It's a good movie. Kinda fast paced, though, I think in a couple of spots they should have slowed things down a bit. I want to have a nice long look at that new bridge .

I'm not quite understanding this new audience . . .

When the new Knight Rider came out, I had hopes that it would be good - but after the first few episodes aired, I basically turned it off. I can't really put a finger on what I didn't like - but it seemed rather directionless and without focus. Too much chattering of the minor characters, not enough substance. I hope that if a new Star Trek TV show comes out, it won't be like the new Knight Rider.

I think it's pretty obvious this is gonna be a reboot - they did mention that all of this time travel stuff drastically altered events. I'm pretty sure this means a new TV show.

. . . and to those of you complaining about the long distance teleport: He wouldn't be Scotty if he didn't do the occasional miracle.

But "The Cage" was the prototype; before so many changes were made. Of course it's going to be different. It was before the Gene Coon era; Coon created so many of the things that Trek became. It was also before they got a little more concerned with actual science; for example, "dilithium crystals", in the  very beginning, were "lithium crystals". Of course, lithium actually exists, so they changed it. Same with laser/phasers.

You're saying that "Phase Weapons", or "Phase Pistols", to which they're often referred, became lasers, which bacame, in turn, "Phasers"? No, I don't buy that. Did the abbacus become the adding machine, which became the abbacus? Even though this is just a TV show, some logical progression has always been implied, and prevailed.

This implication is clearly shown throughout the series by the writers/producers, right down to the dual-nacelle design of the Phoenix, Zephram Cochrane's first warp ship in "First Contact"---32 years after "The Cage" was produced.

okay, i was far too lazy to read through the whole thread, but i just wanted to add one little thing that a lot of people here seemd to got wrong (excuse me if it already has been discussed):

there is no need to patch up the timeline or anyting after this movie - the idead was, that the romulan ship going through the black hole created an alternate timeline, i.e. it runs parallel to the original star trek timeline. this isnt made up by me, but has been explained by j.j. abrams and is backed by the old spock in the movie.

he/they did this, so that they could reboot the genre without alienating all the fans by tossing aside the well-loved and already established content. 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

Understood. But question:

How do you reboot the franchise and wipe out the entire 43-year continuity of five entire series of hundreds of episodes and ten movies (not to mention the thousands of books), without "alienating all the fans by tossing aside the well-loved and already established content"? You can't.

They did that, though, and I think that in the next movie, they'll need to go back and patch up the timeline, so that it falls back into continuity with the "real" Trek universe.

They also need to get a writer/writers and a director who respects the show itself, not to mention the enormous fan base he's playing to.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.