The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is not possible.

:P

It looks like the Vulcan Science Directorate has been proved fatally wrong.

What all the factions in the temporal cold war failed to do, some Romulan miner accomplishes by accident?

I know that everyone is calling this a "time-travel" story, but can it be that they just transited to an alternate universe where time moves a little differently? This movie, the more I read after the fact, reminds me a lot of the concepts used in Sliders when it was on Fox and Sci-Fi.

I pose the possibility that the Prime universe still moves on, with no alterations to its timeline, and Spock and Nero arrived in an alternate, like "Mirror, Mirror".

The Vulcan Science Academy is at the bottom of a deep black hole.

The movie was very good. Saw it 3 times myself. I still think the movie would have been just as good, if not better, if they had left out the whole Romulans crossing-over/ coming back/ Spock Prime mess and just did a clean reboot like Battlestar Galactica. It wasn't really needed and I think the original core Trek fans would have enjoyed it a lot more. People keep coming up with all of these Slider/ Alternate / Another timeline ideas and these was the slightest hint of that in the film but when you take the movie for face value, it really didn't project that idea as much as it did the whole genesis wave feeling of it destroying the old Trek Universe in favor of their new matrix.

Nimoy is full of ****. He complains that he and Spock were allowed to fade away, yet he purposely insisted in being killed off at the end of Trek II. Once TNG was on the air, he was still starring in Trek V and VI (which he co-wrote) and given a high profile "special guest star" slot in the TNG two-parter "Unification".

He should be ashamed of himself for taking part in JJ Abrams Mock Trek film, which has no place in Trek continuity and tarnishes everything Nimoy had accomplished with Trek before. His appearance was every bit as ridiculous as his false teeth, and I can only assume he did it because he's gone senile.

Jeez....and we thought Shatner was bad!

I would assume if Spock Prime would appear in another movie or the books. He'll assume another name, to prevent problems for the younger Spock. Since the timeline has been altered, how does this affect him and the prime directive.

Madigan - You are RIGHT ON MAN!!!!!!!!!!!! I AGREEE 100%

Well said, Madigan!

First, Spock was terribly used in this film because the writers and director are atrociously shamelessly commercial hacks. Spock didn't even speak like Spock. He was rushing through bits of dialogue already spoken in previous films. It was embarrassingly childish, as he doled out advice like a bad ABC '80s After School Special. His words made no sense within the context offered. His portrayal also lacked any sense of texture. Spock from the TV series and films had a sense of gravitas and subtle way of meditating intelligently about issues. Here, he just pops in to offer supposedly sage advice, but the scenes lack any dramatic coherence or power -- like everything else in this film.

Second, this unholy alliance with Abrams and company (including the bad X-Files ripoff "Fringe") show just how shallow Nimoy has always been. Star Trek 7 wasn't very good, but it was about Kirk and Picard. Nimoy just didn't like that he wasn't the center of attention; he wanted more than a cameo. I'm sure that Berman interfered and that the future brilliant writer Ronald D. Moore and the future destroyer of Star Trek Brannon Braga made some mistakes. However, it's a real stretch to say that they were insulting Spock simply by not placing him center stage and instead focussing on the TNG crew -- really Picard and Data, to be honest.

It's tragic to see the man that had so many great ideas, including social commentary on nuclear proliferation and political cooperation in the Cold War and environmentalism) for the Trek films abandon any apparent principles he's purported in exchange for getting his butt kissed on film and returning to the spotlight. Whatever the flaws of Star Trek 7, it was at least grounded in the attempt to cover important themes. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was the greatest Trek of all because it dealt with the most pressing issues of our time and all time, including colonialism and occupation, the causes of terrorism, the tendency for our leaders to violate principles in times of war and desperation, and a complex notion of "the other" by ensuring that Cardassians like Dukat and the Dominion weren't evil.

Abrams' Trek isn't about anything noble at all. It references themes long established as Hollywood formula, pretending to deal with them seriously, but only using them as excuses for very base story-telling. Gone is any sense of subtlety and complexity and any willingness to offer commentary on our world and human nature. Gone are any fascination with Spock and Kirk, who've been replaced by rather dull archetypes, while everyone else is used for convenient and cheap comedic relief. The dialogue was awful, too, as it is in everything Abrams touches.

Hell, in earlier times, even Berman had his good moments in helping to write the DS9 story "Maquis" that offered an understandable cause for terrorism that allowed us to explore moral ambiguity in which Sisko did not emerge as an obvious hero. Compare that to Abrams' message of advocating hating and destroying enemies that are not worth understanding and of how machismo is always the way to easy victory. Shock and awe, indeed.

Star Trek is dead and Mr. Nimoy gave the murderers his blessing.

I don't care. If Spock/Nimoy is in it, I will watch it. He was a great role model for me (and other children) in the 60's. He definitely kept me interested in science and math; in any kind of learning. I decided when I was 9 that I wanted to have his job (and be a vulcan, of course) when I grew up. Kind of made for a rude awakening as I grew older!

Well said Madigan. It's also worth remembering that Nimoy was offered a role in Generations along with Deforest Kelly but they both turned it down. That's why Scotty is manning a science station and Chekov ends up in sickbay in the film.

I agree with Madigan in that the J J version was only made in an attempt to appeal to a larger audience and they did so by revamping the franchise. They wanted to start over again with the Trek franchise. I was glad to see Transformers pass the J J Trek in money and I got bad news The upcoming Harry Potter will also pass the new Trek in sales within the first few weeks. GR is rolling over in his grave as J J is destroying everything that he built.

The Abrams Star Trek film was wretched. The lesson given to young people is if you cut corners (three years at the academy) and cheat (alter the context of the test) then you win.

Also no Pon Far which would have brought the film into a plausible adult realm for once.

I am really surprised at how many of the older Trek folks like me enjoyed this new movbie.I am 53 and was there when the whole thing went live.I watched it all live since TOS.
I went to see the movie after waiting a bit and was surprised at how many folks praise this film.

Inthe end I am not very happy about this new film.It used a cheap plot to basically REBOOT a show and it also destroyed every show & Trek film that went before.
And don't say it didnot to me and start crying about this is only an alternate timeline the original timeline is still there.
If you believe that then you are one of the brainless masses.
Don't be surprised if these folks give us a hackjob 2nd movie based on an old TOS episode like a KHAN movie.

I personally don't like J.J. because every time they interview him about Star Trek he always sees to be a complete smart ass. Stuff like "how do you fight evil wind" That's not what people meant when they said they like to see a movie about the new crew vs nature (Danger )of space travel! First no wind in space dumb ass. Second of vs nature could be things like the crystalline entity (sorry I can't remember if that that was sentient or not) or how about that space baby thingy that tried to get milk from the enterprise D?

I don't like how he thinks hes cool but OMG shaky cam or lense flair to hell! Yeah uh quit trying so hard to be "different".

I like how you say your 53 then go on to childishly attack people with "brainless Masses". I won't bother to prove why I think this way! I'll just attack you for not thinking like me! Good job.

I have seen two types of people who don't believe in the alternate reality.

First type are the newer fans that love the new star trek only and love it that the old trek is "dead".

Second type is the OMG they raped my childhood one.

Not true that the "the stewards of the previous Trek incarnations failed to" involve the original characters/actors. Many of them appeared in Next Generation episodes as central characters of those episodes...including Nimoy in a couple part episode as the central character. Most of them appeared in the 'transitional' movie in which Kirk died. The idea that all characters from all star trek shows should appear in all movies and all television shows is silly.

I don't see anywhere in Nimoy's comments anything even close to claiming "callousness." SciFi Wire said that. This is a purely subjective statement, not a quote or paraphrase, and pretty unsubstantiated. He claimed the previous post TOS Movies didn't have a role for Spock for which he was interested. I'm a long time Trek Fan who became increasingly bored with the latter series and films. I loved Abrams' Trek. This was a reboot that truly respected the past (even going so far as allowing it to stand on it's own, in it's own universe and continuity. Unlike reboots like Mission: Impossible.) It doesn't replace anything. it doesn't negate ANYTHING. It's simply an ALTERNATE take or version. And truly, if it was good enough for Nimoy (the one true Spock), it's good enough for me. Fun, energetic, respectful and new. The OLD Trek continuity still lives on, people. But here's what could have happened, if things were different. I just wish SCI FI WIRE were a little more professional -- or at least called opinion pieces what they were. Quit fanning the fires of the trolling fanboy mindset. Some of our fans ... and MEN.

I like how all the uber nerd Trekkies still say this movie killed the old Star Trek.

It was the old Star Trek that killed Star Trek, with the franchise already used up, with unoriginal and boring stories and absolutely nothing new coming out. They didn't even want to use the "Star Trek" name on Enterprise originally, which should tell you just how bad of a reputation the franchise had for being trash. And of course, Enterprise failed, and that was going to be the last word on Star Trek forever.

This happened long before JJ Abrams even thought about a reboot movie, but at least he had the idea that maybe people want to go back and start fresh with the characters everyone already knew from TOS, and have them in brand new stories that were free from the weight of the heavy handed often conflicting with itself cannon the series had been trapped in for so long. Oh, and doing it all while making Star Trek fun again.

A reboot was the only chance Star Trek had at coming back to life, you should all be grateful that the movie didn't suck and made a ton of money so that there might actually be more new movies and maybe a new show coming out, instead of trying to trash it every chance you get.

It wasn't the old Trek that killed star trek it was paramount's failure to promote ST: Nemesis. You can't tell me they put 100% in that movie.

JJ Abrams is just proving how far you can go in Hollywood just remaking other peoples' ideas. He started it with Mission Impossible and continues it with Star Trek. He's a man with some interesting TV show ideas (with even Fringe being someone else's work, copied), but even those don't pan out because he has no attention span. He leaves all his successful projects before completion, probably to avoid having to be responsible for their terrible endings (Alias).

Nemoy, meanwhile, is just old and vain. Let a senile old man live out his last few years however he wants. He'll never outlive this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQX04

Everything else I would say, Madigan said it earlier up above here.

"As Nimoy himself has noted in various interviews (including one with SCI FI Wire), he and Spock himself were callously cast aside and allowed to fade away when the film series transitioned to the Next Generation cast."

Probably bee already said but thats utter BS. They wanted him to be in Generation, is he that old that he can't even remember that. Or is he trying to be part of the new hip star trek where things blow up for no reason and Vulcan children some how know English cuss words?

Um he didn't make sure Spock was killed off in Star Trek 2. Watch all the special features on the Blu-Ray for the orginal 6 movies set and you will know this isn't true. This movie revived the Star Trek universe and we now will be able to enjoy it in the future. You people who say it killed it and ruined it or whatever else you are saying are idiots who don't know what you are talking about. As for trying to make it sound all dismal that Transformers passed it and Harry Potter will. Um so what, it was expected that those would but it placing 4th in the Summer is a major success. BTW Transformers sucked and actually hurt this movie some because you could tell the scripts were both penned by the same guys. It seemed almost like they used the same basic script for both films and then tweaked it for the different movies.

I saw the new movie and thought it was entertaining and okay. But it left me wanting more of the TNG universe, so I started reading the most recent novels for the very first time. I have since read 15 Star Trek novels - including the incredible 'DESTINY' trilogy since the new movie came out. Unless Paramount re-visits this world with a new series, I will likely look only to the novels as my Star Trek fix from now on over the new movies.

As the movie did its changing of history bit I got a kick of witnessing and counting which original episodes that the newer crew would no longer be able to do! To me it's now a different 'verse no matter what.

Regardless of Abrams & co. do next, I hope that Nimoy, Shatner, and the other originals will be satisfied in however their roles will now be perceived.

Where's the Borg?
Would luv to see origin of Borg movie!

As an avid fan of Star Trek, we need to bring back the Borg.

Random thoughts:

The Borg have been assimilated. Didn't you know?

Yes - it was a transfer to an alternate reality, not just time travel.

The new Star Trek movie was not only great (I am 60 years old and have watched ST from the first show), but is now canon, so we will see the effects in the next wave of ST books (in THAT reality).

Spock was well used not only in the movie, and in STNG, IMHO.

Many of these posts seem illogical.

I'd certainly be up for more of Nimoy/Spock. He could easily become the new Yoda/Ghost of Obi-Wan mentor to young Kirk or perhaps young Spock himself. A solid cameo appearance that is relavant but not the center of the next movie/s/.

Strange that Nimoy would say this as he himself declined to be in Star Trek 7 due to insufficient character time. Frankly, Star Trek 7 was a passing of the torch in movie form, not a film about Spock. I've always loved Nimoy's portrayal of Spock but I have to say that I disagree with his assessment on that matter.

I won't give credence to those who give praise or criticism of the new movie as that's a matter of personal perspective and opinion. A person likes what they like. I will say that it's idiotic to say comments such as "That movie sucked so Nimoy is an idiot for being in it..." What a ridiculously fascist way of looking at it (and I know I'm gonna get flamed by someone eventually for using that term, so go look up the meaning of it and tell me I'm wrong).

I'm treating this film the same way I treated Alien 3-4. They don't exist.
That makes Alien & Aliens all the greater.

I have to admit I am surprised to read these kind of statements from Mr. Nimoy. I have always been a fan of his work but I guess something must have happened to leave him a bit bitter.

i am one of those Trek fans who do not like this movie. I won't go into details I have done that on other threds. But to those people who have said that this movie does NOT destroy the old Trek timeline? I'll say something I've said before,

If no other movies or series are made in the old timeline, then that timeline is dead, Isn't it.
GFor whatever reasons the powewrs that be callously cast aside 43 years of Trek history including everything that Mr. nimoy did as Spock. Remember what a great episode Pon Far was? won't happen now will it?

Abondoned just as Mr. Nimoy claims he was abondoned. To everyone who liked this movie and defends it. By all means enjoy! Go ahead and watch your flash bang golly gee whiz ain't I a cool director Trek wanna be flick.

It's wonderful to see so many comments in agreement about both Nimoy's sell-out behavior and Abrams ruining of Star Trek (not saving it) by dumbing it down. It's too bad Trekweb.com erases negative comments about Abrams' Trek and allows people to get very personally attacked for doing so. It's very heartening to see that many Trek fans are sensible people and can see through the superficiality of Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman.

I'm not surprised at your delight in seeing others who have left their sense of wonder behind long ago agreeing with you, Muldfeld. Saddened, but not surprised. I AM surprised to see anyone defending the illogical hot mess that was “Generations.” Nimoy was wise to blow it off, as the Berman/Braga version of "passing the torch" equated to putting the knife into the Original Star Trek. Thankfully that evil little cabal was eminently repudiated by the most successful Star Trek movie in franchise history.

Was it the deepest of them all? Well no, but considering all that happened in the movie, it was HARDLY glib or facile. And let us all PLEASE remember that however much this was a reboot of the series (and if you know jack about modern theories about time travel, then you know this movie DIDN'T erase the "Prime" timeline), this was also an ORIGIN story. How much better were films like “The Dark Knight” or “The Empire Strikes Back” simply because they weren't hampered by having to be both introductions to a new world AND compelling dramas in their own right? Compare apples to apples, folks.

As to the oft-repeated criticism that no vital social issues were tackled in the movie, I say just go home, break out your copy of “An Inconvenient Truth” and go nuts. For my cash, that was always a sidelight of Star Trek and never its prime directive, if you will. What deathless social concerns were addressed in such classic episodes as “The Doomsday Machine,” “The Trouble With Tribbles,” or even “City on the Edge of Forever?” Happily, no matter what these dull, depressing nay-sayers think, I STILL had the best time watching Star Trek I've had watching any movie since the first time I saw Star Wars over 30 years ago, so much so that I'd REALLY like to see it again (even after four viewings) and I'm already jonesing for the Blu-ray release! The way I look at it, that's what I really want from a Star Trek movie: to have a blast of a good time and get at least a glimpse of that child-like sense of wonder that years of adulthood does such an effective job of tamping down. I feel sorry for anyone who didn't leave the theater feeling the same way, and I sincerely hope you can find something in your life that can give you that feeling. Life's too short to be spent going on and on about things you DON'T like.

You know this is always an interesting read but as one guy hit the nail on the head at least were gonna be getting another Trek movie :)

lets be greatful for that alone especially in todays credit crunch and financial troubled times.

DarkHawke hit the nail on the head with his comment above. All of you whiners out there have got to get a life! It's SCIENCE FICTION, for crying out loud, people. It's a story. It's not real. It's entertainment. Stop moaning and groaning that the new one isn't exactly like the old one and just let the movie do what movies are supposed to do -- entertain you. Watch the film and have fun. This isn't some life-or-death political negotiations that have to go exactly right or the world is doomed. It's storytelling! When you were three years old did you whine and complain that the version of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" that Grandma told you was not exactly the same as the version that Mommy told you? I can hear it now: "No no, Grandma. Goldilocks doesn't get eaten by the bears at the end. She runs away! Is this some kind of reboot, Grandma? Is this an alternate timeline, but Goldi really got eaten in the other one?"

I have watched every STAR TREK there has been, and I liked all of them. Does the idea of the characters I loved from the past being changed and re-imagined give me some sadness? Sure. But does it make me angry to the point of pouting in front of my computer screen and insulting all the people who made the new movie? No. It's a frickin' movie, people. Put your anger and passion into a cause that is important to the world, instead of spending your time crying about JJ Abrams altering your favorite story.

Besides, moviemaking is a business. STAR TREK was dying, guys. Face it. If someone did not come along and make the kinds of changes that would bring in an audience again, your beloved franchise would never be heard from again. The American public had become bored with it. Something new and fresh had to be done. Wouldn't you rather have had them do it this way, where it still ties into your old stories, than the cheap "Let's just start all over again" way that it was done with TRANSFORMERS and BATTLESTAR, among others? I know I sure do.

Are there some holes in the story in terms of how they handled the time travel thing? Sure there are. In fact, depending upon which time travel theory you subscribe to, there could be multiple problems. But again, IT'S A MOVIE! Sit back, eat your popcorn, laugh at what's funny, cry at what's sad, grip your armrest at the suspenseful moments, and just enjoy the ride.

I'm afraid I can't just enjoy the ride like you suggest, Equator. And that's because something I once loved that was both intelligent and entertaining has now been bastardised into some worthless tripe aimed at little kids. If you yourself got something out of the new Trek film, then I am happy for you. But to the countless people who feel they have truly lost their beloved franchise and know that they will never be entertained in that way by Star Trek ever again (or at least for the foreseeable future), I share my sympathies.

Oh, can I also just say that I totally agree that Trek needed to be revitalised and be given to someone new. Rick Berman, for all of the good things he accomplished with Trek (particularly with DS9) had probably been involved with it for too long and was probably getting tired. However, handing it over to a shameless hack like JJ Abrams was not the way to do it, nor was making it a prequel/alternative timeline story. The way to refresh Trek was to take it further into the future with totally new characters and a totally new situation.

DarkHawk wrote:
~~to have a blast of a good time and get at least a glimpse of that child-like sense of wonder that years of adulthood does such an effective job of tamping down. I feel sorry for anyone who didn't leave the theater feeling the same way, and I sincerely hope you can find something in your life that can give you that feeling~~

I have planty of things in my life that give me that feeling but this movie isn't one of them.

equator wrote:
~~get a life!~~
Oh yes that oh so very original tyrade against Trek geeks. Because we feel passionatly over a TV show that make us nerdy geeks who have no life? You dont know very many Trek fans do you? I am so unutterably tired of hearing this. If your going to insult us please come up with something original.

~~"No no, Grandma. Goldilocks doesn't get eaten by the bears at the end.
She runs away!~~
Comparing Star Trek to goldilocks? Give me a break.

~~But does it make me angry to the point of pouting in front of my computer screen and insulting all the people who made the new movie? No.~~
So instead you pout in front your computer screen and insult all the people who dont like this movie and have the audacity to say so.

~~Face it. If someone did not come along and make the kinds of changes that would bring in an audience again, your beloved franchise would never be heard from again.~~
Personally i would rather have seen it end than turned into this mess.

~~Put your anger and passion into a cause that is important to the world, instead of spending your time crying about JJ Abrams altering your favorite story.~~
This from someone who made one of the longest comments one this page. Seems to me like the ones doing the most crying and insulting are the ones who liked this movie.

I doubt the "Get a life" comment was meant as a slight towards your love of Star Trek, but rather your (and other people's) general nerd-raging over what was basically laying the foundation for building up a new Star Trek, by taking the old designs and tweaking them to suit today's standards. They didn't bulldoze over the old Star Trek, they just felt that a number of the more recent additions the original property made it a rather unstable place to build upon, so they just built a newer version of the same design in the empty lot next door.

I personally am going to give this reboot a chance to grow before casting judgment on it. After all, if I'd judged the TOS movie era based on what I thought of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I likely wouldn't have watched any Star Trek movie that came after until Generations, and in my opinion, the reboot Star Trek is a far sight better than The Motion Picture.

The essential problem of Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman's Star Trek lacking any intelligence or originality or any dramatic realism whatsoever; it doesn't even aspire to any of these vital story elements. The whole notion of intriguing characters is gone and replaced with an ambition toward coolness and popular appeal through formula. That's the problem. These guys have no artistic integrity.

Just listen to the audio commentaries and interviews with Nicholas Meyer. He's so full of insight and added a tremendous amount to Star Trek. The Motion Picture also had some wonderful conflict among the characters (especially Kirk's pettiness) and a willingness to create sympathy for the otherwise villainous "other". It was a unique film.

DS9 and TNG, to a lesser degree, took what TOS did and improved upon things drastically, creating far richer characters. Denny Martin (co-writer of Star Trek 6) said it best, when he said that the TOS movies added a lot of layering to fairly superficial characters, although Spock is quite a fantastic achievement. DS9 was so much better.

However, Abrams can't even improve upon the original series. His characters are even dumber and more sleazy and so contrived to mimic archetypes, where even those '60s characters were already a little too archetypical for my liking.

Social commentary is the very basis of Star Trek. Roddenberry would have done more, but Paramount overruled him and forced him to abstract things even more. Much of Trek post-TOS has been concerned with that, even as they entertained -- especially DS9 and the best of TNG. However, Paramount, as always, was trying to hamper anything that might offend or frighten away supposedly dumb viewers. They've gone even further this time in handing the keys to folks who have no aspirations toward improving society or even writing a truly moving original story. So much of what Hollywood churns out is mindless, formulaic action; that's what Star Wars largely was -- even as it aimed clumsily to get Americans to look at the Vietnam War they were causing -- but Star Trek was special because it wanted to do more than entertain cheaply. It was special, especially in DS9, and Paramount never appreciated the specialness of that, and -- just as it handed the reins over to Berman and Braga, have now done so to even more shallow people.

Even on personal terms, this new Trek fails miserably. I was not moved once. Everything I saw on screen was predictable to me, based on Abrams' past work. "Lost" is so heavily contrived and all about shock value (especially the pilot, which is the only thing he worked on for the show) with promises of bogus revelations lacking any dramatic coherence. "Alias" is just awful.

Still, even my pessimism was greeted with something thoroughly unentertaining. I was surprised at how bad this was. Even the action lacked any sense of restraint or subtlety to provide a sense of suspense. Just look at those 2 battles between the Reliant and Enterprise in Star Trek 2 or the battle between the Bird of Prey and Enterprise in Star Trek 3 and they're full of strategy and excitement. DS9 did battle scenes exceedingly well in "The Sacrifice of Angels" and other episodes. The new Trek relied on video game logic, as do most of Abrams' stories (just look at the motivation for the hatch in "Lost"), shooting everything in sight and triumphing, not through intelligence and sense of ambivalence about oneself and "the other", but by kicking ass.

The humor is awful. Star Trek has generally been lousy at humor until some of the TOS films and especially DS9; there are so many hilarious moments between Odo and Quark and Bashir and O' Brien in those episodes; Behr's Ferengi episodes and Ron Moore's "In the Cards" and "Looking for Parmach in All the Wrong Places" are some of the franchise's finest work. There's a sense of subtlety there completely lacking in the very contrived humor of Abrams. He's just regurgitating his formula of having one character who's the comic relief like the computer guy in "Alias" or the originally superficial, conveniently light-hearted version of Hurley on "Lost". Here, everyone besides Spock and Kirk is comic fodder; Uhura is basically Kate from "Lost" Season 3, worrying about the male lead; how sexist.

This is why Abrams' Trek can never be good. Quite besides the issues of setting, this new set of stories shall always lack any intelligence or moving drama. It's calculated, cynically written for the market place. I doubt these writers know how to search inside themselves for something genuine -- as Ron Moore and Ira Steven Behr and Melinda Snodgrass and so many others did -- or even care to, given their lack of artistic integrity. They've got their millions and they'll keep doing the same thing over and over.

scoob958, I am one of the real Star Trek fans & know exactly what I am talking about. The piece of trash movie that calls itself 'Star Trek' has destroyed the franchise of Star Trek. It has taken something truly special & pervertedly twisted it into something else entirely. You wannabe Trek fans can cherish this turd all you want. Real Star Trek is gone, but never forgotten.

Furthermore scoob958, you are wrong about Nimoy. He DID indeed insist in being killed off at the end of Trek 2, and refused to even do the film unless they granted his wish. Of course, Shatner later accused him of doing this purely to attain a higher position within the franchise, which certainly seemed to have paid off considering Nimoy was given an entire film about Spock to direct afterwards (Star Trek 3). All of this is confirmed in the documentaries on the The Wrath Of Khan S.E. DVD released in 2002.

Brandon wrote:
~~I doubt the "Get a life" comment was meant as a slight towards your love of Star Trek, but rather your (and other people's) general nerd-raging over what was basically laying the foundation for building up a new Star Trek, by taking the old designs and tweaking them to suit today's standards.~~

Ever since Shatner did that 'get a life' sketch on Saturday Night Live people have been using it against hardcore Trek fans. Up until now it has been non-fans usubg this line but now thanks to JJ Abrams Trek fandom has been split and the fans who like this movie keep re-hashing this insult against those fans who don't like this movie. Theu continualy tell us to keep quiet and 'get a life'
Because apparently they think we do nothing all day but sit in front of the computer so we can complain about JJ Abrams. Well if that is true do they sit in front of their computers all day so they can complain about the fans who don't like the movie? because I see one this site and others just as many people telling us to 'get a life' as i do fans who don't like the movie. And from my perspective they are whinyer, more vicious and more vosciferous than we are.

~~They didn't bulldoze over the old Star Trek, they just felt that a number of the more recent additions the original property made it a rather unstable place to build upon, so they just built a newer version of the same design in the empty lot next door.~~
How many ways and times do i hve to say this? Sure the TOS dvd's are still there as are all the movies and TV shows, BUT if no other movies or TV shows are made in the old timeline and THIS movie becomes the new canon, then the old Trek IS dead.

~~I personally am going to give this reboot a chance to grow before casting judgment on it. After all, if I'd judged the TOS movie era based on what I thought of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I likely wouldn't have watched any Star Trek movie that came after until Generations, and in my opinion, the reboot Star Trek is a far sight better than The Motion Picture.~~
You are of course entitled to your opinion and you are even etitled to express it here and elswher just as we are.

I do not like this movie for two main reasons.
1- The destruction of Vulcan. This was completely unnecessary. Abrams only did it for shock value and to show everyone that Star Trek was now HIS and no longer Roddenberrie's.
2- Jame T. Kirk, I did not like the way Kirk was portrayed in this movie. Our Kirk was brash and confident. True he didn't mind bending or even breaking a rule if he thought it was necessary. This new Kirk was an arogent. juvenile delinquint who thought nothing of destroying an irriplacible antique car and appearently suffered no repercusions for doing so. Istead of being inspired to join Starfleet by his fathers example he has to be dared into it by someone he just met after getting his butt kicked in a barfight. A barfight he started because he was too egotisticle to simply walk away. And then he ferther shows his juvenality by saying "Four years? I'll do it in three!" I seriously doubt an institution lik Satrfleet academy would alow someone to skip ahead no matter how smart they are. Something like serving on a starship I imagine would not be for loudmouth show off's.

Now all of this I am sure sounds like geeky nitpicking, but it illustrates just how little consideration Abrams and his crew have for Star Trek. They piut things like this in the movie for simple shock value, or comedic relief. doesn't matter if it's logical or not.
IT'S COOL LET'S DO IT!

in my opinion, Star Trek is in deed, dead.

Thank you, Spiff for correctly identifying the source of that quote as a sketch.

It has to be one of the most supremely amusing cosmic ironies of being a Trekkie that thousands upon thousands will say that line:

http://google.com/search?q=shatner+quotes+%22get+a+life%22&btnG=Google+Search

in an attempt to make some point about not being able to discern fiction from reality while misattributing the quote to Shatner instead of Robert Smigel, the man who wrote the sketch.

And thus demonstrating, that they have just as much trouble discerning media ficton from reality as those they would so accuse.

Still waiting on the DS9 movie that explains what happened to Sisko!
SciFiFan wrote
~~ Second of vs nature could be things like the crystalline entity (sorry I can't remember if that that was sentient or not) or how about that space baby thingy that tried to get milk from the enterprise D?~~

What about TinMan?

I was surprised at how badly Spock was treted in ST-JJ. He shows up much later than I expected just to create a convenient coincidence and deliver some exposition, then departs at the end in a scene that makes no sense.

I expected more becuse of the reasons he originally turned down 'Generations', and it gave me hope ST-JJ wouldn't be the unmitigated mess it turned out to be.
(to me, it's a complete reboot in a heretofore unseen parallel universe).

I'm glad Nimoy's happy with the disposition of his character, but I was completely satisfied leaving him in the unreconstructed Romulan Empire.
'Generations' had plenty of problems (candidly admitted to by Moore and Braga), but the lack of Spock wasn't one of them.

"callously cast aside and allowed to fade away" is pretty harsh. Consider the respectful way in which the Next Generation series used some of the original cast - Nimoy included, in one of the series' best two-parters.

Um, in Star Trek IV the earth was being destroyed so they went back in time and fixed it.

In Star Trek: First Contact the Borg took over the earth in the past, so they went back and fixed it.

In this latest film, Vulcan is destroyed so they... say, oh well. Let's move on.

Hello Spock Prime. Where is the logic in this? Go back in time before Nero's own first arrival, blow him out of space and fix it!

And that is the crux of why this movie is weak.

I not sure why i even bothered to write here, not even sure why the whining i read here even matters. The truth is i love trek. Always have. Does that mean i whine about this movie? Of course not.

I sit here and listen to the Basement Buddie argument that JJ killed trek, and i cant help but sigh sadly. JJ didnt kill trek......Fans killed trek..... Oh youll spite me and argue and whine and say lots of hurtfull things to try to get my boat , but in the end you cant argue it. The reason trek was dieing was cause the fans left. Dont whine to CBS, or Paramount , or even J.J. Abrams. They didnt kill trek . They tried to keep putting out stuff that would apeal to the die hard fans. This failed. It has been failing for quite some time. They knew this was the only way to go. And they were right. argue all you want that it kills trek , but the Truth is it made money . The movie succeeded in doing what it intended to do. Pull in new fans and make Trek relevent again.

I respect all your arguments , and truth be told i agree with some, but i cant and wont hate on a director for going a different direction , when in the end his choice was the right one. J.J. Abrams was givin a task to try to make trek mainstream again. The next movies will either prove he is right or wrong, but so far he is going the right direction.

I can be man enough to admit that no matter how die hard a TOS fan, and Next generation fan i am, i was wrong and the powers that be were right.

For some reason the new movie gave me that smile i had when i watched the original shows and movies. I loved the wagon ride to the stars idea. Yes i admit the next generation and the series that followed it tried to change that idea and such, and were even succesful to a point. But i just never got that smile again until this movie.

Made me realise that Star Trek can still be relevent. It can still appeal to mainstream, and it can still lead children to pick up books and enjoy space and the stars.This movie did something that Star trek needed badly. It didnt kick the franchise when it was down. Yes some of you argue that maybe trek was better off dead ( to be honest i held this idea for a long time) , but as trek Nemesis , and voyager , and enterprise kept kicking the poor dog while it died, some director came out and breathed a bit of life into the franchise. give the poor guy some slack.

Everyone deserves they're opinion , but i for one would much rather see trek succeed now then watch it die a slow death. This movie succeeded in doing what it set out to do. Make the studio some money and pave the way for the franchise to go forward. If you dont like it , dont watch it. Though some may say good riddance i wont. I feel star trek gains from having differing opinions and such. That is what made it different. But in the end dont hate a director for doing what he felt was right , and succeeding . Dislike the film cause you simply didnt like it, and say your piece and move on.

Thanks for listening , and sorry if i bored anyone, lol.

Var

No Vareden, it wasn't the fans that killed Trek. It was Paramount who did that. And Abrams new film was not the only way to go. It was the LAZY way to go. If Trek needed to be reinvented, then they should have done exactly that. New crew, new ship, new setting. A half-assed prequel that bastardises classic characters and panders to children is not reinvention. It's just another remake. And suggesting that people just get over Abrams new film and move on isn't sound advice either. If people did that after the original series got cancelled, there never would have been any films or other Trek shows. Trek fans have been known to be passionate about it. Its how the franchise has lasted over 40 years. Rather than telling other people to avoid it and move on, perhaps you should just avoid the negative criticisms of fans if you don't like reading them. As you can see, there's plenty.

Im only answering this cause as i said i respect all opinions, second id appreciate it if you respected mine.

I appreciate your view , and im sure there is lots to aggree with. Doesnt matter whether you think paramount is lazy or not.lol. It succeeded. No there really isnt that much people arguing and whining about it. Twenty or so people on a scifi website does not constitute a movement or some such.

numbers in the end speak. Argue all you want. Facts speak. Look i appreciate that there may have been better ways to go about a new movie. Heck i think and to some point aggree that maybe a new ship and crew was a good idea. But then i think about it and realise that in reality i honestly think that would have only worked on TV. not as a movie. There needed to be an anchor , something to get attention. Saying your recasting the old crew and redoing it certainly got attention ( whether you agree with it good or bad , it actually worked) A new crew new ship just doesnt have the draw to me. ( my opinion of course well never really know will we?)

As for the snip at my comment about if you dont like it dont watch. Thats the way movies work sir. If you dont want to see them dont go and spend the 14 or so dollars. Dont get mad at me cause i said the obvious.

I guess to defend my position and maybe help people to understand why im defending this movie,m iot started with the battlestar remake. I hated it. Couldnt stand that they changed my favorite charatcers from the beginning. I never did get into it , and to this day have yet to watch an entire season. now being fair to you and others i did give it a go. Kept an open mind and such but it just didnt catch me like the original. Now that being said the new series is far superior to the old one on so many levels. It is a far deeper show with far deeper characters. Better written doesnt even begin to describe it, lol. It lasted longer and probalby had way more fans then the original. but i couldnt enjoy it.....It just didnt grab me. But i dont come on here ripping Mr Moore for being a hack cause he ( to me) ruined my favorite show in the late seventies. No in reality he likely made it way better. I respect him for what he did regardless of whether i like it or not. I dont argue with the fact that it was much more succesful than the original.

Now back to your point. it was not LAZY the way they did go. It was simply they're decision to go that direction. Just cause YOU didnt like it doesnt mean the people that did like i dont deserve the direction they felt they got. This is the problem when you do a remake. your always at the risk of alienating some. But the facts speak for themselves. The movie was succesful. Dont for a moment think star trek was ever gonna pull in numbers like The Dark Knight. but i for one am happy witht he numbers it did pull in.

In the end i will agree to dissagree with you , cause the next movie will actually dictate the real success of JJ's vision., If no one goes to see it likely its cause they all hated the first one.lol. If they do go see it then maybe old fans like me and you just have to suck up reality and accept that our old trek has grown up and doesnt need us anymore........

What this ultimately comes down to is what Hollywood has been trying to do 2 things for years. One, created a new younger fan base for the franchise. Those who like the movie will move on with it. Those who do not, will fall by the waist side.

It's the same story when TNG was created. Some die-hard TOS fans liked it and moved with it. Others didn't and moved on and remember GR was the one who created TNG.

Secondly, this is about money people. Hollywood wanted to bring in more coin and they accomplished that. Is there any wonder as to why this has been the longest time between ST movies ever? It has been 7 years between movies and what 15 years since any TOS character appeared in a movie. THAT is why this movie did well. There was a higher demand this time around to want Trek. It has nothing to do with plot, or directors, or actors...whatever. The next Trek movie is scheduled for Christmas 2011. Mark my words. It will not do as well, and we will see the predictable fall in revenue again with each additional movie.

This "new" Trek has created a fad, nothing more. IMHO, we will hardly see the high excitement and massive money pouring out of the next one. And I bet Hollywood once again blames the fans when that happens.

People who like this movie are certainly entitled to their opinion. And they are even entitled to express that opinion. Just as we who hate this movie are.

Sine JJ Abrams as the director is ultimatly re4sponsible for what goes on the screen then he IS the one who ruined Trek "In My Opinion"

Success does not equal quality, let my say that again Success does not equal quality!
They have been many bad movies that were a success.

~~If you don't like it, Don't watch it~~
I won't. I watched this one to give it a chance and it failed. I won't watch the next one if JJ Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman have anything to do with it.

If you like this movie and think it's a good thing? More power to you. I don't.

I'm afraid Vareden, that your opinion about what makes a film successful is not shared by everyone. There seems to be this widely held myth that because Abrams' Trek has made (at present) $377m at the box office, then it must be a huge hit. But a box office hit is dictated by how much it cost to make and market a film in relation to how much it made, and Paramount are far from being in profit with this film yet. Outside of the US, this film was a relative bomb in terms of how much it cost to make and market. Sure it made more than the recent Trek films, but it also had a much higher budget than them. They gave it a Star Wars budget hoping it would make Star Wars profits. It didn't even come close.

Abrams' Trek can hardly be compared to Moore's remake of Battlestar. Moore took a flawed and often ridiculed series from the 1970s and turned it into an intelligent, mature piece of work. And I'm someone who actually liked the original Battlestar when I was a kid. Abrams on the other hand did the opposite. He took an intelligent, noble franchise that has run for decades and turned it into a brainless film for kids. I have already long since agreed that Trek needed to be revitalised and needed fresh minds to work on it. But dumbing it down to this level was not the way to go, and I don't care how many kids went to see it. And the people who agree with this point of view are far more than just twenty or so people on a sci-fi website message board like you claim.

um, didn't Spock die in STNG? So, was he like resurrected in the future and then Romulus was destroyed after Nemesis, right? Other than the timeline change slapping fans in the face, this was something that bothered me about the new Star Trek movie as well.

This wasn't time travel, this was dimensional travel. That what was so ingenious about the new movie, it didn't alter or erase TOS history. It created a new Star Trek universe to explore that was not hampered by previous canon.

@Iso,

I agree. But I must add that there's no evidence this film accomplished what it set out to do.

Comparing this film to the only other time the franchise tried to take on STAR WARS numbers, the attendance figures just don't reflect any growth in "new" fans or any more of a challenge to the SW franchise than TMP.

Given a modest margin of error in adjusting the figures for inflation between the two 79-09, it's the same fiercely dedicated core group that launched the franchise in 1979 and then waned until now.

Now reinvigorating a core group is nothing to sneeze at but it's not what Paramount set out to do. Their oft stated intentions were to grow a newer (younger) bigger base. They failed.

Now some of this picture's supporters will point out that the domestic attendance numbers are more even though they are well within the margin of error, and try to use that as some metric of superiority. But when one points out that much of the same group of writers contributed to TRANSFORMERS:REVENGE OF THE FALLEN and that it's domestic numbers exceeded ST09 current maximum in only 12 days and thus must be an Oscar contender for best picture by that reasoning, they balk.

Then they try to claim that it will be the most profitable Trek ever for Paramount when you consider factors such as merchandising. However they have no response when it is pointed out that Paramount had to finance this picture unlike it did any other Trek movie before because it no longer owns it and part of the deal was CBS (NOT Paramount) retains all merchandising. This is also the first Trek movie Paramount had to enter into a partnership (with Spyglass).

Now Paramount took their $30 million advertising budget and reportedly added another $150 million to it to grow STAR TREK's international base. The "official" premiere was in Australia to that end.

Now I'm willing to see the international numbers as withing the margin of error of '79. But the supporters keep insisting that the domestic attendance's marginal increase is significant. But if we go with them on that then they have to acknowledge that Paramount's international campaign was a failure. It's short on 2 fronts: it doesn't reach '79's international attendance and it's nowhere near '09's domestic (or ROTFs foreign ' for that matter). Even though many supporters kept claiming Japan's numbers would turn things around, it never did.

Then they jump on BOM's reporting that TMP's worlwide numbers exceed ST09 claiming their foreign numbers for TMP as suspect without producing any evidence to support the claim while gleefully accepting BOM's domestic numbers. My point is there's this constant pick and choose to prop up this movie as best Trek ever by far.

Paramount want's to tentpole its pictures even though everyone involved at the studio admits freely that they have no experience in doing it. Usually a tentpole consists of a movie wholly owned by a studio because if a license is lost to a higher bidder or a partner leaves that pole's going to fall - not to mention you get to keep more money when it's all yours. This is why it's puzzling that Paramount talks about ROTF and ST being their tentpoles but not IRONMAN?

So far, I have only been able to identify three revenue streams from ST09 that definitely exist for Paramount:

1. Copyright royalties for story and characters original to their script.

2. Box Office

3. DVD/Blu-ray sales.

It seems obvious that as a license owner of ST that CBS must maintain at minimum a veto over cable/TV airings of ST09 as it doesn't make sense for them to let Paramount derail or directly compete with their video revenue generating plans from their catalog. And to stay that hand must cost Paramount something.

It is difficult to see this as significantly generating more inflation adjusted profit than similar deals for STTMP or the other Trek movies but I'm always willing to look at evidence to the contrary. And I'm not sure how to factor in the much longer time span the previous movies have had to air.

If it truly is the dictum that nothing works like success at Paramount you can expect the next Trek movie to feature the Borg except this time, to save on costs between the two tentpoles, they'll be Transformerized.

~~This wasn't time travel, this was dimensional travel. That what was so ingenious about the new movie, it didn't alter or erase TOS history. It created a new Star Trek universe to explore that was not hampered by previous canon.~~

My God how many times must I say this?
If This movie becomes the new official canon, As it appears it is going to, and no more movies or TV shows are made in the old timeline then,
IT IS DEAD! And JJ Abrams and THIS MOVIE killed it.

Defenders of this movie keep talking about how the old timeline is still out there and that this version is just a different demension. And they feel the need to remind US that it's just fiction?

Son of a Maui Portagee~
you are obviously much more well informed than I am and I am truly impressed by the amount of research you have put into this but as far as I am concerned it could earn $1000,000,000- be the most successful movie ever produced, win every Acadamy award in existence, I still would not like it. I still would not consider it Star Trek.

like Iso said they took an intellegent show and dumded it down for the new I-pod generation.

@Spaceman Spiff,

While I can't say this movie stirs as much strong emotion in me as you, I definitely do not want to see this Paramount expediency and it's themes or universe hijack the franchise - even though ROTF seems to make that inevitable for at least the next film.

This movie appeals to me as a Nimoy B-movie and not so much as Trek. So much so that it tickles me to imagine its DVD as being released on the Lion'sGate label.

I find the actors and their characterizations serviceable (and oddly enough, a few good characterizations is usually the only strong suit of any "good" B-movie) but I would much rather see their course corrected by a Manny Coto rather than the current writing team.

In fact, I can't imagine that they have anything more interesting to say to me in a Trek universe pseudo or otherwise and I have no plans to endure a sequel by them.

I definitely consider its story construction in the realm of the least of STAR TREK and its science-fiction even more so.

I think Paramount's board is as "troubled" by this movie's "success" as they were by TMP's. It's the standard historical problem the suits have had with Trek since its creation they don't understand the phenomenon and it refuses to fit smoothly into their projections.

Here's a review from an actual award winning science-fiction author who even got a script filmed once but not much of his vision survived the process:

http://www.varley.net/Movies/Movies%20at%20the%20drive%20in.htm#Star_Trek_(2009)