imo crowe craps up his roles pretty well

I'll even try judging Winona Ryder for her strange cameo as Spock's mother for one reason too many; actors share a fair chunk of contracted millions per role and at times, per spoken conversations; in fact Sarek admits marrying her for rather than decision.

Amen. I think he just doesn't know how to spell. I can't speak any languages besides English; guess I'm just a condescending, imperialist snob that way. But hey, thas jus' how ah roll!

The word you're looking for is biggoted.  Homophobic implies an irrational fear for which there is no indication so far.  You don't have to respond to an insult with another insult.

Star Trek (2009) OST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaN2mys6npw&feature=related

Bigoted works as well, but a google search will reveal that homophobic is almost exclusively applied to anti-gay statements and actions. It's not an insult when used against someone who is being anti-gay, just like "racist" is not an insult when used on an actual racist. Anyway, he said he was just doing it to see how we all would react, so why bother?

I liked it but a few things made me think,

Kirk gets HIS ASS KICKED IN EVERY FIGHT HE IS IN  literally.

If he is not getting pounded on in the bar, its on the drill, or the deck of the Enterprise, or on the romulan ship, or anywhere really. That man just cannot defend himself in a fistfight.

If Spock only needed a small amount of the "red matter" then why send him will all of it?

Maybe he wanted to hi-jack reality too and spoil the fun for everyone watching.

Yep, welcome to the Star Trek Spoilers Thread where people can't stay on Topic and yours truly has had it with the junk.

You wanna know more about this excellent film, go watch it for yourselves.

Once again, Trolls win.

I saw it and i'm with Phaedyme. I think its great they're getting a chance to diverge from the past of the series. No one wants Shatner to stick his face on TV more then it already is.

Why not have the ability to make some more interesting movies that are not having to be crippled by having to connect directly back to the 70's series?

In other words lets bring some fresh blood and ideas to Star Trek

It can be done, just look at BattleStar Galactica

I am familiar with both episodes (and most time travel episodes). I'll try to phrase my argument in that context.

Let point A be the year 2387. Yet point B be the year Nero arrived in. Let point C be an indeterminate time in the 25th century.

Nero and Spock travelled from point A to point B, creating a divergent timeline. (They might have also travelled into a different universe, but that's not helpful for this argument.) This is like what happened in that two-part Voyager time travel episode (can't remember) where they go back to present day- they introduce Captain Braxton here.

However, in my theoretical universe, they could travel from point A to point C (the alternate universe works here if you will as well.) This is like what the villain of that aforementioned Voyager episode did. He wanted to go into the future and claim technology. Or it's like how Braxton brought Seven into the future to help fix the timeline from there.

So Nero and Spock could create a divergent alternate universe in the future as well, but it would diverge at that point, not earlier, and wouldn't overwrite anything. They could do a similar story.

I'll respond to your points in a list.

1. I didn't want it in TNG. I wanted it beyond TNG. So why are you imagining it set in the TNG era? I'm talking about a third era (ENT can be considered part of TNG) that would be created as a result of the new movie.

2. It would be a continuation of things already done, yes. But you go on to say people would complain about it as if it was a reboot. Like some have done about TNG, no? So...

3. They didn't have to use the same actors. The actors were picked because they were to play a young crew.

4. Flashy effects would be fine 200 years from TOS. If anything, they make less sense in XI because we know things were less flashy then.

5. Hardcore fans have been crying havoc about canon issues since TNG and probably earlier. There are some people whose definition of Star Trek stops at TNG, some sooner, some earlier. Some likewise approach it from the other end, starting at ENT or VOY, and many will soon approach it starting at the new movie and nothing before (possibly, anyway.)

But how would they cry about continuity issues? The future's been mentioned in a lot of episodes, but probably less than a season would be applicable (because of all the timeline changes) to anything set in the 25th century up to the 28th century (29th and 31st are slightly better defined.) There's no continuity, and any that there is could be worked into it.

6. It could be not "normal Trek" if it took place in the future.

7. Then your definition of reboot differs from mine. I don't think they stand to gain by erasing or overwriting. They could expand and add without using an alternate universe. This would satisfy anyone.

Or, I don't see how it wouldn't.

Your points seem to be dealing with TNG, as if 'era three' would be like TNG. But compare TNG to TOS- they are pretty different.

I'm of the opinion that DS9 is the best series in the Trek world. The movie didn't irk me and was a wonderful change of pace from the usual droll we get from Trek.

I can't understand the hate from supposed fans of Star Trek. First Contact had a horrible plot and was absolute crap. Now we are supposed to listen to Fan whines about time travel when in just this one example of a previous movie you have the borg and the enterprise heading back to save Earth? Oh by the way they help cheer on Cochran and offer moral support to boot. Give me a break.

Should they have perhaps made the movie about whales so we can travel back in time on a rusted out ghetto bird of prey with a bunch of old farts that can't even have a regular bowel movement?

And to make it an even better back-in-time travel concept, we could call it Star Trek IV

I said this before, I know I did, but I really liked how Kirk hung a lampshade on the whole time travel thing before beaming back onto the Enterprise.

I hope that the next film does not rely on time travel as a storytelling device, though. For the most part, I am done with Trek time travel stories, and have been since Generations.

Except for "More Troubles, More Tribbles." That was fun.

Well, having finally SEEN the movie, I can actually post an opinion on it:

It was a good movie, and I LOVED not seeing William Shatner's mug plastered across my screen, but it wasn't Trek. Out of deference to (the) Spock(s), I will call it Trek Prime. It also looked like the creators are actually going to try to make another TV show or at least another movie judjing by the closing sequence (who wouldn't try to recreate SUCH a money-maker!), and while Trek will always hold a special place in my heart, I am willing to give Trek Prime a go, provided that the quality keeps up. My political philosophy is "integrate, don't segregate", but in this case I think that "seperate but equal" might be a good description. It also had more nits than I can easily count, and I will get to those in a following post.