[Farquard]

I have read on a few boards that this new Star Trek rates a perfect score of 10 out of 10....

I feel that 10 out of 10 is a bit high to give it universally.

Now to explain.

If one is a Trek "Purest" then this movie will not satisfy. The reason is that it re-writes Star Trek History once again. Just as ST:TNG changed the "facts" that had been set in the original series, books, and various Paramount publications. And again, in Enterprise, things were changed. Star Trek 2009 is not a continuation of the great franchise as the others attempted to continue. It is a stand alone. A movie for a new generation with a different historical story line.

If one just views the movie as from an "alternate" reality, which is a line from the movie then it no doubt deserves a great reviewer score. I can accept it as an alternative time line shift, and enjoy what is to come next. As long as the producers do not attempt to make this the "true time line"; for I, whom have watched and read everything I could get my hands on, could not accept.

If one knows nothing about Star Trek and this is their initial introduction, then they are in for an unusual and great treat. With fantastic tails to come.

[Rakulp]

Greetings,

I think that the people who will enjoy it the most will be those who, as I've said in another post, don't know a tribble from a tricorder. They've heard the name Star Trek, but have never really paid much attention.

They'll enjoy the special effects...some of the crew interaction...but then what? Where does THIS Trek go from here?

Star Trek "purists" could be divided into several catagories, and I'm not sure where people would like to put me. I've been around to see every Star Trek show/movie produced, and I've lived long enough to see it's impact on a world as a whole. Today was a conflict for me. There were certain things I enjoyed, but THAT side of me felt like I was at a funeral. The Trek I knew is no more...R.I.P.

Alternate realities make interesting storylines (i.e., the Mirror Universe)...but, as you suggested, I wouldn't want it to replace "our" timeline. Yet it has...*sigh*

It got 4/10 from me based on the entire Star Trek experience...if you only want to rate it on it's own standards, maybe 6/10.

Rakulp
"Honor Above All"

[Farquard]

Heard on TV a bit ago..

Exact quote


a J.J.Abrams HACK Job of a what should have been a GREAT revival of the series.


Also Do not call it ST:XI as JJ does not want it to be part of that series, he wants it set aside as HIS SERIES... I say he can go FRAK HIMSELF!

[ChristopherPike]

Oh dear, this is all getting a bit nasty isn't it?

I don't consider myself a "TOS purist" at all, but I did grow up watching Kirk, Spock and McCoy in the late 70's. Probably more accurate given the storyline of the movie, to call me a "Prime Universe Fan". Unlike Farquard, I never considered either TNG or Enterprise to have changed anything, or gotten their facts wrong. I've not read that many publications, but even they never stuck to a single continuity... which is why only what is seen onscreen gets counted in canon. The modern Trek series really did all the work adhering to past history in that regard... where possible - modern changes in film-making like make-up, or set design being reasonable excuses to differ.

I've still not seen the new movie, as I'm waiting for the hullaballou to die down. I'll check it out before it finishes the cinema run though... but I've more or less known its plot mechanics for a while. I do understand your resentment though. If this had featured an appearance from a major Enterprise series character, I would've camped outside the cinema since Christmas. Knowing that Paramount now have their nuTrek universe to build on, it's the abandonment of the old ENT-TOS-TNG timeline on television and film that upsets me. Star Trek has now joined the ranks of several other TV properties with feature-film reinventions. It's hard for us to accept that because they were previously continuations not rewrites.

It's no doubt a technically brilliant film, but seems to have gone too far out of its way to disassociate The Original Series from a universe that added greater depth to it.

[ensign edwards]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure Ent. is still part of the new timeline. That's about the only thing I like about the idea of changing; I love the irony that Enterprise, the one series that everyone wanted stricken from canon, is the only one that wasn't. Though I very much doubt that it'll have much impact on the timeline.

[Terilynn]

Ha! STXI is what I have called it, what I will call it, and what it is - no matter what Mr. Abrams wants us to call it. You make the eleventh Star Trek film, you're gonna get stuck with it BEING the 11th Star Trek film.

This post has been edited by Terilynn: 10 May 2009 - 04:45 PM

[Ezri]

Well, they say this weekend that Star Trek XI will make 76 million and they thought it was going to make 50 million on the weekend.

[Terilynn]

They haven't actually totalled it yet...they're LOW estimates. Sunday shows are still selling out...it's possible the real numbers will be higher.

[trekkin']

ee...the irony is sweet there...but...if they had gone back to ENT time...maybe Trip would end up alive?

Meh...Abrams can be as cocky as he wants... He'll end up at the Cons... and chased around by fans for the rest of his life. Get over it soon...buddy...or you will have a miserable life.

Oh...I say change is good. When I joined this site, we weren't even sure if a movie would be made. It looked like the end of Trek altogether. Some of the changes are kinda hard to take...like Spock and Uhura...??? Okaaay? I'm still trying to not snort at that. And the only thing that REALLY bothers me is this dual Spock thing...Other than that, I can cope. I am happy that the new cast is so brilliant...and HOT! Sweet!!

[Ben_Jamin]

Terilynn, on May 10 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

Ha! STXI is what I have called it, what I will call it, and what it is - no matter what Mr. Abrams wants us to call it. You make the eleventh Star Trek film, you're gonna get stuck with it BEING the 11th Star Trek film.

You're all to right. It's like every other reboot. Incredible Hulk was a reboot after the first film flopped, it was still Hulk 2. Batman begins was a reboot. Still Batman 5. Reboots will always just be the next film in the franchise. It doesn't matter if the producers say it's a reboot and therefore a new franchise, it's just "Yeah, it's still after the last film, it's another film in the same franchise." End of story.

[jimmyc]

The new startrek wasent really that good it had some good bits in it. But if JJ Abrams admitted he'd never watched any of the original series before starting on the movie;why did he direct the move . On the TOS and startrek 4 spocks mother was very much alive so why kill here off on this movie. MRr Checkvo dident show on TOS till the second season so why was he there on the enterprice maiden voyage .And the plant Vulcun on the TOS i never once thought that the planet blew up and iv watched all the TOS for years .Ok dont get me wrong i no JJ Abrams wanted to get more people into the move other than statrek fans that good i sopose but if he watched TOS at least once before he made the movie i think he would have done a lot better for fans and non fans alike..

PS to JJ Abrams your a good director no dout about it but not for startrek please let lenord or bill or even Nicholas Meyer he done the best one of all The Wrath Of Khan and that movie came from a episode space seed he got that right 120% thats a director thats watched TOS a lot of times i bet jimmycelt warping off