires future iterations to feature enormous plot holes in order to seem remotely like the same intellectual property.

  • Because junk food is all you need. Fucking miscreants. Go watch STAR WARS.

  • I'd like two tickets to Star Trek. ' ' Here you go, Sir. ' ' What is this? ' ' It's your comic explaining what was left out of the movie. ' ' What the f-

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 8:38 a.m. CST

    Classic JJ Abrams.

    by Refrigerator_running

    Amazing first 10 minutes followed up by an hour and half of piss poor story telling. <P> As far as the Orca goes, Star Trek was weak sauce, Transformers was border line brainless and Cowboys and Aliens was insanely stupid. Why does this guy still get work?

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 9:11 a.m. CST

    I wonder how much of the new Star Trek hate is "generational"

    by I_Snake_Plissken

    As in, you grew up watching “The Next Generation” first. As an ancient early 40’s type, I grew up watching the original series in re-runs. I had such loyalty to the original series that I didn’t even start watching the Next Generation until years after it started (I tried the pilot, but found a lot of it highly annoying at the time). Eventually, I grew to appreciate it. But, if I grew up mainly watching TNG, I could get how it would be hard to work backwards. It seems like people seem to overlook a lot of the goofy, action fun of the original series – Kirk’s fistfight with Finnegan in “Shore Leave” is not high concept television. As for the new movie, I had significant reservations but actually really enjoyed it (Ice planet nonsense aside). If they would crank these out every few years I’ll be there to see them. How anybody can say the new film was worse than Generations, Nemesis, Insurrection or the Final Frontier is beyond me.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 9:18 a.m. CST

    @mattman This site and others all have plants.

    by Brian Hopper

    I know this firsthand. It's PR and social media in 2012. 'Shaping the social media environment' etc. It's far more common (not just in the biz but in many industries) than people realize.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 9:19 a.m. CST

    As Peter North says- make it great!

    by UltraTron

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 9:22 a.m. CST

    Bobbits and Star Trek in IMAX 3D? Beam me up, Gandalf!

    by Zardoz

    I'll show myself out, now...

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 9:28 a.m. CST

    And the plants are so easy to spot.

    by Brian Hopper

    Always with the out-of-place boosterism rather than the cynicism-drenched rantings of fanboys. The lame giveaway screen IDs (e.g. iluvsyfy) that tend to occur once only in the talkback. The slightly off-kilter tone, which shows that some 22-year-old intern with zero familiarity with the franchise or its fans wrote it. And of course the one or two concessions to the opposing viewpoint (e.g., 'Was JJ Trek perfect? Not even close. Did it rescue the franchise from eventual oblivion? Completely.') And then there's the straw man arguments. Things like: Nemesis sucked and the Star Trek franchise was dead. (As if this makes Abrams' Shit Trek any better.)

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 9:39 a.m. CST

    Comics before Star Trek filmed

    by Sheepish

    I agree with the above poster than this should have been filmed, and would have been easily done. film open exterior of the next gen enterprise, but a model or 2 after the last movie. More refined, and at high warm. Interior of the bridge have picard, the vulcan ambassador, data as captain (with some cgi to remove the actors age from the android). Have them ask how long before Romulus' star explodes. Helmsman turns and says " already has.." open communication with a rep on romulus and have them observe the nova from the planets surface with obvious grief over not being there in time. "Spocks ship is faster, will he make it?" "It doesn't look like it sir". Have picard refer to damn councils taking too long or somethingorother. Go to the destruction of romulus, then have spocks ship enter and hurriedly drop the red matter as nero pops up. Have perhaps a little pewpew with the enterprise who shows up just as the black hole is forming to consume the remaining nova and then spock and nero go in and the movie can pick up right where it actually started, just some text saying '150 years earlier' or something, I can't remember the time. Might have taken 10 minutes, maybe 15 tops. Tied everything together, I think. At least better than the spock flashback.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 9:49 a.m. CST

    my problems with the jj trek

    by Hugh Gustavus

    -handheld camera -ridiculous michael bayy overediting -urban as bones. i cant stand this guy, never believe him him in any role. -interiors of the ship looked like an apple store. not lived in at all, or military feeling. -simon pegg as scotty. hes not funny whasoever and his accent was crap. pegg works better as a straight man to nick frost, who incidentally would have been a far better scotty. -that stupid monster kirk is attacked by before he meets old spock. absolutely no reason for it to be there. action should integral to the story. not just for actions sake. -lastly the overdoing of kirks side effects injection bones gives him is over the top and wrong tonally. -as for the lens flares, some are ok, but now every movie cg movie is doing them in effects sequences and even dialogue scenes. lens flares are mistakes by the cameraman not great artistry. but i think jj wanted a trademark like his bum chum midget beard spielberg and his zooming in to someones face in a action scene

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 9:58 a.m. CST

    Guys, guys, guys... Know your mythology for fuck's sake...

    by denzacar

    Jar Jar is not Star Trek. Jar Jar means shitty Star Wars-like prequels.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 10:04 a.m. CST

    Urban was AWESOME as Bones

    by kstewandthecuntsman

    I agree with most of joey's points. I also loved the reboot, and all of the previous versions of Trek, save maybe Enterprise, because that seemed to contradict the other stuff a bit. Just kind of played with the established history a little too much. For me.(Can't think of anything off the top of my head, as that was years ago, just my memories of watching it). I would, however, bang that Vulcan chick into a wheelchair. But I digress. Lens flare? I'm in the "who gives a shit" camp. Really, it is what it is, if that is what ruins the movie for you, then I think you were looking for an issue going in. But, to my point. Urban absolutely fucking nailed Bones. His voice and accent and delivery were so Deforrest like, that I was totally sold on his interpretation. Mind you, it took a few viewings to where I was focusing more on the performances. I hated Pines Kirk at first, but there is a little old school Shatner in there. But repeated viewings of Urban as Bones, he killed it. Don't love the man as an actor, he was pretty good in LOTR, the rest of his stuff, so far has not knocked me out. Yet to see Dredd.Can't wait for Trek 2.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 10:33 a.m. CST

    Khan shows up in first nine minutes... as a cameo.

    by T

    Botany Bay will probably be target practice for Klingons or collateral damage from some battle. Just to be cheeky.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Go fuck yourselves, mindless apologists


    JJTrek was shit and so are you. Festering, bloody, tapeworm infested shit.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 11:09 a.m. CST

    Do any of you bashers love First Contact?

    by The PimpDragon

    I ask because so many arguments against JJ's Trek are on the "It's not canon" side because of the destruction of Vulcan, Spock/Uhura, etc. But if you're going to attack this film for not being canonical and you support/enjoy ST: First Contact, you're being a bit hypocritical. First Contact is, for my money's worth, one of the worst ST films in the history of the series. It's mainly because of the villain - the Borg Queen. She destroys canon just by being in the film! Watch "The Best of Both Worlds" and tell me where you hear her speak to Picard like the scene "recreated" at the beginning of FC? You won't find it. She never existed. At all. They literally re-wrote history with that one scene. And as a villain she sucked. As a friend said after watching the film, "You know, there are millions of reasons for wanting to take over the universe. Finding the perfect android boyfriend is the last one I'd choose to hang a script around." Folks, the new Trek is an alternate timeline. Lazy? Perhaps. But timelines and time travel are no strangers to the Trek series, where the Borg can do it within their own ship and where a Bird of Prey can fly around the sun and travel back in time to save whales. People want to hate on JJ's Trek - that's fine. I personally enjoyed it more than any of TNG films but not as much as TMP, TWOK or TUC. But if you're bashing it for canon's sake, start bashing First Contact... well...first! I've never understood the love for First Contact. Piss-poor story (honestly, just the actual "First Contact" stuff on Earth would have been an interesting film possibly), laughable "action" elements (the Laser Tag-looking phaser rifles alone make me lol), even the "Hey, Red Shirt disposable crew member, go off by yourself into a dark air duct and tell us what's wrong" moment - not once, but twice! And yet so many Trekkers talk about it with such high regard like it's friggin' Aliens (which it so desperately wanted to be at points). I just don't understand the flat-out hate for JJ's Trek when you look at the shitty track record of TNG films. They were the laziest things I've seen in that universe and were nothing more than glorified episode scripts with bigger budgets. They have no joy, no wonder, no real "Trek" moments to them. But these thoughts are mine and everyone's entitled to their own!

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 11:12 a.m. CST

    Oh, and Herc?


    Eat a high caliber rifle round, will you. If for no other reason than for posting that tired "Trek sucked until our lord and master Abrams showed us the light" Onion piece. Fucking blogger.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 11:26 a.m. CST

    What? First Contact sucked? Does the Wrath of Khan blow too?

    by I_Snake_Plissken

    Really? I would say it’s the best of the next generation films by a mile. And while the Riker “manual steering column” ranks up as the worst single moment in ST film history, Kirk’s “death” in Generations probably makes it the overall worst TNG film.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 11:29 a.m. CST

    First Contact is obviously the best of the TNG films.

    by Brian Hopper

    Rather shocked that someone would bash the ultra-hot and much beloved Borg queen. And here's the classic straw man argument yet again: 'I just don't understand the flat-out hate for JJ's Trek when you look at the shitty track record of TNG films.' The TNG movies sucked, so Abrams' Shit Trek didn't? That is -- how would Spock put it? -- not logical.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 11:32 a.m. CST

    And by the way, one of the many reasons

    by Brian Hopper

    Abrams' Shite Trek is not canon is that it flat-out sucks, and Trek fans don't want its reeking carcass polluting the canon. Another reason it's not canon is that Trek fans will MAKE IT not canon. By which I mean someday all copies of the (I'm assuming) three Abrams' Shit Trek films will be rounded up, put on a rocket, and blasted to another planet like in Where No Fan Has Gone Before. Not. Canon. Ever. The entire Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman mess will be obliterated and forgotten.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Allthose powers - which films were better?

    by I_Snake_Plissken

    Insurrection – Hell no, a poor TNG at best. Generations – Kirk’s death was enough to kill this, Data’s stupid emotion chip crap. The Final Frontier – What does God need with a starship? Nemesis – Tried hard to replicate the Nebula battle tension from Khan, but failed miserably – overall a mostly lifeless film. I would argue any of the above are worse than Star Trek. The Motion Picture – Tough call – overall this film has improved with age, but if you were going to base the discussion on strict entertainment value, Star Trek might come out ahead (although many carbon units might disagree). What elevates this film is that it actually comes across as intelligent sci-fi, which probably places it above Star Trek which was fun, but definitely dumber entertainment.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Saving Star Trek...

    by Darth Macchio

    I think that's definitely true. The fact that 9 minutes of the next movie is such a big deal is pure testament to it's success in reviving the franchise. Others have said it already...the franchise was inert utterly. Nothing on tv (don't think I made it past season 1 of Enterprise), nothing in the theaters and likely no discussion up until things started moving with JJ and crew. I don't know the history of the production and I felt the end result was decent and good but not as compelling as I'd like (it's weird too as I should love this movie but it tends to leave me a little deflated) but it wasn't any one thing. What is a little odd though - it's seems as if some of this "teaser" stuff isn't as well earned as it should be for such a "do you want a glimpse? do ya? huh? well...hmm...i don't know...can i get a "hell yeah!!" first?" quasi-anticipation aspects. I want to see this either way but it's not like I'm suffocating without a trailer here. I usually avoid spoilers like the plague but in this case, I'm not that concerned...however, i'm also just not dying at the edge of my seat with fingernails completely chewed off in anticipation of JJ's 9 minute trek trailer. Same pretentiousness from Nolan too of course altho Dark Knight was mostly brilliant whereas, to me, JJ's Trek was mostly good. But then, Nolan hadn't really earned it either as DK wasn't out yet, only BB...perhaps my bias is showing a bit... No matter...either way, very much looking forward to this.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Most Trek movies are shit..

    by donkey_lasher

    Wrath of Khan, The Undiscovered Country, and First Contact are the few good ones.

  • That sounds like the webisode media model rearing its head into the cinema. I wouldn't be surprised if mainstream Hollywood started adopting that model as the years go by here into the near future. Basically pay and see stuff in shorter installments. They'll also probably start adopting ideas from the video game industry, things like DLC and season passes. Expect to pay extra for lame bts features and deleted scenes.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 12:03 p.m. CST

    Also another thing you see with plants is

    by Brian Hopper

    posts that are 'ping-pong-y' ... sort of darting around between various points of view with the intention of obfuscating, but ultimately coming around to the POV that the franchise in question (in this case, Abrams' Shite Trek) is awesome. Classic example: 'I don't know the history of the production and I felt the end result was decent and good but not as compelling as I'd like (it's weird too as I should love this movie but it tends to leave me a little deflated) but it wasn't any one thing.' Incoherence. Plant.

  • He literally jabbed the audience in the eye because he wanted to use them as a special effect. He was obviously obsessed with the nostalgia of lens flares and sought the create a sleek retro futuristic vibe with the effect. The problem is that no amount of lens flares can cover up poor production design like using a brewery for the engine room of the Enterprise. There is nothing wrong with using interesting real life locations in science fiction films. Paul Verhoeven used some minimalist architecture in Mexico City for Totall Recall. Serenity found a high school with exotic design and architecture for one of its locations. Aliens utilized an old power plant for the atmosphere processor interiors. No, the problem isn't that JJ Abrams used a brewery in Star Trek. The problem is that it looked like a brewery in the final fucking film! Back to the abuse of lens flares. Abrams so over did this element, that not only will anamorphic lens flares feel silly and almost like an in-joke if they show up in Star Trek Into Darkness, but he's ruined the ability for any other filmmakers to use lense flares even in a subtle or minimal manner. Even going back to old films like The Thing, Alien, and Die Hard I can't not think of Abrams' Star Trek when a lens flare appears in the frame. The ridiculous overuse and abuse of lens flares in Star Trek has tainted older more superior films! If you think this is harsh criticisms of JJ Abrams and his nostalgic love affair with lens flares, ask yourself this... Suppose a filmmaker shot a film where in every other shot the camera performed the Hitchcock dolly-zoom? That is how annoying excessive lens flaring is to me. I don't buy the excuse of lens flares make the image look futuristic. That does not compute. Solid world building and production design are what make believable future worlds come to life onscreen, not some production assistant standing out of frame flailing around with a flashlight.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 12:22 p.m. CST

    Whoa!!! first time ive been called a plant!

    by Darth Macchio

    Holy shit! do i win a prize? and by m6y too...i believe i've seen you before on here over the years! so...if i am a plant as you say as opposed to someone who loves original trek, TNG, DS9, along with the books...should i expect a check in the mail? and it's incoherent? why...cause i didn't explain it better? this is awesome! yet...i don't feel planty at all. odd. perhaps none of this is even real? thanks for a good laugh sure got me on that one! i'm "sleeper agent" plant for JJ's new Trek movie eh? and this is like 'Total Recall' sleeper agent type stuff too eh? as in, i'm a plant but yet they erased my memory so i could rub elbows with you unsuspecting tb'ers and somehow, magically, get you to care for this movie with by incoherent planty rants? that's totally hella awesome! but wait...shouldn't i get a t-shirt or something at least?

  • And it sucks that every time you watch Blade Runner you'll get that feeling of resentment, but you can't act like he ruined it for the whole world, because most people don't notice it.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Overuse of lens flares? They had all but had a special department for it!

    by Darth Macchio

    I saw some of the making of it when it was on regular tv not that long ago. They went on and on about the lens flares and that they had people in the effects dept who worked on the flares almost exclusively. Stuff like how and when to use to take opportunities to use them in scenes where they may not belong. it was as if they didn't know the film geek work thinks its distracting at best or cheap and gimicky at worst (not that our opinions matter but still...part of the billion for avengers most assuredly came from us). that and the "JJ camera shake" - they said nothing else made it look real except when JJ himself shook the camera (the 'space elevator' scene) as i said...a decent but not great movie..and i'm more happy to have the franchise firing on all 8 cylinders again as i love the Trek universe (pre-JJ timeline changes of course). but yet i still have yet to get the JJ Trek blu and likely never will as i have no desire to see it again. to me...its like elevator music replicating a beautiful classic melody (think cheesy elevator music replicating Pink Floyd or Beethoven's 9th, etc). JJ's Trek was like the elevator music of something so good, that even the fact that it's a rather pale imitation, the item being 'replicated' is so very good that even something somewhat thin or surface oriented is still a very good thing for this franchise overall.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Somebody mentioned Daniel Craig in a Star Trek movie

    by lv_426

    That'd be interesting. I've said it before and I'll say it again, they missed a huge opportunity to relaunch Star Trek with an all new crew. Instead of a youth recasting of TOS crew, why not start out with all new characters and not have to use some gobbledygook alternate universe storyline just to kick the previous Trek canon in the nuts? Someone like Daniel Craig as a new captain would be interesting. That is what Trek needs. Not young guns acting out the classic crew roles in a Star Wars style action adventure story, but new characters encountering strange things and new civilizations out there in the cosmos. Star Trek is more than just Kirk and Spock. It is about the experience of exploration and boldly going where no one has gone before. If anyone doubts this, look at Prometheus. Now yes, Prometheus was all kinds of messy in terms of characters and certain plot elements, but it did well by using new characters in the same milieu as the previous Alien films. If anything returned from previous films, it was the space jockey and his *croissant* ship as Ridley likes to say. Even then, those elements were not explored in the previous Alien films. The sad thing is Prometheus, for all its faults, had a harder hill to climb in re-establishing the Alien franchise after the disappointing Alien Resurrection and two awful AvP films. Prometheus also did better at the box office than Star Trek 2009. It is a shame we have actors who could be playing brand new Star Trek characters playing facsimiles of the classic ones we got from Shatner, Nimoy, and the rest of the original crew.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Painting yourself into The Lens Flare Corner...

    by conspiracy

    How overused was the effect? So overused that if he tries to scale it back even a little in Trek 2 it will be so noticeable that it will make everyone think even HE thought the lens flares were overdone in 09. To Flare or NOT to Flare...that is the Question.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 12:42 p.m. CST

    To boldly flare where no lens has flared before

    by lv_426

    We now know why the Borg were so unstoppable. Everytime a ship was hailed and tried to communicate with them, the Borg leader, like Locutus for instance, just shined his laser beam at the viewscreen and mesmerized the opposing ship's crew with a big lens flare. Hey, in addition to lens flares maybe JJ Abrams will add various colors of laser beams shining into the lens in the next Trek film?

  • that is what they will do.

  • Am I right?

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 1:09 p.m. CST

    Copying the original Star Wars film, doesn't make this a good movie.

    by MajorFrontbum

    It's like some ass-wipe DJ remixing a classic song from the 1970's, with shitty hip-hop beats and scratching - fucking lame!! JJ Abrams should be fucking ashamed of himself. He's the number one whore of Hollywood.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Okay, majorfrontbum...THRILL me...

    by Mikey Wood

    ...HOW was STAR TREK "copying the original STAR WARS film"?

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 2:04 p.m. CST

    @darthmacchio I should have said your post

    by Brian Hopper

    is the TYPE of thing a plant might write. My apologies for implying that you might actually be a plant, as I've seen you on here over the years as well. Just don't agree the idea that Abrams revived anything. He just remolded what was already good into something else entirely... a juvenile Star Wars-ified bastardization of what ST is really all about.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 2:56 p.m. CST

    IMAX I Yay Yay

    by Haykuta

    Has any of you seen what the Hobbit looks like on IMAX, the frame rate when it's not projected digitally is godawful. At least here ate the Lincoln center one. I dont want to endure that just to see my blessed Star Trek!

  • JJ himself said that Star Trek was Classical music while Star Wars was Rock and Roll, and they felt like what Trek needed right now was some Rock and Roll.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 3:25 p.m. CST a long-time TREK fan...

    by Mikey Wood

    ...even I have to admit that TRET was dead in the water pre-Arams. I actually really liked most of NEMESIS (thought it was MILES better than INSURRECTION) but ENTERPRISE was utterly lacking...VOYAGER was never any good either...TREK as a whole was...well...out-dated. Abrams' TREK invigorated the francise. Old-school TREK fans can deny it all they want but change is not only GOOD but entirely necessary if it's to survive.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 3:35 p.m. CST

    I liked Enterprise. Totally underrated.

    by Brian Hopper

    Especially season 3 and to a lesser extent season 4. Star Trek needed a refresh, I agree. Just didn't have to be a Star Wars-lite, lamely written Shit Trek 90210 refresh.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 3:36 p.m. CST

    "Do any of you bashers love First Contact?" ..NO

    by Refrigerator_running

    Personally, I don't think First Contact is a very good movie. It's got small elements of a good movie in there, but by and large it's a terrible attempt to shoe-horn in Alien into Star Trek. <P> I personally find a collective Borg with no true leader much more terrifying then her royal creepiness. <P> Also, I think people who favor First Contact tend to really like Abrams Trek. You may roll your eyes, which is fine, but I think Generations, for all it's flaws is a much stronger ST:TNG film.

  • I don't think I was specific enough - I don't mean to say he revitalized it as you suggest. I mean to say he revived it in the sense of making it relevant again. Generating interest in the franchise as a whole. this a good thing? I'd say yes as it breaths life in the show regardless of who's making the movies. Is it a good thing from the perspective of JJ's Trek alone? Well, on that I'd think we'd agree that, no, it's actually not good that it was *this* movie that breathed life back into the Star Trek name at the cinema. All for subjective reasons of course (don't like the alternate timeline, don't like a lot of the casting, didn't like the music nor the "XXXtreme sports!!!" aspects of some of the cinematography - which i define as any attempt at triggering a physical rush for the audience into a film using anything other than story)...but, all in all, it's not terrible..not as good as the first 2 TNG movies, better than Insurrection and about on par with Nemesis. Or, to compare the original cast flicks, better than Final Frontier but not as interesting as TMP or as nearly as good as all the others. But yet it's still an entertaining film that I really have no desire to see again..which does genuinely puzzle me! I'm an old-skewl SW fan (sans prequels) from the beginning. Watching the original Star Trek on TV as a kid freaked me out like anything from the 60s/70s did (until I saw Planet of the Apes, and Beneath the Planet of the Apes where that weirdness woke up in me a love for this type of cinema and this type of atmosphere). My real love for Trek came with the original cast movies (KHAN!!! saw it opening night at a PACKED theater and it was pure bliss..crowd roared appreciation with applause at the end!) and, of course, TNG. Then came DS9 as I was a fan for life. JJ's Trek isn't really Trek for me but that sounds like so much "I like that ol' time-a rock n roll" arrogance that every older generation gives to the younger. So..subjectively speaking...I'm very glad Trek is alive and, in a very large way, that's thanks to JJ and crew. I'm not glad how it happened or how it got there but glad it's there all the same. Of long as these movies do well, JJ will be the 'goto guy' for the studio so we won't get any changes for a while (ala Harry Potter and different dirs up to a point, etc)..and that might just be a bad thing if the next outing is more of the same style over substance as his first. but...i also don't mean to exaggerate...this isn't michael bay 'style over substance'...its better than that...but not by leaps and bounds.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Most of you people just bitch to see yourselves bitching

    by Smartacus

    The Motion Picture - Liked it, I was a kid The Wrath of Khan - Loved it. I was an older kid and it was good on top of that! The Search for Spock - Didn't think it had much story but I liked at lot of what was happening. The Voyage Home - Didn't care for it. The Final Frontier - Didn't like it at all. The Undiscovered Country - Almost made up for The Final Frontier. Generations - Not bad, didn't care for the ending. First Contact - Kind of liked that. Insurrection - Didn't like it at all. Nemesis - Didn't like it at all. Star Trek (New) - Liked it a lot. Enjoyed the differences and the nods to the original. Into Darkness - Looking forward to it.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Why Does Jaka Only Post In Star Trek Talkbacks?

    by Lesbianna_Winterlude

    Talk about having only one interest in life.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Was there ANY good TNG film? I'd say No...

    by conspiracy

    The only one I can try to stomach is the one with the Drunk Troi...(Horribly acted out by the otherwise insanely fuckable Marina Sirtis) and even that was has so many cringe worthy parts it is hard to get through. s.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4:19 p.m. CST

    "JJ saved the franchise" - baloney.

    by Detached

    It didn't take a lot more than getting rid of Berman & Braga. All he did was dumb it down to popcorn level and make it something it's not. Even then, it didn't really do any better (adjusted for inflation) than most of the original movies- which is okay, except of course for population growth, which makes it less impressive.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4:22 p.m. CST

    How much of ST09 "hate" is generational? Very little.

    by Detached

    I first read in 1996 that TOS would likely be rebooted some day. No problem with that. Even kind of looked forward to it. The difficulty was just in the HORRIBLE script. The timeline reboot premise was very good, the cast is generally good, but the script was just STUPID. The problem is with people who check their brains at the door and think something so lame is just fine.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4:28 p.m. CST

    @darthralphmacchio You make some good points. I've said

    by Brian Hopper

    in other talkbacks there were a few cool things in Abrams' ST. The fx are top notch, and it's not without its occasional fun bits and minor charms. As much as I dislike it, it's not the worst movie ever made. I just wish Paramount would take Star Trek back to TV where it belongs (as long as they hire a showrunner other than Abrams or his crew). If they did that, I'd lay off Abrams and Orci et al. to make their silly movies because actual Star Trek fans would have the show. Come to think of it, why isn't Star Trek on teevee? Lucasfilm (and now Disney) are plastering Star Wars in every medium. Star Trek fans get ONE Abrams faux-Star Trek movie every four years and that's IT?? Paramount: gives us a TV show! Sheesh.

  • is it MY Star Trek? No...but I'm not sure MY Star Trek would sell today; at least not at the return level demanded by the investment made in the film.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4:44 p.m. CST

    m6y...You know Bob has been pitching a TV Show right?

    by conspiracy

    Animated if I read correctly.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 5:22 p.m. CST

    I like it

    by Glenn

    Lens flares look nice. Having been a camera asst back in the day, having to worry about flagging them out of the lense -- esp when John Carpenter seemed to embrace them -- was always a drag. Some here seem to think they're explicitly a mistake. In the old days, they were. But filmmaking evolves. In the old days, if you didn't light with tons of arcs hanging in the rafters, you were doing it wrong. Then, David Watkins came along and beyond using big broad soft bounce light ("Help", "Catch-22") and lighting evolved. I also thought Star Trek '09 had excellent visual effects. The camera felt as if it was placed in space amidst huge starships. Scale was captured effectively. Camera shake was appropriate and sold the fx (much as I admire old-school models, when you see them now in Blu-Ray rez, you can sense that the size of the camera's lense is almost the same size as the model, which gives away the scale no matter how deep-focus the lighting and frame-rate is).

  • They're pretty.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 5:35 p.m. CST


    by Glenn

    Usually they're added in SPFX shots but they never have the requisite bounce and multi-element movement that all lenses exhibit. Anamorphic lenses can have up to 21 separate machined parts encased inside them.

  • So why is it that you only appear to read Star Trek threads? <p> Why is it that you're stalking me, calling me out? <p> Why is it that you created a new, stupid user ID to do so? <p> I've been posting at AICN since 1999, so I can assure you in all truth and honesty that neither your comments or your opinions will affect my continuing to do so in whatever manner I choose. Basically, get a life.

  • And I will continue to do so if the next movie follows the same path.

  • I think they were the first to do this. You may recall the first 10 minutes dealt with kids being tormented by the cops. It was actually pretty hilarious. The rest of the movie was awful. The Dawn of The Dead remake did the same thing, and it actually turned out really good. In other words, there is no way of knowing how this is going to turn out.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 5:53 p.m. CST

    mikeywood, opinion, opinion, opinion

    by Jaka

    It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it will never become fact. Old school Trek fans have been quite vocal regarding their views on the state of Trek pre and post JJ Trek, as well as their opinions on that movie in particular. You stating your opinion regarding such things is still just your opinion. It doesn't change what anybody else thinks, believes, feels, etc. <p> And I will say again, the issue is NOT the re-boot, facelift, changes, etc., the issue is the lame ass manner in which it was done. Please process that and try to understand the difference.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 5:59 p.m. CST

    @conspiracy 'You know Bob has been pitching a TV Show right?'

    by Brian Hopper

    Yes, sadly. I just wish they could get Ronald Moore to do a new one, or even Seth MacFarlane who wants to, or someone else who's a real fan (not a non-fan like Abrams) AND who can do a good show.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 6:02 p.m. CST

    At least with a TV show...

    by Jaka

    ...they would have time to let the characters and storylines breathe and grow naturally, instead of pounding viewers over the head with terribly convoluted coincidences that make fuck all kinda sense.

  • ....they would have started with a TV series, built a rapport between the fans and the cast, built up an interesting batch of ongoing stories, then jumped into movie while the series was still ongoing. Actually tie everything together so it makes sense.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 7:54 p.m. CST

    lack of support for star trek

    by Hugh Gustavus

    while i disagree with how jj went about parts of the first movie, i will say that the old fans cant have their cake and eat it too. you guys didnt support nemesis or enterprise so this is what you get. paramount must have thought that it was time to try and open up star trek to the outside world seeing as the die hard trekkies let nemesis flop and enterprise go up in flames. So you had your chance with the way you saw trek, now its time for other people to have their version

  • hated for many of the same reasons JJ Trek is hated. It tried to reinvent, re-write and otherwise pointlessly change something that was already well established and worked just fine. Again (and again and again), change was necessary, but nobody has gotten it right yet.

  • ...still sells HUGE numbers. Books, new Blu-Ray sets, calendars, knick knacks ad nauseum and bigger numbers than ever before at Trek conventions. Trek fans, old and new, want good Trek product. The fact that we DON'T support bad Trek product is in no way a bad thing.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 9 p.m. CST

    First Contact also had a great score

    by kstewandthecuntsman

    Only Trek movie score I actually bought. But I also LOVE the Nu Trek score.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 9:12 p.m. CST

    Nemesis was Wrath of Khanny

    by kstewandthecuntsman

    In that, I got kinda choked up when Data "died". You know what, I love all the Next Gen flicks. Even Insurrection. F Murray Abraham chewed the shit out of that scenery. Good fun. And when Geordi got his eyes back, yeah, that was awesome.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 9:27 p.m. CST

    Insurrection is a great two part tv episode

    by Jaka

    If it had been that, it would have won Emmys. But the look and feel of it never quite measures up to major motion picture event levels. I like it, too, btw. In fact, I'd put it above Nemesis, Final Frontier and Voyage Home (fuck I hate that movie - and it's aged SO badly). <p> The thing with Data's death is that, for me, is that the movie wasn't as important as the loss of that character. I know Spiner wanted the character to end, and I can respect that. But way they did it wasn't powerful enough, for me.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Is that is that

    by Jaka

    Is that is that is that. P'shh.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 9:42 p.m. CST

    jaka re:Death of Data

    by kstewandthecuntsman

    yet, there was the B4 android, just in case Nemesis was a huge hit. I truly think that even though it was billed as the last Next Gen movie, if it made enough cash, there would have been another. And Spiner would have asked for a bump in salary and probably got it. As for Trek 4, I was 16 when I saw it in theaters and loved it. Is some of the humor groan inducing now? sure. But for me, the original cast movies, well WoK is the best , and I love all the others equally. Well, the first was a bit too long and grandiose (for lack of a better word). But without that one, we aren't talking about any of the others, so I appreciate it. Also, for whatever reason DS9 has become my favorite of all the shows. I can watch that once a year and still appreciate it.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 9:47 p.m. CST

    I am Not a Daydreaming Loser and it is NOT about the Canon!

    by Lesbianna_Winterlude

    It's just that everything needs to match what came before so I can go back to memorizing canon.

  • Once I'd gotten used to the characters and the different feel to the story arcs I really got into that one. But before then my favorite was TNG. And before that I'd watched all TOS re-runs on TV several times over. Honestly, I like them all to one degree or another. Voyager, as much as people want to write it off as consistently sucking, actually had a few good episodes each season. Admittedly, that ain't nothin' to write home about. But, like my feeling about the SW prequels being discussed in a different thread, it's still Star Trek, and I can appreciate it on that level. Enterprise was more difficult for me. I can see what they were trying to do, and it would have been nice if they could have made it a bit longer, because it was getting better near the end. But I don't think I'll ever need to watch that series again. The rest of them I can watch any time.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Jaka, I have to agree with you on one point...

    by Mikey Wood

    ...never did see the appeal of VOYAGE HOME. Good humor, sure, but wildly overrated. I even like V more than IV. Yeah. I said it. GENERATIONS is a piece of garbage (PS: They're still in the God Damned NEXUS). KHAN "new" TREK FIRST CONTACT UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY and the rest fall in underneath somehow. GENERATIONS is my least favorite.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 10:10 p.m. CST

    Agreed on Enterprise

    by kstewandthecuntsman

    Strong cast, hot Vulcan chick, but something about the plot of the episodes didn't gel with me. I wanted to love it. I didn't. Owned all the Trek series on dvd, never even considered that one. Although I have since sold Voyager. Your point on a few good episodes a season is spot on. And once the Borg came into play, it was a little better than that. But overall, nothing I needed to own forever. Plus, and this is a silly point, Enterprise bothered me because it used a song instead of a musical piece during the open credits. Stupid, I know. The DS9 opening theme is just a sweet piece of music. Havent read you prequel views, but think I get what you mean. Not a fan, myself. But I did see Phantom Menace a bunch in the theaters, I guess I just hoped it would get better from there, and I didn't feel it did. But thats for another thread

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 10:25 p.m. CST

    Fuck (shaking head). That Enterprise song was so damn bad.

    by Jaka

    Never made sense. Never will. <p> The basic gist of my prequel opinion is that, yes, they are HUGELY flawed, but they're still three more movies in the Star Wars universe, and I can appreciate them for that alone. <p> DS9 did have a great theme. So did Voyager, honestly. And TOS and TNG themes are hugely iconic. Hard to argue there's a bad one in the bunch. ..... but Enterprise... ugh.

  • Yes, there was always humor in ST. There was a sly, wink wink, inside joke sort of humor amongst the entire original crew all the way back to the original series. Like, the fact that Spock didn't get certain things, or did he? Or was he just doing some of it to annoy McCoy? Kirk could give any of them a sly smile and gentle ribbing, and it was humorous. Chekov and Scotty were funny, just because of the way their characters spoke, but it was the CHARACTERS, it wasn't overtly written to be funny. Voyage Home has them all delivering bad one liners that were BARELY funny then and have aged TERRIBLY. Even the Chekov thing becomes a forced joke. "Nuclear wessels. Nuclear wessels." The punk rock guy on the bus. Spock 'disguising' his ears with a head band, but nobody thinks twice about his totally bizarre robe? lol Man, I could write a dissertation on why that movie annoys me. But basically, it's the same thing I'm trying to express about JJ Trek. Yes, it's Star Trek, but it's just... off. It's not the write tone. Re-casting? Fine. Updating designs? Fine. But they didn't actually need to change Star Trek, and that's what they tried to do.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 10:34 p.m. CST

    You Tube the Star Trek Enterprise promo, looks exciting!

    by kstewandthecuntsman

    Worked for Blockbuster for a long time, and we would have promo things we'd have to play all day. This promo was on one of them, and I was SO stoked for the show. Also on the same promo reel? Smallville. Which is, say what you will, probably my favorite long running "sci-fi" series of all times.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 10:43 p.m. CST

    *right tone

    by Jaka

    But you knew that, I'm sure.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 10:49 p.m. CST

    Okay, so Spock ordering Kirk off the ship..

    by kstewandthecuntsman

    Makes no real sense. No brigs on the ship? I get it, I get it, it's so Chris Pine can mett old Spock. Still, yeah that point bothers me

  • But it sure as hell isn't.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 11:32 p.m. CST

    jaka, ok yeahhhh

    by kstewandthecuntsman

    The whole meeting with Spock and then Scotty is an even bigger mess. finished it again, it is ridiculous with plot holes, there I said it. Still love it though. Maybe cause I loves me some Eric Bana. Best Bruce Banner ever

  • Nov. 16, 2012, 12:28 a.m. CST

    Fuck YEAH, BABY!!!

    by DarkHawke

    As if FINALLY getting The Hobbit (well, a third of it or so, anyway) wasn't cool enough! It's been too damned long, so I hope the follow-up is worth the wait. Loved the first one, but it does have it's flaws, so I'm also hopeful that they've run this by a few more folks this time to clean up some of the hitches. They got the spirit of it right, though. Best actual Star Trek since ST VI, though I rank it at #5 on my personal list of Star Trek movies (preceded by II, VI, I and III, and followed by IV and V). STAR TREK LIVES!!!

  • ...Spock sleeping with Uhura, (I could go on) that's the right spirit? Ugh.

  • ...okay, I'm kidding but MAN do I hate that God damned show. I've seen the Spock/Uhura relationship mentioned by Trekkies (That's right. I said TREKKIES. I'm allowed to say it because I AM one. Kinda like if I call someone a "Dago-Mick") as something HORRIBLY WRONG OH MY GAAAHHHD with the new film but I had ZERO problem with it. In FACT, if you go back and watch the original series there are PLEANTY of slight hints that SOMETHING might be going on between them. Seriously. Go back and watch their interaction with the new knowledge that they are involved yet keeping it professional and private and you'll see it there in the episodes.

  • Nov. 16, 2012, 8:07 a.m. CST

    I am already aware of Jaka

    by SuperTrekkie

  • Nov. 16, 2012, 8:53 a.m. CST

    Did the people defending First Contact actually READ my comments?

    by The PimpDragon

    I didn't say that the TNG shitty track record is a defense of JJ's Trek. What I said was that many people attack JJ's Trek by saying it defies canon yet rave about FC when it so blatanly does this just to have a cloned-from-Aliens-idea Borg Queen and by re-creating actual scenes from the TV series (established canon) by adding her to them. I agree with the poster above who said the idea of a free-roaming collective intelligence is far more creepy than a generic queen and her plot to make an android her boyfriend to rule Earth with her. I personally don't care for any of TNG films and don't own a single one. They were so disappointing and uninspired. Well-acted, sure, but not well-written or worthy of a big screen budget. In my opinion, not one of TNG films should ever be mentioned alongside the likes of Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country. Pity, as I love TNG series. Some fantastic ideas and writing on display there - some of the best in Trek history.

  • Nov. 16, 2012, 9:09 a.m. CST


    by dengreg31

    Smallville was on ten damn years. Perfect? Of course not.. but there was good stuff in there as well.. because you don't like it doesn't dismiss it. Period. All the hate on here for New Trek. Wow. Most of it valid of course because many of you are filmmakers.

  • Nov. 16, 2012, 9:35 a.m. CST

    I can't say I've seen every episode of SMALLVILLE...

    by Mikey Wood

    ...but I've seen quite a few from every season because either A) Friends said "OH! You gotta see this episode! It was awesome!" or B) I wanted it to prove me wrong. See, I hate SMALLVILLE because I love SUPERMAN. That's the simplest explaination. I also found it to be asthetically unpleasing. Bland. They have NO style. Every WB/CW show looks the same to me. I am watching and somewhat enjoying ARROW, though. It still has some of the same CW trappings that turn me off, but it's not as offensively inept as SMALLVILLE.

  • Nov. 16, 2012, 1:03 p.m. CST

    What does having awareness of me have to do with anything?

    by Jaka

    Fuck, the internet is weird.