yeah

SWEET!

Well, I'm sold! I think the franchise has finally been given the treatment it deserves. I haven't even seen this one yet and I'm already looking forward to part 2!

kinda cool, but I'm worrying by the time I see the actual film, they'll just be a bunch of explosions to fill in the gaps between all the clips we've seen already.

Overexposure anyone?

Abrams can go to hell. He destroyed my favorite part of the Star Trek Universe - The Vulcan culture; he did this by destroying the Planet Vulcan. Also, there are too many unexplained plot holes you could fly a Borg Cube through

It may seem like a lot of clips but it's less than five minutes of a two hour movie. Besides they've been shown out of order, without context in relation to the story as a whole. I've noticed that the clips have so far related only to the Kirk storyline but the trailers suggest that Spock's story forms the other major arc and they haven't shown any clips from that other than what's in the trailers.

..because Gene always wanted Uhura to have a first name, but back in the 60's they didn't have the budget and the state of SFX couldn't support it...

How the hell does that shuttlecraft manuever work? That's a bloody tight turn he's got to make in order to get Kirk, Sulu and the redshirt thrown out of the shuttle in the direction of that platform at that speed - that or he's momentarily altering the gravitational constant of the universe.

I find it interesting that the most die-hard fans of a notoriously campy, largely irrational and frequently off-canon series are the ones that complain the most about "continuity" and "plot."

Dude, it's Star Trek. I love it just as much as the next guy, but really -- will the complaining ever cease?

Nope...the more I see the less I like it.....

Well, to each his/her own.

Thanatos, that "...Gene always wanted..." meme just isn't funny anymore. Not stating Uhura's first name actually fits in with canon. Her first name has never been mentioned in any of the canon material. Nichelle Nichols has stated that he first name is Nyota but their were no statements by Roddenberry one way or the other.

I like everything I have seen so far except the tattooed and bald Romulans.

As a SciFi movie, it might be pretty good despite some illogicalities.

But as Star Trek? I'm sorry it's just messed up. It's not just non-canon. It takes the original story about these people and how they met and completely twists it around. So JJ Abrams could put his own 'spin' on it.
===================================
Worm's SciFi Haven

The reason there are plot holes or "twists it around" is because it's an alternate time line. Which is why they can start at the beginning yet have things be different.

Good Eve Trekkers. and you know who you are. I'm still fighting this Star Trek Ripe off.
OK:
Clip 1: Dont romulans from an altrnative future have phasers? If I had a tatto I'd Be insulted they use his to Make him evil.
Clip 2: 23rd century parachuting? Oh come on! What's next 24th parasailing?
Clip 3: I was as disinterested as the Alien in the middle. Real Trek fans would not except a future commander hitting on a crew member. I'm not saying it never happen. But if it did they wouldn't be on my ship. But then again I have morral and standards.
Clip 4: for the 40 + years I've know James T. Kirk Unles his ship was in danger He wouldn't cross that line just because some one dare him to. He'd stay put it just to irritate then.
I Clearly see two Different definition of star Trek Fan
1960-2008: A open minded person with thoughts that the future can be better and that with opened mind the future will bea time of peace.
2009: Any one who will pay $10-$12 to see the last 15 min of a movie that they have already seen the first 1:45 min of because It's shiny and new.
Star Track Live: For the TimeBeing (Get The Pun?)

I have A Question for any onewho will answer it. Let's just say that you were an actor, you played a role (The Biggest Role Of your Career) For 40+ years Now Some Hotshot New kid in town Director took your rolr, your work Flushed it down the crappeer and Reimagined all the work that you did, turnd it and twisted it until all you work was not even seen in the new players. How wouldyou personally feel? I'm personally very sorry for the 8 orginal players of this series. I say 8 including the Enterprise as the eighth because she was a good ship andvery Yar. (I don't mean Tasha) For every one who likes this movie Have fun Texting some one in 40 Years.

by the way i thought romulans were all about honor, i'm sorry that was canon it's not allowed.

OK you people are totaly out of line and I am sooo sick of it. All you do is cease every opertunity to bitch, bitch, bitch and slander something none of you has even seen yet, and those few who have seen the film have had nothing but great things to say. CFE you have no clue what you are talking about with the Vulcan world being destroyed. Abrahms hired Orci and Kurtzman 2 self proclaimed Trekkies to ensure he did not mess up the cannon and respected the integrety of the series. Nero is a time traveling Romulan and an elder Spock appears to help stop him, trust and believe the only thing altered was the techno babble everything gets set back right. Come one it's a Star Trek time travel story it always gets corrected when Spook's involved. At least see the movie before bashing it.

"OK you people are totaly out of line and I am sooo sick of it."

Translation: how dare you people have opinions! Shut up shut up shut up!

Well, I'm glad somebody on the interwebs was there to set me straight! *insert eye roll*

For the People Who Have Been Complaining About the Movie Not Respecting Canon, Here is a Little Quiz:

1. Is Spock Vulcan or Vulcanian?

2. Does USS stand for United Space Ship, United States Ship or United Star Ship?

3.When did the Federation learn about the Romulan cloaking device? Was it in "Balance of Terror" or "The Enterprise Incident"?

4.What theory is canon with regards to the relation between Vulcans and Romulans? Is it Spock's theory derived from Sargon's explanation about seed races as expressed in "Return to Tomorrow", Spock's theory from "Balance of Terror", or Surak's explanation from the Enterprise episode "Awakening"?

5. Is Robert April the first captain of the Enterprise or isn't he?

6. Is Star Trek 5 canon or isn't it?

7. Was Chekov an Enterprise crew member during the events of Space Seed or wasn't he?

8. Was Will Decker Matt Decker's son or wasn't he?

9. Is the Klingon language called Klingon, Kligoni, or Klingonese?

10. Was Kahless the Unforgettable an honorable warrior as depicted in Next Gen or an evil dictator as depicted in TOS?

I ask these questions not to make fun but to point out that Star Trek canon was never written in stone but was fluid and varied from episode to episode, series to series, and from creator to creator. In some instances, canon varied with Gene Roddenberry's mood on a particular day.

"It's canon." "It's NOT canon." "It isn't Trek." "It's not allowed." Blahblahblah.

Star Trek wasn't engraved in stone by the finger of god, you know. Lighten up.

Agreed Decker, to argue about this movie not being canon is a semantics debate. Worthless on its face and an utter waste of time. I would rather have this Trek, than no trek at all. Who knows, something even better could come from all this.

Captain Zacary R Wildstar Captain SSD Dexterous I also get your point about being upset with the movie, but really. This is a movie, not a life saving experience. In the television and movie field taking someone's work and altering it goes on all the time. Should it happen? In a perfect world no, but Abrams is no worse than Roddenberry with what he did to get his work sold and filmed. BTW its not Abrams fault Star Trek got reimagined, its actually the fans fault. Ever think of that, that if we (the fans) had been satisfied with what Paramount gave us years ago instead of bitching about it and picking it apart that the execs involved wouldn't have placed us in the postion we are in now. Marinate on that! You can hate Abrams all you want, but he is the solution to a problem he didn't cause.

@Thanny re: "that maneuver". From other clips, I'm thinking that drop off was done within a planet's gravity well, kinda a ludicrous HALO jump (though there have been some jump experiments at almost near orbit altitudes at least on the drawing board and equipment type stages if not actually performed).

You ever jump out of a plane? It's pretty fast. That fast if a camera's also pulling back for effect.

Wait, I think I see. The large object in space with The Enterprise isn't the platform. The platform is somewhere down that beanstalk/tube thing they're plummeting along when they're released.

IsoTek said "Ever think of that, that if we (the fans) had been satisfied with what Paramount gave us years ago instead of bitching about it and picking it apart that the execs involved wouldn't have placed us in the postion we are in now."

You say that statement of doubtful accuracy as if Paramount has had one consistent set of executives in the intervening years instead of the revolving door that is the Hollywood norm:

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

the current regime's only been there 4 years. I doubt Brad Grey has any grasp of what the fans did 30 years ago, good or ill. And most assuredly it had absolutely no bearing on his decisions to invest in Abrams.

@Captain Zacary R Wildstar Captain SSD Dexterous there were 10 characters (including the ship). 3 of them died of old age (DeForest, Doohan and Barrett)
And for the other part HELLO Rodenberry is DEAD TOO and THE DEAD don't feel a thing and if it were my work I would accept it like a man and not complain about it like a sissy girl.
And I belong too the 1960-2008 Star Trek generation and here I quote you
"I Clearly see two Different definition of star Trek Fan
1960-2008: A open minded person with thoughts that the future can be better and that with opened mind the future will be a time of peace.
2009: Any one who will pay $10-$12 to see the last 15 min of a movie that they have already seen the first 1:45 min of because It's shiny and new.
Star Track Live: For the TimeBeing (Get The Pun?)"
And you also forgot a third group to which you belong to
The illogical, irrational complainer who's not open minded to something new and rather hold on to an archaic show who's morale's are outdated and will not tolerate any form of change small or radical to update it to the standards and morals of current society.

Dude I have not seen it yet but boy am I going to love it and tht will be without taking my medication either and not using my walker so I won't fall down. I have new batteries for my hearing aids so I will get the full pleasure of the sound effects.

So far what I see looks pretty good. So what's the problem?

Thank you Decker for pointing out inconsistencies in Star Trek "canon". Not to forget that the "original" pilot was about a captain named Pike. So really are the entire adventures of Kirk, Spock and McCoy to be considered "canon" considering what Roddenberry's original "cerebral" vision was? Or is it just a matter of semantics as IsoTek points out? I'm sure there will be those who see this and argue "Kirk was televised, Pike wasn't" or some silly argument which could be countered in a he said/she said fashion. The point is, this movie is coming out, some will love it, some will like it, some will nit pick it and others will not see it. To those who are so narrow minded to not have an open mind, why do you even watch Star Trek? What do you think is the point of seeking out new lifeforms and new civilizations? To point out the flaws in other perspectives to make yourselves feel better about yourselves? Of course not. It was to experience new cultures, new peoples and improve ourselves. The same arguments were made about TNG and how many of you loved TNG? Instead of bashing this new perspective on Star Trek, try taking a chance and view it with an open mind.

fizzben said, "So far what I see looks pretty good. So what's the problem?"

For me, you've hit the nail right on the head. It's all look and no substance as science-fiction..

I'm going to try to avoid specifics but for some, something **SPOILAGE** this way comes:

We take as a given that artificial satellites, probes and long range sensors of the Federation and her enemies use Treknology that communicates faster than the speed of light.

The problem is that natural phenomena in our universe do not propagate faster than the speed of light. It makes it impossible for a natural cataclysm even as close as a one light year away to take such beings by surprise. Nor is it sensible to use one as a plot device to create an "eminent" threat to them.

Now in previous Trek movies the sentients while using Treknology have blown up a moon and even collapsed a star. But because Treknology was involved we give them the fudge on how the "shockwaves" and various results are "instantaneously" generated, observed and felt.

But it is extremely bad science-fiction to try to use a natural phenomena that's been observed and studied for hundreds of years, even by our time, and have it magically hot-rod its disastrous effects up so that it could be taken as a credible eminent threat to such a Treknological civilization.

And it gets even worse: the effects of the "cure" is "instantaneous". If that in and of itself isn't preposterous enough the result of that would be to release an intense amount of energy at least the equivalent (but probably far surpassing) that of the original threat.

Yes, Trek hasn't always minded its science-fiction Ps and Qs but this goes beyond the pale and they build the whole plot around it. Besides, when Paramount lays out more money for Trek than they have ever done before, that raises the bar. You expect better not worse.

This is why I tend to categorize this as just another Republic Pictures B-movie in Nimoy's quiver. I'll probably go see it as that because they have a special place in my heart. But don't ask me to call it STAR TREK or to support it blindly in its every aspect just because Paramount has deigned to label it so.

"But as Star Trek? I'm sorry it's just messed up. It's not just non-canon. It takes the original story about these people and how they met and completely twists it around. So JJ Abrams could put his own 'spin' on it."

Spiff...when was the first meeting of our intrepid heros addressed in anything that would be considered canon? Really asking here. Don't recall that ever being dealt with. I think some of the novels have addressed the subject, but the novels are not canon...according to Gene Roddenberry who I believe stated only that which appeared on screen could be considered canon.

This ongoing assault on Abrams...geez! SOMEBODY had to take over the franchise...if it was going to continue. Is there ANYBODY who would be acceptable? I mean REALLY! Anybody? Whoever took over was/is going to "put his own 'spin' on it." We have to allow WHOEVER IT IS SOME creativity. No one would take it on otherwise.

These next commets are not necessarily directed to you Spiff...

To those of you who insist that this movie is NOT STAR TREK....Gentlemen...Ladies...this movie...IS STAR TREK. Says so right there on the posters. The lead characters are Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. The ship...wherever the blamed thing is being built in the flick is the Enterprise...says so right there on the hull. The production recieved the blessing of Mrs. Roddenberry who lent her voice as she always had previously to other movies and TV shows in the frachise. It has the blessing of Mr. Nimoy who participatged in the production but reprising his role as Spock and is working to promote the picture. It has the blessing of Bill Shatner...in that he complained about NOT BEING IN IT! It has the blessing of Jimmy Doohan's family in that his son appears in the film, and so on and so on. This movie is STAR TREK. You don't have to like it, but thems is the facts.

Regarding the incessent canon debate...none of us knows what the movie does or does not do regarding canon...yet...as of this writing on 4/29/09. Nothing can really be told from the trailers and clips, none of which provide any context at all! Once the picture comes out...well...if you don't go see it, you still will not know what it does or does not do regarding canon.

Posting attempt 1...

you know, they sprang a showing of this movie on a bunch of trek fans expecting to see the wrath of khan. some of those people wrote reviews... now i've read a good many of those reviews and i've yet to read the one that says the viewer couldn't enjoy the show because of small inconsistencies in canon.

just go see it and enjoy it and be glad that paramount is willing to give us anything at all branded 'star trek'

oh, and does anyone else think the guy who brought the charges might be lt. kyle?

Son of a Maui Portagee, my intent was to exemplify how so many are making so much out of nothing. With all due respect, how can you get any substance anyway out of a bunch of trailers. Your post kind of made my mind spin so I'll try to summize your intent. Science Fiction is just that, fiction. That means it doesn't exist. The world of Star Trek doesn't exist but as with all science fiction it's stories made up of "what ifs". I love Star Trek dearly, always have, but I'm not going to hold on to it so tightly that I can't enjoy it from a different angle. For everyone that is having a hard time with this move, God bless you, I sincerely hope you get the trek you want one day (not being sarcastic). I'm going to see this movie and when it's done I'll pass judgement since only that will show me whether there's any substance or not. The trailers show me that the look and feel of it seems ok so I'm going to check it out. Am I excited about seeing it, youbetcha! I don't get out much anyway.

All Hail The closed minded individual!!!!
Morons One and All. There is no other ST universe and interracial kissing is never allowed to happen let alone inter specie relations. GIVE ME A FRAKING BREAK! The one Cannon that should be and always will be is IDIC. Infinite Diversity Infinite Combination.
Everything changes and nothing has to be the same. This is what Gene wanted people to understand and learn to accept. "Stop being a cry baby and do whats in the script Bill" was probably heard in the 60's and beyond in every iteration and universe of the Multiversal thing we call Entertainment .
Stop complaining and get on with more movies and shows and fun!!!
FUN is the word you should be living. Not whining constantly that things don't go as you plan.
Grow a pair and Grow up!

I like to think of this movie in much the same vein as DC's revamping of Superman in 1986. They changed the minor details of his origins but kept the important aspects of character such as his heroism and integrity. As long as the characters maintain the core aspects of their their personalities its still Star Trek. From the clips and trailers its seems that Kirk is still intelligent, heroic, and a ladies man; Spock is still logical, intelligent, and struggling with his dual heritage, and McCoy is still a crusty but compassionate Southern gentleman. The Star Trek vision of the future is fun, exciting, and optimistic. That's what counts not the obsession with canon.

jbs780,

Your this IS STAR TREK point would be stronger if only Paramount, et al, hadn't also labeled it "This is not your father's STAR TREK."

I Am Kirok!,

You are on to a germ of a thought but I think you need to go further back in DC Comics history to when they had the Silver Age Barry Allen discovered Earth II populated with the original Golden Age heroes.

Through his Cosmic Treadmill they kept both the old and "rebooted" franchises alive and told many interesting stories with "crossovers" between the two universes. The only trouble was the writers fell in love with the idea of an "alternate" Earth anytime the editorial staff wouldn't let a new and interesting take into the main Earth Prime line. Soon the number of alternate Earths kept growing until eventually the editorial staff was taking too much time trying to keep it all straight. So they created the CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS to consolidate it all back down to one manageable universe.

Come to think of it I seem to recall a TNG episode that had a "crisis" of infinite Enterprises. Hmmm.....that means that no matter how hard Abrams tries to trap Spock Prime in their universe that if he can make it to the stardate of the infinite Enterprises - well, he has a way out if he can be on an Enterprise NCC 1701-D at that time. Wasn't there something about a "quantum signature"? That is, returning to his universe would be as simple as beaming over to the one ship that matches his "quantum signature"

I seem to recall the Rikers put an end to it before it became an actual infinite number of Es.

Well, I'm getting into DC Editor headache territory but speculation can be fun.

"Son of a Maui Portagee at 5:38 AM ON 04/30/09

jbs780,

Your this IS STAR TREK point would be stronger if only Paramount, et al, hadn't also labeled it "This is not your father's STAR TREK." "

Well...I don't disagree with you point...a mistake on Paramount's part in my opinon...but it still says STAR TREK rat thar on the posters, and it still says "Enterprise" rat thar on the hull of the ship...etc, etc. etc. so the conclusion is still the same.

Post attempt 1-Failed
Post attempt 2-

Mu. Are you saying that you think the standards and morals of current society Are Better Now then they were back when treck started. Check the crime rates, check the homeless, the domestic Violence, the child abuse, both physically and sexually. Is that the things you want updated to be entertained? That is not why Gene made TOS, it was to get people to stop doing thing of that nature and to be able to grow as human being.

jbs780 said
==Spiff...when was the first meeting of our intrepid heros addressed in anything that would be considered canon?==

Well you have point there. I don’t recall it ever being talked about either. Although I have not seen any original episodes lately. But it has already been said that this movie takes place in an alternate timeline and as you know I have a problem with that whole concept. Based on the interviews and articles I’ve read I have the impression that Abrams and his team did that so they could change whatever they wanted and have some kind of explanation for it.

If you look at it logically (no pun intended) Most of them would be in different years at the academy. Spock I think is the oldest followed by Kirk and McCoy who might be in the same year. Scotty was a commander, Uhura and Sulu were LT’s and they might also be in the same year. Chekov was an ensign. I don’t know how military academies run their training programs and I’m sure someone could just say “Well Starfleet is fictional so we can do however we want!” But I don’t think different year classes would be training together and Scotty being an engineer might not even receive the same kind of training beyond the basics of military survival etc. In the early episodes Sulu was not a navigator and did not have much interaction with the main characters and Chekov was not a part of the bridge crew until the third season. So it’s reasonable to assume that non of them had met until they were assigned to the Enterprise and were all working on the bridge. Would it have been so difficult to follow each of their stories separately until then.

Concerning the previous paragraph: before all you Trek Fan bashers start screaming at me to get a life and grow up yadda yadda ad nauseam,
I was asked a question by jbs780 and I am answering him or her as the case may be.

The point has been made repeatedly that we can not really judge this movie until we have seen it. Several critics have already seen it and most of them seem to love it. I have never placed much stock in critics opinion, there have been too many movies they hated that I liked. Also few of them are actual Trek fans. Now that is not to say they are unable to give a fair judgment based on their own opinion, but If they don’t care one way or another about Trek then they are simply judging it as a movie which is fine as it needs to be judged on that basis as well but there are certain points about a Trek movie I don’t think they are qualified to expound on.

It is however a legitimate point. So in the interest of fairness I will no longer comment in these articles about the merits of this movie until I have seen it. That may be several weeks (I’m sure you will all cry your eyes out missing me) because I am waiting until it hit’s the discount theaters.
===================================Worm's SciFi Haven at
http://www.wormsscifi.com/haven/index.php

1st try-FAIL!
2nd try

That was really cute with Uhuru ordering a Slusho. ALA Cloverfield.

Spiff...good, reasonalble response. Good to be able to have a reasonable discussion of the subject. So much of this digresses into bickering.

To your points...The alternate timeline thing...I want to see what they've done with it before I decide if it's good, bad, or ugly...nothing new there. I really just don't have a problem with it.

Now about the ages of the bridge crew and when they were at the academy. Of coarse I don't know how this is handled in the script...yet, but consider this...Kirk is an angry young man not doing anything with his life till Pike dares him to do better that his Dad...we know this from the trailers and clips. What we don't know is how old he is at that time...21...25...28? He could be the same age as an Academy senior...Uhura?...or even older. If he starts later he'll finish later. Bare in mind that we are never told anytihng about any characters age...except Kirk, who is acknowledged as the youngest Starship captain in the fleet (and I think McCoy and Scotty are both supposed to be around 45.) In one episode he states that he is 34. At this point he has been the captain...what, two years? Three? He could be older that Uhura and Sulu and be behind them in the Academy, but because of his abilities, advances faster than they do after he is commissioned. Uhura never struck me as a kid, and neither did Sulu. Now Chekov did come across as a kid and presumably is younger than the rest. I get the impression that he is considered some sort of prodigy and is ahead of others his own age in the Academy. Don't know if that is true, but that is the impression I have gotten. Spock is older than Kirk. Again, my impression from the clips etc. is that Spock is already a serving officer while Kirk is at the Academy...which I think would follow canon...Spock was on Pike's crew several years BEFORE Kirk was given command of Enterprise. Now yes in the clips and stills we see him at the Academy...but NOT DRESSED AS CADET! Is it possible that Spock is a guest lecturer? Seems like I have heard some dialogue that sounds like Spock giving a lecture. Again, this is my impression. McCoy IS older than Kirk...early 40's but we know his backstory involves coming to Starfleet later in life following a divorce, so Bones and Kirk could be Academy classmates in spite of the age difference. If I understand correctly, Scotty, who is about the same age as McCoy, is not at the Acadmey with Kirk, who goes and gets him off some planet in the movie.

One other thing regarding Chekov...I think the character entered the show in the second season after someone pointed out to Gene that his diverse crew did not include a Russian...that whole Cold War thing was goin' on and we want to make a positive statement about that soooooooo...Regarding the little Canon boo boo in Wrath of Kahn...Chekov knows who Kahn is, remembers him, but Checkov wasn't in the episode...of coarse the reality is the character had not been created yet, but that doesn't mean we can't just say...he wasn't on the bridge crew yet. We never see the majority of the crew of...430...so the character of Chekov could have been on the ship all that time, but simply had not earned assignment to the bridge crew yet.

Now Spiff one more thing...well two actually...c'mon man! go see the flick! Soonest! It might be six months befoer it hits the discount houses! Don't wanna have to wait THAT long to talk this witcha! ;^)

And jbs780 = a him...Internet sports reporter/broadcaster in Baton Rouge, La. 8^)

Post attempt 1-FAILED

The movie completely ruined my day, and only because am an avid Star Trek fan! Oh for sure it was great… for a movie from Hollywood. It offered pretty actors, great explosions, and awesome sets… but that is just status quo and expected. What really insults my intelligence and already previously stated, is that it is entirely non-canon. Vulcan being destroyed? The idiots that wrote this movie should have at least watched the two-part episode from Voyager, “Year of Hell.” That episode plainly puts into perspective simple cause and effect. They single-andly negated every episode and movie that has come out of the franchise.

Negated every episode and movie? Bryan42 as a Trek fan you should be ashamed of yourself. In the movie they explicitly spoonfed you baby quantum mechanics so chumps like you can understand how what we are seeing is canon and "future history" has not been "negated"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_many-worlds_interpretation

^Please, get educated.

Jbs780

I don’t know if your still reading this page but I’ll post this here any way.
I have finally seen this movie, yes I broke down and went to see it in the first run theater.
It was both better and worse than I thought it would be.

Better in the regard that I enjoyed watching it as a purely cinematic experience. It had action, humor and really cool special effects. The cast did a wonderful job. Especially Zachery Quinto as Spock.

But as Star Trek, it was worse than I was expecting. They destroyed the planet Vulcan! That one single event completely destroys any chance Abrams had of convincing me he has any respect for Star Trek. But it wasn’t just that. Kirks characterization was completely off. They turned him into a arrogant frat boy. Nero’s motivation as a villain was shaky at best.

As for violating canon well the fact that it’s a remake that creates an alternate timeline pretty much makes any argument about that moot doesn’t it?

Without going into details and there were plenty of them, I just don’t considewr this movie Star trek. More like Trek wanna be.

Spaceman Spiff,

Would you say this supposed Trek is a Changeling? Powerful in some ways but deeply flawed and broken in other more fundamental ways? And spacehappy; it thinks Roddenberry is its mother?

Anon wrote:
~~Negated every episode and movie? Bryan42 as a Trek fan you should be ashamed of yourself. In the movie they explicitly spoonfed you baby quantum mechanics so chumps like you can understand how what we are seeing is canon and "future history" has not been "negated".~~

Anon I’m sure we’ve all heard of the theory that all possible timelines exist in parallel universes. The problem is that if paramount doesn’t make any more movies in the old timeline and this movie becomes the ‘official’ timeline hence ’canon’ then the old timeline no longer exists and therefore everything that would have come after this film i.e. every episode and movie is negated.

The destruction of Vulcan alone eliminates any episode of any series or movie that features a trip to Vulcan. Any episode of any series or movie that mentions a trip to Vulcan. Any episode of any series or movie that has any kind of reference to the planet Vulcan in the present tense.