I wish they asked if you found it problematic that a ship the size of the Enterprise is being constructed on Earth, as the trailer makes it appear is the case. I mean, how would they even launch that thing?

It shoots laser beams, travels faster than light, and has pointy-eared aliens that help fly it. And you're worried about where it's being constructed? Lighten up!

Well, they do have access to anti-gravity technology. The entire structure could be supported using strategically placed anti-gravity supports, and it could be lifted into orbit the same way. And the Memory Alpha website says that Enterprise was initially built in the San Francisco shipyards, so the idea of the ship being built on Earth as opposed to in orbit is an idea that already existed in the holy texts of Trek geekdom.

I guess we can conjecture that the Other later versions of the ship were built in Orbit?

What other versions? There's only one Enterprise. They're destroying canon. The ship was built with the other Constellation class ships, all were built in orbit, the Enterprise was retrofitted before the time of the original motino pictures. That's right boys and girls, it was the original Enterprise with retrofitted technology. Remember ST 3? 'The ship is 50 years old Jim." comment? Come on.

Lamar, according to Star Trek canon, the Enterprise has indeeed been built at the San Francisco Yards. But according to Star Trek canon the San Francisco Yards is a Starfleet drydock in Earth orbit. Given that Voyager could easily land on a planet, I don't see a problem with the Enterprise taking off from Earth after assembly, however the Earth based building location is certainly outside of "holy texts of Trek geekdom".

SW,

Trek has constantly retconned itself. Remember the show Enterprise? That was the first Enterprise. Then there was Pike's/Kirk's followed by others.

Since Trek's world has cheap energy, force fields, anti-gravity and artificial gravity generators, building the Enterprise on Earth versus in space is less problematic. However, I would think that assembling the ship in space would be a lot simpler.

I'm also not too keen on the ship being welded together. That doesn't seem like the best way to construct a starship. Wouldn't there be some better way to connect portions of the ship together than melting sheets of metal together?

Gumbercules, Lamar, Quene, sw,

it's ok now, it's ok...shhh..shhh.shhh... it was only a movie it's ok...

sw relax.

Other versions that you say don't exist like the:
NX-01 (that ship changed more fanon storylines than this ship will)
1701-A Given to Kirk at the end of ST4:TVH
1701-B From the beginning of Generations.
1701-C Seen before it's demise on ST:TNG
1701-D You know the one with Picard???
1701-E Ditto.

Relax there are more than one Enterprise, as for distroying Canon. as far as offical canon goes, only what is on screen is suppose to count, so when did we see the original constuction of the enterprise????

Stop worring and judge it for what it is, rather than fanboyish what it's not. who knows, you might even enjoy it.

Sw, couple points. First of all, the Enterprise is a Constituition class ship, not a Constellation class. Second of all, the line from ST 3 is "The Enterprise is 20 years old", not 50 (which is actually a violation of canon itself). Third, this movie is set in an alternate timeline. Old canon is untouched, because its all in the original timeline, which is not damaged.

As far as the Enterprise NCC-1701 (no bloody A, B, C, or D) goes, in the TOS episode where they go back in time accidentally and capture the F-104 pilot, I believe one of their concerns was to get the ship back into orbit before the stresses of being in an atmosphere tore the ship apart. Also, the drydock where ships are built (where we see the excelsior under construction) is in orbit .

The JJ-Prise is built on Earth for the sole purpose of letting an alternate-universe Jim Kirk see it under construction, ie- dubious dramatic reasons.
A ship of this size and this ungainly would never be built on a planet. Pieces, maybe, but not the whole thing.

All other versions seen previously were built and tended to in orbital drydocks.
The Enterprise was never meant to see atmosphere.

Everyone that is arguing about this, have you seen the film yet, or are you only going from what was seen in the preview? This may not even BE the actual Enterprise, maybe just a monument being assembled, or some other ship, with Enterprise being planned to be built later in space. I remember the very early teasers showing the construction of the Enterprise, and those shots were all in space.

good point Sithboy

It's a freakin' movie, folks. Relax!

"By TheFinalFrontier at 6:16 PM ON 04/24/09

Sw, couple points. First of all, the Enterprise is a Constituition class ship, not a Constellation class. Second of all, the line from ST 3 is "The Enterprise is 20 years old", not 50 (which is actually a violation of canon itself). Third, this movie is set in an alternate timeline. Old canon is untouched, because its all in the original timeline, which is not damaged."

TheFinalFrontier-I recall hering that line about the Enterprise being 20 years old the first time I saw WRATH OF KAHN...That was a mistake by the screenwtiter and the director of WOK! I also recall virtually the entire audience, myself includes saying out loud..."40!" We all said that because, if you followed the show, you knew that at the time of WOK, the ship had to be at least 40. Pike had commanded the ship for an unstated period of time but it is known that he was the Captain 13 years prior to the events shown in THE MENAGERIE. Prior to Pike's tenure in command, the ship was commanded by it's intial Captain, Robert April. Of coarse we are getting into Canon debates here. Was April the ship's first captain or not? Do the animated episodes count? I'm not arguing those points here. The point is the line about the ship being 50 years old in a later movie episode was the more accurate estimate of the ship's age.

Just sayin ya'll so don't be hatin'!

My God, you people need to get out of the house and away from the computer. It's only a movie.

and you all wonder why people laugh at you.

^HAHAHAH ^
The other poster was right. All of this is explained away by an alternate timeline. It's just that easy. Stop stressing and try and enjoy the movie for what it is.

From what I understand from the advance comic book, this new movie indirectly deals with the aftermath of 'Nemesis,' with Spock trying to broker peace with the Romulans, which doesn't leave to many people happy (Nero?). And you know, with all the time travel paradox story lines done to death in the Trek Universe (The Voyage Home, First Contact, etc), don't you think something as little as where the Enterprise was built could conceivably change because of interfering with history?

LOL!!! This is a true statement! The Canon guys are probably have heart attacks right now! I'm usually not the on going on about what is or is not canon. I just recall...with amusement ...that "mistake" in WRATH OF KAHN" I mean the WHOLE THEATRE yelled "40!!!" when an Admiral says the Enterprise is 20 years old...which would not be that old for a ship of that size. When you make'em that big, youi need to get a lot more than 20 years of service out a vessal.

So a ship the size of the enterprise can't be built on earth but we can find aliens that are essentially human (they can mate with us for crying out loud!) on another planet light years away with no indication of a common ancestry.
Maybe this was pointed out in another comment, there are too many to read.

Paramount doesn't care about the fans, all they care about is $$$Money$$$ Star Trek 11 is a disaster.

Are there still people who really care where the fictional space ship was built? I'm pretty sure that it was built where the screenwriters say it was built. Not important, people! I'm a fan of TOS, but it is dated in style and acting and whatnot. The show is being updated for people who are younger and / or are capable of getting beyond minor points. Also, for people who are fans of Star Trek, not fans of "I need to feel superior to people who don't care about my fathers Star Trek."

This movie is where Star Trek really begins!! Get used to it!

Long Live the Supreme Court.

"Star Trek 11 is a disaster."

At this time, with pre premiere review coming in, all glowingingly positive, there is virtually no indication that this is, any any way an accurate statement.
It is my opinion...and that is all this is...that you are one of those who have decided, without seeing the flick, that you are going to hate it no matter what. Your mind is already made up and the facts, whatever they may be...the movie MAY be bad...but may be very good...are completly irrelevent.

All indications so far, from them what have seen it, are that it is very good Again...just sayin' so don't be hatin'!.

One of the things that disturbs me the most regarding the ongoing failures od CAPTCHA is the site administrators continuing to ignore comments regarding these problems...at lleast I have seen no acknowledment of the problems...and no apparent effort to correct the matter. VERY DISTURBING.

It wasn't TWOK when Admiral Morrow said Big E was 20 years old. It was TSFS (aka The Search For Spock)

Man some people need to get a life... or get stuffed back into a locker lol.

It is all make believe people, Roddenberry made some stuff up and it got into a tv show. It's not like we are dealing with universal laws that can never be changed.

Just go see the movie and like it for what it is, do not decide to dislike it up front because it might not follow all the rules you'd like to see.

Plus there are more important things in life to get riled up over. A movie based on a television series isn't that important I'm sorry.

And yeah the Captcha sucks monkey balls. I have to try 3 times filling in the thing EXACTLY as shown in the picture and it won't take

Lamar,

You've got your trek facts slightly skewed. The San Francisco shipyards orbits earth... check http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/ships/article/70377.html for a reference.

I'm probably going to be bludgeoned for even saying this, but with Star Wars the books and other Expanded Universe marterial are NOT cannon. The movies are final say. Shouldn't Star Trek follow the same rule? I've not seen a Star Trek movie or TV show with the Enterprise being built before, but being someone who's only watched Star Trek in all it's forms doesn't affect me whether it's built on Earth or not.

I LOVE YOU ALL FOR ENGAGING IN THIS ARGUMENT!!! You're arguing about the validity of building a fictional ship on Earth vs. in Earth orbit and, for your argumentative authority, you're arguing conflicting bits of Trek canon. This is an argument born of TRUE geekdom, and for this I must say bless you. I envy your geek prowess, and thank you for my future hours of Trek-based research on this matter . . . BTW I feel sorry for you folks who criticize and make fun of these sorts of debates -- you just don't understand how much FUN it is to be a dork!

As others have said before me, please accept the movie for what it is: a feeble attempt to wring more money out of fans of a franchise that was mismanaged and driven into the ground years ago. Just accept that the original concepts and notions that inspired a generation (and the next) to take an interest in space exploration and the possibilities of science are part of your "father's Enterprise" and have nothing to do with a teenage audience that wants to see pretty people and things blowing up.

And remember: you don't have to go.

SHIELDS UP! A RANT IS IN PROGESS!

I've had it up to here with all you "Trek Fans." You are not “Trek Fans”, Trek fans don’t complain and whine about meaningless details that nobody else over the age of twelve would care about. No, there are those of us who would be eagerly waiting the release of a Trek film, because we’ve grown up watching Star Trek and have stuck with the franchise through think and thin, no matter how bad the techno-babble was, or how much we wanted William Shattner’s head on a pike for writing and directing Star Trek V, or how much we hated Captain Janeway constantly complaining about not having real coffee, or how much we wanted to hang the Enterprise writers for producing such a horrible end to a show. No, there are those of us who just want to enjoy watching Star Trek for what it is... a place to take us away from reality for an hour or two and ENTERTAIN us. For those of us who will be in theaters come May 8th take a good look, because you will be among fans… “Real Fans.”

So, messages to the “Trek Fans” DON’T go and see the movie, STAY AT HOME, and watch your copies of TOS. And, by all means, get over yourselves. If you think this movie sucks, or will suck, or believe it will suck, then please, write a frak'n screenplay, pitch it to Paramount, and then go make the movie yourselves.

Filmnut...

These the nay sayers have every right to sweat the small stuff just as much as you have the right to scold all of them like little children for their desire to maintain consistency in the franchise that they love. There is nothing wrong with them having issues with how the history of the future is being re-written. SO, I say to you, Go back to bed, take some Prozac and chill the hell out.

It is endlessly entertaining to see Comic Book Guy in every thread about Star Trek, with a list of canon violations produced from the trailer alone.

CBG will not enjoy the movie, except perhaps in that "I can tell you why it's wrong, and I enjoy being right" sort of way.

Everyone, take a chill pill. Best trailer of any Star Trek movie, ever.

For those of you who are complaining about the "Trekkies" arguing about whether or not the Enterprise could be built on Earth or not, I submit to you that it's the people who talk about how science fiction fits in with the known (and unknown) capabilities of *current* science are the ones who may have an impact on the "real" future. It's those who say "what if" and "why not" who help imagine the possibilities.

One of my favorite Trek stories was of the Next Generatoin episode with Data playing poker with Albert Einstein, Issac Newton, and Prof. Stephen Hawking, where Hawking himself played himself. When they have him a tour of the set, he paused momentarily at the Engine Room set (of the "fictional" Warp Drive) and said (through his computer system) "I'm working on that."

If not for dreams, what would mankind have to strive for? It is through dreams that we will progress.

"It's only a movie" is a philosophy that results in movies like BATTLEFIELD EARTH.

oh my! it doesn't matter what they do to the trek franchise. because you nerds will pay to watch anything they produce, just so you can arguee about it till your dead in the cold cold ground. they are sitting on a pile of freak money and probably don't even realize it.

Even Gene Roddenberry didn't obsess over canon as much as fans like "sw" and these other superfans. He didn't just change his mind from episode to episode or series to series but point by point.

By the time Next Gen came out he actually said that when there was a conflict between TOS and Next Gen, Next Gen was canon not TOS.

Other creators working on Trek also played fast and loose with canon. For example, in Wrath of Khan, Khan claims to remember Chekov when Walter Koenig hadn't even been cast in the show when Space Seed was made.

Whether elements from the Animated Series are canon also seem to vary from writer to writer and fan to fan. Was Robert April the Captain of the Enterprise before Pike or does Robert April just exist because Roddenberry couldn't decide what Captain's name should be when he wrote the pilot?

One thing's for sure. There's a lot of passionate Star Trek fans around here. *Looks around, makes hasty exit*

Maybe they Beam it from the ground into space!!! hey it could work.....

I get tired of all thes holier than thou people saying " they cant change everything cause of a new timeline! well you know what? they can.... its a new freaking timeline...its a continuation... not a revamp...say it with me...its a continuation, the time line changes and we the lucky viewers get to see the result. So hold tight to your canon...hold tight to your tos and next gen and deep space and voyager...it all still happens! Then....it changes , and I for one cant wait to see what happens, I for one cant wait to once more go boldly where no man has gone before... Nuff said!

Wow, I mean... wow. Some of you guys don't accept that it's only a movie? Battlefield Earth, glad you brought that up. Cuz yeah, that's only a movie too!! And look, no one died, no one even cares. See how meaningless it all is. If this movie sucks then it will disappear, no harm done. Except to psychotic fans, in which case they had it coming for being this obsessed with something completely meaningless in the larger scheme of things. But the early reviews have been GLOWING. Just check Rotten Tomatoes, 12 for 12 positive. Awesome.

The new film is set in a divergent timeline (it diverges when the USS Kelvin is destroyed by Nero, which sets up a different initial life for Kirk), which means that details change and continuity is essentially reset going forward. The old continuity is still there -- it's just one of the many parallel universes that we're so familiar with from years of Trek.

I think it's actually a smart conceit for setting up a reboot, as tired as we are of time travel by this point. It also allows for the use of an elderly version of Spock as a way in for traditional Trek audiences, on the way to picking up a new audience.

The big issue with something like this always comes with the idea of using time travel -- it gets very tempting to hammer that reset button (in fact just saw the DS9 episode "Time's Orphan," which does exactly that; it's an awful, awful episode, and a cheat in story terms.)

STAR TREK doesn't hit the reset at the end -- from what I'm told, they basically set up a no-exit clause in the story so that it can't be undone. Not only that, but Old Spock can't go back to where he came from, either.

So at this point they can tell new versions of the old stories (well, some of them), or they can tell new stories. Mind you, when and if they get to the Klingons, they should have smooth foreheads....

I'm not prone to trusting JJ Abrams much, but from everything I'm hearing he's actually not screwed this up. Not perfect, but a lot of people who have their hands deep in Trek are giving it the thumbs-up.

You know, after reading most of these arguments I can see why so many people have been turned off from Star Trek for the last 10 years or so: techno-babble. Who really cares where a ship is built, or whether or not the fictional San Fran Shipyards are in orbit, or if they use anti-gravity for structural support. You do realize this is all fictional, it's all conjecture, and NONE of this is canon. The only elements canon in the Star Trek Universe are the films, television series, and the authorized guides such as the ship guide to the NCC-1701-D.

Enterprise was a great show for one reason: the characters didn't go into long, fictional word-descriptions of what was happening. That is how TNG and DS9 lost audiences. Battlestar Galactica survived for 4 years and yet you never heard Adama speaking of how the hyperdrive worked, or how they got food or toothpaste. It wasn't necessary for the plot to function, wasn't necessary for the story to be told.

And all this talk about how, where, or what welding methods were used to construct the NCC-1701 is all pointless conjecture that wastes time. I mean, I just wasted 5 minutes typing this rebuttal to all these arguments. Just enjoy the film, or don't. But stop arguing about where a 1,000 ton starship would be built 200 years from now.

It doesn't matter.

Coastal Filmmaker,

I feel compelled to correct you... All the debating and arguing is pointless to some of these people. Star Trek means something to the people who do debate about it. It isnt your right to tell them that it doesnt matter or to take away that importance from them. Guess what? There is nothing wrong with it. So you think it's pointless... Okay, that's fine but let them do what they want. Ignore it. Leave them alone and let them debate it. People like to dream and debate about possible futures, no matter how impossible they may seem, no matter how fictional they are. It's their right as human beings with passions of their own.

We're getting into psychology now. But yes, there is something wrong with being this obsessed with something that is, essentially, meaningless. This is where "get a life" comes from. These people who bicker and fight over warp core designs replace meaningful relationships and valuable life experience with this junk. In the long run, this stuff is of no value. It's fluff. It's fun and can be an important part of your life, but one has to realize that it is intrinsically pointless.

And from a simpler stand point, it's just not healthy to be obsessed with something that isn't yours. You should only feel this passionate about your own accomplishments, not about something/someone else that is only apart of your life superficially (i.e. a tv show, comics, magazines, etc). You let something control your life that you have no control over to begin with. Not healthy.

you know I'm also a Star Trek fan, but when I see page after page of endless pointless discussion.
I feel like I'm the onlyone who actually realises that it was just 5 different shows and 11 movies.
So like Shatner said: "Get a life and move out of your parents basement!!!"
With you guys around I'm ashamed to admit to anyone in real life that I like Star Trek just so that I won't be branded a Ubergeek like you all.
So here's in a nutshell what I'm trying to say
"GET OVER IT AND GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE SPACE ISN'T THE FINAL FRONTIER FOR YOU GUYS IT'S STEPPING THROUGHT YOUR FRONT DOOR!!!

@Thom Khatt most trekkie arguments have NOTHING to do with deciding if Star Trek technology can one day be implemented in our lives, they have everything to do with people who just can't let go.

Put them in charge of building a warp drive and they'll probably argue for decades wether it should be like the one from TOS or if it should resemble the one from TNG more. Or demand it should be in that shape even though it will be less efficient.

Yes some stuff might one day be used, but again arguments like this one here are the same as the arguments of who is the better captain. At the start it was very briefly if it was possible (based on a quick shot from a trailer so also fanboyism) and then quickly turned into the argument that according to canon...

Sorry but then I'd rather debate things like this with people who know not to take Star Trek THAT serious and can actually have a normal debate about the possibilities of launching a big ship from the earth's atmosphere.

Dreams are okay but the problem a lot of these ubertrekkies have is that their dreams are limited by Roddenberry canon.

As mentioned before, alternate timeline, so being built on earth doesn't "really" break anything. But, it is kinda dumb. Building something that large on earth instead of in orbit would be like building an aircraft carrier on land instead of in the water. What? Oh. Wait, nevermind. :-)

Star Trek represents a philosophy of betterment. How much better the human race can be than it is today. And the basis of this philosophy has always been how sucky the current human condition is. Yea we have drugs, yea we have art/music and computers, but what we don't have is communication and widespread compassion between nations, between classes of people., between celebrities and normal people. All we have is division, as is evidenced by this pathetic thread. And don't give me this 'tis human nature to conflict' crap because that ends when serious threats are perceived (like nuclear war for example). Face the facts, if the human race doesn't learn to tie its shoes it's gonna trip, and fall into oblivion. I think that is more worth arguing over than minute details of technology depicted in a film. It's ironic that the most popular trek show thus far was the most geeked out and humanistic one. The next generation showed how the human race can be compassionate, gentle, patient and understanding without losing its passion for exploration. Actually very few people in todays world have that passion, at least overtly. Most of them wanna just lost themselves in the haze of daily insignificance. Because being like everyone else is the cool thing, even though, ironically, no one will remember your name in 100 years from now. Another thing Star Trek teaches is that everyone is unique in a world where humanistic compassion triumphs over materialism (thanks in part to the infinite resource of replicators?). But lastly, feminine beauty is appreciated without being belittled in Star Trek (specifically the next generation, as TOS tended toward sexism). In todays society most females are smarter than they act, and they act the way they do because obnoxious idiots, who happen to be the majority, would not accept them if they didn't. That needs to change. And it can only change with will power! So I say let us reach for a better humanity right now!

Ed, I love your post and agree completely. This is Star Trek 90210, pretty people and things blowing up for the Xbox generation.
Oh well, I've given up trying to make sense of it. There is just going to be two Treks from now on BJJ and AJJ (before and after), and there are going to be people who adamantly defend their versions, I guess that's OK. But man it's hard to see something you've loved for so long dumbed down. That's what I think most of us old geezers are complaining about. Try to understand that, you young punks.

TMR013, have you ever seen a movie trailer before? When have you seen a trailer with slow expository scenes in it? You don't put those into trailers, you put the flash and explosions into trailers. If you had believed the original trailer for "Casablanca" you'd think it was all about Bogart shooting or kissing people. People I trust have seen the movie and are impressed with it, why should your opinion, based on watching trailers mean anything?

seriously, this is more coverage on one movie than is normal.

Actually they have way overexposed this move, surely we have seen half of it already from the trailers and clips. And bill, your right, of course they are going to show all the explosions and action in trailers, but I think I have seen enough to make some other judgments, even read the comic pre-story. Bottom line, I think they frakked it up, but that is just my opinion. I'll stick with the old stuff.

It would have been better if Spock had stayed dead after the end of Wrath of Kahn. Noble, honorable death in the line of duty, saved the ship, saved us all, the end. What came back in STIII didn't come back "right" - it was like something from Stephen King's "Pet Semetary" - betraying Kirk at every turn, especially in the 5th and 6th movies. And if Spock were dead, well, he wouldn't be able to be involved in this mess, now, would he....

I am enjoying reading this lively debate, and I hope people continue to care about Star Trek -- whether they love or hate the direction it's going. I certainly didn't see these kinds of debates raging about another 60s era remake: "Lost in Space."

About whether or not Enterprise could be built on Earth, of course it could! A starship is designed to withstand the stresses of space travel -- multiple gees of acceleration, tidal stresses in orbit around neutron stars, battles against photon torpedoes that would make Hiroshima look like a cherry bomb. "Intertial dampeners" and "structural integrity fields" can fail and a starship needs to be robust enough to sustain tremendous damage and stress.

Do you think the Enterprise would fall apart on the surface of the Earth?

Why does it make more sense for it to be built on Earth? Ask a construction worker. Welding takes oxygen, heat and lots and lots of water. In the trailers, see the water tanks next to the Enterprise construction facility? What would happen to that water in space? What's safer and more cost-effective: working on the ship under the open sky or climbing into spacesuits and minipods and breathing bottled air with cosmic radiation and micrometeors whizzing past?

What did J.J. Abrams decide to place the shipyard on the ground? I don't know. Why did Ron Moore make Starbuck a woman? Both wanted to make it clear that they were breaking from tradition, and that the story would be headed in a radical new direction.

I welcome the breath of fresh air. I hope the new Star Trek movies are more scientific and rational than TOS, TNG and the others. I've always loved Star Trek, but I've always demanded more from it than Star Trek writers have been willing to give. My interest is piqued again.

I do feel compelled to mention to all the nay sayers that this movie DOES involve time travel by a romulan dude name Nero AND this dude DOES shake up some things in the past and changes the way things happened previously. Just think about that... SO, go see the movie and see how it all fits into place AND go read Star Trek Countdown... it could help you understand what is going on...

One could argue the events of First Contact altered the ST timeline to allow for the events of ST: Enterprise (Since most fans consider Enterprise to be a ST farce) In the same way, Nero's traveling back to the 22nd century could lead to the altered events of the new Trek movie. (yes even to the point where the Enterprise is being built in an Iowa corn field)

I should also point out that I too was a nay sayer, that was until I read Star Trek Countdown. So any of you who havent read it or dont know what it is, it is the "official" movie prequel graphic novel.

The point is trekkie nay sayers, chill out and go see the movie. My momma always said, "Dont diss it till you try it."

Those who say "STAR TREK is just a movie!" in an awkward attempt to remind us not to take it too seriously, are showing a surprising ignorance of history in choosing those manner of words.

The fact that STAR TREK exists at all today for you to make that statement gives proof to the lie that it ultimately is.

STAR TREK exists to be considered a viable multimillion dollar franchise by the likes of Paramount, precisely because a half a lifetime ago first viewers like myself took quite an opposite attitude that it was NOT "just a TV show" when NBC canceled it after its second season.

And guess what? Those viewers got out of their parents proverbial basements, as some put it, got organized, and actually accomplished something historic and unprecedented: got a major network to rescind a cancellation for a show. Even more incredible when you realize it was a show that took major capital expenditures from NBC to produce.

(I'm having some memories of that time flooding into my mind, but I'm going to have to rely on the groupmind to factcheck as I'm going to write it as it comes.)

And in the twilight years after it was ultimately ceased - canceled, yet again - we had to keep it alive in our own fan form of syndication because NBC exercised its option gained from those investments to restrict reruns to NBC affiliated stations to which they dictated when and where a rerun of ToS could be scheduled. See NBC was smart enough to know that even if they couldn't figure out how to make a profit with STAR TREK they didn't want to give any competitor a chance to figure out how to do it, especially at NBC's expense. As I recall, Paramount was useless in responding to the fan cries to release ToS to general syndication because they didn't think it was worth trying to cut a deal as they just couldn't see selling but to a few isolated markets for such a niche product. So the basement dwellers left the shadows yet again, got organized, wrote letter after letter to each and every local station so that Paramount might be "inspired" to release ToS in syndicated reruns.

I could continue with further examples but wow37 prefers that we keep to pithy type-bites and besides, my point is made.

Personally, I'm glad that Paramount didn't "Listen to the Fans" on this one. Why? Because then "Fans" would never have been satisfied no mater what they had done. You people are panning it based on internet rumors, short trailers, and small bits of information.

I enjoyed ToS, most of DS9, parts of the other series, and about half of the movies. I hope this one is good.

Right now, all you can say is this one will at least look good. Nothing else can be said with any certainty until it shows.

Steven E. McDonald,

Well said, sir. Well said.

The creation of the Big Giant Reset Button (BGRB) has to go down in the annals of Trek as the mark of its Paramount waning.

Time-travel science-fiction requires an awful lot of work to do well. It requires exceptionally sharp writing. I think the biggest problem with inexperience in this genre for the writers is that they think because Trek takes place in a fictional future that hasn't happened yet, that you can use it to justify anything as if it were a "magic" salve.

No movie is worth this much debate. I retire from talking about Star Trek. I'm just excited about the movie. Yepp... it's just a movie.

Son of a Maui Portagee :

Nah. It's just a movie.

I think part of the problem that everyone is having is that in TOS, the science fiction tried to stay faithful to the spirit of space exploration. So, for example, if we built space ships like the Enterprise, then we would build them in space. There are scientific snafus throughout the series, but still the spirit of space exploration guided them. The new movie seems to be guided by action, special effects, and emotional appeals to personal drama.

This movie was not created to build from the old shows and the trek franchise. It's a movie to reinvent the Star Trek Phenom for new fans and to make money. For those who live their lives in the Star Trek Universe it's time to move on or join up with the new Trek. Either way the ships being different is done. This looks to be a great film. I haven't been to a theater in two years, but I'll be in line for this one. You get so tired of the righteous fans who think they know all. Paramount owns the rights, the show is not real and right now the franchise is in the toilet needing a serious make over to get things going.

Only the questions? *pout* I wanted to hear what the person on the team thought about the screening! Of course, that would mean spoilers....but still. The person could at least answer numbers 2, 3, 5, and 6! *grin*

Oh what the heck, let's play "it's just a..."

Paramount today is just a B-movie company:

chicagotribune.com/topic/la-ca-reportcard8-2009feb08,0,3314695.story?page=3

and just a B television network that's always just finds a way to take its incredible strokes of luck, just like hiring Leonard Nimoy for ZOMBIES OF THE STRATOSPHERE, and continually just returns to its Republic Pictures roots.

"The biggest rap against the studio is that four years into Brad Grey's tenure, Paramount still doesn't have a coherent identity" - THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

Hey, and I didn't even mention those other two four letter words.

And now for the socially redeeming part of this missive:

My captcha personal solution is to use the FireFox browser. Just before I get ready to submit I left click on the captcha image which gives me a little context menu. At the top of this menu are the words "View Image". I hold the Ctrl key down on the keyboard and right-click with the mouse on those words "View Image" and a new different captcha image will open in a new tab. I memorize the text in the new captcha image. Go back to the tab with my post and enter those memorized characters and then right-click on Post to submit.

On the odd moments when that text doesn't take, I right-click on FireFox's Back Arrow which restores my Comment box with the text that I entered and then rinse-lather-repeat.

Yep, It’s only a movie. You’ll get over it. It’s not the end of the world. Life will go on.

All of those statements are true. But if it not so important to all the people who are saying these things? Then why are you even spending time posting messages here? I have posted quite a number of messages on SciFiWire regarding this movie and I gotta tell you. It can be a pain in the tuckus! The captcha doesn’t always work. It takes time to write out your thoughts and make sure you sentences are composed coherently. Although some people seem to skip that part.

My point is, Why are you wasting your valuable time posting a message that only says “Get a life Fan boy!” when you could be doing far more constructive things.

If however you actually want to debate the subject at hand I.E. The new/old Enterprise in the rebooted New Trek movie. Then you should make a point and stop venting your frustration at the fans who don’t like what this movie has done to Star Trek.

Regarding the Enterprise being built on the Earth’s surface

Someone stated that the scene we see in the trailers could be a monument. Sorry I don’t buy that. Why would they build a monument to a brand new ship? It’s more likely just what another poster said and I’ve said in other posts, a dramatic shot that let’s Kirk see the Enterprise being built because it’s “Really Cool!”

I do not know weather it is canon if the Enterprise was built in orbit or on the ground I have never heard it said or seen it written. But the fact is this movie does take place in an alternate Trek timeline. Some one else said that that means the old timeline is Ok because it has not been touched. Well if this movie and subsequent movies remain in this alternate timeline then the old timeline is pretty much toast, isn’t it?

Somehow a portion of my post did not copy. this is what was left out;

Regarding the Enterprise being built on the Earth’s surface, The idea is ridiculous to me. It makes far more sense to build it in orbit. There are things you can do in orbit you can’t do on the ground. I have read speculations that certain compounds and alloys would be easier to make in a non-gravity environment. Heavy materials would most likely be easier to move and when you finish, There you are. You don’t have to bother using antigravity generators to lift it. Another point, Even in the era that this movie takes place, Pikes time. Starfleet is a pretty big organization with A LOT of ships. Surely they can not all be built on the ground? And if not, why would THIS ship be built on the ground?(Because it’s the Star of the movieJ)

Ok if this takes place in an altrnative universe then they should never call it star trek because it isn't. No more than a honda would be call a honda in an alterntive universe. As for enterprise built on earth. Nx-o1 was built in a space dock so why wouldn't they have the teck to do it 120 to 130 years later. For goodness sake we build REAL Space station in orbit now becauce we can't get the whole thing off the ground. Remember the most basic trek line there is. "Ya canna change the laws of phyics."

crimsonblack once said "Paramount owns the rights"

And let's delve into that. Those rights only exist because the original act granting them "to encourage intellectual discourse" for a limited term of 14 years is constantly being extended by the Duplicating and Distributing empires hiding behind the purely metaphorical skirts of the destitute "widows and orphans" of the creative talent that on the most part said empires essentially robbed blind substantially contributing to said destitution in the first place.

How is it that, contrary to the supposed intent of each and every extension to this act so many extremely talented writers in my lifetime end up living and dying in destitution while their works continue to generate billions in media alternative to the print that created it?

Geesh, I'm on a rant. Let me just say that it is the height of absurdity for those "widows and orphans" roots of the extensions to in turn allow the RIAA/MPAA to sue widows and orphans into destitution for "possible" copyright violations without actually having to prove that any copying took place.

I don't know. Maybe I'm advocating some sort of copyright reform before there's an outright revolt? Or maybe I'm daring Paramount to put a question about copyrights on that card?

love these ST debates whenever there is news coverage on JJ's ST movie. It's like watching The Big Bang Theory. Where's Sheldon?

OK, now someone go make Galaxy Quest 2.

Blah blah bloo bloo bleep. Hey who thought that in the original series the cave dwelling "demon in the dark" the horta looked like a giant space pizza?

Treksters, sound off on this important canon of Star Trek!

Any argument that makes it seem reasonable to build the Enterprise on the surface of the Earth makes an even BETTER argument for building it on the surface of the moon. Right down to building it in the cornfields of the New Riverside lunar colony.

Nidcelle,

You are thinking of Pizza the Hut from another franchise.

I don't know what it was. Maybe it was the low resolution of color television in the 60s. Or maybe it was that weird sound effect they created for it. But when I first viewed the Horta as a pre-teen in the 60s it creeped me out. Later on, as I could see it for the weaved creation that it was on better televisions, I gained insight as to why unattached hairpieces with weaves lain on the counter would freak some people out. ;-)

The thing of that episode that knocked the third wall down for the me of then was "Why are all the floors of The Federation mines smooth and flat but not any of the walls or ceilings?"

TMR013

Since when have only 'old geezers' liked star trek? I am 24 years old, my girlfriend is 19, we both grew up on TNG in syndication and loved it long before this latest 'incarnation' of it. Not every young person in this world is mindless puppet.

Summary comments:
"You are not like me, so you suck."

Calm down namelessme, Sarcasm was meant by both old geezers and young punks. But I do have to say, I have been called that, or worse, on these post for taking a stand against this movie.
OK this post is getting old, need a new one to debate ST 90210

"Enterprise was a great show for one reason: the characters didn't go into long, fictional word-descriptions of what was happening. That is how TNG and DS9 lost audiences."

Heh. TNG never lost a significant number of viewers during its run. In its final season, its average rating was probably about 4 times the best rating Enterprise ever got. after the first season TNG was still one of the top ten hour long series on television when it left the air. In its fourth season, almost 11 million viewers watched each episode, while just under 3 million viewers on average watched fourth season episodes of Enterprise. (The difference in ratings is even higher, since the American tv audience grew significantly in the decade-plus between the two seasons in question.)

It's one thing to tinker with canon, but for real world stuff no one's allowed to change the facts.

I thought star trek was a forum for new ideas and possibilities? The whole “ strange new worlds” quest that we all watched every week as they found “strange new life and civilisations” on that “boldly going“ gig. Time travel was excepted before the new movie, so were parallel universes and that giant ship eating single celled space organisms.

My point is how can people be closed minded to a movie not yet released . How can a 3 minute trailer define a 90 + minute movie. Even Kirk said and I quote “ Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant“. Star trek 90210? We’re lucky someone gave it a second chance. An Alternative timeline? New adventures? Sweet! They had to be young at one stage why not now?

Oh, if they can travel a billions miles a second, transport your molecules from one point to another in a blink of an eye, beams of light that can carry large mass, energy shields that can withstand a nuclear blast and get rid of hunger and bring peace to the world. It wouldn’t mater if the ship was built in space or planet bound. Its star trek. They always find a way.

I think this qualifies as the first negative review:

"It just didn't do it for me." - Steve Truitt

Reporting on Paramount's new Trek movie after enthusiastically attending a special screening of it 4-24-09

The REAL problem with the Enterprise being built on the Earth’s surface in this movie is not weather it could be done or not. Of course it could be done given the technology that exists in this universe.

The fact is, that in the context of the story it isn’t logical. It makes far more sense to build it in space. For reasons that have already been explained.

The Real problem is that J J Abrams has this shot in the movie for one reason. “It’s COOL!” And I fully admit, it IS a cool shot. But he is sacrificing logical and sensible story telling for a cool shot. That,
In my humble opinion is bad film making. And THAT explains a lot of what I personally think is wrong with this movie.

That and the new/old Enterprise is just butt ugly!

2nd captcha try

ive seen the new one (and I could anwser those questions with pages and pages of praise). In a nutshell Bad Robot has "done it". The balance is there for ST fans and non-fans. Its gonna be huge huge blockbuster. Wrath of Khan is now my second favorite ST movie. My fears if any! is how they gonna follow it up!! Coz it is that good...

I am not worried about Star Trek. Star Trek can take care of itself. It always has. I started watching Star Trek back in the early 70s and have enjoyed all of it. I seem to remember just these same kinds of “discussions” just before TNG began. “No one can replace the original. I’ll never watch it.” “What do you mean the captain can’t beam down to the planet any more? That’s dumb. I’ll never watch it.” “An android? That’s just a Vulcan rip off. I’ll never watch it.” I watched it. I liked it. Apparently so did a few of the haters. So, I will watch this new movie…and I will like it, much as I have liked all that has come before and I have a sneaking suspicion that so too will a few haters despite what they say now. So no, I’m not worried about start Trek. It will never die. Even if this movie blows and Star Trek sits idle for a few decades or so there will eventually be more. Star Trek has, as the Vulcan’s say, lived long and prospered.

From all the previews, 20 minute sneak previews in England, I find primary the story itself flawed. Kirk becomes captain of Enterprise when a cadet, most of the bridge crew whom were suppose to be younger than he is already graduated. JJ-prize is not same thing, and simple not possible spin off of old canon everyone else has followed.

The way this movie is structured, its like Star Wars. Trek suppose to be more dramatic/scifi, not flash bang. It was made it unique among other things. Anycase, i think primary, principle story itself is flawed.

@Colt: "Trek suppose to be more dramatic/scifi, not flash bang."

By all accounts, Roddenberry pitched Star Trek as "Wagon Train in space". I have seen a few old reruns, and for the old west setting, there was quite a bit of flash bang. I wouldn't be at all surprised if TOS would have had more action if it had a bigger sfx budget at the time.

The best Trek was always a mix of action and thought provoking story. I am hoping for both in the new movie.

Personally, I can't speak to the priciple story until I have seen the movie myself. Once I've seen it, *then* I will debate illogical story points, canon violations, and 90210ness with everybody else.
See ya then!

Snowkestrel,

For the life of me, I can't figure out which episodes you saw. I happen to have watched most of the WAGON TRAIN series weekly has each episode originally premiered. And I absolutely do not recall any high-speed wagon to wagon canon-fire exchanges in it entire run.

For everyone who wants this film to do great. You may find that wanting is more pleasing a thing than having it is not logical but it is often true.

What about the fact that according to TOS episode "The Ballance of Terror", no one in Star Fleet had ever seen a Romulan before, which was seen in that they were all surprised that they looked like Spock. If there is any point they see Nero I will throw a fit!

Mizoti - here, watch my lips, I'll go slowly: alternate timeline. Everything after the attack on the Kelvin is a divergent timeline, which means anything after that point (20+ years before the main events of the movie) is potentially different from what went before.

ENTERPRISE is still part of the new continuity, mind you. That continuity just branches at the point of the attack on the Kelvin. In one timeline, the Kelvin is never destroyed; in this one, it is.

Old Spock jumps timelines. Permanently.

There may be no Enterprise A, B, C or bloody D, or E, F up through Q (which is where I think they got to if I remember Doug Drexler right), Voyager, DS9, or whatever in this timeline. Because there's no reset, the entire Trek universe is wide open to tell new stories, or to tell new versions of old stories.

This includes "Balance Of Terror." Yes, it would lose the revelation that the Romulans share a common ancestor with the Vulcans, at least for some. Plenty of other story in that episode.

The bottom line is that Star Trek as was, warts and all (and there are some big goddamned warts), still exists. Paramount's still trying to extract every last dime from the old girl, even now -- hey, go buy copies of the spiffed-up TOS episodes! Me, I have the movies on my shelf, and DS9, and some books, and most of the released music.

JJTrek doesn't take any of that away. Continuity, that old whore, still functions as it ever did in Trek (imperfectly, that is.)

I like divergent timelines. They're exciting! And apparently JJ Abrams has made a big shiny flashy movie that's actually a fun Trek movie, so I may be surprised nicely when I see it.

If "alternate timeline" is to be Paramount's new mantra, I wonder if they'd be satisfied if only alternate timeline audiences with their alternate timeline dollars go to see their movies?

==There may be no Enterprise A, B, C or bloody D, or E, F up through Q (which is where I think they got to if I remember Doug Drexler right), Voyager, DS9, or whatever in this timeline. Because there's no reset, the entire Trek universe is wide open to tell new stories, or to tell new versions of old stories.==

That is exactly what's wrong. Abrams couldn't be bothered to work within the already existing universe. Oh no, he had to 'create' his own. Complete with an ugly ship.

I am suspicious of how well-managed Paramount has arranged the reviews and interviews:

www3.timeoutny.com/chicago/blog/out-and-about/2009/05/star-trek

It as if they don't have faith in their product?

More Steve Truitt on the Abrams' Trek movie:

"STAR WARS is STAR WARS....This (STAR TREK) just didn't do it for me."

"I give it (STAR TREK) a C."

"The more I thought about it (STAR TREK); the more I dislike it (STAR TREK)."

"I thought it was a great cast, but a really terrible script. Great special effects."

"They (Paramount) are embargoing (won't allow it to air until opening day.) the (Nimoy) interview."

Jeffrey Lyons, after hearing Steve, commented that he thought STAR TREK will kill WOLVERINE at the Box Office. Apparently Lyons Trek review was "embargoed" too as that's all he would say and he went on to review other films?

Steve said he thought it would do good box office as well.

FWIW out of four stars:

Christy Lemire AP gave it 2 1/2

Roger Ebert gave it 2 1/2