Utter and total bullshit. Spoken like the fool he is, realizing far too late that his gambit is never going to be palatable to the masses.

Next I suppose he'll try and tell us Cloverfield was supposed to be the worst movie ever.

aixelsyd,

Why such negativity? Can you lose the over the top verbage long enough to put some rational behind your theory that the ST film is going to fail to attract a wide audience? I have a feeling that is just wishful thinking on your part.

Tribble...WTF?! Ok he must have run out of things to screw up and is now turning to small furry Klingon hating critters.

Somebody get that maniac off the bridge! and not that stupid iBridge he's created.

Hooray! Abrams admits that this is not the same Star Trek universe. So, it's like Marvel's Ultimate universe.

I think it's going to be great. And I love the iBridge, it's exactly the way it's supposed to be.

No one here has seen the film, right? Didn't naysayers utter similar negative comments about Ron Moore and David Eick's "Battlestar Galatica"? How many fanboys went into sexism induced fits when they learned that Starbuck is a girl?

As for the design of the bridge, I think rocks. It looks more realistic than previous versions.

You know...I've been watching Trek since I was 5 (being 39 now), and I'm more than willing to give this a fair shake. Yes it's a different version of the series...but that's just it...it's a DIFFERENT VERSION. Sooner or later, people have to realize that it's not going to be the exact same...if you want it exactly the same, go buy the DVDs....

I'm gonna be there opening day, and enjoy the movie...and not spend my entire time nit-picking the thing to death, because I'm not nearly as anal as some Trek fans appear to be. It's a movie...you grab your soda, your popcorn, sit down, turn off your brain, and enjoy...'nuff said.

realistic? on a fantasy space ship? :-) I just wish it WAS Ron Moore and David Eick doing this Trek, at least then it would have more heart and less Felicity.

I hope this movie is something like 4 hours long, because from the description the space battles of the Enterprise may only be the last 5 min of the movie lol! We keep hearing about all this character development (that we want to see!), the academy days (which we deifnately want to see!), main character bonding (oh yes we all want to see this too!), and finally great space battles (wouldn't be star trek without it would it??). How that will all fit into 2 hours and not feel rushed is beyond me.

Face it, the ibridge is going to be reality. Apple will have taken over the world by then.

Sadly, I have a feeling that you're right....Steve Jobs is already getting Borg-O-Fied.

Bludston: having watched ST since I was ten - so that makes it 42 years - the one thing that I know Star Trek DOES is make you think. If I have to turn off my brain to watch the newest version of it after all these years, I'll pass. I'd rather think.

One has to understand the spirit of the franchise before one can stay true to the spirit of it. If by franchise, he means making money off Rodenberry's dream, then perhaps he is. But that isn't the spirit of ST. That would be using metaphor to mirror the human condition and encouraging it to change for the better.

Just saying. ~ Rose

Bet it won't be as good as Nemesis.

is anyone surprised that the closer it gets to the release the worse this sounds?

I'm sorry... did you want a new Star Trek movie with only half the cast treking around space in their 80's? Another 2 hour TNG epi-movie? How about Voyager trying to find its way home from the moon to earth? The entire franchise has been on suiside watch since halfway through VOY (with healthy attempts all through the first 3 seasons of ENT). Worst thing that happens from this movie.. i go back to watching DS9 on dvd. Oh.. and as for the people that don't want the "soap opera drama"... didn't Shatner hook up with a new chick (or alien) every week for 3 years... If that Kirk can take 2 "5 year voyages" then this Kirk should be allowed to be thrown a bone.

Everything sounds fine, just a few little fanatical Trekkies are crying because things don't look just the same as the old series. You know, in the sense that this movie looks good, big, epic, etc. Yep. No complaints warranted.

My only question is why have they tried to reinvent the wheel. They have a vast Trek universe to play in. You cannot convince me they could not come up with an idea for a fun, exciting, and even thought-provoking film with the elements already at hand. It didn't have to be a film set soley on Kirk's Enterprise or in the Next Gen or DS9 worlds. Why could they not have created an adventure that spanned the various incarnations, like some of the better novels. They could have pulled characters and actors from all the shows and introduced new ones in the process. Trek isn't always great, in fact it has sometimes been quite bad. But the potential for greatness is always there. I want to give Abrams the benefit of the doubt, but I can't help shake the sense that he has squandered Trek's great potential.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope the re-boot of the franchise is as great as the one Galactica got.

Big and epic are fine but don't mess with the icons. You want proof that it can be done and done well, look at James Cawley's New Voyages/Phase II episodes.

As a trek fan for god knows how long, I grew up on reruns of TOS and the beginning of TNG, I shall reserve judgement on Abrams' so called vision, although if he throws in any polar bears or Rambaldi artifacts from Alias, I think I'll drive my car down his throat. As for Lou's and Red's comments I cant help but agree witht the fact that they could have drawn from other sources for ideas. Would love to see a New Frontier movie myself. Or perhaps jump further into the future, sort of like the Online game thats in the works

I've been a trek fan since I was 7 and I am going to give this movie a far shot. I've loved what they've been willing to show us for far. As for the changes, I welcome them with open arms. As for the comments about using new material from novels for the bases of a new movie I think there a few important things to remember. "We" being trek fans aren't the main audience. If you were to ask anybody what "New Frontiers" was they might give you a blank stare. If you mention Kirk, Spock, or Enterprise the most likely answer you will get is "That space show" or "Star Trek?!?". As much as it would have been cool to mine those stories I'm not sure if it would be as accessible as going back to the old characters. But that's only my $.00001

Never liked Star Trek save for a couple of the movies. Namely Wrath of Khan and parts of Generations. Hated the tv shows, especially the newer ones. They are just ghastly. But I'm very excited about this movie. I think this franchise has been in need of a reboot since before TNG ended it's run. I couldn't care how unfaithful it is, just as long as it's fun. Something that they've avoided doing with any of the recent tv shows or movies.

Hey folks! This is just a Sci-Fi movie. No more no less, and why so many people here are arguing about beeing good or bad movie, if it is even not out yet. Just wait until it opens on may, watch it, and then come back here to say your opinion.

This universe has been dead in the water for some time now..the last good ST movie was First Contact. Thats a long time ago. Voyager was terrible and so were the first 2 seasons of Enterprise. I like what JJ is doing here. A reboot with young actors portraying these icons will draw in younger audiences and new faces to the franchise. They don't have to worry about back storys for the most part and all the BS that goes with missing 5 previous tv series and 12 or whatever movies. They can start fresh and with JJ and his people running things , you know its going to be a mostly solid effort on screen and entertaining as well.

I've been watching Star Trek for nearly 40 years, the good with the bad. Overall I love the show and I am willing to give the new movie the opportunity. It's not about the actors, the original guys had their run and they are still my favorites but as long as the younger team stay true to the characters the movie will have success.

We should all be happy they made a movie in the first place. If you bitch about the fact it's not Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley etc... then you are living in the past. Sadly Kelley and Doohan have already left us along with Gene and Majel. We cannot go back to what was. We should enjoy this movie for what it is and be grateful they are even producing it for the Trekkies. (I am one of them) IDIC

Complaints from so-called fans who think Abrams is ruining Trek are hilarious. You claim to be carrying the torch of the franchise, but in reality your attitude reflects poorly on the fandom. It's apparent that these fans are afraid of change, and afraid of taking a different view on a franchise that was run ragged and buried by its own creative team.

"Oh, the Enterprise doesn't look right and, horror of horrors, the 'action figures' are Barbie dolls. iBridge, iBridge, iBridge!!!" Boo hoo. Get over it. I welcome a fresh take and new voice to help revive some form of a now defunct series.

If Abrams is "ruining your childhood," you've got more issues than simple fandom. Go see a shrink about your insecurity complexes and quit whining.

I personally can't believe that fans who supposedly believe in tolerance of the ideas of others... who believe in a future where all ideas are welcome... would so thoroughly trash the creativity of someone else. What hypocrisy!

Having been there from the begining (yea I am that old), read most of the books, seen all of the other movies, and seen each of the series (at least twice, but then there is nothing good on tv anyway) - maybe those that are negative need to realize that most of the shows were a bit wistful and campy after the first couple of seasons.
Give the script, actors, and special effects a chance. In order to keep the Trekkies going, rebooting to a new generation is how it's done.
My guess (and I have been pretty right for 30 years now) it will fly.

Yeah, I don't get all the negativity either. I have been a Trek fan all my life. And yes, maybe J. J.'s movie messes w/ the cannon a little but so what?! Why do the fanboys have to cut off their collective noses to spite their faces?! It is a new TREK movie! Stop nit-picking and just enjoy it! Man, if you waste time trying to make it fit what came before, you wind up overlooking the most important thing – the story!! It the story is fun and exciting, the other stuff won’t matter.

If the big wigs weanted to kill off star trek
once and for all, from what i've seen from the trailers and the toys, they got there wish. May 8 will truely be a sad day for the world of star trek.
J.J. should had kept working on Lost or Cloverfield 2 and left star trek to someone who smegging hows the back history of star trek. Robert April was the capt. of Enterprise before Chris Pike. The Enterprise was built in pieces at the San Fran ship yard and put together in space. It is truely going to be a sad day .

I really don't know who Robert April and Chris Pike are, and where and how the Enterprise was built, so I guess I'm a fan but not a Trekkie.
But to me, Star Trek has no future anymore. The only chance it has in another TV show or movie was a reboot, and J.J. Abrams is doing just that, so I'm willing to give it a chance. Hey, it worked for Battlestar Galactica.

you know how when you're defending the trek u love and know with conviction and love, and someone come with some bit of info that u had no clue, hint or warning of, and the truth hits you with the frying pan of embarrassment? that's what happened to me.

this iis an interview Orci had with Trekmovie.com, explaining why there are so many obvious canon breaks. it seems the hidden message in the trailer is that Zero, the time traveling romulan, changed the timeline. ergo, anything goes for change in the resulting new timeline. it's best to read it before posting outrage. im not happy about it either, but i dont want anyone else looking like an idiot.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explains-how-the-new-star-trek-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/
in my opinion, it's a cop-out to change crud. but.... im not sure i care anymore.

sorry for the double post.

thanx 2009-Trek-makers, u could have TOLD us this in the TRAILER. but no, the trailer needs Uhura's bra more then an explanation why almost everything has changed. leaving us confused and loyal fans scared crudless wondering what the hell is going on. thanks for making me ticked off and frightened u totally messed up Trek. WHY the hell didnt u explain this in the trailer?

but i guess canon is your plaything now. may the scapegoat of a messed up timeline grant u every leniency and laziness u hope it does. i.. i cant take this anymore.

It sounds like "growger" wants more of the same, and God forbid anyone have some ingenuity when it comes to a dead franchise.

Face facts: Playing in the same tired sandbox is what killed the franchise and got everyone fired. If Paramount wanted to do the same thing TNG, DS9, VGR, and ENT did, then they would have made it about those crews.

Playing on the same crap again and again is what made it stale. I'm happy that someone had the cajones to shake things up, even if it messes with the precious "continuity" that these "fans" hold so dear.

Well I grew up with the re-runs of the old series and then TNG.. I help moderate a star trek Role-play game also soooo.... yes i am a total star trek geek. I am a lil worried that the are going to screw up the star trek univers but i am willing to give it a chance

I grew up watching TNG, it was my first real taste of the Trek world. When I heard that the new movie was going to be a prequel to the original series I was disappointed, but not discouraged. My biggest concern was that it would be in the true spirit of Gene Rodenberry's vision. I was very excited until I read an interview with Abraham were he said he never really watched any of the newer series included TNG. TNG was the series were Rodenberry wasn't held back by the TV sensors of the 60s, and was able to betray ST in the manner he had invisioned. I am still looking forward to watching the new movie, but I am concerned that Abraham may have no idea of the real vision of Star Trek.

I would rather they had just rebooted the series completely rather than say it takes place before the originals..., However I am looking forward to it.

As for comparing the re-booting of BG to this, there are some major differences. The original BG has only the barest resemblence to the new series. A few names and a paragraph's worth of initial plot are the only links. Not that both original and new shows aren't both good, they are. They just AREN'T the same shows at all.

This re-boot of Trek may be good, but what concerns me is that, unlike classic BG which had a single season (everyone agrees not to count BG '80), Trek has enjoyed 29 seasons of various series, plus 10 movies. That's a lot more tradition, cannon.

Yes, there are small chinks in the cannon. How many TOS episodes did we get before Star Fleet and UFP were stabilised? We kinda liked poking fun at that. Case in point: Klingon head ridges. All the arguing back and forth we loved so much ended up back in the series when Enterprise made the episodes that explained it.

So, if the new look turns out to be just a chink, like Klingon ridges, I may be able to enjoy the addition to the beloved franchise. But, if the show is as far removed from our old Trek as the visuals given so far have suggested, then it wont be any more the established Trek than the new BG is like the old one. And at 29 vs 1 seasons, Trek has a lot further to fall.

It sounds Like what the fools at the Terminator franchise are trying to do. Manipulate time to explain away all of the gross inconsistencies.

What I don't understand is all of the so called Trek fans whining about the Canon being messed up in this new film. Have you ever watched any of the Trek series? two examples:
Dr. Zefram Cochrane was supposed to have had his warp flight from Alpha Centauri, instead of earth as in first contact.
At Wolf 359 in the TNG ep. The best of both worlds the largest fleet that could gathered to stop the borg cube was like 30-60 ships. Then within ten years in DS9 when fighting the Dominion the size of the fleets where gigantic with hundreds of ships.
I love Trek, but the point I'm trying to make is that if you watch Trek and think it follows it's own Canon then you are only fooling your self. Give Abrams a chance.

For all those who talks about other stories, or other characters, or other races in the ST universe for this movie... let just say that James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock ARE Star Trek... so let's enjoy this new version of them and let the franchise continues and "...boldly go where no man has gone before".

cloverfield sucked

every star trek movie has sucked, some have just sucked less than others.

i hated the idea of a "re-imagining" of battlestar galactica", but it has become a show i never miss.

give it a chance. if it sucks, it sucks, but it can't suck till you see it.