Sure, and all they had to do was dumb it down for the American Idol generation. If Star Trek is now cool, then I'd rather be a nerd.

Wow, two geeks who are far right, that’s an oxymoron. What a waste.

I personally doubt the validity of any "coolness" chart in which The Ice Pirates is used as a baseline. Everyone knows the statistical median of sci-fi coolness is the original 1978 Battlestar Galactica.

Aren't all of these arguably SIGNS that Star Trek is cool again, and not REASONS that it is? Other than the movie being good, I mean....

I find it interesting that on a site supposedly dedicated to science fiction, politics and political bias is still at the forefront. These movies and characters we enjoy so much have nothing to do with political celebrities.

These additions should be touted on some political web site.

Science FICTION, folks. It's a better world in an imagined future. Don't spoil it with unrelated and neverending arguments.

Please.

I still didnt like the story line and it was more action and more love scene/drama than it was really trek. No one addresses the fact that with this new movie what happens to STNG, DS9, VOYAGER?
this movie basically wipes out all those great stories, which to me is poor script writing and a blatent show of hollywood's just give me money and to hell with the fan base.
To me the cast was great but it was basically american idol trek.

Dear god people....
why do you have to bash the film all the time! I would think people wouod be happy it is finally getting the attention it deserves!

I for one am happy about all of this and I think the film is absolutely fantastic!

@wackamole2008

This new film created an ALTERNATE universe. It did not erase the original one.

WTF?
Star Trek has ALWAYS been cool :)

@Lordmoon

If you've watched the Trek series, you'd know that in every time travel ep, the old timeline is erased and restored once the travel is corrected.

So either Abrams is rewriting Trek physics or the old trek is erased. Either way, people who liked Trek the way it was are SOL. No one is going to make a Trek series or movie based on the old timeline because this Trek is "cool" and makes a ton of money.

Trek was good because it DIDN'T appeal to the mindless masses who just like to watch a lot of explosions and sex.

I echo the commenters above. If this Trek is "cool", I'll proudly be a nerd.

Actually, no, Star Trek is not cool, suddenly or otherwise. It was the subject of a lot of hype, including this ludicrous Obama/Spock comparison, but that's not the same thing.

All this proves is that Star Trek has won greater viewership and bad critics over by dumbing iteself down cynically in every conceivable way. This is garbage as is the taste of Sci Fi Wire obviously to be touting it as otherwise.

Star Trek wasn't cool? OMG I've wasted my life watching episodes and movies and reading hundreds of books for nothing?

@Al

Are you suggesting that science fiction, particularly Star Trek, is apolitical? How do you think "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" played during the racially charged political scene of the 1960s? Or "The Outcast" when Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan were arguing (and still arguing) that homosexuality was destroying the traditional family? Science fiction and Star Trek have always been steeped in politics and always will be.

If Star Trek was cool it was for the wrong reasons. This was not a good Star Trek. This was an action / comedy / parody. It could have been better if Spock & Kirk were running around like Bad Boys 2 or Rush Hour.

The movie copied every star trek movie & tv series cliche right down to ejecting the core. It was a big joke on the longtime fans with a good theme of friendship.

Average scifi with 1-dimensional characters. I can't help but think this was a big joke to get money on some level, because it really didn't break the mould. Why did they make it???

First Contact is still the best.

Muldfeld, we get it. You didn't like it. How many posts will it take for you to realize that you've been heard? We know. We understand. Your feelings are hurt. It's hard but it will pass and soon you'll be able to love again. Turn that frown upside down sunshine.

@pumpkinshirt
Right on, these aren't reasons Trek is cool again, they are SIGNS it is cool again.
@Vince
Obviously not a fan of TOS. Certainly the series was groundbreaking in terms of it's political and scientific intelligence but there was plenty of sex and violence (first interracial kiss of TV, remember?).

I personally would be quite happy with a new universe in which TNG, DS9, Voyager and even Enterprise never existed....

TOS rules!

I made this point on another thread, but crazyokie is a perfect example.

Some people point out that even trekkies liked the new movie. I would make that point that these people are usually TOS fans, not TNG or DS9 fans.

This is because they get to relive their Trek, while the rest of us get the big middle finger cause Abrams could care less about anything other than TOS. This is why most Trek fans are upset. Not because of canon issues or even bad Trek (which this was. TOS has sex and violence, but it wasn't ALL sex and violence), but because they've been told in not so many words that their Trek doesn't matter. Abrams could have done this in a way that didn't destroy what was already established, he chose not to.

JBurke, Star Trek's original premise was simple: Wagon train to the stars. There is no political undertones for the world at large and the only comparisons made can be listed under the "inspired by" label when the shows are made.

SciFi itself is not apolitical, it has its own leaders, dictators, and "evils", but unlike our own flawed reps, each dilemma must be resolved within a single episode (or season).

We're not so lucky.

The bottom line for me on the new Star Trek film is that it is a) entertaining b) will bring new viewers to watch old Trek and c) let's not forget that Star Trek was, essentially, dead before this "reboot" following the ill conceived "Enterprise" and the poor box office of Nemesis. So if you have enjoyed Star Trek in the past you should enjoy the fact that the "franchise" has been re-energized.

What happens to DS9, Voyager etc? Nothing. They're on DVD. Those stories have been told. Now new stories will be told. But, the legend lives on. There will also always be a market in terms of licensing for TOS, ST:TNG, DS9 and Voyager stories in terms of comics and books. But, as I said, those stories have been told. They didn't disappear. They will live on in our memories, just like the memory of the original timeline appears to have lived on in Spock Prime at the end of the new film.

Point of order, ANGELS & DEMONS (Worldwide: $440,743,292) is the top grossing film of 2009.

It's the best sci-fi adventure movie since the original Star Wars. And in my opinion, there's not much of an argument otherwise.

I LOVED TNG, DS9, VOYAGER AND THE NEW MOVIE!!!!! AWESOME!!

and ST09 hasn't topped the (adjusted) WW gross of St:TMP

@Son of a Maui Portagee

ST is the top grossing DOMESTICALLY, as the article states. It is beating Angels & Demons by millions here in the US.

This new movie isn't a sudden sign of Trek's "Coolness" - it's a sign of the apocalypse. It's the antithesis of Star Trek. If this new movie is the cure, then the patient, Trek-the franchise, should have been allowed to die in peace with dignity. I'm sick of people saying this awful movie has reenergized and reinvigorated a dying franchise. As Kirk said about the Klingons, LET IT DIE! rather than this awful movie where Vulcan is gone, Romulus is gone - why not just have destroyed Earth and Andor, too? This movie has no soul, so who needs the heart of the Federation, let's rip it all out! I've got an idea for the next movie, one of the few TOS stories I feel pain watching (beside the space hippies and the ghostly angel and the kiddies); maybe JJ can redo Spock's Brain! They can all wander around for 2 hours saying "Brain! Brain! What is brain?!" The American Idol sheeple ought to eat that right up!

#8. Um, Leonard Nemoy was in there too, you know? The original Spock? ST icon? Ringing a bell for any of you airheads? Maybe mention him with the other two nobodies?

Umm:
Al: "Star Trek's original premise was simple: Wagon train to the stars. There is no political undertones for the world at large." That how's Gene SOLD it to a nervous 1960s network. (And not a generic concept; that's a Western TV show title--family of characters keep moving, different background each week). The whole point was to make social/political statements via weird sets and painted girls--the only way to sneak it by.

Lordmoon: Yes: "This new film created an ALTERNATE universe. It did not erase the original one." In 1 or 2 more movies, when JJ & Co tired of it or the $$s go down, the "Prime" Time Line can be revisited and updated, at any point along its spectrum. You think they are going to stop selling books, figures, etc? from the last 40 years?

Star Trek WAS cool until it was turned into something that it isn't by jj abrams.

How about the 'Top 10 reasons why the latest Star Trek movie is NOT cool'?

Some of the reasons given in 'favor' also work 'against'.

@Vince

I'd point you at the TNG episode "Parallels" where Worf punted around different quantum realities.... and heck the original series and DS9 "Mirror Universe" episodes.

Parallel Universes is 'Trek' through and through. The movie universe is simply an example of one of these.

There are tonnes of 'essays' on time travel methodologies used in trek... and there are dozens of variations.

I'm not sure how Spock Prime could go back in time and stop Nero from destroying the Kelvin in order to 'restore the timeline' in any event. He seems to be content in this alternate quantum reality.

Question: If Star Trek is sooo Cool, and It's the New Movie Made By Jumpin Jack Abrams that did it, Why Did Sci Fi Wire use The One, THe Only, The True USS Enterprise On thier Pie Chart? Any one? Any One? Because it's an Icon Not a Flash in the pan. It's been out for 39 days had it's 15 min And I still haven't seen it. Kinda make you proud doesn't it.

Answer: You missed the word "Again" in the graphic didn't you? Yep, I thought so. Next.

Mika,

It is extremely poor journalistic form to make an erroneous assertion in the third line of an article and then attempt to ameliorate it by qualifying in the last. I can think of only one day of the year in which it might be passable.

The correct place to put the qualifier is in the first occurrence of the assertion and then it is permissible to omit it later, once the meaning is clear. In fact, you could say, it is a point of order.

@Mechanimorph

I could have bought that if they hadn't had an old Spock who is obviously from the original timeline go back in time with the off the wall looking Romulan ship.

Plus several of the cast members mention that the timeline is changed from what it would have been. It's pretty obvious that no matter what Abrams intended,he obviously didn't read up enough on Trek physics to know the difference between time travel and parallel universes. (Again, he has admitted in interviews he was more of a Star Wars fan and ignored anything after TOS)

As I said, he could have actually made a clean break from canon if that's what he really wanted, but instead he chose to "reboot" the franchise and wipe away what had been there.

And regardless of what does or doesn't exist on DVD, anyone who liked that original timeline is stuck with something they hate and no hope for anything new from the timeline they liked.

And yes, I get it. TOS fans are thrilled. Just accept that those who liked TNG and DS9 better, are not.

Well?

Maybe the folks that attacked the fans of this great group of movies, series and books etc. were correct all along. Star Trek in all of the incarnation has and will continue to be some of the best entertainment ever in our media. I know so nickpick the wondering of this new film from their sacred canon ( kind of like accusing someone of praying incorrectly) because someone did it differently in the past. The film was fun and entertaining for a great many folks, what else is a movie suppose to do?

Maybe my 30 or so episodes of the various series that I have on my five DVRs is not so uncool after all. I loved the first episode I watched in 1967 and will love the next series when it comes as well. The movies are only bonuses on top of the various series.

Hmmm...the disappearance of certain posts on this thread shows that Sci Fi Wire staff obviously don't like being exposed for the low-intellect fanboy geeks that they so obviously are.

FIRST-- there's a lot of talk about how in a time travel Trek story, everything is 'supposed to' reboot when the good guys fix everything. Well, that didnt happen. Nero was not erased from time or anything like that.

SECOND- everyone remembers that BOTH the 'old' and 'new' Trek universes are, you know, PRETEND, right?

The new movie is a good, fun story. TNG, DS9, etc, are good stories. Deal.

Ado,

I wouldn't go that far but it is puzzling to ponder what they think their alert readers make of a file named "9-reasons-star-trek-is-no.php" in their wake?

I can't believe you are all wasting time on this.

I can't believe I wasted time writing this post.

I won't be wasting time looking for your responses.

Trek was dead before the movie.

Dead.

Dead.

Dead.

The last series was cancelled with atrocious ratings and the new movie has currently pulled in more than the last 3 films COMBINED.

Even if you hated it you should be happy that Star Trek has some mainstream appeal again as the GREATLY increases the odds of TPTB continuing to invest in it and creating something from it that you DO like.

I think it's just that some of you don't like anyone else in your little fan club unless they swear on your Bible that your version of Trek is gospel.

IDIC anyone? No room for people who just want a little action andventure with some characters with heart? They all have to know the combination to Kirk's safe?

I'm a life long (35 year) fan and they got Kirk, Spock and McCoy right. And it was just plain good.

Deal with it.

Oh, and .....

"Just accept that those who liked TNG and DS9 better, are not."

Speak only for yourself. DS9 was the best of Trek...

and I'm still thrilled with the new movie.

Eh I liked the movie....no complaints...unlike some people

Hey Fernandopoo: I can't stop laughing from your comment to Mudfield. lol. haha. omg too good. lol

FIRST CONTACT IS DA BEST. WOO HOO

And as for the new star trek-

Feed the babies milk-

Maybe this will entice them to look deeper into the star trek galaxy-

See it as an educational tool.

Make no mistake, the entertainment industry is not about entertainment for entertainment's sake-- it's about making money, plain and simple. By all accounts they've done that.

Trek has changed over the years. TNG started out in many ways like TOS, and it wasn't working for ratings. This is simply a new Trek for a new generation. Yes, it would have been nice to have more social commentary in it, and if they do continue with more movies or a new series, I would hope that those Trek essentials are present... but don't expect it to materialize in the same way.

By some of the comments, one would think that the alternate timeline of the new movie has in fact made the old shows vanish from our reality! They are on DVD. Watch them, enjoy them, and understand that the franchise needs to change to continue.

Is it really worth all the bickering and fuming? Really, is it?

I had more fun watching the new star trek movie then i had in all 3 boring fall asleep stupid star wars movies ( PREQUELS).

This was a great movie.

@Vince
Quote -- "I could have bought that if they hadn't had an old Spock who is obviously from the original timeline go back in time with the off the wall looking Romulan ship."

Y'see that's what I don't get.

The original universe is still chugging along merrily in the post-TNG/Voy/DS9 time period where you find out Romulus is destroyed and Ambassador Spock is missing - presumed Dead.

Also Post TNG-'Relics' Scotty must have figured out Transwarp beaming because that was still an impossibility in the 'original' universe unless both Starships were at identical warp speeds.

The movie's timeline hasn't cancelled out TNG/DS9/VOY. By your definition the TOS would be cancelled out too.

What you'll get is an alternate version of events in the Movie universe which have no bearing on the Original Timeline.

What annoyed me the most in the movie was the first 15 minutes.
* They got the emblems wrong (pre-Motion Picture, all the starships had unique emblems and the Enterprise 'Arrow head' emblem was unique to the NCC-1701 crew.
* They knew about Romulan/Vulcan history despite the big reveal about that information didn't arrive until 'Balance of Terror'
That first 15 minutes should have been a celebration of old-school Trek (post Enterprise - pre TOS) because the new Movie universe was only 15 minutes old. The writers and production design should have busted their humps to not make any Nerd mistakes.
After the opening title, the Abrahms-verse should have kicked in.

ugh

and yesterday i read that they have started writing the 2nd JJ trek. With that and posts and comments like the ones above ive accepted it could be another 10-15 years before i actually look forward to a star trek movie or episode.

That movie was terrible and the fact that it is "hip and cool" is just sad,

Im only 23, i remember when i was 6 or 7 getting a 33k modem (live in ireland btw) anyway back then anyone who used the internet was considered "uncool" but look at internet now that its considered cool - was the internet bettwe 15 years ago?

yes it might have been slower and not as flashy but it was better and it had better comunities.

i saw a discussion that geocitties was being shut down - more than 3/4 of posters didnt know what it was - 1/2 of them googled to find out and the other 1/2 didnt even bother they just posed saying "what that"

Star trek is better than JJ trek

Just becauser the majority like something does not make it better

RE:
"No one addresses the fact that with this new movie what happens to STNG, DS9, VOYAGER?
this movie basically wipes out all those great stories"

"This new film created an ALTERNATE universe. It did not erase the original one"

"If you've watched the Trek series, you'd know that in every time travel ep, the old timeline is erased and restored once the travel is corrected."

....... People... STAR TREK IS ALL FICTIONAL.
Nothing has been 'erased'... There is nothing to protect, because nothing is being threatened. Like everything 'Star Trek' before it, this movie is FICTION. Like all fiction, you either take it or leave it ...It does not 'wipe out' what you have already enjoyed.

People who get upset over 'Canon' crap are asinine. You`re looking for bones in a box of Animal Crackers.

Hell, I despised the 99` ' Wild Wild West' movie, but it did not destroy the original tv series for me.

I am a Star Trek fan. I have been since the 60`s ( yes, I was THERE for the Original series.) I have not seen the movie yet, I will at some point, either at the theater, or on DVD... But whatever I feel about it, it will not alter anything that I have enjoyed about Star Trek, and the concept will continue. Star Trek ENDURES.

Majel Roddenberry said of Gene: "He was all about the future"....

All fans should try to remember that.

@Paladan

Yeah we get it dude... but it helps to get the nerd arguments right, in order to get the context of the story (which we all obviously care about in some fashion) sorted out.

There has been lots of discussion about the movie canceling out everything except Enterprise within the context of the Star Trek STORY.

I'm just pointing out that the new movie is NO different than that double episode in the 4th season of Star Trek: Enterprise where they simply told a story in the Mirror Universe. There was interaction with the 'Original' universe in that story too (with the USS Defiant). But the original universe was unaffected by that double episode.

Cheers

>@ Vince at 3:14 PM ON 06/17/09 - I made this point on another thread, but crazyokie is a perfect example. Some people point out that even trekkies liked the new movie. I would make that point that these people are usually TOS fans, not TNG or DS9 fans.>

I'm primarily a TOS fan, with DS9 my second favorite. I hated the new Trek, and not just becuase of its dismantling of canon and continuity, but mainly because it is a poorly made film, period.

>@ Justo at 4:39 PM ON 06/17/09 - It's the best sci-fi adventure movie since the original Star Wars. And in my opinion, there's not much of an argument otherwise.>

Don't forget about Serenity, which beats both of them by a mile.

that movie just plain sucked a waste of money the undiscovered country and first contact are the best movies ever in the series of films

@Mechanimorph

I know Abrams says it's an alternate universe, blah, blah, blah, but as I said, it flies against every time travel ep or movie. I mean, if you want to argue red matter did this or that, then whatever. Honestly, whether the timeline is still there or not, it's obvious Paramount is not interested in developing more in that area (they turned down a Academy script with Kirk and Spock that did not involve a reboot). So either way, canon or not, it's dead... (Jim)

ok, sorry, couldn't resist.

@ecgordon
yeah, I realize not all TOSers liked it, just like not all DS9 or TNG fans hate it. That just seems to be the general dividing line from the people I've talked to or read their comments.

@PALADIN

Yes, it's fiction. Yes, most people are like "WTH?! It's not even REAL"

Yeah, well, even those people get pissed off if someone messes with their favorite story either by taking it in a direction they don't agree with or by dumbing it down, or whatever.

In this case, basically fans of TNG, DS9, etc... are being told, "Yeah, we realize you invested all this time and money in these stories, but not only are we giving up on those, as far as we're concerned, it never happened."

So yes, if you liked it and that movie was good enough for you, more power to you, but quite frankly I don't feel the need to remain loyal to a franchise that is turning away from good story telling just to make a few quick bucks.

As I've said many times before, they could have done this differently so as not to screw with other people enjoyed. They choose not to.

As someone else pointed out here, I think it's a valid point that this IS fiction folks. Much as I might WANT the series after TOS to be erased, it's out there and no one can take it away. New Trek that appeals to the masses isn't going to change what's already been created. JJ correctly realized that the best way to revitalize the movie franchise was to basically chuck everything but the very basic concept of TOS out the window. A fresh slate - much like Ron Moore did with BSG - helps make things new and interesting.

What's evident here is the same thing that happened with Episode I of Star Wars. It wasn't what people expected, it didn't fit THEIR vision, so therefore it deserves nothing but hate. That's childish. No, this is not TOS. It is distinctly JJ's vision of TOS. Just as Peter Jackson's vision of LOTR was definitely NOT Tolkein's. Having said that, if you watch the movie and accept that it is someone else's interpretation, if you follow the broad overtones and style of the movie, it is very definitely in the spirit of TOS. That spirit - the sense of adventure, excitement, and fun was lacking in all of the series that followed (IMO). Which is why I never cared for any of the other series. Some of that was a sense of having been there, done that - which is why BSG and B5 seemed so much fresher and more interesting to me.

"...It's life Jim...but not as we know it..."

Someone's else's intrepretation I could accept. That has been my point all along. But Abrams didn't just do his interpretation. He had to "explain" why his interpretation is now the right now by sending the Romulan ship back in time and changing history.

If all he wanted was to do his interpretation and to get away from what went before him, all he had to do was stay away from anything in the other timeline. THAT I would have found MUCH MORE palatable. I still would not have like the movie, but i could have walked away with the notion that at least once Abrams was done with his trilogy (or whatever he wants to do), we might get back to what so many people enjoyed in the form of TNG and DS9 and the original TOS.

As it stands, the very fact that this is considered a "success" and paramount backed AND that they rejected a story that fit with what was already established just screams that Abrams' version is the version Paramount wants Trek to be going forward.

At least with BSG, the original had NOTHING to do with the new one. So people who liked the new can like the new and people who like the old can like the old. There are even rumors of Larson making a movie based on the old, completely ignoring the new. (I liked both, personally and seeing either continue is fine with me)

Based on Abrams' movie, I doubt that happens with Trek. We're stuck in this timeline and those who don't like it who were loyal fans are being told to get on board or hit the road, cause what we liked is over with.

Despite TOS being my favorite, and not particularly caring how much they screw with history of the franchise, I hated this movie because I have a brain in my head. The plot was indefensibly stupid and nonsensical. Why travel back in time to exact revenge against some alien who didn't do enough to save your planet, instead of, you know, saving your planet. And of course, handing over the flagship to a bunch of cadets is just beyond absurd. Scotty and Chekhov were parodies of their predecessors. I mean, freakin' Nemesis had a better plot than this trash. To top it all off, this Kirk came across as more spoiled than cool. No longer can we be impressed that Kirk is the youngest starship captain when his entire career boils down to simple nepotism.

"There's a whole world out there! When I was your age, I didn't watch television! I LIVED! So... move out of your parent's basements! And get your own apartments and GROW THE HELL UP! I mean, it's just a TV show dammit, IT'S JUST A TV SHOW!"

Star Trek has always been cool. I think some fans forget why. Star Trek is not found in the established histories and political conflicts. It is not found in how those histories and political conflicts are addressed.

No matter the timeline.

It is not found in canon, I am so sorry to say.

Star Trek is simply found in an ineffable "oomph" factor that rocks you emotionally while helping you imagine a sweet, future world.

I'm glad we have new sexy Abrams Trek.

I can't believe how many fans want to hog it to themselves, I guess because they feel owed?

Share Star Trek, people. The American Idol Pop Dumbed-down-teenie-bop-snot-nosed-jock-sect of people all deserve some form of Star Trek too.

If you don't think so, I'm sorry to invite you to go back to the beginning of TOS and start watching your whole canon again . . . because you missed the entire point.

I hate to say it but knowing the codes to Minos Korva won't get you into Stovokor.

I point to Star Trek: The Motion Picture. I'm paraphrasing, of course:

"For Star Trek to survive, it has to evolve."

Being that Minos Korva and Stovokor are two unrelated things (Aside from the fact they are both originated from Star Trek), I would have to say yes, I agree with you.

@mc2714

Yes... because everyone who loves a Sci Fi show must live in their parent's basements... right...

Get over your outdated views of the sci fi fans. For someone who lives claims to live in the real world, you seem to have some pretty close minded opinions. Everyone has a right to like or dislike what they want and be passionate about it. That does not mean they deserve unwarrented stereotypes from people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

Being a sports fan does not mean you're an overweight beer drinker or an ex-jock.

Being a fan of the opera does not mean you're a stuck up, rich person who feels above everyone else.

And being a Sci Fi fan does not mean you're some loser who never goes outside and lives in their parent's basement.

/rant

Anyway! said my 2 cents and more. :) I unfortunately am stuck inside working :S

Don't get me wrong, I LOVED the movie, but there's no denying they've dumbed the franchise down in favor of ubiquitous explosions, pretty (and occasionally scantily clad) young people, and pretty much zero scientific/intellectual content. ("Red matter"? Seriously?)

Guess that makes me one of those nerdy, "futile-ly resistent" fans. And this is supposed to be a sci-fi site?

I realized a reason Obama might endorse the new Star Trek was to appeal to the mainstream. If he endorsed DS9 or BSG or The 4400, this would invite criticism from the mainstream media that he was advocating fiction that questions the actions of the US government or tries to justify terrorism. This would be a political nightmare. So, Obama said he liked the new film -- as Bill Clinton said his favorite show in 1992 was "American Gladiators" -- because it's inoffensive, thoughtless fluff without any political guts. It's like saying you like James Bond or something.

Is it possible that there are people who prefer ugly little bastards like Insurrection or Nemesis to Star Trek XI, just because the latter is not 'canon'?
Now there's a funny thought.

@vince---

So, if you didnt get my reference, I am a bigger sci-fi nerd than you.

Point stands. Worrying about the 'integrity' of a pretend universe is beyond the pale over the cliff lame. Doesnt change the fact that the only movies that have ever brought me to tears are ST:3 and Armageddon.

@mc2714,

It would be a stretch as quoting him without attribution is actually extremely common, but quoting Robert Smigel might put you in contention for the general category of biggest nerd if you knew that you were. But to be in contention for the crown of biggest Sci-Fi nerd Smigel would have to be noted for writing some credible science-fiction, which he hasn't.

Its not a quote, its a reference.

@mc2714,

I copy this verbatim from your 1:31 PM ON 06/18/09 entry:

"There's a whole world out there! When I was your age, I didn't watch television! I LIVED! So... move out of your parent's basements! And get your own apartments and GROW THE HELL UP! I mean, it's just a TV show dammit, IT'S JUST A TV SHOW!"

That you used quotation marks would argue to the contrary. Also it is an exact transcription of 5 lines from Robert Smigel's SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE script.

Your lack of grasp of this weakens your assertion.

I hate to break it to all you Trekkies, but Star Trek is just fun entertainment. I watched the original show in first-run on Fiday nights back in the 1960's. If I wanted to see the same old Star Trek, I sure as heck wouldn't lay out 35 dollars for a theater ticket and snacks, I'd watch a DVD and steam a few hotdogs on my own stove.
The movie makers needed to tweak the story somewhat, but hey, they kept all the basic elements intact and made a fun movie to watch.
Star Trek is just another form of escapism. Enjoy it for what it is, and stop trying to make it into some kind of religion. There is life outside of Star Trek, believe me.

I have just read all the comments, and it seems that for those that don't like the movie there is a sense that they are owed something my film/tv makers. Several people are unhappy that the 'universe' has changed and they won't get more DS9, TOS, TNG, Enterprise or Voyager that they wanted. Did you really expect more? All those series have been cancelled, to be honest I enjoyed bits of all of them, but once they were cancelled I never expected more, maybe a film or two to follow on or maybe a brand new series with a different crew and a slightly different time, but even then how can you expect it to be the same? If you don't like the new stuff, don't watch it, watch the stuff you love. And there is still hope I suppose that after the reboot movies are done we may have other Trek to watch. I personally like to see what new people can bring to the franchise, it keeps things interesting.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Always thought Star Trek was boring (personal opinion, before y'all start bashing me) and I haven't seen the film. I don't think there's anything to be spoilt in the Star Trek universe... I guess it's time you old timers moved on... or moved up...

Emma,

Your queries seem to be based in a lack of knowledge of exactly how STAR TREK came to be beyond one season of television in 1966. NBC executives looked at the good ratings for the series' first season and decided they would likely cancel it anyway because the costs of a one-hour action show generally cuts into their return on investment, i.e. two half hour comedies could be produced for far cheaper and if they had the same ratings NBC would have more profits - not to mention Trek's additional fx expenses.

ToS' fans organized, rallied, and wrote letters and NBC's suits renewed the show while sheepishly putting on a PR face claiming that cancellation was never seriously being considered.

After season two, the same dance started again. This time they demanded Gene Roddenberry cut expenses so as to increase the profit margin and gave the show what was then known in the television industry as "the kiss of death" by moving the show to Friday night. Roddenberry offered to demote himself in exchange for a better time slot and resigned when the suits refused to change the slot.

Fans completed yet another lather-rinse cycle and the show got a third season.

Then for 2 or 3 years NBC had rerun air rights that for one reason or another lead to them keeping Trek out of syndication. I believe the main crux was that they wanted to recover their unrecovered ST expenses up front because they had absolutely no faith that there would be a market for ST reruns in syndication.

By now I think you get the picture that we first fans completed many of what I label lather-rinse-repeat cycles with many lustrous results.

@son of maui-- get a grip. Seriously.

jesus christ nerds, don't you have more pressing things to worry about like inventing hoverboards or getting laid rather than bashing on the movie. I never understood people who love franchises until they hit the mainstream... as if being one of the few who appreciate a campy tv show makes you superior to the "mindless mass" or something. It's STAR TREK. Jesus Christ.

Wow, this is actually pretty condescending to existing trekkies, of whose numbers I rank among. I've always liked Star Trek, but it was kind of camp in the beginning, nerdy throughout and who cares - to you hardcore fans and to you new fans - that it's become a bandwagon? It's a good movie, and a fun group of series. Get over yourselves, and to the author of this list - stop being as credulous as a schoolboy.

That pie chart is hardly accurate, if they think 50% is half the dish section AND the engineering hull and both warp nacelles.

Oops, I just made Star Trek geeky again.

@mc2714,

Tastes in humor do vary wildly from individual to individual. However, it is generally useful to have some broad sense of it in making reference to the copyrighted works of SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE sketch writers.

And to make my meaning clear, as there appears to be some question as to the meaning of the word, my dictionary defines reference as: citation, cite, acknowledgment, credit, quotation.

Star Trek has always been cool. It's about time the rest of the world jumped on the bandwagon.

Hey incognito, don't insult your betters by trying to bring them down to your level.

The New Star Trek cool?
Maybe... if you're into Star Trek Baywatch...
if you're into Star Trek 90210...
if you're into Star Trek The young and the Restless...
if you're into Star Trek Melrose Place...

It was the most moronic piece of film ever...

If that's what it takes to be cool now, I'd rather be uncool and watch Gilligan's Island reruns... jeez.

First of all: I HATE AMERICAN IDOL!

Second of all: I usually detest pop culture mass market crap, (especially with lame action sequences you can barely discern because of over cg'd super close ups during fight scenes that leave you wondering what freaking body part you are watching being mangled, i..e. Transformers)

However, I can appreciate that Science Fiction asks us to SUSPEND OUR DISBELIEF. I realize that all of us have been bonked over the head with realism via cg, the internet, etc for so long that we have become cynical web junkies. But where are the fans that ignored the lame backdrops and crappy costumes? I HATED that about the ST series and movies. You can do that and survive countless bad stories before (how about most of the "odd" numbered films?), but not drop your nerdier-than-thou-ness now?

One thing I hate more than pop culture...hipocracy. Please just be honest. You're not ONLY peeved it's slick with new, pretty people...you're peeved because the rest of the world is invading your exclusive clubhouse.

Yes, the story has holes. Yes, they alter the timeline, but it HAD to be done, or else we'd have had to watch Shatner again. (ew?!) I can appreciate that the actors paid homage to the original cast, but didn't mimic them. I can appreciate the "in" jokes because I did watch most of the Star Trek sereies. I can appreciate the special effects (which according to a book written by one of Roddenberry's co-writers, he would have liked, because he envisioned things in a way that TV and movies couldn't translate at the time.)

And I do agree the romance angle was wierd, but alternate universe, and slightly different lifelines make for some changes. Uhura was hot, but she was also strong, and brilliant (otherwise why would she be on Starfleet's FLAGSHIP?!?!), something that was not always allowed to be shown in the 60's. Spock's mom was a smart strong beautiful woman, too. So though I found the leap awkward, I concede it wasn't unthinkable. And SOOO much better conceived of than an Uhura/Kirk romance!

So yes, it's not the same. But it wasn't meant to be. And yes, it's slicker, and faster, but boil it down, and the ideals and character base is still there.
So, quit your whining. And if you don't like the movie, go pull up the ladder to your clubhouse and watch the old shows on dvd while cursing us in Klingon and pouting like a 5 year old. Leave the rest of us to our fun.

PS Roddenberry's widow believed in the film enough to continue as the computer's voice as she had in other series before she died. Good enough for me.

@scifivxn,

Science-fiction writers may ask us to suspend our disbelief as they try to tell a good science-fiction tale within the limitations of the medium that they choose, but good science-fiction never asks us to abandon the scientific method.

For example:

"...you're peeved because the rest of the world is invading your exclusive clubhouse."

This claim is often made but beyond unreliable anecdotal evidence and self-serving marketing hype, there's never any empirical evidence offered to support the claim.

Respected Box Office statitistics gatherer and analyst, Brandon Gray at best reports:

"With $240.3 million in 45 days, it edged past Star Trek: The Motion Picture on that [U.S.] front, though it may still have a ways to go in terms of attendance: around $22.3 million of the new Trek's total comes from IMAX runs, which typically cost a few bucks more than regular shows." - Brandon Gray, BoxOfficeMojo.com

https://secure.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2597&p=.htm

Even if we don't attempt to compensate for the IMAX inflation, the worldwide attendance, the only way to detect new fans and was the whole point of the $150 million dollars extra spent in worldwide marketing for ST09, falls short.

Numerically there is only evidence that ST09's "success" was based on marketing to the same pool of worldwide ToS fans, within a margin of error of + or - 10%, that launched the film franchise in 1979. There are no indications at this time of any significant number of new fans invading.