STAR TREK is BACK !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hector]

I don't think I like that.

Like you needed further convincing.

[EMCE Hammer]

Nope. It is NOT a fan explanation. It is an official parallel universe.

The very presence of time-travelling Leonard Nimoy Spock and his memories of a reality where James T. Kirk "...has been and always shall be..." his friend prove it is so.

Basically, Abrams used the very rules of STAR TREK Time-travel and parallel universes to re-boot the franchise. Flawlessly, perfectly... logical.

And YET the presence of Old Spock in this new timeline allows the ORiginal Series continuity to remain official STAR TREK cannon.

Friggin' brilliant!

I'm not as ecstatic about it as you are, but I don't know how else they could have continued forward with TOS. At least this way I can get to see new adventures with Kirk and co, sorta. To me that's a better option than another bland prequel or the next, next generation. It's either this or CGI and voice impersonators.

[jessica]

Aw fudge. My wig is not expected to come until 5/18. Hate that. Oh well. I'll just have to wait until then to get my Uhura on.

[darklord1967]

But I'm wondering; is the new film OFFICIALLY a "parallel world" or is this the way the fans are explaining it?

Don C.

Nope. It is NOT a fan explanation. It is an official parallel universe.

The very presence of time-travelling Leonard Nimoy Spock and his memories of a reality where James T. Kirk "...has been and always shall be..." his friend prove it is so.

Basically, Abrams used the very rules of STAR TREK Time-travel and parallel universes to re-boot the franchise. Flawlessly, perfectly... logical.

And YET the presence of Old Spock in this new timeline allows the ORiginal Series continuity to remain official STAR TREK cannon.

Friggin' brilliant!

[Mikey]

I keep thinking if Spock went back in time and this new movie IS the way the timeline is now running, the original series is now not canon in the Star Trek universe.

The original series is now literally in the same catagory as the Animated Series.

How can ANYONE have enough gall to make the original series non-canon ?

[ctc]

>Does anyone else feel a loss of something ?

Well.... I always feel with something like Trek that it's a waste to reboot stuff. The history and backstory are such a HUGE piece of the franchaise it's a shame to not use them. Especially since instead of a reboot of established story you could do a whole new story set anywhere in the timeline.

>A "parallel universe" scenerio would be ok with me

That kinda bugs me too. It's a cop-out; the same one superhero comics have used for decades. A "parallel universe" setup lets them reboot with impunity. But I'm wondering; is the new film OFFICIALLY a "parallel world" or is this the way the fans are explaining it?

Don C.

[Mikey]

But from what i'm reading here i'm gathering that the original series and everything afterward never happened in the new Trek franchise.

If this is true, I don't think I like that.

Does anyone else feel a loss of something ?

A "parallel universe" scenerio would be ok with me because my old Star Trek still exists SOMEWHERE out there in space and/or time.

[David Lee]

Star Trek: Or why George Lucas is a Galactic doofus...

I couldn't agree more with the positives stated here. I too was always more of a Star Wars guy in my youth, and kind of came to TOS later on, through my dad, who always prefered Trek. He and I watched it on TV when I was as a kid, and I loved and still love the animated series (classic stuff!). But, this really re-invigorated me on the whole franchise, in a way I had hope Star Wars would have. It just made sense, it kept the spirit in tact and let go of the continuity a bit. Fanboys and Trekers will quibble over the detes, but I went home and dusted off TOS and couldn't be happier...

[fallensaviour]

As a Trek fan since the age of 5 (34 now), I had a lot of problems with the movie. If you are a casual Trek fan or never saw any Trek, you will probably like it.

I take offense to this personally,I have also been a trek fan since the age of 5 (soon to be 37) so I have been a fan several years longer than you!!!(just a mathematical fact).I assure you I am not a casual fan.I have seen everything trek my library is stalked with well over 100 tos trek novels plus any and every trek comic.My DVDs include tos series as well as animated.
I assure you I did not like it purely for nostalgic reasons.
It was a decent story with decent actors and great effects.
Guess what?
I liked it.

I'm really tired of Hollywood feeling the need to reboot everything. In this case, it was very hard for me to accept other actors portraying these characters that have been played by them since 1966.

This my Trek friend is your problem in a nut shell.You can not let go of the past and therefore will not like anything they put out now or future.

My take is you went in to the movie expecting to not like it and guess what you didn't.
It's a shame really as you didn't even try.
But to each his own I guess.
Now you can get together with T1K and have a big I hate new trek party.

[darklord1967]

.


***********SPOILERS CONTAINED THROUGHOUT******************

In this case, it was very hard for me to accept other actors portraying these characters that have been played by them since 1966.

That's unfortunate. By that logic, the day that Bill Shatner or Leonard Nimoy pass away, ALL adventures of Captain Kirk and Spock should end also? It doesn't seem to me like it's in keeping with Trek's mantra of "Boldly going..." somewhere new.

Filling Shatner's shoes is a big feat and felt Pine was very lacking. In the bar fight , I wanted to see him lose. He had no charisma IMO.

Shatner was charismatic, and his portrayal of Captain Kirk was classic. But (in my view) much of the high-regard that has been attributed to that portrayal from the fan base is being looked at through rose-colored glasses. The passage of TIME itself has done a lot more to elevate the status of that performance than anything Shatner did as an actor.

It's kinda lke what Belloq said about a simple stop watch in "Raiders of the Lost Ark": "Look at this. It's worthless. Ten dollars from a vendor in the street. But I take it, I bury it in sand for a couple of thousand years and it becomes priceless."

The truth is Bill Shatner is not a great actor. He is not even a particularly good one.

Before you rake me over the coals for saying that, please understand that what I mean by my statement is that he is NOT an actor who has demonstrated the ability to play many different kinds of characters. He basically always plays variations of the same "personality".

And you know what? God bless him. It has worked beautifully for him for over 40 years, and he has provided a LOT of entertainment for a lot of people. I love Bill Shatner's work. And I think he seems like a fun, affable personality.

But let's not make Shatner out to be something more than he is as an actor.

In my eyes, (and in the eyes of many who have seen this film) Chris Pine managed the IMPRESSIVE feat of taking a role that is so singularly associated with another actor, and he made it his own. He figured out what the essence of James T. Kirk's character and personality were at the core, and portrayed it handsomely.

He believably embued Kirk, with all the arrogance, brashness, mischief, swagger, rage, compassion, lust, humor, loyalty, physical prowess, vulnerability, etc. that the character stands for.

Amazingly enough, he managed this neat little trick without resorting to a cheap hackneyed imitation of Shatner's embarrassingly dated staccato delivery which you might spot at any local Sci-Fi convention.

You say you wanted to see Kirk lose in the bar fight scene. Well, since he did in fact lose that fight, I guess you got your wish... at least in that scene.

1.Rewriting Trek history. Alderaan, I mean Vulcan is destroyed? Spock's mom dies? McCoy goes into the Academy pushing 40? Chekov who was never around for the first season of TOS is in already? Romulans with shaved heads with tribal tattoos? I was told in the prequel comic book explained it as Romulan ritual after Romulus was destroyed. A) How many people knew this comic existed B) I don't consider comics or novels canon to any film or TV universe. Orion Slave Girls in Starfleet at that time? Like every reboot, the people involved want to change things to put their stamp on it so it's their version.

As a TOS purist, I understand how you feel. But as a more "casual" Trek fan, I can only respond "out with the old, in with the new".

Please understand, I do not wish to denigrate nor disrespect your passion for Trek continuity.

However, as a comic book fan, re-boots for entire universes are pretty commonplace to me. It is a chance to wipe the slate clean and take the franchise in bold, and exciting new directions. That's what Trek is supposed to be about.

I've been a "casual" Trek fan for about 35 years. In my view, that franchise had become creatively stagnant. It was actually CHOKING on it's own established continuity to such a degree that if something wasn't done, an entire generation would NEVER have realized how worthwhile and fun Trek could be.

This new film will not only bring a new generation of fans to STAR TREK. It will also bring those new fans to discover the classic series as well. As Hector pointed out before, this is a win-win situation for everyone.

2.Lame plot. Is it me, or did it seem like they rushed something together to explain why an older Spock was in the film after signing Nimoy. Also, how do you restart Trek history with the same actor playing the same character in the film? Idiotic.

Well speaking for myself, nothing about this film seemed "rushed together". As for the "same actor" (Leonard Nimoy) playing "old" Spock in this Trek History "re-boot", I'd say that was perfectly... logical... if you'll pardon the pun.

Nimoy's presence here was an ingenious way of establishing that the original history timeline continuity (that die-hard fans are feeling so violated over) is still intact and running parallel to this new timeline.

Nimoy is the "bridge" between both realities, and more importantly, he is a TOS "anchor" for audiences and fans.

3. Trying too hard to establish characters. Kirk driving a car like an idiot almost dying to escape the police? Kirk was reckless in situations that required it, not just for the hell of it.

The reckless "sports car driving" Kirk you describe was a 12 year old child. This was NOT the same character who was at the command of a starship. There was NOTHING gratuitously "reckless" about adult James T. Kirk in this film. Even prior to his enlistment in Starfleet, Jim Kirk was not particularly reckless. Even when he got caught up in that bar fight, it was not something he started. He defended himself.

The Kobayashi Maru scene was a joke.

What's your point? Yes the scene was "light-hearted" due to Kirk's arrogant disregard of "no-win scenarios". But this type of humor has always had a place in STAR TREK. Why is the use of humor so terribly inappropriate here? As I see it, this scene violates NO established character traits for Captain Kirk, NO previously established tone for the Trek universe, and it even violates NO previously established details about Kirk's Kobayashi Maru test solution (as revealed in ST II:TWOK).

And if you really needed a more grounded serious take on Kirk's unorthodox test solution, then you need look no further than the following scene depicting his academic suspension. There, he experiences a public confrontation with the programmer of the test (Spock himself), AND it is during that exchange that the origins of Kirk's disregard for "no-win scenarios" is revealed. Tying Kirk's feelings about "no win scenarios" to his father's untimely death while valiantly defending the USS Kelvin was moving and poignant.

McCoy with the "I'm a Doctor" and constant complaining was over the top.

Doctor McCoy only had one... count it... ONE "I'm a Doctor, not a..." moment.

If this classic Doctor McCoy one-liner were NOT included in the film, Trek fans everywhere would have complained about the "oversight".

Sheesh! Dammed if you do. Dammed if you don't.

Yes. McCoy's complaining was over the top. But it always has been. THAT'S the fun of the character.

4. They relied on nostalgia instead of good writing. It seemed like they cared more about having the audience like the film because they remembered certain things form the past instead of writing a good script. The thing being put in Pike's mouth like in Chekov's ear in WOK. Pike ending up in a wheelchair. McCoy's "I'm a Doctor" routine. Spock's you are and will always be my friend, etc. How can any of that stuff happen if JJ has his own universe and those things never happened?

Not a single one of the things you mentioned were a gap in logic in the story that was told here. I thought the writting here was just fine.

But Abrams was smart enough to realize that just because he was doing a Trek history re-boot, that it didn't mean that he could just arbitrarily do radical departures on the portrayals of the personalities of these characters. THAT would alienate a lot of folks.

Also, in these time-travel types of stories, it's pretty common to see that "The universe" has a way of establishing certain key details identically... just as they are meant to be... when compared to those same key details in a parallel timeline (Ie: Kirk being Captain of the Enterprise, Pike in a wheel chair, etc.)

Just because this is Abram's own Trek Universe (where, for example, Chekov will never have those parasites inserted into his ear by Kahn), does this mean that another villain cannot ever employ a similar mode of torture in a future Trek film? I really don't understand that line of thinking.

"You have been, and always shall be my friend" makes perfect sense coming from "old" Spock who traveled back in time from the original timeline where that was true and a part of his reality.

5. Tyler Perry? If we are lucky, we may see Madea in a Uhura style uniform in the next film.

Some comedic / character actors appearing in a scene like this one are a distraction by their very presence. Jim Carrey. Woody Allen. Jerry Stiller. Sure. In addition to their comedic body of work, these men are comedic looking.

But in the case of Tyler Perry, this is NOT the case. Yes he has played comedic costumed characters in the past. But therein lies my ease with accepting him in this relatively serious role as a Starfleet Admiral.

Perry has made relatively few movie appearances as himself. In my eyes he has not established his OWN face specifically as a comedic face. Anytime he has played a non-made-up character (using his own un-altered face), he plays a serious character... even in those Madea films.

I had absolutely no problem with Tyler Perry. Furthermore, his performance was honest, earnest, and more than competent.

6.Lame villains. Did anyone care about Nero or the other Romulans at all?

Oh... I don't know. I thought that a Romulan who was so bent on revenge that he IMPLODED the planet Vulcan just so that Spock could watch and be tortured was a pretty TERRIBLE dude.

No previous OS Trek villain that I can think of went that far.

7. Slapstick comedy. Kirk with the swollen hands and Scotty being warped into the water pipe was a bit much.

Yeah! I though that stuff was great! Kinda like Kirk's Romulan ears, or Spock and Kirk dressed as 1920's Chicago gangsters and talkin' silly, or Spock, Kirk, and McCoy singin' "Row, Row, Row your boat" while getting plastered on bourbon. Or how about Kirk and Spock's hilariously outrageous attempts to "fit in" in 1984 Los Angeles. "Well... double dumb-arse on you!!!"

Ah, Good Comedy. What would STAR TREK be without it?

8.Spock and Uhura's love story. I just don't see the Spock character ever acting like that, so it wasn't Spock. If they had a relationship, Uhura would have been more of a main character in the Trek universe and never was. But, it's not the Trek I grew up with, it's J.J.'s Trek.

By George, I think you're gettin' it!

Yes. This IS Abram's STAR TREK... not the one you grew up with. This one is fast-moving, exciting, well-acted, well-written, sexy, visually stunning and just plain ol' FUN! Thank God for that. I hate to rain on your parade, but this film is a lot MORE than just "Abram's Trek". Like it or not, this is an official part of STAR TREK cannon, now. I ABSOLUTELY LOVE that this film has reminded us that in a universe as fantastic as the Trek one, is it is completely possible to have TWO realities co-existing side by side. Multiple realities run RAMPANT in Trek. That's nothing new... and it's almost always fun.

Honestly, does it really alter your enjoyment of STAR TREK to know that in this new timeline, Spock's mother is dead, the planet Vulcan has been destroyed, and Spock and Uhura have a little "thing" going on?

Ultimately, the CORE of what has always made classic STAR TREK compelling is fully intact here. These seven characters are still the main crew of a Federation starship, that starship is still the USS Enterprise, and we are all once again on an exciting ride that will take us in a "...bold..." new direction.

And as an added bonus: With SMOKING HOT Zoe Zaldana as part of this cast, I certainly do NOT mind Uhura becoming more of a main character now!!

[vulcan2074]

I saw it Yesterday and I was very Happy. I thought it was really Good. I'm excited to see whats in store next
Sammy

[Sideshow Spock]

So people who liked the film only did so out of nostalgia? Seems to me you basically disliked it for much of the same reason..

The film was not poorly written. It won't win any awards for screenplay, but it sure beats most of the summer blockbusters that come along. It was witty and well-paced, and did all the characters justice.

Tyler Perry was on screen for all of a minute and delivered his lines professionally. So who cares?

Humor was a big part of TOS. I think the Kirk allergic reaction scene was lighthearted fun that worked well.

It's not "re-writing" Trek history. It's an alternate timeline, and thus a different history alltogether.

As for rushing together something after they signed Nimoy, that was not the case. The writers completed their treatment, and Nimoy was interested enough in the story to sign on. The writers have said that if Nimoy hadn't been willing, they would've had to scrap the whole concept.

It's not a perfect film. I'll admit to checking my watch 30 minutes in, and I also was annoyed by hot-rodding doofus kid Kirk. My wife thought Chekov was irritating.

Yet we both left the theatre smiling, so what more can you ask for?

[draconianguard]

As a Trek fan since the age of 5 (34 now), I had a lot of problems with the movie. If you are a casual Trek fan or never saw any Trek, you will probably like it.




I'm really tired of Hollywood feeling the need to reboot everything. In this case, it was very hard for me to accept other actors portraying these characters that have been played by them since 1966. Filling Shatner's shoes is a big feat and felt Pine was very lacking. In the bar fight , I wanted to see him lose. He had no charisma IMO. Here's my other gripes:

1.Rewriting Trek history. Alderaan, I mean Vulcan is destroyed? Spock's mom dies? McCoy goes into the Academy pushing 40? Chekov who was never around for the first season of TOS is in already? Romulans with shaved heads with tribal tattoos? I was told in the prequel comic book explained it as Romulan ritual after Romulus was destroyed. A) How many people knew this comic existed B) I don't consider comics or novels canon to any film or TV universe. Orion Slave Girls in Starfleet at that time? Like every reboot, the people involved want to change things to put their stamp on it so it's their version.

2.Lame plot. Is it me, or did it seem like they rushed something together to explain why an older Spock was in the film after signing Nimoy. Also, how do you restart Trek history with the same actor playing the same character in the film? Idiotic.

3. Trying too hard to establish characters. Kirk driving a car like an idiot almost dying to escape the police? Kirk was reckless in situations that required it, not just for the hell of it. The Kobayashi Maru scene was a joke. McCoy with the "I'm a Doctor" and constant complaining was over the top.

4. They relied on nostalgia instead of good writing. It seemed like they cared more about having the audience like the film because they remembered certain things form the past instead of writing a good script. The thing being put in Pike's mouth like in Chekov's ear in WOK. Pike ending up in a wheelchair. McCoy's "I'm a Doctor" routine. Spock's you are and will always be my friend, etc. How can any of that stuff happen if JJ has his own universe and those things never happened?

5. Tyler Perry? If we are lucky, we may see Madea in a Uhura style uniform in the next film.

6.Lame villains. Did anyone care about Nero or the other Romulans at all?

7. Slapstick comedy. Kirk with the swollen hands and Scotty being warped into the water pipe was a bit much.

8.Spock and Uhura's love story. I just don't see the Spock character ever acting like that, so it wasn't Spock. If they had a relationship, Uhura would have been more of a main character in the Trek universe and never was. But, it's not the Trek I grew up with, it's J.J.'s Trek.

I thought a lot of the CGI looked good. I liked some of the action. It had moments that were entertaining. I really wished they tried to expand the Trek universe and establish new characters (unlike the ones in Enterprise). Original Trek sells and it's easier to rehash that instead of writing new material and establishing new characters. I would rather they made a film in the 24th century about Starfleet. They could have had established Trek characters train them (Sisko, holographic Doctor, Chakotay, Worf, Troi,etc). They could have brought back original characters like Kirk by having holographic teachers talk to them in class or see them on the holodeck. That would get fans of all Trek's to watch and establish a new crew with the Starfleet cadets. That requires more work and is more of a risk instead of giving you characters you know already know, so Hollywood will never go that route again. It seems like a lot of older Trek fans liked this. The reasons are pretty much one reason-nostalgia. Characters they knew with references they knew. Remember, J.J. made this movie for movie fans, not Trek fans. It was a decent Star Wars movie, J.J.

[darklord1967]

I just got back from my 3RD viewing!

It holds up beautifully on repeat inspection! I did not find myself getting bored with stuff that I knew was coming.

This movie is just... just... awesome.

[Hector]

I saw it again Today...I enjoyed it EVEN MORE the 2nd time!! I intend to see it at least 2 or 3 more times a the Theater!!

Me too.