No more, I suppose, than the eye-rollers that came out of "Twilight", shaking their heads about "sparkly" vampires... Look, canon-freaks - this obsession of yours is no different than any OTHER religion: It only means as much as you WANT it to mean. And that means EXCLUSIVELY to YOU, not to anybody else.

Get a new faith or quit bitching.

Post-CRISIS Superman (John Byrne's THE MAN OF STEEL): Clark Kent gradually absorbs solar radiation and doesn't start getting powers until his later teens. He doesn't become Superboy, doesn't join the Legion, and only becomes Superman after meeting Lois Lane in Metropolis.

Or perhaps a #2 pencil to stab in a Trekkie's mouth?

Ok sorr, that was bad but I couldn't resist. I'm witholding opinions on the canon thing until I see the movie for myself. It sounds like they put some thought into it and didn't just do it on a whim *cough Enterprise cough*

Professor Everett is laughing from his grave!

Based on that teaser trailer, I'm VERY excited about this new Star Trek film. Who cares if a bunch of grumpy old fans don't like the changes? I sure don't. All I want is a good Trek film. Looks like JJ was the right guy for the task.

If that means a long, labored explanation of how they've changed everything, but really, scout's honor, changed nothing, than so be it. Expect some pretty-boy vampires in the next one.

If it doesn't get good BO, it's back to the Guardian of Time for another reboot.

Avoid alienating audience, even if they are Trek canon geeks, and make a new movie. You can call it Space Trek.

2) Trek's popularity has plummeted so they might as well try something new. To keep Trek around you need to inject it with new blood and possibly get back to basics. Kudos to them for at least trying to get non-Trekkies to see a Star Trek movie.

Most of the unreasonable opinions about this film are based off of strange idiosyncratic geek pedantry. Worrying about crap like canon (Star Trek's canon barely holds together as is, so who cares). Or, those who want a ST:DS9 film even though it would require hours of back story to actually understand it (I would personally love a DS9 film but it is unfeasible). And the million other strange objections.

As for where I stand, I think it's with the second response. At least they're trying something new, and if it bombs, well too bad but I'm not going to kill myself over it. My guess is that if this film fails then that's the end of Trek.

Yoda is gay.

Amidala gets to be a prostitute with a heart of midichlorians.

Corollary: Does this mean we get a surprise cameo by William Shatner at the end or will he retaliate and not show up because Leonard Nimoy declined to appear on Boston Legal?

Questions, questions ...

Sulu: "Yes we do."

*Unzips pants*

If the original films with the original cast(s) didn't make that much more than $100 million domestically (admittedly needing a huge adjustment for upto 20+ years of inflation), what makes them think this movie at a budget well north of $100 million will actually make any money? Not being sarcastic, genuinely wanting to know.

I had to kill Bob Orci because he made a mistake. Now it's time to erase that mistake.

AVATAR -- Fucking your eyeballs in 2009!

Nothing else matters.

He probably isn't but technically, could it be a bot?

On the other hand: Why change timelines when all possible outcomes already exists? Doe's Darth Nero expect to return to his reference timeline and experience the changes he manipulated in a deferent timeline? That is, yhy change the past if the changes you make will never be experienced in the timeline you exist in?

As someone posted earlier, sounds like a rather poor excuse of having your cake and eat it too... A best a poor plot device. I'm not a canon purist, I just want a good story told well. And I have a bad feeling about this...

Of course in some universes kiddy bikes can keep up with a muscle car Camaro and 6 foot kids can outrun 40 foot robots...

This movie is about TEEEEEEN angst issues.

That's because of Hollyweird's obsession with boy teen butt.