DS9 is probably the best ST series out there. Yes, TNG had its moments, but DS9 was a realistic, post-modern take on the ST universe. There were overarching arcs dealing with the Cardassian occupation of Bajor, the Maquis rebel group, Cisco's role as the Emissary, which all led to the war with the Dominion.

Truth be told, it *is* a little dated. . .some episodes I found to be terribly boring, and it wasn't as serial-focused as, say, 24 or Lost or BSG. But when all is said and done, I walked away from DS9 feeling fairly confident that it was the best Trek series out there--yes, even beating out Picard and TNG.

You know as well as I do, that a good reviewer spends as much time as he can, finding a way to write his opinions without any spoilers at all, even finding ways to reference the events & the reasons he liked them, without giving those events away. Not just thinking "Fuck it, let's stick it in a box."

I did your job for years, albeit for a newspaper. If I handed in a review with spoilers I'd either be made to redo it/have it edited by somebody else, or it wouldn't be printed. So he was well within his rights & your ego rampage high-horsing "that's what we in the business call a gigantic fucking spoiler alert" is a bit too cocky.

Spoilers are what we in the REAL business call lazy, unprofessional pseudo journalism.

You can rant at me like you did at him, but I'll still be right. I'm going to bed..SPOILER..I may sleep more soundly than you, as I won't have JJ's hairy tribbles in my mouth.

But Herc says the new actors bear little resemblance to the old roles.

What gives?!? Which is it?

You asking for a spolier alert is the epitome of the pot calling trhe kettle black.

Good day.

And really, not one episode of Next Generation and Deep Space Nine? 2 shows that redefined television science fiction that, at their best, far surpassed the original series in scope and depth? I understand the groundbreaking nature of the show at the time and the 60s fanboy love for the old characters - I share it - but let's not pretend the old show was anything more than bravado and some decent ideas wrapped around a core of schlock.

Note - if you want to know why Nero blames Spock, read the Countdown comic, written by the film's screenwriters. Maybe they explain it and the film and Capone missed it, but it's in the comics.

finally, that 'hand-held' quality done in Battlestar Galactica was first done in Firefly, and it was a technique the BSG effects guys adapted. So give credit where it's due.

Seeing this tomorrow night, and can't wait, despite Capone's kinda annoying review. Tonight, though, it's all about Leonard Cohen in Chi-Town.

Still, only two more sleeps until opening day! You know I'll still be laying down my $10.

That being said, I'm now somewhat interested in checking this out. If it's smart and contains any of the mojo that made the franchise what it is, then I'm there.

In this case, it may be warranted. But, According_To Noted_Sage Yack_Backer-and I quothe----NEEDS GIANT ROBOTS. I most heartily, agree.

EVERYTHING NEEDS GIANT ROBOTS!

Star Trek has already established that an "alternate timeline" is not the same thing as an "alternate universe". As such, an alternate timeline can OVERWRITE the timeline that a character knows and loves.

For example, the Mirror Universe is an alternate universe. As such, if someone dies in the Mirror Universe it shouldn't really matter to someone from the "primary" universe.

But when the Enterprise-C travelled forward in time to meet with the Enterprise-D, it created an alternate timeline that SUPERCEDED the primary timeline. As such, the characters decided that the Enterprise-C had to be sent back to meet its own destruction (while taking Tasha Yar with it, which caused all sorts of problems later on).

Also, when the Enterprise-E went back to the day before Cochrane launches into space, they briefly glimpse the alternate timeline that the Borg have created.

The "alternate timeline" in both these examples are NOT "alternate universes" that exist ALONGSIDE the "primary universe". They are timelines that have been written over the primary timeline, and the characters are only aware of the change because (in the Enterprise-C incident) Guinan happens to be a member of a species that's particularly sensitive to temporal physics or (in the case of First Contact) the phenomenon that allows them to travel through time shields them from the changes to the timeline.

So, following the internal logic of established Trek physics (as opposed to real-life physics), Spock going back in time to fix the damage Nero does is perfectly feasible. It all depends on how the writers explain it. Either Vulcans share the same temporal sensitivity that Guinan's species enjoys, or Spock is shielded from the changes in the timeline because he's caught up in the same phenomenon that Nero uses to go back in time.

Or, the writers come up with some new explanation that doesn't contradict established Trek physics.

Or, the writers fuck up and it actually ends up making no sense.

I'll see for myself on Friday.

(BTW: Blue Planet is THE BEST IMAX flick they show at museum IMAX screens. You totally feel like you'd fall UP if you jumped out of your seat. Total . . . fucking . . . vertigo. Wild stuff.)

If there are more movies in pre-production that take place in this "alternate timeline", doesn't that mean that old-Spock has ultimately FAILED in his mission to repair Nero's damage? Or does it mean that Spock has figured out a way to convert an "alternate timeline" into an "alternate universe"?

Or, did the writers fuck up and it actually ends up making no sense...

As such, allowing J.J. to come in and play around with stuff is acceptable because it's generally recognized that Trek needs something to give it a shot in the arm.

Superman, on the other hand, is old enough that it has reached the level of mythology. To fuck around with Superman too much is to violate something primal in the American cultural consciousness.

It would be like if the Walt Disney Company tried to "reboot" Mickey Mouse. It would just ... be ... wrong.

Trek, for all it's fans, it not at nearly the same level of cultural significance as Superman.

Theory #2:

Maybe JJ's Superman script did suck, and JJ'S Star Trek doesn't.

Don't get me wrong, Wrath of Khan rocks.

But Search for Spock also rocks, AND Robin Curtis is a WAAAAY better Vulcan than Kirsty Alley. Kirsty's version of Saavik comes "this close" to ruining the movie for me.

On the other hand, Search for Spock suffers from a slow, lagging third act.

They both have their problems.

Furthermore, my all-time favourite so far is STILL The Undiscovered Country. Like #2 and #3, it has its faults. But I can watch #6 endlessly without complaint, while the faults in #2 and #3 jump out at me these days after multiple viewings.

I can bring myself to permit a debate on the comparitive merits of Cattrall/Valeris vs. Curtis/Saavik. I say Saavik beats Valeris, but I can at least allow for a debate.

But to rank Alley's Saavik over Curtis'?! That's madness!! MADNESS I SAY!!!

Anyway, can't wait to see this Star Trek film. I grew up watching TNG as a kid (airing on Saturday nights if I remember correctly!), and caught a few episodes of TOS whenever they'd show them super late at night. Watched a bit of the other series and some had great eps, some had very poor. Haven't really watched any Trek since that piss poor finale of Enterprise (a show I think gets shat on too much... it had at least 1 good season with the whole Xindi arc) but then we got EVIL ALIEN NAZI'S outta nowhere and the final season was hit/miss (mainly miss).

Also, I don't think this compares to the Superman reboot. Abrams' ideas in that were really kinda dumb. And they were just a simple reworking - an Elseworlds, if you will. Whereas this seems to have a 'have your cake and eat it too' approach that somehow balances the old and the new and creates this Trek hybrid. That's very different, in my mind, from what Abrams attempted with Superman.

But the actress' movies might be the third most talked about thing when it comes to Megan's life - right behind her dating life and her body.

In an interview in ELLE magazine's June issue, the young actress revealed how her much talked about relationship with Brian Austin Green began.

She first met Brian on the set of "Hope & Faith," saying he seemed "sweet and quiet, harmless. I was like, 'Oh my God, I have to be with you."

At the time Brian was 30, while Megan was just 18 years old.

"I had to convince him that I was slightly more responsible and well-spoken and had other things to bring to the table besides being 18," she told the mag.

I love that girl.

They all wrote positive reviews because they all liked it.

What do you all you talkbackers that are bitching about the reviews want to change about that equation?

There. I said it. Search your feelings; you know it to be true.

Let me just show that we do indeed reward good writing with compliments and accolades.

Great review, Capone. Nicely done.

Big mistake, pal. TNG and DS9 pwn everything.

They fly around Uranus wiping out Klingons.

I had to say that. With Star Trek coming up, that joke has been making the rounds again so I had to pass it on.

Oh, and I'm seeing it this friday and looking forward to it. I'm not a Star Trek fan by any means, but this looks entertaining.