Heh....well; as you can probably see, I'm not interested in another "interperetation". Guess I'm just not intellectual enough to enjoy the re-ordering of something I've loved, literally, since childhood.

Let's re-interperet "2001: A Space Odyssey", or "Star Wars"; or "Lord of the Rings". How would those things go over, do you think? Maybe someday they will...and I'm sure there'll be hardcore fans like me, who will feel betrayed and will be there to gripe and groan at their loss.

Pffftttt - check your local theater schedules; X-Men_4:Wolverine, Angels & Demons_DaVinci code_2, Terminator:Salvation-4, Transformers:Revenge of the Fallen_2 - and - so - on.

Competition drops any film popularity ratings, as Hugh Jackman or Jim Cameron - they'll point to the distributors for missing the US July 4th tickets potential and more.

When i sat in that seat, i wrapped my mind around a quick timetravel ride to my OWN teenager life "'moods & swings" and completely forgot Trek as it was because i've been warned by a superb pub tag line by Paramount "This isn't your father's Star Trek" and when i got out reality punched me right back to the present with a mindset i can only thank them for.

I'll gladly agree with this reasoning but not because complexity is absent from the story by Orci/Kurztman though.

Kids are going to talk about this for months trying to figure out what each 10 seconds worth of scenes meant. It's called generation collisions and i'll bet parents will be convinced to provide clear answers or else, they'll dump their usual cell phones privileges (in some cases) for the summer just to see THAT twice.

To remember that this film was originally announced for 12-25-08 is like putting them off school duties for their winter long responsabilities - but they don't "think" that way, right? Stunt or not, the timing is clear... this strategy will pay off much more than we can imagine.

Rightwinger:

I really don't want to continue this argument. But the simple fact is, you are saying that because Phase Weapon and Phaser sound so similar, they must be the same. All I'm saying is that it isn't necessarily the case. The two words aren't the same like they were in your other example.

Personally, that's a change I'm fine with, but that's just me.

--

I would still like to know why Abrams decided to make this movie about Kirk and co. I personally supported a 'TNG 2' idea. Not to replicate TNG, but rather to reboot the series without rebooting the series. The movie could have had nothing to do with previous Trek at first (setting would be the same but everything else would be up to producers), it could take place in the 25th century or so...

If he doesn't care about old fans and wants to bring a new generation of fans, why is he bothering with Kirk, Spock, and so on? It doesn't seem to make sense at all.

Unless he assumes that Star Trek isn't about the setting or ideas but about the characters, and thinks the reason Star Trek "failed" (according to other posters in this topic) was going to the future away from the root characters. Which makes little sense, as from what I know, TNG did far better than TOS.

It did....in ratings; but as I said somewhere above, this was only because the right people weren't watching TOS.

When it got into syndication, it went wild. When TNG came along, it had already had 20 years, 4 movies, thousands of fan-written stories and books and hundreds of conventions, to build a fanbase. Still, the show only really took off when it became apparent that they weren't going to try and re-invent the wheel, here, only to make it better; which they did. After all, they had a much larger budget, 20 years of SFX advances, and a freer hand than the producers had back in the TOS days. They respected the history of the show, even basing a couple episodes on themes from TOS, and the fans responded.

I can't speak for him over specific decisions he made back then but i'll submit this; Paramount signed him with a script draft (IIRC, first of three) to analyze within a few months or less.

Drop your signature to this bottom line and THEN, make it worth something within reasonable direction scopes. Multiple contracts stipulate the conditions, i too haven't read any -- but Eric Bana also signed instead of Russell Crowe, etc.

Im not offended at all.  I find it humorous you take such offense at someone changing "your" original storyline.  You didnt lose anything, as you seem to like to say.  Your original storyline and original movies are still right there.  Probably literally right next to you...in the basement...next to your Facebook friend.  No one is gonna steal your Precious.

I just wanted to point out your sense of entitlement is misplaced.  Just because you and your Facebook friend are angry they didnt make Kirk walk around shirtless sexing up green aliens...oh wait, they did do that.  Just because they didnt rehash the same old story that everyone already knew, they should "fix" it for some old Trekkies?

And I'm well aware you arent the ONLY Trekkie.  I'm sure there's tens of thousands of you everywhere.  They vary from "just-barely-a-Trekkie", the ones who own DVD remastered collections of the old show all the way to full-fledged "diehard Trekkies".  You know the ones, they live in their mom's basement watching old re-runs of Boston Legal and Priceline commercials, dreaming of Shatner with his top off, reliving the glory days of that Star Trek convention they took first and last girlfriend to before she dumped him for making her wear Vulcan ears and hoping she would let him neck pinch her later that night (which she didnt).  Fact still remains, they might tell you the movie was made for Trekkies, but it wasnt.  I just dont understand what all the fussing is about...

I saw it, and being a major trekkie myself (own and have seen all seven seasons of Next Generation, and have four of the seven seasons of Voyager and the remaining three on order, also saw a lot of DS9 while it was on and quite a few of the original series when they reran on Scifi. Do not speak to me about the Enterprise series, though.) I loved it because it was AWESOME. The special effects were top notch, that's the kind of ommph you have to see in the theaters! done by Industrial Light and Magic, too- they did their first work with Star Wars: a New Hope. Ships felt big and explosions felt powerful!

I had a female friend with me who had never seen any star trek, and she found it plenty exiting as well, even though she didn't get all the fan service bits.

So, it's accesible to the new folks, and just plain awesome because dispite the fact is majorly screws with the timeline, it explains everything with time travel and fun! A fresh new start for Star Trek, perhaps?

Oh, and plot's not too bad either. very few wince-worthy moments in the script.

EDIT: I mean, it's not the first time they've screwed with time for the sake of the series. When they needed to end Voyager, they just had SPOILER Admiral Janeway come back in time and give them Borg-proof armor. You can't tell me that's not the same thing, it's just they didn't have episodes from the original timeline to replace.

EDIT EDIT: It helps to think of everything happening in sequence. They're not wiping out the history we already know, that history simply led up to a series of events that changed the past, and where the past diverges is where the next part begins. There was the original series, the Next Generation era, then the events of the movie, and everything that comes after will be next.

You wouldn't.

Dude, I am not a star trek fan and never saw any of those movies before
and I couldnt figure out ANYTHING from this move except the cheap plot where 1 pissed off guy
that want to kill everyone with a mining space craft that strangly enough got enough weapons on it
to take down a federal battle ship (since when mining ships got weapons?). 

This movie didnt explained anything about all the wierd aliens with thair 60's haircuts
and all the cheap humor like with the voice recognition...

Plus when the sun turned into super nove, the aliens went like WTF
but my question was, how stupid they must have been for not knowing that its about to happen?
even today in 2009 we know how to predict the death of a sun... 

And with the most boring end I EVER saw, like in those books they print for kids
where everyone live happy ever after...(even the commander that was tortured was so freaking healthy
that I was like 0.o and I hoped they will show some nasty shit with this bug in his mouth...) 

Maybe, just maybe the main villian MODIFIED his mining ship to have weapons.

Knowing about something does not mean that you can do something about it.

You must have a very odd idea of what a healthy person looks like. They didn't live happily ever after. Spock lost his mum and his homeworld.

Modified his ship? he is a freaking miner, I dont think he got the knowlage... or the money...
And as far as I undarstand, he went back in time BY EXCIDENT, so how come he managed to prepare himself?
And about the super nova... *cough* mass scale evacuation? *cough* 
And the fact Spock lost his mother didnt efected me at all as the movie spent only about 5 second
showing her, and with 0 information about her, so she is just some side figure that you see once or twise
and as far as I undarstand, Spock is emotionless so what dose he care? 

omg learn to type... or at least learn English.

GTFO
English is NOT my main language
and unlile you, I know 3 freaking languages which i can speak (writing and reading is a whole other thing) 

whats up with all the nubs that think the entire world have to know how to tipe in english cottectly?
what cant you like imbrase the idea that not all of us are americans? 

As a fan of Star Trek, I didn't even want them to return to TOS in the first place. Or TNG. Or  I wanted them to do something different. I just didn't want them to do something different and the same at the same time- like a prequel/overwrite story. I personally feel that TNG in some terms was a reboot. But it worked because it didn't overwrite anything, it just expanded. ENT was another attempt at this, and it was not so successful.

And the movie wasn't made for Trekkies, so I'm not sure why you are pretending people are saying it is (other than other Trekkies, for instance). Whoever made the point that they (Paramount) know Trekkies will probably go see the movie anyway are correct.