The History of J.J. Abrams:

Lost: It's time travel across dimensions
Fringe: It's time travel across dimensions
Star Trek: It's time travel across dimensions.

Can't wait for his version of Romeo and Juliet.

Naw...it's not a reboot....temporal riffs be damned! Lucus...er...I mean Roddenberry...would be proud of the new storyline. No, no....it's new and fresh....

Yea...no thanks. I'll wait to pick it up on my Netflix subscription rotation....no $20 movie ticket from me on this Trek Flick...

I hope there is a cloverfield cameo

I'm sorry, gentlemen, but the main difference between Star Wars and Star Trek is the SCIENCE fiction. Star Trek was about plausible SCIENCE. The reason starships of the Enterprise's size cannot be built ON a planet... because they're so huge!! I don't care how far into the future you go, you cannot change the basics of physics! Also, according to cannon, the shipyard that all starships are built at are located at the Planecia (sp?) Shipyards on MARS! Besides that, if they were sticking with cannon, the ship is already built AND in service under the command of Chirstopher Pike... with Science Officer Spock as part of his crew. Lastly, SW is Space Opera (just read any of the interviews with George Lucas) which explains 'fighter' battles in space, and Roddenberry (who is spinning in his grave) based Kirk's 'character' off of Heratio Hornblower, a NAVAL commander. His (Roddenberry) idea was Naval conflict in space (a-la 'Run Silent, Run Deep' type of sub battles). All these guys are doing is catering to our youth that want nothing but action every second. I like action, don't get me wrong, but they missed the point that the tension of not knowing where your enemy is or if you can turn the ship quick enough to evade or bring your guns to bear on your enemy can be just as exciting. Jeesh! The more I hear... the more I'm beginning to wonder if this is the movie I want to see. (Much like after I saw Nemisis... I gave that movie away). And, Facepalm, I agree... another story about Time Travel? I do believe that Starfleet's protocols (I.E. The Prime Directive) covers that any officer who finds themselves 'traveling in time' to not interfere with what has already occured. But, I'm going to assume that becuase Spock is the one doing the traveling... he's going to site: The needs of the many outway the needs of the few... or the one. *sigh*

Storm - you also seem to have forgotten the other word in the term you're defining - FICTION. I've worried and fretted and wasted time in thinking about canon in the past on tons of things SF-related and in the end for me it ended up not really being a big deal as long as I was entertained.

Why can't people just not worry about all the other stuff and see if it's a good film?

I'm sick to death of the absolute commercialization of EVERYTHING. There is no simple entertainment anymore created by writers to entertain, no, everything is designed to "Maximize (Holy) profit". Designed more by PR marketing creatures then actual writers of any creative talent. When did this endless talk about "reboots" of "franchises" begin? Can't we just have some good movies, written by good writers, directed by good directors, acted in by good actors written to make us think a little, question (gasp!) things a little, and yes entertain? And NOT be all about demographics to maximize holy profit, sell junk at Micky D's and Walmart and insure the holy trinity of sequels (and why does it always half to be 3 anyway? can't there be 2, or 4 or 5 movies? NO 3 is the holy number revealed unto us by Mammon "the invisible hand" himself keep the number holy and revere it!)

Sigh... people. You're gonna see it, it will make 200 million. You will hate it. It will revive Star Trek and you old before your time foggies will grumble that it's not the Trek you knew as a kid.

One thing I know is that writers are the last people you should ask what a movie is about. Their input ends about 1/4 the way through the process. Abrams made his movie not O&K's.

Not entirely, Salamar, but I thank you for pointing that out. My issue is that Trek was not all about the 'battles in space', but about the human condition. But, we've moved away from that because 'it's killing the FRANCHISE'. Just as pointed out by M, Star Trek has become about making money more than telling a good story with a point. Most of the TOS episodes and many of TNG episodes dealt with veiled references to controversial issue of the day. Now, it's all about action and explosions in space. This isn't what Roddenberry was looking for when he created Trek. I hope this movie is better, but I'm beginning to have my doubts.

sure it is a reboot...they just didnt have any good idea for a continuing story with TNG or VOY or DS9. i m a big st fan but the first time i ve heard about the concept i was shocked..come on....i really hope this film will be good. in general i have enough of prequels like batman or the coming wolverine. the only continuing good film will be terminator salvation

and yeah..there s a big difference between star trek and star wars! thx

The creators of this new movie seem so determined not to piss off the phanboiz that they're bending over backward in order to create a convoluted story that seems just too bizarrely complex to be any damn good.

A better solution would have been to just piss off the damn phanboiz and do a reboot.

Abbrams doesnt care at all about star trek he is a warsy and honestly we dont want a warsy messing with our stuff give the right and everything that goes with it back to the Roddenberry family give it to Gene Jr. he will do a better job then abbrams also how about giving eveything Abbrams has done to Jr. he can possibly make it better

Seeing as the Enterprise from TOS has a plaque on the bridge stating it was built in the SF shipyards, I don't understand how that point is "debatable". That said, a major spoiler given away above is that events like the building of the ship in the movie "take place after the time incursion". They're using this point to go off in their own direction.

Bill, I love your predictions, man!

But no, I won't see it. (In the theatre or rent a DVD)

Will it make $200 million? Did the latest X-Files? It was a turkey. Of course, opening against "The Dark Knight" didn't help it.

Will I hate it? Well, I'd have to see it to make that judgment, and I probably won't actually see it until well after DVD release when I borrow it from a friend and see it for free so it will be a long time before I can answer that question. There are movies I willingly support with my money; this just ain't one of them.

Will it revive Trek? I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say "no." Why should it? The last several movies didn't. The only movies you could ever claim did are the first 2.

Will the old timers like me claim it's not the same old Trek any more? Oh, hell yeah, especially since the chuckleheads that wrote the script admitted that they and Abrams wanted to make it more Star Wars than Trek.

Some people say it's only a movie or that the series needed a reboot. Some say they hate Star Trek & hope it does good just to piss fans off. Some say they love anything that claims to be Star Trek, and don't care that they are supporting a movie that basically says 'F**k you fans'. Some argue that all the changes don't matter. But what would fans of the Beetles do if a new group came out calling themselves The Beetles? Even if they used the names John, George, Paul & Ringo, would they really be the Beetles? Would it not matter to the Beetles fans? And if the Beetles fans were told 'just get over it', do you think they would just accept that? This is just one of countless examples I could use. Most of the ones cheering this movie say the ones against it are close-minded. In truth, they are the ones that can't see beyond their own selfish wants & refuse to look at a bigger picture. The fact is, you can call an Edsel a Model T, but it will never be a Model T.

Come on people!!! Get over yourselves. Comments like "it's all about money" in reference to ANYTHING is STUPID!!! Of course it all about money. Show me something that isn't. Roddenberry wouldn't have made the F'ing thing to begin with if it wouldn't have made somebody money. And correct me if I'm wrong but he made a couple of dollars himself....Will this new one violate "cannon"? WHO CARES!!!!!! It’s about going to the theater and being entertained for a couple hours. Good God you "Fans" piss me off!!! Biggest case in point to this is the Battlestar Galactica remake. "My God this is gonna suck" you fans said, "Starbuck a WOMAN!!!! The travesty" you said. Hatch himself, at the beginning, tried to kill it before he agreed to sit down with the creators and go over it. 6 years later, it is (arguably) one of the BEST Sci Fi series EVER!!!! Funniest thing is, it was co-created by one of the "architects" of Star Trek Voyager (hated by “fans”)......

You "fans" need to put the "Star Trek Tech Manuals" down and either watch the movie or not. But stop taking time to flame these guys for A) trying to make a buck and B) doing it by brining back the oldest and best Sci Fi franchise ever....

Good grief you people need to get laid.....

It's obviously not a reboot, because Kirk isn't a woman. Among other reasons.

It's an alternate timeline. That's not the same thing as a reboot.

Rob,

I agree with your point but, FYI, The Beatles is spelled with an 'A'.

Thank You, San Diego!!

My thoughts exactly!

Well said San Diego. People should wait to see it before they judge it (I think it's gonna rock and I'm a "fan").

"Star Trek was about plausible SCIENCE."

Storm1968 - If you honestly believe that then I have some beach front property in Arizona to sell to you.

Unicron.. get a grip.

I have been a Star Trek fan since I was two years old, that's 36 years now. I have loved the shows, the books in (nearly) all it's incarnations; the only exception was Enterprise and Nemesis. I loved the original three Star Wars movies, didn't like the prequels, but still found Star Trek superior in almost every way.....

Now, (pulling my hair out)

WHAT IS EVERYONE GETTING SO WORKED UP OVER?!?!

I have followed this new movie every step, read every thing I could get my hands on, watched every trailer numerous times; I have found NOTHING the slightest bit worrisome. Everything the writers, the director, the actors have said has said to me that they understand the essence of what makes Star Trek special. Nothing in the above article or anything else should make any fan nervous. This looks like it's going to be a GREAT movie. I've never been this excited for a movie, EVER!!!

Wow. I'm a huge ST fan, and I'm looking forward to the movie even though it looks like what we know is being changed. I'll judge it on whether it is a good movie. If it is, it will restart a great franchise. If it sucks, it will be forgotten. If that happens all we'll be left with are 10 movies, about 800 hours of television, and hundreds of novels. Either way, we'll all survive. It's not like they are rebooting the Bible and this time Jesus shoots Greedo after Greedo shot at him.

Well at least Mr. Abrahams allready atmidet that he didn't make this movie for the fans and so I'll properly have to wait until this movie can be seen on free TV, forI I certainly will not pay to see it.

The best Star Trek was never about space battle or even about aliens and spaceships.

No the best Star Trek were storys of real value, real human matters, and they only happend to play in space, like
TOS: "May This be Your Last Battlefield"
and
DS9: "Duet."

And I seriusly doupt we'll see anything of that in the upcoming movie, since the very worst thing I heard about this movie was: "More action then in every other ST movie before."

As for Star Wars and Star Trek?
Apples and oranges are more alike.

So what if it makes 200 mil, the thing looks like it gonna cost 250 mil. I am not a fan of J.J. and according to the scifi posts he tinkering with too much cannon fodder.

The expense being the reason the thing gets built on the ground, flimsy material. Boy you guys really don't know your Star Trek. Ever heard of something called transparent Aluminum? Your dealing with advanced materials, lighter stronger than anything we currently have. Furthermore, It is physically impossible to build something as big and ungainly as the enterprise planet side. It would take years just to build the scaffolding needed to access the exterior of the ship. While the pictures of that huge beast being constructed are impressive, it is no more impressive that that shot of the enterprise in Star Trek the motion picture when Kirk first sees the new upgraded Enterprise. Golden opportunity lost to set up one of those magnificent shots. Oh you say it's been done before? just shoot it adding a couple more ships to make the scene more spectacular.

As far as BSG's reboot who says everyone liked it. BSG was a sorry take on Star Wars to begin with. That re imagining was sorely needed. Star Trek has been around a long time. It was born, died resurrected through huge fan support, launched 7 movies, retooled (TNG), expanded (DS9), launched a network (UPL), and finally died again when someone thought it would be a good idea to go into the past and start over (Enterprise.)

Give us something original. There have been at least 47 time travel stories spread across the various Star Trek shows. Enough already, if you want to go back and film something, tell us about the race that created the planet killer in the Doomsday Machine. Now that would have made a good movie.

See, there IS a way to combine fighter battles and naval battles. It's Carrier warfare. And when you do that you get... Battlestar Galactica. And Babylon 5. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not a new idea...

RODDENBERRY"S IDEA OF TREK WAS "WAGON TRAIN TO THESTARS" NOT A Naval battle anology.and as far as the ship being built in space "portions of he shi[ wee built in the san francisco naval yards and then transported into space for assembliy"as per the "making of star trek "bookthat gene worked on with the writer .so that about sets things strait ,right from the horses mouth so jj and his crew are wrong wrong wrong.

There are only two intelligent comments above:
sje28
and
Muadib
As for all of you arguing about being fanboys who will watch it or not watch when it comes out... Who cares. Personally, I reserve judgment. I love Star Trek. Yet, entertainment dollars are tough to come by in this economy. A lot of good movies coming out around the same time: Terminator: Salvation and Wolverine: Origins. So this movie will only have one weekend to shine. If I am feeling like fighting the crowds of drooling fanboys to take the wife and kids, I'll go, otherwise, Netflix it is.

Here is what's important: Roddenberry's original idea of a Future Utopia. Later incarnations of ST had already lost his original idea.

As for the space battles. Everyone is forgetting the original episode "Balance of Terror". Almost a remake of "Run Silent, Run Deep". You want ship battles. That's what Star Trek was about.

But hey... Youngsters today, they are too stupid to understand science and how stuff works, they want razzle-dazzle and i-stuff. Oh well... Maybe all this Time Travel will work.

For the record, the Time Travel insanity is why I stopped watching "Enterprise" on UPN.

OK I give up. These people are obviously so far out in their own little La-La land that they have no idea what the fans think nor do they care.

**Orci: Well, again, it's a continuation of canon. If words have precise meaning, it's not technically a canon violation.**
They are just coming up with all kinds of rationalizations for changing everything ‘Technically’ it doesn’t violate canon. They say they needed to connect the now of the Trek world I.E. Where the last movie stopped with Treks pats. Why? Why was this necessary in order to tell the story of kirks first mission. Why couldn’t this film JUST be a prequel? With no time travel, no alternate timelines because of a time incursion or any of that garbage? Laziness is what it was. They weren’t good enough to write a story that stayed within the already established history of the characters so they came up with a tiome incursion in order to just put in whatever they want.

**Kurtzman: I think what we know is that ... Star Trek is about naval battles, and, at its best, is always about out-thinking your opponent. …**
BZZZZZZZZ--Wrong! It’s about doing what is right. About bringing out what is best in humans not about battles. That just happens to come with the territory.

**But there's a reality to the way that people watch movies today. ... Which is that you cannot honestly expect ... a 12-year-old boy to walk into a theater and to go sit through two hours of very slow naval battle. It's just not going to work. **
So, is that your target audience then? 12 year old boys? Is that the intelligence level you were working toward? I think all the 12 yo boys out there should be insulted and a clue to the clueless. There are a lot more grown Trek fans than there are adolescent ones and who do you think is going to be taking the 12 year olds to the theater?

**San Diego
Biggest case in point to this is the Battlestar Galactica remake. "My God this is gonna suck" you fans said, "Starbuck a WOMAN!!!! The travesty" you said. Hatch himself, at the beginning, tried to kill it before he agreed to sit down with the creators and go over it. 6 years later, it is (arguably) one of the BEST Sci Fi series EVER!!!! **

Well you know what? The Battlestar Galactica remake DID suck! Big time. I couldn’t stand it. They turned it into a confusing convoluted soap opera with all sorts of weird spiritual overtones. In the end you couldn’t even tell who were Cylons and who weren’t. As for being the best SF series ever? That is VERY arguable. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion however.

Someone above asked why we could not just go to the theater and be entertained. Going to a first run movie is extremely expensive any more, it runs about 30 or 40 bucks for me so sometimes I’d like a little more than to JUST be entertained. I’d like what I’m watching to make some logical sense. If it’s supposed to fit within certain guidelines ‘canon’ if you will in order to tell a certain story then it should do that. And if it’s called Star Trek then it had damn well better look like Star Trek.

It boils down to this: Abrams and the people that worked with him wanted to REBOOT Star Trek and change it into something they thought would be better than the original. Something that was more like they wanted it to be rather than work within the world that Gene Roddenberry created. I read somewhere that Abrams told Paramount that if they wanted him then he wanted Star Trek. They created a plot device that let them do that I. E. a time incursion.

Of course all this is just my opinion but based on what I’ve read and heard I think it’s an accurate one. Well no thank you.

To quote a line from Spaceballs... "Oh no... Not Again..."

I was just beginning to think the new movie might be at least acceptable. At least I was until I read this interview. I really wonder if the producer Hacks and Writer hacks actually bothered to sit down and watch even one episode of the series, or any of the movies.

A few continuity issues with cannon are to be expected, but... As already pointed out, this movie is one big mess of continuity issues.

1. What about Captain Pike.

2. Spock was already on the Enterprise when Kirk came aboard.

3. In Balance of Terror, Kirk had never seen a romulin.

4. The Enterprise was not built on Earth. It was built in space. And should have already been in space for a number of years.

5. Kirk and Spock did NOT know each other before the series...

There are dozens more, but these are the biggies.. Abrams and his cronies ought to be booted out of hollywood. They seem unable to write a decent script and produce a decent movie sequal, without totally destroying everything which was set up in the decent movies which came before.

They just plop a few hundred million down for fancy cheesy CGI effects, and then stick a gerbil in a room with a typewriter, and see what they get..

It's only about the money in todays Hollywood and the heck with producing anything with quality or substance.

This will be a bright, shiny, action move populated by a 20yr old cast that is all the rage this decade.
The emphasis will be on the characters, as their stories play out in a post Nero time-travel incursion creating an alternate universe that will bear little to no relation to the TOS and TNG stories already told.

This is still a reboot, pure and simple, with the Time Travel angle to placate the hardcore fanboys. The origin story (a 3 movie arc of Kirk pre-cadet to Captaincy) could have easily been told without mucking up established story lines. Changing everything like this is a deliberate act by the studio and the people hired to make ST.

As you watch (and we will, the gods know), keep repeating to yourself, 'It's just an alternate Universe, It's just an alternate Universe'.

If Paramount wanted a Star Wars-type action movie, why not just hire a producer and make one? Why upset 40 yrs of fandom by mucking around with an established franchise?

I know they already own the ST name, but for little money they could buy any one of a dozen military SF novel series to turn into their very own Star Wars-type action franchise.

I see at least a few people see the light.

I well never wash either my time or money of this piece of @#%$&^%$&

How do we really know that Kirk will remain Captain at the end of this movie? I'm sure they're not killing Pike off. Kirk takes command in this emergency, why are you all so sure that at the end of the movie Pike won't return to his Captain's chair and in between movies Kirk goes off to his other assignments...Farragut, whatever...only to return to the Enterprise later...like by the sequel. It does seem very far-fetched that one emergency would fast track a kid from cadet to Captain.

I think everyone who is a fan of Star Trek should have seen the light when the crappy 3 or 4 episode DVDs of the TOS came out. Then years later came the boxsets. The same with the films. Until they had released Star Trek: Insurrection ALL of the DVDs for were bones and horrible.

Paramount is notorious for double dipping!!!! Look at the original series. First the do a "new special effects" edition, and now it has been released on Blu-ray???? They own it and can do what they want with it. Just do what I'm going to do and ignore it. Never acknowledge it in the Stark Trek lexicon. Can anyone say Highlander 2? And it isn't about denial. Hell, if I'd known how bad the second and third Matrix films were going to be I wouldn't have spent the money on seeing them.

This film is going to be a smash and lights turd and we all know that you can't polish a turd no matter how much you buff at it.

What REALLY sucks is that I gurantee there will be some pathetic tribute to Majel Rodenberry at the beginning of the film like they did for Gene at the beginning of Star Trek VI. Even MORE pathetic is that they'll have to explain to Jabrmas and company who Majel Rodenberry is.

In closing someone riddle me this ... how can you Hollywood make films like 'Fast and Furious' and the proposed "reboot" of Robocop as PG-13 flicks when every other Seth Rogan flick that comes out is rated R and has mainly children in the lead roles?

Again Hollywood is so out of whack it make me want to puke and cry all at the same time. What's next the reboot of Godfather because the third film didn't make enough money?

startrek Enterprise was a good series by the time it started everybody had anything startrek burnout!!!

I'm embarrassed to be a Trek fan when I read all the crybaby postings on these Trek 11 stories. Every last one of you should be happy that Paramount continued this franchise in ANY WAY after the dismal crap they've churned out for years. I think you might need to rewatch the first season of Enterprise before declaring this movie crap. You might also want to see it first.

@ SF Wire: Fix the damn captcha probs!

This is a reboot whether or not anyone cares to admit. There is nothing wrong with a reboot, either. In fact, I think Star Trek needs a reboot. The reason why everyone is in denial of it is that it implies that the franchise has gone downhill (which it has). I really hope that this movie can revive the franchise.

Personally, I am a Doctor Who fan. Doctor Who is better, always has been, and always will be.

I'm just wondering if J.J. can hold the camera still. Remember when Cloverfield's audience left due to motion sickness? Imagine that on a starship...

1. Every time I read the babyish bellyaching in the comments for every article related to Star Trek I just think of two things: the script was solid enough and J.J Abrams is professional enough to coax Leonard Nimoy out of retirement. Unlike William Shatner, Nimoy isn't a huge publicity whore. With a few exceptions, he's stayed out of the limelight following Star Trek 6. Oh, and by-the-way Impy, J.J. Abrams didn't direct Cloverfield, he was the producer. It was directed by Matt Reeves.

2. I am so tired of the bitching about what is and isn't Star Trek canon. Star Trek isn't about its canon, it's about the characters. As long as they are presented in line with their original incarnations, this will be a wonderful film. Everything else is gravy.

Worrying about canon is silly. A lot of people seem to have way to much of themselves invested in what is really just a bit of entertainment. Get over it! This movie will rock!
JJ has never failed to entertain and that is what I hope to get from my long loved franchise. Which, really, has sucked lately.
Long live the Supreme Court!

San Diego hit the nail on the head. All you folks out there who are worried about "canon:" need to get a life. Any fiction film you see is about the temporary suspension of dis-belief. I love Star Trek, I always have (ask my wife), but I'm not looking at this film saying... wow, curved nacelle pylons.... ship built in Iowa.... darn... not going to see it. I'm going to be first in line opening night. I personally can't wait to see all the changes. You people that are worried about canon need to sit back, crack open a cold beer and reevaluate their lives, or lack there of.

First, I love all the arguments about cannon. Like mdg76 said, get over it. And just so you no, if you are quoting 'cannon' from the books, that's not cannon. Cannon is only what happened on screen. Stuff about where the ship was built and what not was never showed on screen (for this Enterprise).

I guess I do get a little tired of all the same franchises, though. Trek has always been 'the history of the future.' Star Wars was complete fantasy like what was said above.

Don't worry though, when I grow up I'll reboot Star Wars and Battlestar and they'll both be awesome! (Plus I'll tell people what Starbuck really is.)

Gene Roddenberry's son gave his stamp of approval on this film and J.J.'s efforts. He said his parents would both be proud.

Proof enough for me that this is Trek. I'll be there to see it.

Well why dont they take the Star trek titan series of books and make them into a new series for Television i think it is time we had a new series and it will be a different crew and a different ship why dont they do that i say Katherian Higal for Commander Christin Vale

Sigh(@).

All these comments and no real plot.

If the movie sucks or is mediocre I may have to buy Paramount and fix things myself.
Thinking of doing that for Warner also to fix the stupid Superman movies.

Its really not that hard to write a good original script that entertains and yet keeps true to the fan base.

I know what I'd like to see:

Fade in on new Enterprise in Earth orbit. Suddenly, The Battlestar Galactica jumps into nearby orbit and rams into this pathetic new Enterprise, sending Marine assault teams led by Apollo and Starbuck to board the "pride of Starfleet." The Enterprise crew is quickly rounded up without a struggle (being the wimps they obviously are) and are marched to Galactica's hangar deck where Admiral Adama snarls at them for a moment before ordering them all to be thrown out a Viper launch tube together. Whoosh! He then orders Colonel Tigh to shoot that frakking trash off his Battlestar; Tigh smiles and follows the order with pleasure.

The Galactica then launches assault Raptors to the planet below, Earth, which land in present day Hollywood, capturing Abrams, his chucklehead writers, and the chucklehead suits from Paramount, returning them to Galactica, where they are summarily spaced via the same launch tube. Galactica jumps out of the system. Fade to black. End of story.

I still say, if they get a new series going to have a new series get Katherian Higal sorry about the spelling to play Christine Vale XO of the Titan. Sure there is probably someone else but Grays going off the air soon and she may need work but she needs to work a new york accent because the character is from there and have the attitude of a firefighter. Read the books they explain everything

STAR TREK is not, ultimately, about naval battles, it is about relationships and problem-solving and moments between well drawn, well-acted characters. There was a naval metaphor, but that's where it ends. Yes, of course, there is the out-thinking your opponent. That's every film. It's called conflict.

Those in favor of this new movie had better start giving better reasons than "It's just going to be a great movie because I say so! Get over it!" All facts so far point to this POS as being a bigger bomb than 'CopRock'.

"Those in favor of this new movie had better start giving better reasons than "It's just going to be a great movie because I say so! Get over it!" All facts so far point to this POS as being a bigger bomb than 'CopRock'."

That is YOUR opinion...which you are entitled to. But...why, I ask, is YOUR opinion more valid than MINE...or anyone else's who is looking forward to the flick without prejudging it good, bad,or ugly without having seen it!

Those of us who look forward to the movie with optimism have ZERO to prove...we aren't the ones B-I-T-C-H-I-N'!!!

Again...you have not seen the flick! If you have not seen the flick...then there is NO WAY for you to know if it is good or not. What is so hard for you to understand about that.

Please back away from the computer until after the movie comes out...then BITCH AWAY...IF it is, in fact, no good. Of coarse for many of you children it will be BAD even if it is, IN POINT OF FACT VERY GOOD...just because it may not be what you wanted it to be.

This has all grown VERY TIRESOME.

Captcha continues to be an unrelenting problem. When Sci Fi Wire? When wil FIX THIS THING???!!!???

Actually, you & your Abrams-loving clones are doing much MUCH more bitching about the actual fans who have ligitimate complaints. We're the only ones who have the right to complain anyway, because we're the ones that made Star Trek what it is, not your crowd.

Actually, you & your Abrams-loving clones are doing much MUCH more bitching about the actual fans who have ligitimate "complaints. We're the only ones who have the right to complain anyway, because we're the ones that made Star Trek what it is, not your crowd."

MAH GAWD!!! HOW CHILDISH IS THAT COMMENT!

How old are you...12? How old were you when this show started on NBC...not born yet for 25 years? 30...35 years?

Who EXACTLY gave YOU BLACK ROBE AND A GAVEL and made you the judge of who is or is not a fan of that show! I saw the actual network first run of the series, not just the syndicated reruns you apparnently didn't grow up on. And you sit there an pontificate on who has a right registor "legitimate" complaints...again when you HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!!!

What a POMPOUS CHILD YOU ARE!!!

jbs780
However childish his statement was he does have a point.
Of the comments I have read posted on these Trek articles there has been just as much if not more flaming from the side that likes or tries to defend Abrams and this movie. It has certainly been more vehement and vicious.

I myself have been accused of making childish comments in a post that was far from childish.

Purist fans like myself have been called haters, fan boy geeks with no life, narrow minded nerds among other things. Personally I have tried to avoid going that route as it accomplishes nothing. I do get satirical once in a while. If you will go back and read some of my posts I have tried explain why I don’t like what I’ve heard about this movie or what I’ve seen in the trailers.

When we talk about sticking to canon for the most part we do not mean having all the computer buttons in the right place, or having the uniforms be just the right shade. We’re talking about following the established continuity of Trek history.

I’ve said this before, the time incursion is a plot device that simply let’s them change whatever they want. And THAT in my opinion is lazy writing.

"The reason starships of the Enterprise's size cannot be built ON a planet... because they're so huge!! I"

Was the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier built in space? No - and it is bigger!

As a fan I would rather it was a reboot - just make a new, better and more consistent reimagining without being hampered by what has gone before.

What's the matter, jbs780? Truth hurts, doesn't it? The fans ARE what made Star Trek what it is, NOT you or your wannabe crowd. Get over it. We DO have the right to complain even if you want to stomp your feet like a 2-year-old and tell us we don't. Learn to deal with that fact. YOU need to stop acting like the child here and stop YOUR bitching, because the simple truth is that I and my fellow true Star Trek fans do INDEED 'carry the gavel' as far as Star Trek is concerned. If you can't accept that one absolute truth, I suggest you stick with Smurfs or Teletubbies or whatever it is you kids watch nowadays.

Spaceman Spiff...The vast majority of the venom, from what I have seen, has been coming from those who have already made up thier minds to hate the movie. Different perspective. I think most of that, that has gone the other direction has been a matter of giving as has been recieved.

This...individual...bombdrop...presumes to pass judgement on others...presumes to say who is or is not a TRUE STAR TREK fan. I ask again, who made him the judge? No one of coarse. In his childishness he has just assumed the role. There is NOTHING about his argument that has merit...because of the manner in which he presents it.

I don't have a problem with those who want a new movie to follow canon...but none of us knows for absolute certainty that it doesn't...WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE YET!!!

CAPTCHA FAILED AGAIN. Just sayin'

Oh, no! Someone other than you has an opinion! It has to be wrong because it's not the same as yours! Better shun them because they don't fall to their knees and worship JJ Abrams!

I have always found it interesting how inidividuals who are acting childishly... insist on trying to turn the tables on those who point out there childisness to them. 8^I

"Well...I'm not being childish! It's YOU! You...you're being childish!"

Seems to me, this kinda prooves tht point...don'tcha know...

bombdrop can't stand the thought that anyone disgrees with him. Anyone that dares to do this is not a "TRUE" START TREK FAN!

Now Rob, who has stated that the coming movie is not STAR TREK at all...claims that anyone who disagrees with him is infringing on HIS right to have this opinion.

How exactly?

And how exactly is it that not hating this movie...which we have not seen yet...constitutes "worhipping" JJ Abrams. I haven't said anything about the man one way or the other that I can recall.

On another subject...quibble...I think the point about the Enterprise's size being the reason that the vessal could not be built on the ground, has to do with the incredible amount of power it would take to launch the ship into space. How many space tugs would it take to get the ship into it's first orbit. An Aircraft Carrier is an Earth bound vessel...no need to get it off the surface of the planet.

Of course now Voyager could take off and land...but that ship was designed many years after the Constitution Class Starship that was the Original Enterprise...the Starship that is...but then of coarse Voyager is considerablly smaller...probablly akin to a destroyer while the Enterprise is more along the lines of a heavy cruiser or even a battleship, so techonoly may have advanced to a point where the problaem of lifting that mass in that ship design will have been solved. 8^)

jbs, I didn't say anywhere that anyone disagreeing with me is infringing on my right to my opinion. Don't ever presume to put words in my mouth.

That is what I inferred from you comment. I stand by my previous post.

It saddens me that we have allowed ourselves as Trek fans to become so divided over this movie. When I said that I had noticed more vicious responses from the side that likes this movie it is based on want I have read in these comments. Yes there have been vicious and unreasonable responses from the side that dislikes it too but it seems to me every time someone voices dislike for this film for whatever reason, violation of canon dislike of Abrams or they just don’t like the way it looks then they are accused of being a geeky angry fan boy who needs to get a life. The standard almost clichéd response is “It’s only a movie!”. Well I present this for every one to consider.

It isn’t just a movie. It isn’t just entertainment.

It’s Star Trek and that means something to us. If it didn’t would we spend so much time and effort putting up with the very aggravating CAPTCHA problem just to post comments on this site(You are right about that jbs780, It does it to me as well). We all have a vested interest in this franchise. Time money and we just plain like it. It inspires us and intrigues us into thinking of the possibilities of the future. If it can be imagined, maybe it can be realized. So when someone screws around with it we get upset. The thing is not to let it completely run your life because this movie however much we may not like it isn’t going anywhere. We are going to have to put up with just as we put up with Trek V.

My dislike of this movie is based on scenes I have seen in the trailers, things I have read in the articles and things that Abrams and the writers have said in interviews.

First there are some things which violate canon but it’s not just that. It’s the entire look and feel of the movie. It simply does not feel like Star Trek. I get the impression that Abrams is trying to turn Trek into his baby. Changing the beginnings so that it will be better in his mind than it was.

It is supposed to be set in a time period before TOS but it doesn’t look like it. Not even close. Everything looks more advanced and then they have this time incursion to explain all the changes. That in my opinion is just a plot device, Lazy writing and simply an excuse to use to be able to change or add whatever he wants.

Also he seems to have put in some very illogical things just to achieve a cool visual shot. The corvette scene and the Enterprise being built on the ground. That in my opinion is bad film making.

As for that last. Well anything can be explained away within the context of a movie. The thing is, how much of a stretch do you have to go to? How much are you requiring your audience to suspend their disbelief?

It isn’t just lifting the starship into space, that will obviously be done with anti-gravity generators of some kind but it still requires power. How much power does it take to lift something as big and bulky as the Enterprise. And no matter what kind of economy you society has that power has to be paid for. How about while it’s being built? As the ship takes shape it has to be supported. The components of a starship are not going to be light and the shape is bulky. The nacelles stick out way in back. Are you going to use scaffolding to hold them up. How long would that take to built? Why not just use anti-gravity generators there too? Well again there’s the question of power. And that power is going to have to be generated constantly.

You see what I mean? All of these things went through my mind when I saw that. It’s a logistical nightmare even for a society as advanced as the one presented in this movie and most of those problems are solved by simply building the thing in space.

Unless your going to come up with some kind of whiz-bang-a-tron to solve all of those things. Again, that is bad film making.

Excellent post, Spiff. As for you, jbs, your arrogant idiocy shines through as usual. You can't stand what you see in the mirror, so you take it out on someone else.

Spiff...Rob and I actually agree on something...at least to some extent...good post.

I agree that discussion of the flick has gotten out of hand...if that is what you are saying. It is I suppose, a matter of perspective. From mine, the majority of the beligerence is coming from the Con side...please don't read anything hostile into the use of that word...while, again from my perspective the Pro side seems for the most part reasonable. From my perspective, we Pros are responding to the Cons hostility when comments about "geeky angry fan boys" are made. I mean come on...I'm looking forward to the movie so I'm not a true Star Trek fan? You are only a "true" fan if you have closed you mind to the flick and are angry that it has been made?

Someone else says this flick "IS NOT STAR TREK!" I and others disagree with this...and expressing this disagreement is shunning those who feel that way for not "worshipping JJ Abrams" Who is it I ask you, that is being shunned for having a differnet opinion here? I don't agree with this person so I am an EEE-VILLE arrogant idiot who can't stand what I see in the mirror!

"Spare me!" he said rolling his eyes to the Heavens.

Now regarding canon...are there violations of canon in the movie? Well...perhaps. In point of fact, we don't know yet, because we have not SEEN the movie yet...I have to keep saying this...and because we have not seen it yet, there is something that none of us has yet...CONTEXT. The things you have seen in the trailers that you don't like...well OK, I understand your feelings, and believe it or not, respect them...but you have not seen anything IN CONTEXT yet. Maybe with context, we will find that canon is not being violated...or at least not really badly so. If it is, well OK, but it won't be the first time if that is the case. THE WRATH OF KHAN is generally considered the best of the Trek movies and there were canon viloations in that. Early in the flick a Flag Officer says that the Enterprise is 20 years old. Wrong. At that point the ship had to be at least 40 years old! And geez, ships that big, built for the purposes it was built for, needed to have more than 40 years of service in them! The Battleship Missouri fired its first shot in World War II and its last in Gulf War I!

Also, Kirk's Academy love interest was a young woman named Ruth. So what was all this about Carol Marcus. The Screen writers couldn't have just named her Dr. Ruth Marcus?

The look of the movie...more advanced...well yes. You are correct. Now lets consider that. The original show was a low budget TV show produced in the 1960s. This is a big budget movie being made in 2007-2008 for release in 2009. Would you really want the bridge set to look exactly like the bridge did in the original show? Do you think that would look good on the big screen in 2009? Do you think that given the 1960s equivalent of the movie budget to work with, Gene Rodenberry would not have made the sets look better?

Now about the time incursion being a plot devise...Well...yes...it is. There are plot devises in all fiction. That is part of story telling. Maybe this plot devise enables the produces to tell a good story...and maybe not. We'll know when we see the movie. This plot devise makes it possible for Lenard Nimoy to appear in the movie. I think that is a good thing. And keep in mind that Nimoy does appear in the movie...as Spock...think he would do that...appear in the movie if he did not think this movie honored what has gone before? Would Bill Shatner be upset about NOT being in the movie if HE thought for a single minute that the movie did not honor what had gone before? I don't think either of them would be involved or want to be involved if they thought this movie disrespected their prior work or the fans of that work.

Building the ship planet side...well, we're pretty much on the same page here...I think. Please refer back to my commnets to quibble on the subject...which were intended to be helpful and I hope he took them that way...Getting the vessel off the surface of the planet will be difficult...impossible based our current techology to be sure, but again, there is that question of...CONTEXT. Maybe they did just go for the neat visual...let's see.

The Corvette? Well...how much would a 300 year old Classic Corvette be worth? Maybe the point ther eis to establish is some way how troubled this Kirk kid is...swipes something like that and almost kills himself driving the blamed thing off a cliff! Let's see the movie to find out. That's really all I've been trying to say.

Why can't we just DO THAT...BEFORE we comdemn the movie.

Heck...it MIGHT even be good. Can't tell till we see it. 8^)

He sighed heavily...Capcha had let him down yet AGAIN. "wHEN" he wondered, "when will the ScFi Wire people fix the blasted Thing!" The he typed in the3 next set of numbers and letters and hoping for the best, click the submit button.............

Ya know, my real problem with the scene with the Corvette is metal fatigue. I mean sure, the body is fiberglass, but the frame, the engine block are 300+ years old. You think they're going to stand up to any acceleration at all? Please... The rust in that frame has rust, and it's held together by rust. And the engine? I've rebuilt engines; I don't want to think what a V-8 looks like after 300 years in a junkyard. And if you did restore it all with some fancy future alloys, where are you going to find gasoline and oil and grease in that "perfect" future of clean technology? They really should have left out the Corvette and built some cool futuristic scooter car for Jimmy to steal. Joss Whedon did it for "Firefly" and "Serenity" but Abrams couldn't come up with something original?

Hailing frequencies open...

I went to see the movie last night. 5-7-09. It opened a day early in my college town before all the students leave.

As a movie, I enjoyed the movie. As a Star Trek movie... not so much. I keep telling myself that cannon doesn't matter because of the time travel bit, but to be honest, it is contrived.

Do you really think the Romulans or the Vulcans didn't know a star was going to go supernova prior to the event? Seriously, a science based culture.

The Enterprise (Constitution class) was built in San Fran ship yards which are in orbit. Europa Planetia Shipyards is where the Galaxy class ships were built.

The Enterprise was captained by April, Pike, then Kirk.

George Kirk oversaw the initial construction of the Enterprise's construction.

Spock was in the fleet I believe 18 years before Kirk entered the fleet. (Vulcans age slower and live longer)

I could go on.

I study history and have a mind for keeping track of such things.

I do appreciate that they kept certain elements the same.

I do not appreciate them diluting Star Trek with Star Wars drivel. Star Wars is fine in and of itself but it has no plausibility. Roddenberry actually hired scientists to be on staff to help keep star trek within the boundaries of science.

I try to say it's just a movie, but I care because of all of the thoughtful messages and stories Star Trek has brought into my life.

I care because Gene Roddenberry, Sr. was a visionary and he wanted to show a future where there was peace on Earth and humans had gotten past their problems.

I care because Star Trek means something to me. Perhaps the many cynics out there who may not be able to open their heart to something or feel deeply about something, should try it.

Star Trek has stood the test of time (until Enterprise was killed off) because of the storytelling.

You can't make Star Trek into Star Wars.
Star Wars is just 6 movies, 2 cartoon series, 2 holiday specials, and the Ewoks

Star Trek is 5 TV series comprising of some 700 episodes, 10 movies (until this tripe #11), and an animated series. All lasting around 50 years. That in itself is enough to fuel a culture.

J.J. Please stop screwing with our friends and families. Many of us grew up with these characters. We don't mind you making movies, but it should be like singing an Elvis song. You sing the words and keep the basic tune. You don't turn Jail house rock into a musical number or hound dog into a gospel song.

You should allow your talents to be added to our collective who have preceded you. You shouldn't go changing things.

End Transmission

fionnlagh,

I agree with you. But you do know it is a matter of history that JAILHOUSE ROCK's release was coordinated with the Elvis movie musical of the same name and one half of its composing team did perform in said musical number in the movie? Although for the most part I tend to count Elvis' movie musical numbers as early rock music videos.

Rob, I know this is really late, but to the example of some Beatle fans creating a band called The Beatles and even having the same names as them... would people get mad? Sure they would. But that doesn't prove your point.

Because my response to that is that they, just like Trek fans... SHOULDN'T get mad. It's the exact same thing.

I am a HUUUUUGE Beatles fan and.. you know what? ... who cares? Everything the Beatles made is still there.. and if I don't like the new stuff... then i won't listen.. and if I do like it... then I will.

I just seems to me that people can be frustrated with a movie that doesn't do exactly what THEY [in their perfect opinions] think it should.... or they can just shrug it off and enjoy it for what it is.

Cralls.

Actually, THE BEATLES are a poor example because they are more an example of the exception to the music industry rule where exactly what Rob describes happens quite frequently, i.e. the record studios got talented but starving groups to sign over everything including their name for their shot at a recording contract.

Their are plenty of so-called "original" groups from the 60s making the performance circuit where the only thing "original" in them is the greed and slimey business practices that usurped the name in the first place.