I'm still cautiously optimistic about this film, but I'm getting tired of hearing Abrams talk about how his own film converted him into a fan. STOP BLOWING YOUR OWN HORN, J.J.!

And it really worries me that this guy had to change--sorry, reimagine--the backgrounds of these characters in order to connect with them. The rest of us fell in love with these characters AS THEY WERE, without needing the details of their meeting--the actors and the characters already felt like old friends TO US when we started watching.

I'm still hopeful, but it sounds more and more like Abrams tweaked Trek into HIS image so that he could connect, which makes me worry that the rest of us won't be able to connect anymore.

I hope I'm wrong...

Is it May 8 yet? Can't wait.
WAITAMINUTE!
Watchmen opens tomorrow!

sounds to me like abrams is make gene roll over in his grave!!! im sure a trek fan ill find appreciation for this but reading more and more about this movie sounds like someone is going to kill the franchise even more than it is now.

It is always going to be tricky restarting a franchise with 40 years of history behind it, starting with the original characters from the classic TV series and starting again from scratch. Personally I would like to see a side step, same universe different characters. BUT this is what is on offer, I will reserve full judgement until I have seen the film.

Give this movie a chance. Battlestar Galactica turned out pretty well being "re-imagined," so I looking foward to this with an open mind. I have watched Trek since I was a little kid and my parents watched the original series. I am looking foward to see what JJ has made up.

And nothing can be worse that Star Trek V... that killed the franchise a long time ago LOL

I hold out great hopes for this show. I've been a fan for more years that I want to count, including having read several of the books associated with Spock. I don't think Abrams is tooting his own horn, as much as I think that after he delved into the characters, he began to realize how wonderful they are. My view is that nothing says Abrams was only able to connect with the characters only after the new actors and the re-imagining took place. He just needed an opportunity to connect with the characters and after taking on the making of the movie, he was given that opportunity.

I've met just about all of the original cast from TOS. I've even worked as a security escort for Gene and Majel at 2 conventions many years ago. I think he would have liked that someone is doing something to give the series more backstory, but I do not think he would have liked the way Abrams is doing it... He's playing way too much with the central character's conceptions.

lets just face it TREK has been awful for some time and the original cast can't pull it off any more, Abrams is a good writer so I think he can pull off a breath of fresh reboot. Not like 99 % of the fans that went to all the other movies wont flock to see this one then bitch how there were things they didnt like as the have always done

Quote: sounds to me like abrams is make gene roll over in his grave!!!

Right - Roddenberry was one of TV's finest writers. Wrong. The man had good ideas and concepts, but he couldn't write and he was inconsistent with STAR TREK canon. We have to remember he was replaced as the original producer of the show, he was replaced after ST:TMP of the franchise, he was replace as producer ST: TNG during its first season because he wasn't that good of a storyteller and administrator. I suggest you look at Abrams' track record as a writer and producer and you find a man who delivers quality consistently. The fact is it's easy for us to laud or bash Abrams, but there are very few people who can actually produce or direct an entertainment product consistently, and no one was stepping up to the plate to revise this franchise, Petiac, when it was deader than dead in 2004. You don't like it, Petiac, because - God forbid - someone is going to succeed and do well for this franchise. That very notion scares the hell out of you because took a chance, utilized their talents with their team, and will take this franchise forward after its revival on May 3rd.

what irks me is that it has been told by the writers that the timeline has been altered, hence so much has changed. well.... then stop claiming ur giving us THE Kirk and crews' backstory. cause by changing the timeline and allowing yourself to change stuff, it's no longer the backstory of TOS. it's an alternate backstory, but alternate stays the operative word here. saying "this is the TOS's crew's backstory" is inaccurate advertising. misleading.

Sometimes, it is just better to let go of the past and move forward.

Think about how horrible the most recent Star Wars films were. They were awful.

Now, do you think it's possible that the creator of Alias and Lost, two the best genre shows, could create something as terrible as Phanton Menance or Star Trek Insurrection.

Seriously, think about how absolutely wretched Insurrection was. The only decent Next Gen film was First Contact. The rest were crap.

I intend to absolutely hate this movie with every fiber of my being...if it's bad.

Otherwise, I'll be thankful to have something to forget Nemisis.

If it makes me long for the original characters, I'll eagerly await the next movie and watch all the remastered treks via iTunes.

Watchmen is tomorrow...I know it has nothing to do with trek, but it may be the only other movie I see this year.

Sounds like he is still sucking up to us fans for that quote last week "this is not for the original fans out there." He of course retracked it and is still trying to get our support. In fact he is really going out of his way to do it. Hmmmm, was the the test viewing of it gone bad wonder boy? Did the studio tell you to get out there and get the orignal fans to come..... BY ANY MEANS!!! I believe we shall be adding a name to franchise killer, Fred Fieberger, Harve Bennent, and now wonder boy himself, J.J. Abrams.

I'm SUPER-psyched for this film! From what I've seen I love the new direction Abrams is taking Trek. Star Trek hasn't changed too drastically in the last 40 years, so it can't really hurt to give it a fresh new spin (while still retaining important elements....which is what Abrams has stated he's done). But this is coming from a fairly "new" fan of Star Trek.....so my opinion my not hold too much weight with anyone. But regardless, I'll try and explain my perspective for those who are interested. For starters I'm 31 years old just to give you an idea on how long I've been exposed to Trek. When I was very young I remember watching Trek only a few times, and the most memorable were the times I watched the Animated Series as well as one other time in particular....seeing Spock's space walk in The Motion Picture-- and that memory would forever be burned into my consciousness. I was fascinated by these few early memories, but I remember growing up and trying to revisit Star Trek only to get mostly bored by it. Over the years I had seen about half of the films in the theater and was pretty faithful to the Next Generation during it's first and second season. But I usually felt cheated. For one thing I had been corrupted by Star Wars, and since The Wrath of Kahn the film series have tried to emulate the space-opera genre to no true avail....which was always unsatisfying to me (and just a side-note here: Star Trek NEVER tried to be like Star Wars until Wrath of Kahn, after the so-called "failure" with The Motion Picture. Early Trek was NOT action-based sci fi). The other thing for me was the apparent cop-out from what Trek had claimed to be: "...to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before". The worlds were rarely TRULY strange or exotic, and many times weren't even new as they were occupied by other humans, and all too often for my taste
the "new" life that they would encounter would take on human form (for budgetary reasons I presume). And of course it seemed like HALF the time, like I previously mentioned, they didn't REALLY go any place where "no man has gone before" as they would end up "exploring" distant human outposts! There are some great exceptions of course, my favorites being the classic "The Immunity Syndrome" and Next Gen's "Where No One Has Gone Before", as well as much of the Animated Series, and in my mind without question The Motion Picture.

Anyway, I've always been in love with the "idea" of Star Trek-- what it stood for. But my disappointments with it always overshadowed any respect I had for it. That was until I re-discovered "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" in late '03. Unfortunately this is not widely accepted as a fan favorite (for reasons, among others, that it didn't have enough action-- go figure!). ST:TMP had embodied everything I ever wanted Trek to be, and then some! It truly is the EXPLORATION EXTRAVAGANZA of the Star Trek universe. There are no single other Star Trek films or episodes that convey such an awe-inspiring journey into the unknown-- and such an expansive journey it is (especially with the "Spock-Walk" to top it all off)! It's no wonder that this embodies Trek more than the other films, as this was Gene Roddenberry's only story put to the big screen. After falling in love with this film I started to appreciate all things Star Trek, even what I had previously
considered "boring". I just wouldn't go as far as to say I'm a Trekkie (no conventions or pointy ears here!), but I still love Star Trek none the less.

Although the new Star Trek movie is yet again another attempt at space-opera it finally looks like they're gonna get it right. It'll have many of the elements that Star Wars has that I always felt Trek should have-- primarily really cool space-creatures, and an actual planet-hopping adventure within a single film (rather than only going to one major planet). These are elements that stay truer to what Trek is supposed to be. And this of course looks to be the most VISUALLY epic Star Trek film since The Motion Picture, which has been LONG over-do in the franchise.

The only thing that I'm a little worried about is the film giving no explanation as to why the nacelles look the way they do. Don't get me wrong-- I like the new look, but the nacelles in "Enterprise" look fairly identical to the ones in TOS, so I hope they explain (scientifically) why they moved away from that design, only to return back to it in the Original Series. This would be the only obvious major glitch in canon if there is no such attempt at an explanation (in my mind). That and the fact that they seemed to be totally ignoring the very first two episodes of TOS.
Thanks for reading!

Where is Gary Mitchell? Why did the bridge drastically change from 'The Cage' version to this movie's version, then back almost the way it was before in 'Where No Man Has Gone Before'? Why even try to keep anything even close to the same but then change other things completely? It makes no sense to either traditionalists or newbies.

I have complete and total faith in Abrams ability to fuck up and destroy that which I love.

The man is more of a traitor than GWB

To AliensvsLordoftheTrekWars, there is no need for an explanation as to why the nacelles on the Enterprise will look different in the movie than they did in TOS. If they had the CGI capabilities in the 60s that they have now, I am pretty sure the Enterprise might look totally different than we are used to. Something designed to look well on the small screen doesnt always translate to the big one. They played with the look of the Enterprise during the early movies. Why not just watch the movie with an open mind and open eyes and reserve judgment until after you see it. Look at how dated the bridge looks compared to technology we have today, this is the producers way of trying to make it look more futuristic.

RE: Bridge change

Helloo, future tech from the early 60's is WAY different then future tech from today. It makes sense to update it. Why go into retro mode.

Unless you were doing a faithful Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers movie. Then it's sweet.

Well, I guess they didn't have that technology for the DS9 episode (the time trvel one where they went tothe space station from 'The Trouble With Tribbles') that showed the interior of the Enterprise looking low-tech. I remember Dax calling it Starfleet retro. That is why the Enterprise looked the way it did. Oh, that's right, ignore that little fact along with everything else little pissant Abrams doesn't like.

One more comment: The only REAL way to accept ALL aspects of the new film is to literally think of it as a modern-day REMAKE of the original Star Trek (and not as a straight prequel or reboot). Unfortunately thinking of it as a remake doesn't seem to set quite well either. Oh well, I'm still going to enjoy the heck out of it anyway!

J.J. Adams IS changing the backstory! The Enterprise 1701 is believed to have been launched in 2245, under the command of Robert April. In the new timeline, we see young Kirk watching the building of the Enterprise...if he is around 17 when that scene takes place, that would make the date at least 2250. Which means something in the new timeline may have delayed the building of the ship, (and possibly eliminated the chance of Robert April, the FIRST Captain of the Enterprise) as in the "real" timeline it is believed Christopher Pike took command of the Enterprise in 2251. In the "real" timeline Spock began serving with Pike in 2252, and "The Cage" took place in 2254. LOOK at the ages of the main characters in the film:
In the movie is Chekov really TWELVE years younger than KIrk? Here are the REAL birth
dates according to Star Trek cannon: Kirk was born in 2233. Spock was born in 2230. McCoy and Scotty were born in 2227. Uhura was born in 2239. Chekov was born in 2245. Sulu was born in 2237.

WHAAA WHAAA WHAAA!!! You are bitching over something you think you read , no one said anything about altering or taking away from any timelines. Hell no one has even seen the movie much less the script that is on lockdown. I'm not even realy a Trek Fan but after seeing the trailer and having the gneral knowledge fom seing several of the kep episodes and each movie at least once I think I'm willing to give this movie a shot why can't you guys stop picking things apart you really in all honest have no proof of either way and give it a chance to actually come out (and make sure you actually watch it, not just read about it on Wikipedia) before you judge anything. People did this with the Dune prequle novels and now they love tthem. I mean you don't like people judging your work before you have a chance to present the whole thing.

I'm sorry, guys. I had a rough childhood and Trek was all I could use as solace. Please forgive me for being a complete toolbag!

What's the matter douchbag? Looks like you're using your pathetic life as backstory trying to steal my identity. You know identity theft constitutes terrorism, right? What makes someone do such things? Is it because daddy molested yopu? Awww... it would be sad if you didn't like it so much you still let it happen after all these yrars.

It does fit in continuity. JJ's continuity. The entire movie is set in an alternate Trek universe, that's the plot of the film that timeline is being messed up so it gives the filmmakers the chance to do what they want. Think Back to the Future II's "Hell Valley" when Biff messed up the timeline.

I think it's pretty cool because, whenever a series is rebooted like Bond or Batman or even Friday the 13th, it's a straight-up reset. None of it happened, this is new. The entire PLOT of "Star Trek" is that things are changing, so that's why it's different but doesn't completely ignore what happened before.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NEW TO STAR TREK: An alternate time line changes EVENTS not
the characters ages. A person may not be born, but (as I said before), for example, is Chekov being presented as TWELVE years younger than Kirk (as stated in Star Trek canon) in the movie? I doubt it.

Well, I guess the Chekov age thing you're going to have to roll with. Remember "A Sound of Thunder" when stepping on one bug destroyed the entire timeline or whatever? Just go with that. I'm not going to sweat a small detail about how old Checkov it. It's freakin' Checkov! Who cares?

Honestly, the fact that they are going out of their way to make the plot itself about the creation of an alternate timeline I think is pretty cool and shows more respect of the fans of the fanchise than any other reboot has ever done ala Bond and Batman.

And I'm not new to the Star Trek, I've been watching for decades, all series, thank you very much.

Once again: It's Chekov. Who cares?

Also: Birthdates aren't cannon. Only things that are explicitly stated in the movies and TV series are considered cannon. Birthdates from a non-movie/TV source doesn't count. They never explicitly said in TOS that Chekov was 12 years younger than Kirk, so he isn't.

Birthdates WERE stated or shown as a computer display in the ORIGINAL TV SERIES. Therefore IT IS CANON! As to it is ONLY CHEKOV: It doesn't matter who it is, you are still changing the ages of the characters.

There really is no piont in arguing about all this. Abrams has taken Trek and twisted into his own vision and mucked up the continuity so much that it really makes no difference.

This movie is not going to revive Trek. Abrams says he is trying to appeal to people who are not yet Trek fans. to get the twenty somethings with loads of cash excitied about Trek.
Well heads up wonderboy Trek has been atround for forty years, kept alive by people who already liked it and were willing to spend a bazzilion dollars to see a new movie, IF it were any good, which this looks like it won't be.

"Birthdates WERE stated or shown as a computer display in the ORIGINAL TV SERIES. Therefore IT IS CANON!"

Okay, prove it. If you can prove it, then it's canon. However, it wasn't, so it's not and you are a liar.

Birthdates aren't canon. Get over it.

HowItWorks, you have a very inapropriate name. You cannot comprehend how it works nor why. You seem to think birthdates are not important, and not canon, and since they aren't canon, they don't matter. This entire movie is not canon, so in your own words, this movie does not matter. This movie sucks ball & so do you. Get over it.

HowItWorks, you have a very inapropriate name. You cannot comprehend how it works nor why. You seem to think birthdates are not important, and not canon, and since they aren't canon, they don't matter. This entire movie is not canon, so in your own words, this movie does not matter. This movie sucks balls & so do you. Get over it.

HowItWorks, you have a very inapropriate name. You cannot comprehend how it works nor why. You seem to think birthdates are not important, and not canon, and since they aren't canon, they don't matter. This entire movie is not canon, so in your own words, this movie does not matter. This movie sucks balls & so do you. Get over it.

HowItWorks, you have a very inapropriate name. You cannot comprehend how it works nor why. You seem to think birthdates are not important, and not canon, and since they aren't canon, they don't matter. This entire movie is not canon, so in your own words, this movie does not matter. This movie sucks balls & so do you. Get over it.

HowItWorks, you have a very inapropriate name. You cannot comprehend how it works nor why. You seem to think birthdates are not important, and not canon, and since they aren't canon, they don't matter. This entire movie is not canon, so in your own words, this movie does not matter. This movie sucks balls & so do you. Get over it.

It's amazing how someone can only defend their side of debate by slinging insults through the anonymity of the internet. What's even more impressive is that they never will realize how petty and immature it makes them seem in the arena of public discourse.

Rob, not a good idea dude.

So, now you're out on the carpet for slinging mud behind a screen name, you resort to threats of violence.

I saw earlier on these same boards that you called someone out for identity theft in terms of terrorism. What you apparently failed to realize is that your callous attitude and comments also open you to charges based on threats and assault, not to mention defamation of character. Furthermore, since you've now provided your address and real name, you also have provided a ticket to anyone who wishes to press these charges in court.

Why do you feel the need to insult people for expressing their viewpoints on an open forum? Calling people morons or insinuating that they are homosexuals based on their television viewing preferences is childish at best, especially since you've proven your eloquence prior to all of this.

I don't care one way or the other about how this movie will or will not affect a forty some-odd year old franchise; I just want the news. What's wrong with being civil, Rob?

Quote: "Also don't start with the 'people are entitled to their opinion' crap. Every time I expressed my displeasure about the direction the Star Trek movie is headed, I was insulted & called a whiner. I didn't start this but I will finish it if I have to."

Your plan to finish it is by continuing to do what they did? I don't mean to insult you, Rob, but the first thing this brings to mind is schoolyard tactics.

My point is that there is no way to finish this. The haters fire off one crude remark, you follow up with another, and the cycle continues. The only way to end the problem is to seek out every last one of the people you have a problem with and take away their internet.

There are no winners in this, Rob, except those of us whose convictions are strong enough to take a beating without allowing our brusied egos to take over.

If you really are who you say you are -- Rob Cline, an adult living in Washingon, IN with a 15-year old son -- then you are grown up enough to hold an intelligent discussion without stooping to insults to make your point. All the insults do is make you look less intelligent and less mature. Let your detractors dig their own graves, sir.

--

To answer your previous question, the fact that you invited the naysayers to your residence with the warning to bring "a medic" implies that you intend to do them harm. Further, you defamed numerous people by insinuating that they "suck balls," are homosexual, or have been molested by their parents.

Any two-bit lawyer worth the ink on his bar certificate could very easily win a lawsuit against you.

Not a threat, Rob. Just facts.

And, by the way, how do you know that I'm not well-versed in law? The truth is that you have no idea who anyone is on this anonymous message board.

I would like to more of the time of Captain
Archer and the ENTERPRISE series with
same cast back on tv were it all started