...'cause everyone knows Gene *really* wanted Trek to be about "violence and brief sexual content", but he didn't have the budget back in the '60s...

I'm just gonna do the old *facepalm* in response to thanatos' comment

thanatos you are wrong what star trek ment was a starship earth where everyone lived together in peace sure we had to bring ourself to the brink of extintion sorry about the spelling i just hope the movie doesnt screw up star trek online which i hope it comes out on console

I'm just mad that the Jaw-waws raising Kirk on Planet Galifrey was cut out of the movie! And what's up with Darth Vader being Spocks father in law?!

Greetings Trek fans. I think I got it! It’s about contrast. JJ ’s trying to show us how important star trek is by contrast. He’s made an alternative universe that show how bad off everything would be if the federation was full of misguided people in a badly conceived story. A parallel to, if you say, we didn’t have stuff like oh I don’t know Jimmy Bufffet, Rum Or Pez you know the stuff in life that makes it fun and interesting . The movie is just a poorly timed object lessen.

"...'cause everyone knows Gene *really* wanted Trek to be about "violence and brief sexual content", but he didn't have the budget back in the '60s...'

Boring Wilson...BOOOOOORING!

Thanatos, have you even watched the Original Series? Every other episode is about Kirk seducing some hot woman or getting into a fist fight. The costume designer, William Theiss, designed the women's costumes on what he called the "oops" principal, to show off as much skin as possible without violating Broadcast Standards & Practices. Uhura's skirt in the movie is longer than the skirt Theiss gave her.

doesn't Zack look like Scot Bacula?

Does this mean this early installment of the franchise reboot is going to have a green skin bootie call? Awesome.

Point to remember about 60s Trek. At that time unless a show had action and violence it was almost guaranteed to be cancelled. gene pitched it as "wagon train to the stars" and anyone who saw that show will tell you people were killed regularly by senior cast members and no one blinked an eye. Also dont forget , as it was the 60s that meant the women did wear short skirts, they were no shorter than could be seen daily on sunset boulervard or indeed most anyhere in downtown LA at that time.

Well, no show in the 60's had more bootie than Trek, except maybe "Laugh-In." On Trek you may recall, the panties even matched the dresses in color, and they made sure you could tell. A green alien bootie call could actually make this movie worth watching...

"Brief sexual content" and 'tittliating flash of briefs" are not nearly the same thing. It looks like a few of my detractors need to retake their Sarcasm Exams. The whole "Gene really wanted...' meme started with the post-Okrand Klingons trying to justify their existence. Yes, I saw the original series - when it first aired.

Actually, Thanatos, by current MPAA standards, they pretty much are at the PG-13 level. Otherwise, you're talking R land. You've seen the trailer right? Uhura and I think Kirk jumping in the bunk? That's PG-13-able by MPAA standards right there. Also, you may know that MPAA ratings "counts" are listed by order of severity. So, "Sci-Fi action and violence" are the biggest culprits here, then followed by "brief sexual content." My guess is a lot of people get phasered, we know there's a bar fight. If there's blood or wound cauterization in those scenes, that's definitely PG-13able.

If it really bothers you that much, take a cold shower before and after the movie. You and your fandom object will be fine.

I like how a lot of people have blasted this movie and have not even seen it yet. It's a wonder we ever made it out of the dark ages.

who says we made it out of the dark ages?

Wait...what...Dark Ages? Uh...Dark Ages? What Dark Ages? 8^D

I just looked at the Star Trek IMBD and saw that Chris Doohan is in this movie as a Starfleet Officer. He's pretty cute too.

Just as long as it stays true to Gene's intentions,I don't how many Star Trek movies or series come out.

I'd like to see a new Trek. Not a prequel. I think the franchise needs to figure out what comes after Picard. I don't need the secret origin of Kirk. Whatever. Bleh.

(QUOTE)...'cause everyone knows Gene *really* wanted Trek to be about "violence and brief sexual content", but he didn't have the budget back in the '60s...(UNQUOTE)

He was being sarcastic guys.

Of course he was being sarcastic, but the point of being sarcastic is to be ironic. There is nothing ironic about Star Trek being rated PG 13 for sci-fi action, violence and brief sexuality when Star Trek has always contained elements of action, violence, and sexuality. In fact, the Original Series probably had more than the film does. Some episodes such as "Patterns of Force" and "Bread and Circuses" feel as if they had morals tacked on to them in order to justify the violence.

Martin, Go watch an episode of Baywatch. Then you can tell me how standards have change in the past 40 years. You completely missed my point, apparently.

I love how all the Roddenites are circling the wagons over this. Heres the thing: Gene wanted to push the boundries of what the product was, he told stories about race relations and the cold war in allegory. If he were alive today, he'd agree that ST during the berman/braga era trashed what he created. In fact, I think he'd welcome a reboot of his franchise that exposed the ideas and concepts (unity and exploration) to a new generation.

dammit,, no more Star Trek remakes, redos,, do something original... I don't want to bash a film I have not seen, but it seems they never learn their lesson when trying to make a new Kirk era version of ST.

Thanny, the only point you're making is over-reactionary, curmudgeonly at best. The movie's got a PG-13, because the sci-fi action and violence is probably edgier than prior Trek films, and the romping is free of the innuendo cheesecake constraints of the original productions.

While your first name basis with "Gene" shows cute loyalties, Trek hasn't been dictated from the grave for some time now. Most of the world aside from a fundamentalist Trek set that believe Roddenberry was an "auteur" and not simply a producer get that.

Did you hate First Contact? The elements that made that a PG-13 are the thrust of the MPAA's rating this time around, not the secondary listed thrust/grinding you seem to insist remain in Asexual Trek as the great acetic monk Roddenberry intended. Please.

If no one's getting your point, maybe you ought to get off your duff and explain yourself beyond a Gene whine.

Sadly, Chris, I think the evil Berman/Braga cabal was carrying on EXACTLY as Gene wanted. He oft stated at convention appearances that the guiding philosophy of the Original Star Trek was "there is an intelligent life-form on the other side of the TV screen." From all reports I've read of the early days of Next Gen, he changed that charge to something like "my Aunt Tillie has got to understand this!" This is why the characterizations suddenly became facile and paper-thin and the morals were put forth with all the subtlety of a hammer to the back of the head. This is also why ALL of the creative lights of the Original Star Trek that re-joined Roddenberry on Next Gen (D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold, Robert Justman) left after the first (and IMHO, disasterous) season.

Credit where credit is due, Next Gen did improve somewhat around seasons 3 and 4, Voyage actually started out as one of the best Trek sequels before devolving into Next Gen Lite before the end of its first season, and before it was trashed by being the main focus of Berman & Braga from season 4 on, DS9 was actually quite good and excitingly different than the "Star Drek" of Next Gen. But ultimately, the mostly featureless, frustrating, uninteresting, uninvolving and just plain boring "Star Trek" we got for 18 years had its genesis (heh!) with the exact same individual who gave us the first Star Trek: Gene Roddenberry.

Darkehawke's rhetorical genesis torpedo FTW!

Thanny, that's how points are made.

I just hope it doesn't start in the middle of the movie like Abrams last movie!!!! If that happens I hope and pray he gets drummed out of hollywood all together!!!! He cannot treat this like another episode of alias.

I agree with nickfurry, look foward after Picard and Janeway and Sisko. I have never supported ENTERPRISE. I think the cast was wonderful for what was given to them to work with. But when you go back in time, you will screw with what was. The wonderboy Abrams is going the wrong way. The only way we can get this back on track again is by voting with our movie bucks. If we ignore it, Paramount might finally take the hint and start a brand series. Maybe take the idea of jumping it a few decades has they did with Next Generation.

If we ignore it...

...it's DEAD JIM!

Wishing for it will not make it happen, jbs. Real Star Trek will live on long after this bomb of a movie is a bad memory.

I was speaking of any thing NEW being produced...but I bet you knew that.