Star Trek **SPOILERS**

by JJ Abrams & a whole lot of people!

Published on May 5, 2009 By Zyxpsilon In Everything Else

SPOILERS ALERT;

You will see this film eventually, right?

You will even have the urge to share your opinions with the membership here, and to express yourselves clearly with description of scenes, quoting dialogues, snapping images of the new NCC-1701, etc!

Be fair & square, and consider that anything you will write below should automatically spoil the fun & the mystery for others.

Tomorrow at this time, France-Belgium-Switzerland-Vulcan(Alberta) fans will rush out their TRUE world premieres as much as some lucky Austin_Texas & Sydney_Australia people last April who resisted (However futile!) revealing any details after being asked by Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof & Mr Leonard Nimoy.

Do not read anything below while you still can exit this thread.

Long enough to fill a browser page?

STAR TREK is a contest of skills & personalities.

It proves (again) that Humanity can and MUST go to Space and beyond.

And, that even Science is no match for Fiction.

The Galaxy is our only hope.

Enjoy.

Comments (Page 8)

106

Rightwinger

on May 14, 2009

Well, that's one. How many Trek fans are there out there? I've found quite a few who didn't care for the changes.

They're screwing with success here....why, is anyone's guess.

107

Ryat

on May 14, 2009

Um rightwing it would seem to me that now there are two worlds of Star Trek.

You have one world in which the stick-in-the-muds can keep or those of us who still enjoy that series can checkout.

You have a new world for which those who would not mind see a new series done for the old crew.

So nothing was wiped out just a new branch was added at the base of the Star Trek tree timeline.

108

Rightwinger

on May 14, 2009

This what I posted last week, as "Star Trek: The Re-Machined Picture"; I'll just re-post it here:

~~~"My wife and I attended a Midnight showing of the new "Star Trek" movie last night.

As a lifelong Trekker, I'd been doing some serious geeking out, in these last few weeks, anticipating the rebirth of my love. But for diehard Treknerds like myself, it all comes down to this quote, from director JJ Abrams:

""I was never really a fan of 'Star Trek,' ". And that says everything. In some interviews, it is revealed that the cast and crew are seemingly somewhat contemptuous of their Trek fan base. That's not good.

In attempting to "reboot the franchise", always a dangerous and disheartening term for diehard fans of any film or television series, they, and the writers, of course, took some serious, and outrageous, liberties with the perhaps too-well-established Star Trek timeline, and indeed the history of the show itself. I could get into full geek mode here, and enumerate many of the changes they made that caused emotional dips and ripples in my nerdy equilibrium, but that would give out spoilers, and I don't want to do that. The only thing I will say is this:

Gary Mitchell is absent, and Chekov isn't. For you non-fans, Mitchell, played by Gary Lockwood (who later went on to be killed by the supercomputer HAL, in "2001: A Space Odyssey") was Kirk's best friend, established in the second pilot episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before". Pavel Chekov, Walter Koenig, was not featured aboard the good ship Enterprise until the middle of the second season, in, I believe, "The Trouble With Tribbles". However, he was aboard sometime before "Space Seed", which allowed Ricardo Montalban's character, Khan, to recognize him in the second film, "The Wrath of Khan". At any rate, the character was nowhere near the Enterprise Navigation console this early in Kirk's career.

Now, as a movie, it is very good. It works on many levels: the casting is superb; Chris Pine makes an acceptably brash, dashing young James Tiberius Kirk. Zachary Quinto ("Heroes" evil Sylar) does an appropriately admirable job as Spock. However, for me it was Karl Urban, the guy who plays Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, and one of the few admitted Trek geeks in the cast, who did his job the best. He was excellent. He channels DeForest Kelley to a "T"; the speech patterns, the tics and mannerisms.....very well done.

The film's acting is very good, the SFX are outstanding, the action sequences spectacular. All in all, it deserves to do well, and was a very, very good movie.....for people who aren't utterly rabid Trek fans like me. I wouldn't pay to see it again, and will have to consider whether or not to add the DVD to my collection. In many ways, this film has nothing to do with the 43-year old Star Trek Universe we know and love. I will say that they get around these...extreme...changes with a rather convoluted (aren't they all?) time travel plot mechanism that alters the timeline and the future....and subsequently the established history of the TV shows and films. I suppose that makes it acceptable. But it doesn't; not to me, and perhaps not to the other real, dedicated Trek fans like me. And we're the ones who matter here, after all.

To the producers. writers and cast: you don't screw so flagrantly with a fan base like Trek's. Now:

Having said that, it was very cool, and just plain nice, to see Leonard Nimoy don the ears, and do it one, last time."~~~

Now, I love Star Trek; it's a hobby. And as you can see, I enjoyed the movie. As much as I enjoyed the movie, however, it's just not right. And I've found others out there, too.
The producers are saying it's accepted by the fans because of the money it made over the weekend. Well, duh; it's "Star Trek"! Of course everyone who loves it is going to come out to see it, and it'll make a lot of money up front. It what they see that matters.
I bet it starts to drop off pretty quickly, though, because people like me were so disappointed.
I was accused, earlier, of "being afraid of change" because I didn't like the way they did this to something I love.

When something has been so wildly successful, for going on 50 years, why mess with it?

109

Rightwinger

on May 14, 2009

When you destroy a timeline....everything that comes after it is altered; wiped out. Spock said as much...everything that's happened/is happening is altering whatever future may or may not have been.

The old show, and everything that came after it, is gone. That might not matter to you, but I've been a fan since i was a kid in the early 70s; now, I may be just an old stick in the mud, but I don't like what they've done here. Sorry, but I don't, and I think they're going to have to fix it, whether they want to or not.

110

dunkellic

on May 14, 2009

Um rightwing it would seem to me that now there are two worlds of Star Trek.

You have one world in which the stick-in-the-muds can keep or those of us who still enjoy that series can checkout.

You have a new world for which those who would not mind see a new series done for the old crew.

So nothing was wiped out just a new branch was added at the base of the Star Trek tree timeline.

yes, thats the way it was intended

They're screwing with success here....why, is anyone's guess.

star trek was not successfull - sadly (though i didnt like ent either but it already went downwards with voyager...) - and if the movie would have followed the spirit of ent (it was supposed to be a prequel during the earth-romulan war), i'd asshure you it would have been the last one ever.

now there are a lot of things that bother me about that new movie - to me, it is star trek light. it's fast, it's flashy it's...it's bubblegum to me. i missed the complexity of the old movies, the political parallels (like in star trek 6) and a good villain (something that i havent seen since first contact) - but this is definatly a great movie.

111

Piznit

on May 14, 2009

I suppose that makes it acceptable. But it doesn't; not to me, and perhaps not to the other real, dedicated Trek fans like me. And we're the ones who matter here, after all.

"They" don't have to fix it. The movie is already a success, no matter how fast the viewership drops off. I guarantee you, someone, somewhere, is already getting a sequel started. As to who matters, to the producers, directors, etc., you don't matter any more than the person sitting next to you in the theatre who might not even know who Capt. Kirk is. In fact, you probably matter LESS than the person sitting next to you. Because "they" already know you are going to purchase a ticket and see the movie. "They" are more interested in reaching a different, probably younger audience, to buy tickets. Thats why they remake (reboot) a movie. To make money. Not to appease true Trekkies.

112

Rightwinger

on May 14, 2009

i'm sorry what? last thing i knew was, that ent got cancelled, that nemesis made much less cash than expected and that the next star trek movie got cancelled - that was the state of star trek PRIOR to the new script with j.j. abrams as director.

star trek was not successfull - sadly (though i didnt like ent either but it already went downwards with voyager...) - and if the movie would have followed the spirit of ent (it was supposed to be a prequel during the earth-romulan war), i'd asshure you it would have been the last one ever.

---dunkellic

dunkellic, there's no need to be a smartass here; I thought we were having a civilized discussion about the merits of old Trek versus the new, screwed-up version. Sorry, guess that was just me.

The original Star Trek was successful; just not with the Nielson ratings families whose attention actually counts. When it was on the verge of being cancelled, Gene Roddenberry asked the fans to express their displeasure, and the mailrooms at NBC were inundated with hundreds of thousands (some speculated millions) of letters.

This lead to the second and third seasons, which then allowed it to go into syndication, where it was revealed as the worldwide, cultural phenomenon it was.

"Enterprise", though well-written and acted, was not popular with the fans; for me, one big problem was with the continuity issues, which I addressed somewhere above. Feel free to look them up.

"Voyager", though not a personal fave of mine, was successful enough in it own right, like TNG and DS9, to garner a 7-year run, and some singularly-devoted fans of its own.

"Nemesis" was not a great entry, true, but at least it respected the fans and maintained the continuity.

To make money. Not to appease true Trekkies.

--Piznit

Yes, the true Trekkies; who spend most of the money on Star Trek.

113

Piznit

on May 14, 2009

Yes, the true Trekkies; who spend most of the money on Star Trek

Almost right. "True Trekkies, who have ALREADY spent money on Star Trek"

Simple fact is they want soccer moms who will take her 3 kids to the movie and who will later purchase 20 action figures from Wal-Mart, then buy the video game soon to be released for the PS3 just in time for Christmas!

-VS-

True Trekkie who pays once to see the movie, grumbles about it, debates whether or not to add it to his DVD collection (should I purchase the cheesy over-priced "collector" edition?), ultimately decides to wait until it goes on sale, and demands they fix it!

114

Ryat

on May 14, 2009

The difference between you and me is that I see were this can go, down a new path of exploration. The joy of fiction is that you are only limited by your imagination. You can still have your cake and eat it too. Now if you dont like this new timeline, fine. But to say that the old timeline is dead is a utter fallacy. Who knows, someone may make a movie based of the old timeline, and I'm sure that they will still make books based off of it too.

115

Rightwinger

on May 14, 2009

Ryat

reply 14

Rightwing I still dont understand how the old timeline is destroyed. It still exists if you want it to exist. It still exists for me and if anyone would do a movie, book, tv series based of the old timeline I would still try to enjoy it. Now I will admit that I have only been around since '79, but I have been feed a steady diet of Star Trek from birth and consider myself to be a die-hard trekkie, just ask my wife, I drive her nuts with trekkie sayings and paraphanilai around the house.

The difference between you and me is that I see were this can go, down a new path of exploration. The joy of fiction is that you are only limited by your imagination. You can still have your cake and eat it too. Now if you dont like this new timeline, fine. But to say that the old timeline is dead is a utter fallacy. Who knows, someone may make a movie based of the old timeline, and I'm sure that they will still make books based off of it too.

---Ryat

I understand that, but it wouldn't be "official" anymore, since the "canonical" stuff comes from Paramount, and their "new" timeline is taking the established characters in another direction. For example, originally, Kirk was 34 when he took command of the Enterprise; he was what, 29, maybe, at the end of the new movie?

Look, I said I liked it as a movie; as a Star Trek movie, though, I just didn't care for it. People like piznit and dunkellic seem to be offended by this, and to hold me in low regard for my closed-mindedness.

So be it; but, if we can't stand up for the things we love, even something as ridiculously superfluous as a TV show/movie series, what good is anything?

116

dunkellic

on May 14, 2009

rightwinger, i wasnt smartass, at least i didnt intend to. i just wanted to show that star trek simply wasnt successfull anymore. the ratings already went down midway through voyager and enterprise was cancelled because they were too low (because even a lot of fans didnt watch it anymore).

you seem to miss my point - i didnt want to say that nemesis etc was bad (i liked nemesis but a lot of voy and ent really didnt suit me) - but simply that it didnt make enough money. as i already said, before j.j. took over, star trek was almost done - they needed to make it more appealing to the masses. because it might be trekkies that spend most on star trek, but there arent enough trekkies for a big-budget production left apparantly.

but you cant do that without leaving a lot of the stuff out - i agree with you when you say "this somehow doesnt really feel like my old star trek" but it worked. this movie has more viewers than probably any tng or tos movie ever and that's not because trekkies somehow multiplied, but because people, who usually arent into star trek and for whom the old movies would simply be boring, want and do see this

117

Rightwinger

on May 14, 2009

Piznit

reply 13

Yes, the true Trekkies; who spend most of the money on Star Trek

Almost right. "True Trekkies, who have ALREADY spent money on Star Trek"

Simple fact is they want soccer moms who will take her 3 kids to the movie and who will later purchase 20 action figures from Wal-Mart, then buy the video game soon to be released for the PS3 just in time for Christmas!

-VS-

True Trekkie who pays once to see the movie, grumbles about it, debates whether or not to add it to his DVD collection (should I purchase the cheesy over-priced "collector" edition?), ultimately decides to wait until it goes on sale, and demands they fix it!

---piznit

As I said earlier to dunkellic (who apparently hadn't wished to be; apology accepted, by the way)...there's no need to be a smartass here. You liked the movie; I didn't, and I'm offering my reasons. Good reasons, I think.

You seem to forget that I'm not the ONLY "True Trekkie" out there. And in point of fact, I'd be a "Trekker"...the "Trekkies" are the original fans, who've been watching since '66. You know, those old farts who just don't matter anymore, because Paramount and JJ Abrams decided to throw them under the bus and betray their trust.

Here's a prime example, posted by a friend of mine to my Facebook page:

"I am just terribly unhappy at the convolution of the time line. That Kirk doesn't have a father and Spock was made Captain and had a girlfriend. This just isn't right. I can't believe they thought this was acceptable to do to Star Trek. I would rather have seen the original back story than to destroy the vulcan planet and all the crazy stuff they did. It made a fortune last weekend but I am saddened at the loss of the story I knew."

Though thie person's knowledge of Trek isn't as extensive as my own (puffs out chest), her words express my feelings perfectly. She goes on to say, in a later post:

"...Star Trek was always careful to patch up timelines. This is just a mess in my opinion."

Where there are one or two, there are many more. Offically, when they get a letter or e-mail, TV networks and movie studios, etc., count 1 message as 10,000; this is because statistically, for every one person who writes in, that's how many actually feel the same way, but don't write.

dunkellic:

Then isn't it better to simply let the franchise die on its own merits, than to completely dump the past and start over?

118

Zyxpsilon

on May 14, 2009

that is also the reason why nero doesnt simply wait a little bit longer (little bit in context of already waiting 25 years) in order to safe romulus - because in his own timeline, everyone is already dead

To Nero and the Narada, these time gaps may have looked like centuries or minutes simply because they are on some artificially maintained BlackHole horizon which is acknowledged by Ambassador Spock's dialog on Delta Vega for having piloted the JellyFish at least once.

Irrational as it may seem, the phenomenon surely has unknown or speculative effects on perception and senses since there is NO absolute proof it doesn't. Sci-Fi.

Enough for any Romulans (from the Future, in fact) to get mad as hell.

119

Rightwinger

on May 14, 2009

Add this to my above post: this is the original post she left on Facebook, which I missed; sorry---

"I went and saw this yesterday. It did not have a star trek feel, it was more like Battlestar Gallactica. It was a great action adventure flick but not Star Trek. Star Trek never messed up a timeline and didn't fix it. The actor that played young Spock wasn't that great. Are they trying to kill the franchise?"

I agree with her almost completely, but not completely.

120

dunkellic

on May 14, 2009

Then isn't it better to simply let the franchise die on its own merits, than to completely dump the past and start over?

well, those were apparantly the two choices - let it die - or reboot.

but in defense of the movie, while it really felt like star trek light to me, it was a darn entertaining piece. i'll mourn over not seeing a new movie with captain picard or a movie with sisko, but i'd rather take this than nothing at all.

try to see it as something new, just as one interpretation of star trek.

Are they trying to kill the franchise?"

I agree with her almost completely, but not completely.

ironically, if at all, they invigorated it.

they only thing that really bothered me was that weird engine room...it really didnt look like anyting on a starship (or ship or anything at all)

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!