New movie Kirk and Spock pic.

[Werewolf]

You haters will be eating crow when this new Trek flick makes well over $200 million...eclipsing the highest grossing Trek...the Voyage Home's paltry $120 domestic box office take.

So? Britney Spears sells millions of albums. Doesn't make them good.

Besides, my problem with it is the snubbing of the glorious Shatner. Praise be Shatner.

[huedell]

So? Britney Spears sells millions of albums. Doesn't make them good.

The Britney/New Trek comparison is kinda like apples and oranges.
(If you were to predict that New Trek will have big box office, I mean)

There are many definitions of the word "good"

---not to sound like a "sheep" "chump" but I bet if you listed the
top 3 grossing Trek movies--they'd probably be my favorite 3 Trek movies
or close to it.

The "not so good" Trek movies don't seem to correlate with bigger box office.

[Hector]

So? Britney Spears sells millions of albums. Doesn't make them good.

Besides, my problem with it is the snubbing of the glorious Shatner. Praise be Shatner.

You know why Trek still exists today?

Money, honey.

This is not a charity organization...this is entertainment to make money...nothing more, nothing less.

That's your so right there.

[Hector]

It's all make believe either way...so really...

[Nostalgiabuff]

Star Trek: TMP always gets a bad rap. It's actually a pretty good movie, especially the latest directors cut on DVD. That being said, as I have already posted, people are tired of new Star Trek characters. In order to bring this franchise back to life they had to recast the original characters.
While I don't necessarily agree with changing continuity for the new movie, I will view it with an open mind and accept it for what it is, a Star Trek movie. I am really looking forward to it and I think hype will start to build over the next seven months. It has always worked for James Bond to bring in new actors and change the soty lines with the times. I have faith in JJ Abrams that he can pull this off while still staying true to the original spirit of Star Trek.

[Werewolf]

This is not a charity organization...this is entertainment to make money...nothing more, nothing less.

And no one said otherwise.

You were equating to the "haters" that the movie doing well proves them wrong about the update being good or not. I answered that by proving that even if something is successful it doesn't make it a good movie or a good album.

Plus I just don't get why you seem so happy that some classic Trek fans are bothered by this. They have a right to like the classic series and not watch the new movie if they so choose just as you have the right to like the update. I just don't see the need for what appears to be gloating over them being upset by it.

And if I am interpreting it wrong I appologize. But I do feel you are being overly harsh to the classic fans. No one is protesting, they're just not going to go see it.

[fallensaviour]

I just don't get why you seem so happy that some classic Trek fans are bothered by this. They have a right to like the classic series and not watch the new movie if they so choose just as you have the right to like the update. I just don't see the need for what appears to be gloating over them being upset by it.

And if I am interpreting it wrong I apologize. But I do feel you are being overly harsh to the classic fans. No one is protesting, they're just not going to go see it.

Yeah...I'm a classic TOS fan I hated TNG,DS-9,Voyager and yet I liked enterprise???
This movie has me tossing and turning at night with anticipation.
I will go see it!!!
Is it classic No,yes,no wait...Yes,No wait..!?!?!?
Who cares it looks good it has Spock!!!
Kirk is dead!!Yes that's right he is dead;I said it and I meant it,to bring him back again would be to cheapen his death even more!
He was brought back already once.
Shatner is Trek and I would love to see him in this film but....meh I'm going with or with out him.
This film has great potential and I would love to see it work.
Oh and if it fails miserably that's okay to cause it's not classic trek and nothing could possibly be worse than generations...Period(it was a crapfest)

By the way if shatner could fit his old butt into his uniform for a dang hdtv commercial,Don'T tell me he cant do a cameo in the film.

He was never asked I highly doubt it!!!
He just didn't want to be a bit part is all.Rightly so cause he is the all powerful and glorious shatner.(now with one less trek film to his credit...LOL)
By the way Spock was the only original character from the start so it is only fitting he also be the last.

Praise be to Nimoy!!!
All hail the Nimoy!!!

But hey who knows,it could just be all hype that he is not in the film and he is in on it.
Maybe it will be a surprise appearance????

[The Bat]

Well said fallensaviour!! I LOVE ST:TOS more than is probably healthy...but I'm still willing to give this new Movie a chance! There's no sense in making up Your Mind about this movie...until You've actually seen it! And I don't want to see any Next Gen, or Enterprise....I want CLASSIC Trek with Kirk & Spock DAMMIT!

[Timothy2251]

I'm being cautiously optimistic, based on what I've seen/read so far. I'd really like to see this flick take off, restart/reboot the franchise, and become very successful.

If not, no biggie. Still got my DVD collections and, thanks to EMCE Toys (praise Doc Mego. PRAISE HIM!!!!), my Mego repros of the Classic crew. I win either way!

[UnderdogDJLSW]

So here's a question. If The original series is called Classic Trek or TOS, What would a new series of the old original characters be called? The new original trek? Neo-trek? Not to hijack a thread, but what should the acronym be?

By the way, Chris Pine is a pretty good actor, so even though he is not Shatner, I'm interested to see him in the role. My only worry, to elaborate on what I wrote before, would be that the "feel" of the universe would be different. Using the James Bond reference again would be both Sean and Roger are British, working for M and her Majesty, etc. rather than creating a new Bond who is American and drinks malibu. If Abrams keeps the optimism of the future like Roddenberry/original authors had, then I'll be OK with the movie. He says so in the article and I hope it is true. I'm tired of the dark and gritty science fiction. But for personal tastes I wish the bridge looked more retro.

[Tyme2tyme]

There's no sense in making up Your Mind about this movie...until You've actually seen it!

I'm reading all the postings from all you guys that REFUSE to see this movie based on some pre-existing image of what some fictional caracters should look like (or the bridge). I have been a devoted fan(atic) of TOS forever and hope this movie brings life the the "characters" I love. Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley and the rest of the original cast will always get the utmost respect, But I can't see trashing a movie you haven't even seen. I saw an interview with JJ Abrams and really felt that he wanted to honor the original series. I also heard that the people at Paramount felt the franchise had gotten "lost" and wanted to get back to what made Star Trek GREAT. I for one plan to see the movie with an open mind and I'm hoping to leave the theatre in jazzed for Trek agian, JOHN

[darklord1967]

It's no secret that I'm much more of a STAR WARS fan than I'll ever be a STAR TREK fan.

I watched the original '60's TV show and enjoyed it's cheesy appeal.

And later on when Kirk and Spock and co made it to the big screen, I followed along, sometimes thrilled... sometimes bored to death.

This is the first time in a LONG time that I'm actually excited to see a STAR TREK film on the big screen.

Without any real emotional investment or loyalty to Bill Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelly and the gang, I am totally able to see a new generation of actors playing these characters, and bringing new interpretations, new sensibilities, and new perspectives to them all.

I think it's only good, and healthy for the franchise to be re-booted and re-freshed... especially since it had clearly run it's course, even among many of its devoted followers.

However, in light of all this, I decided to ask myself an honest question:

As a devoted die-hard STAR WARS fan, could I accept other actors in the roles of Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Princess Leia in a STAR WARS "update" film?

The answer for me is a resounding YES.

To me, compelling writing, interesting plots, engaging storylines, awesome visuals... these things count a LOT more for me than requiring a specific actor in a specific role.

This holds true for me for virtually any property, wether it's Batman, James Bond, STAR WARS or STAR TREK.

I remember how upset Adam West was when Batman was being re-booted for the big-screen in the late 1980's and he was not included.

Up until that point, the live action perception of that character in the minds of the public was basically Adam West trading campy quips with Burt Ward.
West didn't believe that the audience would accept anyone else but him and Burt in those roles. Many die-hard fans of the 60's Batman TV show felt the same way.

Well ultimately West was wrong, and so were many of those die-hard fans.





I'll tell you what I think the most ironic thing about all this is:

Most TREK purists that I run into seem to cling to a strong belief that only Shatner, Nimoy, Kelly, Nichols, Doohan, Takei, and Koenig could ever play those characters.

And yet there are more than a couple of instances in the TREK universe where either:

A) A single actor played various characters (re: Mark Leonard as Sarek, AND as a Romulan Commander in "Balance of Terror", AND as a Klingon in ST: TMP. Tim Russ playing Tuvok on Voyager, but ALSO playing a Tactical Leutenant on Enterprise B in STAR TREK: Generations. Merritt Butrick playing Kirk's son David Marcus in ST II and III, but ALSO playing T'Jon in a "Next Gen" episode )

OR

B) The same character was played by more than one actor (Re: Lt. Savik played by both Kristy Alley AND Robin Curtis).

So it seems to me that exclusivity between actors and characters does NOT seem to be as big a deal to STAR TREK producers as it is to some of the die-hard "Trekker" fans.

By comparison, in the STAR WARS universe, character / actor flexibility seems to exist only to a much, much lesser extent.

Sure Anthony Daniels (C-3PO) had a brief background bit in EP II in the "cantina' scene".

Sure Jeremy Bullock (Boba Fett) filled in as an Imperial Officer "extra" escorting Leia and Chewie through Cloud City, and later on he played the bit part of Captain Colton in EP III.

But, by and large, Lucas seemed determined to cast the same actors in the same roles wherever possible. He could have gotten any little person to waddle around inside of R2-D2. But he insisted on using Kenny Baker... through six films.

The same for Darth Vader and David Prowse.

The same for Chewbacca and Peter Mayhew.

The same for C-3PO and Anthony Daniels.

I just think this new STAR TREK film should be given a chance to stand on its own merits rather than being judged by a (frankly melodramatic and hammy) Bill Shatner / Leonard Nimoy yardstick.

When STAR TREK: The Next Generation was first introduced in the late 1980's, STAR TREK purists cried "foul!!" because the show featured an all new Enterprise and an all new crew set in an all-new time-period.

Well guess what? Some of the STAR TREK franchise's best days were still ahead of it at that point.

And some of the finest, most compelling Trek tales were produced after the introduction of that show.

Give this new film a chance, Trekkers. You might be pleasantly surprised.

[Hector]

I'm reading all the postings from all you guys that REFUSE to see this movie based on some pre-existing image of what some fictional caracters should look like (or the bridge). I have been a devoted fan(atic) of TOS forever and hope this movie brings life the the "characters" I love. Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley and the rest of the original cast will always get the utmost respect, But I can't see trashing a movie you haven't even seen. I saw an interview with JJ Abrams and really felt that he wanted to honor the original series. I also heard that the people at Paramount felt the franchise had gotten "lost" and wanted to get back to what made Star Trek GREAT. I for one plan to see the movie with an open mind and I'm hoping to leave the theatre in jazzed for Trek agian, JOHN

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Hector]

Well said, Darklord.

[Mikey]

When STAR TREK: The Next Generation was first introduced in the late 1980's, STAR TREK purists cried "foul!!" because the show featured an all new Enterprise and an all new crew set in an all-new time-period.

Well guess what? Some of the STAR TREK franchise's best days were still ahead of it at that point.

That's a matter of opinion not many people share with you.