As for a new TV show... I'm on the fence here, since JJ is in his own timeline do we make a Next Gen show? Or a TOS show with the Elvis crew? Or maybe just come up with something totally original ... nah... that will never happen.

So Kudos to you folks at Paramount who made all this money, and the news only gets better this weekend, when the over loud and terrible Transformers 2 hit's theaters.... now wait... Trek + Transformers??? There's your money maker!

Rihanna as Uhura.

Crap it up totally and the profits will warp ten.

Anyway: as we all know making the most money doesn't mean its the best movie though in this case it IS the best movie of that series. Because of the writers.

(Please don't let Transformers 2 suck!)

And that's a big to-do?

This only PROVES what some people have said all summer, but few geeks would admit: Jay Jay's total victory over pop culture was presumed prematurely.

Dawson's Trek can now be dismissed.

i leaning more toward the idea of having Khan as the MAIN villian - but discovered differently - by another Fed ship or even the klingons/romulans years b4 he was in the prime timeline (thanks to neros intervention disrupting the timeline) - no wanting revenge against kirk etc so it wouldnt really be another khan like villian out for revenge! (which is kinda what Nero was)…not even a retred of Space Seed…just having Khan as the villian (maybe along with the klingons*) in a totally new adventure like the joker in TDK

(*in fact i remember reading early reports about TWOK that erroneously said Khan was leader of the klingons!…the sequel could finally make that a reality!…plus khan mentions the old klingon proverb…maybe that was a prelude to a tantalising glimpse into another reality where he is their leader?)

-This may be obvious, but Fox has confirmed they will not be releasing the clips online, as that "is not how one should be experiencing it."

It's long been known that Laeta Kalogridis has been working on Battle Angel and The Dive for James Cameron, and her work on the Avatar script has also recently come to light. Kalogridis has been a very well-respected screenwriter, but until now it seems she hasn't had much luck getting her screenplays produced. Well, that's about to change - Kalogridis' career is really heating up. Later this year, along with a little movie called Avatar, she has Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island.

She is also working on the script for the action-comedy Witchita, which will star Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz.

The new Trek is moronic. Give me the Motion Picture any day of the week, a movie with intelligence and class.

I think you meant to type, "I really liked this flick."

But, go ahead, keep talking for everybody. Makes you feel like you belong. Goody for you.

Besides, you know, the first one has had thirty years to gross its amount (as if it's been an actual money-earner all that time). Jay Jay's is bound to have grossed a google-zillion in thirty years. That'll be the true comparison, right? Right?

We didn't have anything original to contribute.

We figured skew younger. Whiny twenty-somethings always pack them in.

We were gonna go shiny, but TWILIGHT beat us to that.

Erm, huh? Are you serious?

These may include: A setting in the future, in alternative time lines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archeological record.

A setting in outer space, on other worlds, or involving aliens

Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature.

Stories that involve discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems (e.g., a dystopia, or a situation where organized society has collapsed.

Lucas has his.."I"ve got a bad feeling about this" for instance (which I chalk up to his less than impressive writing abilitites).

But when a Director or writer goes out of their way to insert some novel, unique meme into everything they do, Slusho, Slusho, Slusho...it just seems so silly and contrived..well beacuse it is.

Still this movie was OK..not Trek..but watchable.

The early scene following the bar fight where Captain Pike tells Kirk about his father was a really moving push into the story. I liked that Abrams went there, into emotional territory that Trek usually dismisses. It gave the story weight.

I hope JJ's next film is full of moments like this, plus one or two even larger-scale kickass battles, since the two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm actually looking forward to the next "Trek" film.

How'd that happen?

One thing someone need to tell JJ though...STOP with the close ups during battles. Really..you have gigantic starships blowing the shit out of each other and we see nothing but close up after close up, fast cut after fast cut of Phasers and missiles.

Face it, kids. Trek is BACK, in a new way, that the people at large - not us geeky buggers hanging out and bitching on our own little corner of cyberspace - can't get enough of. People really liked this flick, it's almost like Star Wars in the way that people who would usually give it a very, very wide swerve are going to see it, and going back again.

Anyway, seeing the new Trek, having bought the box sets of the original series, and rewatching my beloved Wrath Of Khan, Search For Spock, Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country, made me go out and buy the rest of the flicks.

I confirm that The Motion Picture is still a right load of shite.

What's the plot of The Motion Picture? Starship Enterprise sort of drives towards a big fucking cloud, under the command of an uncharacteristically glum and quite unpleasant Kirk.. sort of drives through it... stops. They get out, say hello, and turn around.

Okay, I'm shooting fish in a barrel with that one, because I only re-watched it today, but as far as I'm concerned, the new Star Trek had a decent, involving, fast-paced storyline (which crucially, did NOT alienate every viewer except for hardcore Trekkies)... it might not hold up to abject scrutiny for crying out loud, but I guarantee you, neither does ANY Trek flick.

But, in Star Trek, he did his job. This film was NOT about a formidable villain. He did a good job of being an angry, unpredictable threat. Albeit in small doses. THIS film was about three guys named Kirk, Spock and McCoy, and it did that job splendidly, ta-very-much.

I get your points but... You say there's no moral or philosophical point. I disagree. The moral point, albeit a very simple stock one, is there in Kirk and Spock. Fulfilling one's potential, in Kirk's case. Stepping up to the challenge, to the greater cause of good, in a noble fashion. In Spock's case, following his wishes and embracing his heritage. It's blockbuster morality 101, I know. But it's made the franchise we enjoy so much more accessible to everyone, and taken it (thankfully, in my view) out of that little box of geekdom which was really, really strangling it. I mean come on, most post-Next Generation Trek is a total joke at worst, and quite impenetrable to anyone who's not an uber-fan.

As for the whole timeline issue, it's made quite clear in this film that the original timeline COULDN'T be restored, but that the original timeline STILL exists. Somewhere, somewhen, somehow. It's actually verbally spoken in the film, more than once.

I just don't think (and I speak as a long time Trek fan who, for fuck's sake, has The Final Frontier playing on DVD as I type) tha Abrams and Co could've won with some folks. The didn't shit all over the timeline, they left it sancrosanct, and relaunched Star Trek into the wider consciousness, and more importantly, made those wonderful characters fresh again.

You're argument about the characters simply being there to advance the plot... well... isn't that what characters are for, sometimes? I mean... I hear the argument a lot about how "convenient" is was that Scotty was on the ice planet... That to me is like saying it was ridiculously lucky that that Solo fella was having quick beer when the whiny kid and old man wandered into that wacky bar on Tatooine.

The timeline split right at Kirk's birth. Prior to that point, the two worlds shared the same history; after that, they went different directions. Still, though, there are instances of the Enterprise crew traveling back in time to prior to the moment of the divergence. If the new crew went back and watched the moment of Edith Keeler's death in the early 20th century, who would they see? Their Kirk, or the original Kirk?

In the case of previous adventures restoring timelines - well, in those cases (let's say Voyage Home, First Contact, City On The Edge of Forever etc.) our heroes HAD a future/reality that HAD to get back to. Our new Kirk and Co, in this case, knew nothing except there was some angry guy in a big ship with a vendetta.

In the case of old Spock not trying to restore the timeline? Well, that's a fair point I guess. I don't know. I just took it that the event that brought him and Nero into the past was a freak occurence that couldn't be replicated.

I don't particularly think that everything should be explained. Because that's when you get into Picard/Janeway/Bloke From Quantum Leap stood pensively behind the Science Officer spouting technobabble in a boring attempt to get the crew out of some dramatic device without contradicting an increasingly tedious and sacred "canon".

Interesting things from this movie:

People who have known Spock a while are no longer constantly surprised at his outlook on logic.

Kirk has a very high IQ in this. That's only told to us and never really demonstrated but with any luck, the movies will turn on his intelligence, like in The Undiscovered Country when he signalled surrender instead of following his gut.

People have their jobs for a reason. Uhura is a dedicated student of communication, Scottie is an innovator in the field of warp technology, but somehow Sulu is just a dweeb in the movie. He didn't do anything visibly extraordinary.

There are lots of bizarre looking extraterrestrials in Starfleet.

I would have liked it, however, if the USS Kelvin incident had militarized Starfleet by its occurrence. In fact, that incident should have changed a lot more than it did, imo, but I can see why the filmmakers were too scared to do that. Maybe in "Star Treks".

It makey money, but it tast'ah like SHIT.

As for the technobabble, I'm sure you realise that it IS just that. Babble. It means nothing. Very little of it even makes sense scientifically. It always struck me as a piss-easy way to get out of a plot contrivance.

Even if it was properly researched and backed-up science, it was a huge turn-off for viewers and audiences.

And there was very, very precious little of it in the original series or movies. Thankfully.

I honestly believe that the new Trek is closer in spirit to the original series and flicks than The Next Generation and anything that came after ever was.

For the record, too, I think Nemesis gets a pretty bad rap compared to Insurrection. That really DID suck. I'd put, as two hour stories, Insurrection and Motion Picture quite well below Nemesis.

Pretty sure some agent out there is thinking "well, he's Aussie, he works out, he ain't bad looking. Maybe I can earn what Russell Crowe's agent did a few years ago."

the night is always darkest before the dawn...thank you james...thank you for giving me hope again this weekend.

Nowadays trailers have become this social contract between the studio and the potential audience. Nothing subtle here. In fact, most of the best scenes, spoilers be damned, are laid out in the trailers. Sigh.

Watching the TMP trailer tonight reminded me of the Don't! faux trailer from Grindhouse. It was exposition wrapped around some action. Both were well done.

to all the fuckers who say star trek was just candy or cinematic junk food, i say 'screw you' ... star trek has set the foundation for potentially the greatest star trek series EVER. I hope they don't fuck it. Man i hope they don't fuck it.

Cosimo Fusco for KAAAAAHN!!

some of you talkbacker are dicks

very minor issue tho.

A more precise way to describe it would be to say that we updated theoretical physics in this Star Trek to conform to the most current thinking on the subject by the top minds in the field. It's as if we were rebooting the tales of a sailboat named enterprise that originated when everyone thought the world was flat. Now, years later, we come along and tell the story of the same ship, only know we know the earth is round. I don't think you can argue it's weak Star Trek to aspire to conform to the most current thinking in science, no matter what previous Trek's did. And as noted by others, this theory of parallel universes was used in the next generations many times, so even canon is not consistent.

I'll have a draft screenplay by Monday!

Yes I remember the episode where Sulu is traveling the halls of the Enterprise shirtless with a rapier. I think an alien made of glowy lights that fed on hatred was trying to pit humans and klingons against each other? Kang, right? Day of the Dove? Maybe I have more than one episode mixed together in my mind.

My point was that Sulu's character wasn't definitively a pilot the way some of the other characters had impressive qualifications. Come to think of it, Spock didn't demonstrate any particular affinity for science but they didn't actually say "Science Officer" so that's not really a big deal to me. Uhura was probably the best example of merit, as she studied linguistics and spent her free time in communications arrays.

I also have a theory that some performances were homage to the departed, i.e. James Doohan and DeForrest Kelley. The rest were not.

There's nothing in the canon that says they couldn't find a new particle called "the reboot particle." Oh, yeah, baby, the "haters" have been, like, totally vanquished.

That should read "Paramount scientists," instead of "Federation scientists."

We're back to real Star Trek.

You're welcome, Paramount.

Yes, Paramount, it's like magic.

This movie was hollow, moronic fare dressed up like it meant something. It rips off Star Wars heavily and yet Star Trek rarely. New Kirk (a la New Coke) is a shallow nothing of a character. The action is all run and gun, "go here shoot that" material. The bad guys stand for nothing. The rest of the crew are all a joke of cliches. And piloting a starship doesn't mean having big silver control sticks and warping to a location in 10 minutes, it means actually pointing a ship around planets and stars and gravity wells and figuring out how many days or weeks or months or years it'll take to get there. New Trek sucks, and looks like the majority of folks out there are its suckers.

By the way, I believe they did call it a "black hole" in the movie, but didn't they also say from the beginning that it was unlike any cosmic event they'd ever witnessed? Perhaps they were only calling it a black hole for lack of a better term?

lotta people may have hated it, but I never had a problem with the slow pace of the first film - I also didn't have a problem with the almost GLACIAL pace of the first two-thirds of 2001: A Space Odyssey - but maybe that's just me?

"since... cutting edge science, THAN anytime a new Trek is made..."

"if you go by the summary given by DATA...(on) parallel universes, THAN there we are tracking the universe in which..."

seriously dude WTF??