may 8 may 8 may 8 ...

I'd ask these guys is Gary Mitchel is in the film. He and Kirk were best friends in the academy and Kirk DID ask for him aboard his first command. They certainly wouldn't omit little things like that, would they now?

I want to know if Chris Doohan has a scene with Simon Pegg. If so, what, where and how.

What about Finnegan? They've GOTTA put Finnegan in there! (for those who don't remember, Finnegan was Kirk's nemesis at the academy and we meet him in the episode "Shore Leave.")

Klive... yes, Chris Doohan will appear as one of Scotty's assistants...

Actually the comment "It writes itself" is a little distressing. I really don't want a pastiche of the old show. I want something consistent with the old show that is new and innovative. That takes skill, something that Orci and Kurtzman's oeuvre to date does not demonstrate.

@billhedrick - O&K kick ass. MI:3 was the best of the bunch. Alias and Fringe were enjoyable premises. Transformers didn't suck (I think the script was likely better than the execution)... they're trying to reboot a franchise that has run so completely aground... watch the movie. Give it a chance.

No, you can't have Gary Mitchell, you can't have Finnegan, you can't have Kirk be downright grim - this is a fresh, new reboot! Abrams style! Built by the Dharma Initiative - ON the Earth, crewed by the Others -- go, see it, enjoy! Tell all your friends how great it was! Go see it again! (Rinse, lather, repeat) (Did somebody tell you that you could eat those peanuts?)

Grim? I never saw Kirk as grim. Piccard at times, maybe. But not Kirk. He could be serious, but he always had that "OK, so how to we beat this" attitude. Determined and confident, almost, but not quite, arrogant. The new character had a different childhood due to Nero's interference, so he turns out a little more rebellious and a little more arrogant. I can accept that if it delivers an intriguing story.

@srsly- Ahahaha, what a great joke about Kurtzman and Orci being good writers! They make Akiva Goldsman look good. At least he didn't put Batman pissing on people into his scripts.

Should have had Shatner in a cameo playing Tiberius Kirk, the grandfather who supplied Jim's middle name. They could have been leaning on a fence back at the farm with Tiberius handing out grandfatherly sage advice.

If the movie is dependent and centered around the current, present-day time traveling Spock, then what does that tell you? That the past is dependent on the future in the Trek universe. We are not getting a story that is ground up, but rather ground down. I do not doubt a single bit that had this movie been made first (like back in the 60s) before any Star Trek was ever made, the whole plot and outcome would have been different. Lay the cement first, then build the house. Don't build the house, then lay the cement. It can be done, sure, it is so much messier, and can never fit right or as good as it could have had it been laid first. Let this movie be the Titanic of Star Trek. This movie has great promise with overly inflated hype, but once it gets tested, it will sink and take the whole series with it. C+ for this movie, and I am being nice.

@TrWH - how can you rate a movie that you haven't even seen. That's beyond idiotic - and your so-called review makes no sense. .

Kirk and Gary Mitchell weren't best friends in Starfleet Academy. They didn't meet until Kirk was a lieutenant and an instructor , Mitchell was one of his students. And the comment "it writes itself" was sarcasm, they were joking with the interviewer about the expected Star Trek cliches such as " Damn it Jim I'm a doctor not a ______."

And I am glad that they chucked the idea of including Carol Marcus. Star Trek II implies that Kirk met her when he was on his way to becoming a famous Star Fleet officer, it also implies that Kirk, Spock, and McCoy all met her around the same time. I hope that Captain Pike's first officer is the female "Number One" from the Cage.

They could have easily done a sound byte of Shatner. The scene: A law firm was instructed to deliver to Spock a recording of Kirk’s last will and testament to his best friend in the event of his death. That would have been a fine touch to at least hear Shatner’s voice as Kirk.

I guess I've been somewhat distressed about all these characters meeting at basically the same time. I always had the impression that, because of their relative ages, they would not have been at the academy together. (Except for maybe Sulu & Uhura.) Chekov should still be in Jr. High. I always had the impression that Scott had a well established career long before Kirk came along.

I agree that Mitchell should be in it.

So, let me get this straight - Eric Bana tattoos his head (something Romulans have never been shown to do), travels back in time, and causes Kirk to be born on a starship and not Iowa. Spock travels back in time, causing the Enterprise to be built on the ground, causing Chekhov to be born sufficiently in-time to attend Starfleet Academy while Kirk, and the rest of Mystery Inc are there. Kirk steals Enterprise, tells Pike that his Giant Robot Buddies will pee on Pike's Whopper with extra cheese if he doesn't step back and let Kirk sit in the "Dad" chair in front of the big TV.

Did I miss anything?

Oh yeah, A year and a half from now, we'll get the Exclusive World Television Event when it's aired (with bonus features) on SyFyLess.

I’m in command of the USS Soapbox. Ready phasers…

Enough already! I just want a Trek movie. Enough with what this film should and should not have. I don't care. I want a Trek movie! And guess what? Come May 8th we'll have one, and I don't care if it sucks, I don't care if it doesn't follow the Trek "canon." I don't care if Romulans have or don't have tattoos. I don't care about Chekhov being around the same time as Kirk and Spock at the Academy, as I recall the screenwriters royally screwed up in "Wrath of Khan" because Chekhov wasn't in the series at the time when the original Khan episode "Space Seed" was done so how could Khan know him? Again, don't care. And, the biggest thing I can care less about, because I got over it pretty quickly... Enough with the Enterprise being built on the ground as opposed to being built in orbit. Maybe they got a super duper transporter and beam it into orbit? Silly me, of course they wouldn't have a super duper transporter I've read the Technical Manual, we all know the ships are built at the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards orbiting Mars duh! Also if any of you followed the last TV series they pretty much set up the fact that the timeline was getting really messed up because there was a temporal war happening, so I can kind of see how this film is going…why else would Eric Bana (he plays the Romulan with the sinister tattoo because, he’s the bad guy, and we all know bad guys have sinister tattoos) say in the latest trailer “James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was in another life.” Hmmmmm…

I just want to see the Star Trek universe on the big screen with a bunch of Trek geeks in the front row clapping every time Spock comes on screen. Please, let’s all reserve judgment on this movie until the day after we all go see it because it could be worse... Anyone remember Jar Jar Binks?

Hey FilmNut...Amen, brother...AMEN!! May 8th here we come!

FilmNut.....Phasers armed.....That is what this is all about the treekies getting another movie, some have been good, some...not so good. 2,3,4 awesome....5 not so good, 6 good, 7 eh...and so on....not too many franchises have lasted this long, 13 movies give or take 5 tv series...I mean give it some credit and have a little faith, if you can do better, then get some funding and by all means shoot away! :) mean while I will be in line 5.8.2009...Live long and prosper!

Locke:

I'm glad that they chucked the idea of Carol Marcus also. But what about Ruth? Everyone seems to have forgotten about Ruth. The chic Kirk who was part of Kirk's fantasy in "Shore Leave". Even in Star Trek II, they should have had Ruth be David's mother instead of inventing Carol Marcus.

Fizbin: Actually, early drafts specifically used Janet, as in Dr. Janet Wallace. Scientist woman leaves old flame for scientist man rather than starship man. I think the problem was that inserting a son would have put the previous episode into question. (I think that idea then got recycled in TNG with "We'll Always Have Paris"...) Hence, they started over with Carol Marcus. Agreed that Ruth would have been a better idea: easy to retcon too, that the artificial Ruth wouldn't have necessarily looked like the real Ruth.

NOT Janice Lester, that would have been freaky. Unfortunately too, that Areel Shaw was a lawyer not a scientist.

It has been a lot of years since I have looked forward to Star Trek movie this much!!!!MAY 8TH can't get here fast enough!!!

FilmNut,
You want to know why we make such a big deal over the Enterprise being constructed on the ground? Try to look at it logically. How much does a starship weigh? one hundred million tons two hundred million?
I couldn't even begin to guess. But where is the most logical place to construct something like that IF you have the means?

Every one pay attention, in S P A C E. Oh sure they have anti-gravity technology and can lift it into space when it's done. How much power would that take? Logical? Not hardly.

For me this is an example of bad film making. When you throw out logic and common sense for a cool shot and that’s all that scene is. Kirk rides up on his very twentieth century style motorcycle and sees the Enterprise being constructed in the distance. ’OOOOOOH COOL! AAAAH! Awesome!’ And if Abrams will do that for just one cool shot what else has he done?
Logic and common sense, based on what I‘ve seen this film has very little and it will have to go a LONG way to convince me it‘s Star Trek.

If you are willing to fork out 8 or 9 bucks for any piece of crap Paramount slaps the Star Trek label on? Then by all means Go! enjoy yourself. I'll just put in my DVD and watch the real Trek and wait for it to come to the dollar discount theater, if I see it at all.

Spaceman, your comment is worse than critical, it's condescending and childish.

While Filmnut is a bit exagurant, I agree with him. It's Star Trek, and I'll go see it good or bad. Doesn't matter what I want it to be, all that it should be is entertaining. I can live with changes, I can live with problems with continuity (actually, I live to debate continuity errors), so bring it on... good or bad, I'm there!

Well, I do have to say that I'm looking forward to this movie more than any other of the big franchise block busters that are coming out this year. And by the looks of the Trek trailers and TV Spots: It sure as heck is going to be better than than the last Trek film (Nemesis) and the latest series (Star Trek: Enterprise). I'm sure there may be minor changes (Continuity wise) in this new Trek film, but I don't think it will be as bad as the abomination that was Nemesis and Star Trek Enterprise, though. Enterprise (starring Scott Bakula) not only had super big time line errors but it was also horribly written and poorly acted, too. As for Nemesis: I was waiting for Picard to wake up in a cold sweat at the end the film as if it was all some kind silly dream sequence that never really happened. I mean, really? What are the chances of Picard and Data discovering duplicates of themselves around the same time? And if there was a conspiracy to clone Picard, why wouldn't they have cloned Riker (his second in command), too? Oh, and lets kill Data, but not really kill him. That makes no sense. It destroys any emotional impact that his character is really gone. Also, don't you think the timing of B-4's arrival is a little too convenient, too? So frigging retarded. Ugh.

Anyways, as for JJ Abrams on this new Trek Film: I think he has a pretty good sense of quality. I can't see him writing poop like Nemesis or Star Trek Enterprise. As mentioned before (not B-4), JJ has done an amazing job on the first two seasons of Alias, and Lost. He also gave us a Mission Impossible movie that didn't down right suck either.

This is to the poster that was mad about the Starship Enterprise being constructed on Earth:

Greetings and good day to you.

Okay, well first off, this is a ship. It should be able to take off and fly. Sure this prequel reboot is taking a creative license on the series by modifying the starship so that it could possibly take off from the ground (Just like Voyager). Cause when it comes to the sets, costumes, and technology. You have to be creative, new, inventive. Otherwise your average movie goer is not gonna want to see it.

Furthermore, if you are pulling out the logic card in Star Trek and or in any movie my friend. Well, prepare to be disappointed. No movie or TV show is without it's flaws. It is all a matter of what you are willing to accept. Just pick up the Nitpickers guides to Star Trek and you will see plenty of errors and problems. Or pick out your favorite movie and google it with the keyword "Bloopers" and you will see that your perfect little film is not actually perfect at all. Sometimes we have to use our imaginations to look past those little flaws. Other times the flaws are so big, insulting and blatantly retarded it could very well make a test monkey attack in blinding white hot rage.

However, I don't see your case that this movie is for non intellectuals or folks who just like to drool in front of the screen mindlessly, though.

I think you like the classic shows so much, that you don't want to see the original vision of Star Trek changed in any way.

I just encourage you to give the movie a chance before you throw the book at it.

After all it is just the trailer. And the trailer is only one small piece of the whole puzzle.

P.S.: Just to let you know Star Trek is science fiction in the first place. The cold hard fact, is we have come a long way technology wise like Star Trek but we are never going to have warp ships or transporters or contact with a race like the Klingons from another world. Star Trek is an adventure amongst the stars, dreams, and escapism. Nothing more.

For all you whiners about Enterprise being built on Earth...

1) The dedication plaque on the bridge, from TOS throught ST3 says the ship was built in San Francisco, not in orbit above SF, not in Utopia Planitia.

2) While I do not have the specs in front of me, it was generally accepted that in terms of size, Enterprise was about the same size as Voyager, which was designed to actually LAND on a planet and TAKE OFF again.

3) Even if it was stated that Enterprise was commissioned and launched from orbit originally (as opposed to STTMP's refit), let us try to use LOGIC to suggest how the two events are not mutually exclusive.
3a) Any work in zero-gravity is much more difficult than in a gravity field. Just ask NASA.
3b) During the Apollo program, many people were against launching rockets carrying devices that were powered by nuclear fuel cells, fearing that an inter-atmospheric explosion would spread radioactive debris and fallout that could ruin Earth's ecosystem. Star Trek history has established that 23rd century Earth has had to recover from ecological conditions far worse than what we face here and now, and
3c) Anti-matter is exponentially more hazardous than nuclear fuel.
Supposition: Fearing the catastrophe that would occur if a starship's antimatter engines exploded before achieving or breaking orbit, and owing to the greater ease of laboring within a gravity field, at the time Enterprise was built, Starship hulls and much of the interior work were done prior to launch. With construction mostly complete, and the impulse engines but not the warp drive installed, the ship was dedicated and launched from San Francisco into an orbiting dry dock for final construction, including installation of the warp-core.

For further historial basis, let us look at ocean liners, which are built in dry docks, then sent to shipyards for completion. You didn't think the riveters at Harland&Wolf put the linens on Titanic, did you?

"The cold hard fact, is we have come a long way technology wise like Star Trek but we are never going to have warp ships or transporters or contact with a race like the Klingons from another world. Star Trek is an adventure amongst the stars, dreams, and escapism. Nothing more."

Because of the screwed up page break, I can't be sure who I'm quoting, thanks SyFy, (shudder) but I love reality checks like that, just love them, reminds me of the good old days, 1,000 years ago, when the good Earth was flat, the Sun still revolved around the Earth, the Earth was at the center of the Universe, everyone KNEW the stars were just lights shining at night from Heaven and no one could ever travel as far as the moon, how preposterous! And you'd be jailed and excommunicated if you dared to speak otherwise. Ah, the good old days!

Now before anyone starts jumping up and down I know my current science very well thank you and I'd like to point out that general relativity, special relativity, quantum mechanics, and string theory are all THEORIES - none of them have been proven as stone cold facts - though PARTS of them have been proven to hold up experimentally, granted. However, there is yet no way to explain the divergences between general/special relativity and quantum mechanics, except in the cases of quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics where physicists have actually managed to show relativity and quantum mechanics working together.

Einstein and Max Planck wrote in the early 1900’s, quantum electrodynamics was discovered in the 1920’s, quantum chromodynamics was discovered in the 1970’s. You’re basing your predictions of humanity’s future on only 100 years, less actually, of theoretical science.

I remember being 8 in 1969 watching the launch of Apollo 11 on TV with my grandpa and he told me when he was a boy he believed one day men would walk on the moon. Then he told me that his dad and his grandpa had told him they KNEW it would never happen. They KNEW it. What arrogant little apes mankind can be. The things we KNOW.

I wish Einstein had lived long enough for the discovery and proof of the existence of black holes, I’d loved to have seen the press conference. I’m sure it would have gone something like this:

Reporter: “Professor Einstein, you stated in your Special Theory of Relativity, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, and yet, the gravity waves inside a black hole are so strong, so fast if you will, that not even light can escape them. How do you reconcile that with Special Relativity, Professor?”

Einstein: “Well, I, uhm, that is, well…….damn.”

100 years ago, most people in the US were living in homes with gas lights, candles and outhouses and radio, while existing, didn’t begin commercial broadcasting until the 1920’s. You think we’ve come so far in 100 years that you can predict where we’re going? Or not going? Some day, our sun will expand into a red giant, and if we don’t move out to the stars, we, as a race, will die. If we haven’t killed ourselves already.

Arrogant little apes. I sometimes wonder if we deserve to live. I’d like to think the answer to that question is “yes.”

**Spaceman, your comment is worse than critical, it's condescending and childish.**
Scanner, Please show me exactly where my post is condescending or childish

I am not MAD about the enterprise being built on the ground. What I said was it makes no logical sense to built a multi million ton starship on the ground. The logistics of such an undertaking would be astronomically prohibitive, even in the 23rd century and I actually have no idea if it is canon it my very well be but TOS never dealt with that as far as I know. But if they had at any point in TOS said that the enterprise had been built on the ground, it would have been just as illogical then as it is now.

I maintain that the only reason it’s shown in this movie is because it’s a really cool shot and throwing out common sense for a cool shot is poor film making.

Also some one mentioned all the inconsistancies and illogical things in all of the other Trek films and shows and yes you are right they do have quite a lot of them butr I don’t have the time to list them all and my post would be so long that no one would read it. Besides when Those shows and movies first aired I did not have a computer.

I just don't buy the 'we really wanted Shatner, but we couldn't make it work' line. I'm sorry folks: it's not as if this is a 17th century period piece. You've already more-or-less admitted to using time travel (and/or an alternate universe) as part of the plot. Who's to say you couldn't pull Kirk from before his continuity death?

More broadly, this is science fiction. Where there's a will (e.g., Old Spock) there's a way. Personally, I thinik, when it comes down to it, this had to do with a new crew not wanting Shatner to overshadow 'their' vehicle.

Guess what: it's not 'their' vehicle: it belongs to everyone, fans (present and future) and key players included. Shatner can be an overdone presence, no doubt; he also can be larger-than-life (to the point of being a turn off) in real life.

But the bottom line is that, for better or worse--I think better--he and Roddenberry made Captain James T. Kirk. The man deserved (and deserves) a scene in the latest movie. Personally, I wish he was an integral part of the plot. But even that was seen as undoable, he deserves a scene.

(Besides which, to my surprise, he's shown himself to be a really good actor in a range that I thought he wasn't capable of via Boston Legal, but I digress)