# Star Trek, in theaters 5/7/09



## Steve615

Date updated yet again. May 7, 7pm.

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/justthefacts_startrek.html

The trailer is loacted at the bottom of the page.


----------



## Pinion413

Thanks for the link!

We also have an ongoing discussion thread of the series as a whole for those interested.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=111862


----------



## smiddy

That looked intersting didn't it? I am eager to see this since to me it is a huge amount of foreshadowing.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I believe you can see the trailer at www.paramount.com/startrek in HD.


----------



## Steve615

Stuart Sweet said:


> I believe you can see the trailer at www.paramount.com/startrek in HD.


Thanks for the link Stuart.The link I provided also has options for 480p,720p and 1080i.


----------



## Snoofie

I thought it was a great teaser trailer. I'm concerned with the reports I've read about the liberties that are being taken with the story, but the trailer is perfect. I got goosebumps when Leonard Nimoy's voice came on right when they showed the name Enterprise on the hull of the ship.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

For some reason the HD files on the yahoo site did not play on my Mac. The ones at paramount did.


----------



## ibglowin

I think Yahoo is using WMV files. Paramount site is using QT.



Stuart Sweet said:


> For some reason the HD files on the yahoo site did not play on my Mac. The ones at paramount did.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

The file yahoo tried to access had a ".qtl" extension. I think that's Quicktime, and yet it did not work. Go figure.


----------



## ibglowin

Yep qtl is a Quicktime file.

I have hit and miss luck with Yahoo video clips. 

This one worked for me. The one thing that always seems to play is the advertisement before a video clip. That works then nothing after that!


----------



## Pinion413

Snoofie said:


> I thought it was a great teaser trailer. I'm concerned with the reports I've read about the liberties that are being taken with the story, but the trailer is perfect. I got goosebumps when Leonard Nimoy's voice came on right when they showed the name Enterprise on the hull of the ship.


I can agree with that. I've never been a fanatic, but have enjoyed all of the series that have run (Wife and I just finished T.A.S., T.N.G. is next  ).

It was a little....what's the word....chilling, almost, to see the "construction" of the ship like that, and to hear Nimoy's voice over. As much as some purists may or may not be looking forward to this movie, I for one am hoping it will be something very good that will jump-start Star Trek as a whole again.


----------



## Steve615

Hollywood's new teen golden boy (the title given to him in the attached link),Anton Yelchin is confirmed to be in the cast of the upcoming 'Star Trek' film.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/080430/2/16o53.html


----------



## Carl Spock

Not to steal your thunder, Steve, but considering principle photography for *Star Trek* (the movie's official name) ended a couple of weeks ago, this was confirmed months ago. Yelchin has been giving interviews with the press, saying nothing beyond the uniforms are colorful.

He is hot right now. You got that right. That's Hollywood. A kid barely old enough to shave is a hot ticket. Jimmy Stewart is rolling over in his grave, pausing a lot as he was prone to stuttering.


----------



## Steve615

Carl Spock said:


> Not to steal your thunder, Steve, but considering principle photography for *Star Trek* (the movie's official name) ended a couple of weeks ago, this was confirmed months ago. Yelchin has been giving interviews with the press, saying nothing beyond the uniforms are colorful.
> 
> He is hot right now. You got that right. That's Hollywood. A kid barely old enough to shave is a hot ticket. Jimmy Stewart is rolling over in his grave, pausing a lot as he was prone to stuttering.


That's cool with me Carl.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion indeed.
Besides,all I'm doing is posting new articles/press releases when I see something pop up online that I consider related to the threads.


----------



## Steve615

J.J. Abrams talks some more about "Star Trek".

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20081016/122416308000.html

9 photo slideshow and trailer at the following link.

http://movies.yahoo.com/photos/movie-stills/gallery/1176/star-trek-first-look-photos/fp#photo0


----------



## Steve615

From Entertainment Weekly earlier today:
An "exclusive first look" at the Enterprise.

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/11/star-trek-first.html

12 new photos slideshow from EW at the following link.

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20233788,00.html


----------



## djlong

Looks like the answer to "What do you get when you cross the U.S.S. Enterprise with an Edsel?"

What's with the torpedo-bullet-thingys on the front of the warp nacelles????


----------



## Stuart Sweet

There are some other critiques that agree with you, djlong. You might want to read here:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/big-reaction-to-new-enterprise-new-designer-responds/

I actually think it's a pretty successful design. I think the nacelles are a little overwrought but compared to the slim ones of the TMP Enterprise (still probably my favorite) anything will look fat.


----------



## Cmnore

I won't harbor any resentment in the matter until I see it on the BIG screen first.


----------



## Art7220

djlong:

Yeah and how 'bout Spock? Quinto looks different than he does on Heroes.

I know he's supposed to be a vulcan, but still...

I'll have to check this out on the big screen too.


----------



## smiddy

I'm still waiting in anticipation for this puppy. Time is so slow when you have to wait, eh?!


----------



## djlong

I suppose it could be worse... I'll reserve final judgement until I see it on the screen. It's just that the remastered TOS episodes had a FINE looking Enterprise with more detail - I don't know why they felt they had to muck with it.

And I really have to wonder about how much 'rebooting' will be involved here. I mean, Spock served with Pike before Kirk so the whole idea of "Star Fleet Academy Babies" had better NOT be the plot.


----------



## Cmnore

djlong said:


> And I really have to wonder about how much 'rebooting' will be involved here. I mean, Spock served with Pike before Kirk so the whole idea of "Star Fleet Academy Babies" had better NOT be the plot.


Methinks you will be disappointed.

Saw the trailer attatched to Quantum of Solace this weekend. The earthly drydock scene looked pretty freaking breathtaking. I don't know if the plot's gonna hold up, but - the imagery looks stellar!


----------



## Fontano

Was it either of the trailers from:
http://www.startrekmovie.com/

Or was it a different one.

Either way, for me.. This will be one of the few movies I go and see next year.


----------



## Cmnore

VERY different.


----------



## Fontano

Cmnore said:


> VERY different.


Well.. Then hopefully during the week, the new one gets posted.
As I don't want to spend $10 on the BOND movie, just to see the trailer


----------



## JM Anthony

I also saw it yesterday when we went to QoS. Very cool! Let the good times roll.

John


----------



## Cmnore

I left the theater with the ST trailer on my mind. NOT the movie I had just seen. I'm not sure if that was because of the movie's shortcomings, or the trailer's excellence!


----------



## Steve615

The film's official site has been updated recently.
They are now showing a new trailer on the site too. 

http://www.startrekmovie.com/


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Yes, and when you click through to the Apple Trailers site you can download it in resolutions up to 1080i.


----------



## Steve615

Variety reports that a sequel for this franchise is in the works.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118001885.html?categoryid=10&cs=1


----------



## Steve615

Another trailer has been posted on the film's official site.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/


----------



## Steve615

From Yahoo:
The film had a "sneak preview" screening Monday night in Austin,TX.
The crowd thought they were going to see *Star Trek II:The Wrath of Khan*.
Instead,they were surprised with an appearance by Leonard Nimoy,who showed up to present the new film.
Advance reviews of the screening have been overwhelmingly positive.

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/need-to-know-star-trek-crew.html

The brief mention of the advance screening is located at the bottom of that page.


----------



## spartanstew

Steve615 said:


> Another trailer has been posted on the film's official site.
> 
> http://www.startrekmovie.com/


Showed that trailer tonight on the Ultimate Trailer Show. Looked great.


----------



## dreadlk

Trailer 3 is absolutely fantastic. I am sooo ready to see this movie.


----------



## BenJF3

For fans of the Original Series, you can check out: www.startrekphase2.com

It's basically a fan made production that picks up where TOS left off. It's filmed here in upstate NY and the next episode is being shot next month. I know one of the people who works on the project and am trying to get involved with it. Download some of the episodes and check it out. George Takei and Walter Koenig have made guest appearances.


----------



## coldsteel

BenJF3 said:


> For fans of the Original Series, you can check out: www.startrekphase2.com
> 
> It's basically a fan made production that picks up where TOS left off. It's filmed here in upstate NY and the next episode is being shot next month. I know one of the people who works on the project and am trying to get involved with it. Download some of the episodes and check it out. George Takei and Walter Koenig have made guest appearances.


Yeah, they are good. I have the first one with the Planet Killer and the one with Koenig converted to DVD for personal use; need to pull the one with Takei. There's also New Frontiers, Starship Exeter and a bunch more. Some are excellent, some kinda suck.


----------



## BenJF3

The planet killers are based from the Episode "The Doomsday Machine". The guy that will be playing Spock in the upcoming episode is the understudy from the new JJ Abrams movie. Should be a good episode. Remember for working with basically a budget of nothing, I think these episodes are well done and easily hold their own.


----------



## coldsteel

Yeah, most are. Phase 2 is awesome. Unfortunately, there's some out there that are good, effect-wise, but crap actor-wise. Phase 2 is great in both areas, I feel. Heck, they even got an 'OK' from Petrick on the SFB forum, and he's VERY nit-picky about any SF.


----------



## cmtar

Why am I the only one not interested in this movie at all lol


----------



## Steve

For those who may have missed... last week's _CSI_ (OAD 4/16/09) has some very well-done _TOS_ scene recreations. /steve


----------



## smiddy

cmtar said:


> Why am I the only one not interested in this movie at all lol


I think that you are the only one who can answer such a profound question such as that. 

Me, I'm totally intrigued with it.


----------



## paulman182

cmtar said:


> Why am I the only one not interested in this movie at all lol


You're not the only one not interested.

But you are the only non-interested person to read and post to the thread for those who are interested.


----------



## koji68

cmtar said:


> Why am I the only one not interested in this movie at all lol


Well, maybe there is something wrong with you. :lol:

Just joshing! 

Personally, I'm going to the first showing with all the Trekkies and Trekkers.


----------



## coldsteel

Dude, I'm taking a half-day off.


----------



## elaclair

Our entire department is holding an "off-site" meeting on the 8th...we just haven't decided whether IMAX or Digital......


----------



## coldsteel

elaclair said:


> Our entire department is holding an "off-site" meeting on the 8th...we just haven't decided whether IMAX or Digital......


:gott:


----------



## space86

Why is Leonard Nimoy in this new movie?


----------



## elaclair

space86 said:


> Why is Leonard Nimoy in this new movie?


Um, because he CAN be??? :sure:


----------



## Drew2k

space86 said:


> Why is Leonard Nimoy in this new movie?


This is subjective, but I would argue he played the most popular Star Trek character, so it makes quite a bit of sense to bring in an "old-school" Spock to help pave the way for "new-school" Star Trek.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Why? It's critical to the plot:

DO NOT PUSH THIS BUTTON UNLESS YOU REALLY WANT TO BE SPOILED.


Spoiler



The villain of the piece comes from the Next Generation era (a little afterward, actually) and both he and Spock go back in time. Their interactions in the Original Series era allow the writers to be free from canon. Since the timeline has been altered, they don't have to be as particular about following the way things were before.


----------



## Drew2k

I do not want to be spoiled, so I shall resist. 

Yeah, yeah, resistance if futile, but I don't want to be spoiled!


----------



## Tom Robertson

May 7, 7pm. I got my tickets!


----------



## dreadlk

Saw it last night, an old HT customer invited me and the wife to a preview.
It's an Excellent Movie, but the die hard trekies are going to blow a fuse 
When JJ says reboot he means reboot.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Stuart Sweet said:


> Why? It's critical to the plot:
> 
> DO NOT PUSH THIS BUTTON UNLESS YOU REALLY WANT TO BE SPOILED.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The villain of the piece comes from the Next Generation era (a little afterward, actually) and both he and Spock go back in time. Their interactions in the Original Series era allow the writers to be free from canon. Since the timeline has been altered, they don't have to be as particular about following the way things were before.


I saw it last night and I have to say that they don't have to be particular is an understament.



Spoiler



Just off the top of my head the following episodes can no longer exist.

Where No Man Has Gone Before
The Cage and by extension The Menagerie I & II
Operation: Annihilate!
Amok Time
Obsession
Turnabout Intruder
That's just a start. We have an alternate reality completely seperate from the Canon.

AAMOF, there now will have to be a completely new "Alternate Reality Canon" or some such thing.



I really liked the movie...However, I haven't decided if I like the implications yet. :grin:

Mike


----------



## Steve

The New York Times review of the movie (they liked it, BTW) might be of interest, because it contains links to reviews of the other 10 (!) Star Trek Movies. Check it out here. /steve


----------



## Mike Bertelson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Just from seeing the interview with Leonard Nimoy on Good Morning America alone today, this is clearly a must see movie.





Steve said:


> The New York Times review of the movie (they liked it, BTW) might be of interest, because it contains links to reviews of the other 10 (!) Star Trek Movies. Check it out here. /steve


It is definitely a must see movie.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Note: NYTimes.com requires free registration.


----------



## Steve

Stuart Sweet said:


> Note: NYTimes.com requires free registration.


Ya, for certain parts of the site. E.g., I don't think current book or movie reviews require free registration anymore, but some of the archived content does. At any rate, it's a quick process.  /steve


----------



## dettxw

elaclair said:


> Our entire department is holding an "off-site" meeting on the 8th...we just haven't decided whether IMAX or Digital......


A bunch of my work group is going to the 4:05 showing of _Star Trek_ (at the Warren Theater with sit down food & bar service) today.

But I'll be home in time for CE.


----------



## machavez00

I'm going this weekend. I'll find one of the local DLP theater to see it in.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Based on the interview I saw this morning on Good Morning America with Leonard Nimoy.....this has now become a must see here.


----------



## jodyguercio

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Just from seeing the interview with Leonard Nimoy on Good Morning America alone today, this is clearly a must see movie.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> Based on the interview I saw this morning on Good Morning America with Leonard Nimoy.....this has now become a must see here.


So I guess you really want to see it now......:lol::lol:

My wife actually shocked me and has pre-sale tickets for tomorrow night.


----------



## Fontano

Went to the first showing yesterday.
Had to spend an extra $1 to see it yesterday, for a total of $12.

Worth every penny.
We will probably go back and see it again in a few weeks, as we know we missed some stuff.

FANTASTIC way to reintroduce STAR TREK to the big screen.



Spoiler



Favorite Scene: Sulu opening his sword.
Favorite Effect: The new transporter.
Favorite Sound: The Entering Warp.


----------



## dreadlk

I loved the movie while I was watching it, but when it was over and I reflected on the fact that they had just done Trekkie-Genaside, I was kind of left with a mixed feeling.



Fontano said:


> Went to the first showing yesterday.
> Had to spend an extra $1 to see it yesterday, for a total of $12.
> 
> Worth every penny.
> We will probably go back and see it again in a few weeks, as we know we missed some stuff.
> 
> FANTASTIC way to reintroduce STAR TREK to the big screen.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Favorite Scene: Sulu opening his sword.
> Favorite Effect: The new transporter.
> Favorite Sound: The Entering Warp.


----------



## Fontano

dreadlk said:


> I loved the movie while I was watching it, but when it was over and I reflected on the fact that they had just done Trekkie-Genaside, I was kind of left with a mixed feeling.


We talked about that at dinner after we finished the movie.



Spoiler



We all agreed that it was the right move.

We all agreed that our familiarity with most of the Star Trek universe, is one of it's weekness going forward. We look at things for mistakes (hey that is not right, because in episode XXX of YYY they said it was the other way), or the time-parodoxes that need to be fixed. Instead of just enjoying it.

We still have all those episodes and movies, on mediums that can't change.
We still have all the books and stories that are based on the original timeline.

But now, we have an entirely new timeline, where we kinda know the characters but the stories and all the other things can go in so many different ways.

Trek has many times told the story where there are unlimited number of timelines. So this new direction is just one of those parrel universes. The old and loved timeline is still there.



And #2:


Spoiler



Who ever thought that Spock and Ohura would be getting it on ?

At least Kirk still gets it on with stunning Green Women.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Yeah, Fontano you're right. I'm a huge Trek fan since I was really small and this is a series that just got so rootbound on its own canon, it couldn't move. It seemed that every plot had been done about 10 times. Now, here comes this movie, and you could argue that the basic plot of


Spoiler



planet-destroying madman ruins the time-space continuum


 has been done already. But it hasn't been done like this.

Freeing it from canon restraints was the best thing you could do. This is a Trek that you can walk into fresh without knowing much more than, "there's this pointy-eared dude and this other dude who gets all the women and this other dude who beams people up for a living" and still you can get a lot of fun out of it.


----------



## Rich

Stuart Sweet said:


> Yeah, Fontano you're right. I'm a huge Trek fan since I was really small and this is a series that just got so rootbound on its own canon, it couldn't move. It seemed that every plot had been done about 10 times. Now, here comes this movie, and you could argue that the basic plot of
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> planet-destroying madman ruins the time-space continuum
> 
> 
> has been done already. But it hasn't been done like this.
> 
> Freeing it from canon restraints was the best thing you could do. This is a Trek that you can walk into fresh without knowing much more than, "there's this pointy-eared dude and this other dude who gets all the women and this other dude who beams people up for a living" and still you can get a lot of fun out of it.


The New York Daily News just reviewed the movie in today's paper and gave it five stars. That rating is rarely given to any movie reviewed by the Daily News. Must be good. Can't remember the last time I saw a five star rating. Now if theaters just had a pause function I'd be there. :lol:

Rich


----------



## BobaBird

Tonight is "double Spock Friday" on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. Leonard Nimoy and Zachary Quinto will appear together.


----------



## dreadlk

I would agree that this kind of thing has been done before to some extent but lets face it.


Spoiler



JJ Abrahams has single handidly decided to rewrite Star Trek and make all the other shows done before his become nothing more than an Alternate reality dream.

What really pissed me off was the Casual way that they Just blew up V* it was'nt like they developed anything around it or even any kind of significans, it could have been any other planet and the story would not have lost any of it's impact. It was just a deliberate action to kill all the old stories in one fell swoop.



I am not sure that I agree that they had run out of Material or held to tightly to old story lines. All they needed to do was continue along going forward from the Next Gen timeline and they where pretty much free to do what they wanted.



Fontano said:


> We talked about that at dinner after we finished the movie.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> We all agreed that it was the right move.
> 
> We all agreed that our familiarity with most of the Star Trek universe, is one of it's weekness going forward. We look at things for mistakes (hey that is not right, because in episode XXX of YYY they said it was the other way), or the time-parodoxes that need to be fixed. Instead of just enjoying it.
> 
> We still have all those episodes and movies, on mediums that can't change.
> We still have all the books and stories that are based on the original timeline.
> 
> But now, we have an entirely new timeline, where we kinda know the characters but the stories and all the other things can go in so many different ways.
> 
> Trek has many times told the story where there are unlimited number of timelines. So this new direction is just one of those parrel universes. The old and loved timeline is still there.
> 
> 
> 
> And #2:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Who ever thought that Spock and Ohura would be getting it on ?
> 
> At least Kirk still gets it on with stunning Green Women.


----------



## Fontano

I disagree with your first spoiler:


Spoiler



"What really pissed me off was the Casual way that they Just blew up V* it was'nt like they developed anything around it or even any kind of significans, it could have been any other planet and the story would not have lost any of it's impact. It was just a deliberate action to kill all the old stories in one fell swoop."

But they did explain it, and why.
Per my brother in-law, who reads all the books, comics and other things, there is a bit more to the story then the movie showed.

The Vulcan's took a LONG time to decide to help save Romulus from that Super Nova. And when they decided to help, it was too late, and Romulus was destroyed.

Nero, laid blame to that on Spock since it was Spock who promised he/they would help.

Old Spock explained to Young Kirk, that Nero marooned him on that moon, so he can see Vulcan be destroyed in the same way Nero saw his planet and loved ones be destroyed.

So it wasn't "willy" nilly. If they blew up another planet, what real significance would it have had to "Star Trek". It has been done before, but Vulcan or Earth in this timeline has MAJOR significance to star trek.

But to the other comment:
"JJ Abrahams has single handidly decided to rewrite Star Trek and make all the other shows done before his become nothing more than an Alternate reality dream. "

Why is it an Alternate reality dream?
As I noted in my other reply, the theory of multiple times lines existing at the same time is almost a staple of the Star Trek experience.

So JJ, The writers of this movie, Paramount, and probably many other TREK people, decided to take Star Trek down one of these other timelines. It's not like JJ did it on his own.

So this movie, and the next "few" will go down a different timeline/path, then the past 40ish years. Doesn't make then a dream, just a different timeline/path.

One that we can still enjoy time and time again in re-runs and DVDs.



As for continuing down the post Next Generation timeline.
I think that would have been extremely difficult to do. 
Sure you could have used the Next Generation characters and did another movie in their series, folding in some Voyager and DS9 maybe.

But really, the actors are not spring chickens anymore, and for what was crafted and worked as a reintroduction of the series, I am not sure how that would have played out.

I don't think you could have introduced new characters and started an Enterprise-G (skipping F as that just didn't look right), not enough time to develop the characters for a show that thrives on characters.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Not only that, the Federation is a very evolved entity by the Next Generation era. Either you would have to have some sort of massive breakdown (a la the Cardassian war or even worse as the books portend) or it would suffer from the same dry boring feeling as _Insurrection_ which was so bad I know several people who have actually forgotten it existed.


----------



## coldsteel

Insurrection? Wasn't that a book by David Weber set in the Starfire game universe, with the Terran Federation civil war...?


----------



## Mark Holtz

A comment from Mr. List of Lists:


Spoiler



Nice. They have effective retro-conned Star Trek, pushed the cosmic reset button, and gave us a nice explanation as to why we are now in Star Trek Universe 2.

I had said months ago that either they will hit this out of the ballpark, or it will end up with egg on their faces. I wouldn't be surprised if they announce a sequel is in the works.


----------



## elaclair

Well, I grew up with the Original Series, and all that followed. After seeing JJ Abrams vision, all I can say is ...WOW!


Spoiler



All the chracters/actors were spot-on with their mannerisms and actions to keep the tie with the original timeline. But making the diverge happen 25 years in the "new" past, allows for a different character development path. Having the original Spock allows for both an explanation of the change, and to some extent closure for the original timeline.



The only thing that bothered me at all was that I kept expecting Spock to point his finger and slice open someone's head....dont' know why.


----------



## spartanstew

HERE'S  a new review for you Trekkers:


----------



## dreadlk

Stuart, I think you have what would have been a great idea, they should have knocked down the Ants Nest and let all hell break lose! After all every civilization has it's melt downs.



Stuart Sweet said:


> Not only that, the Federation is a very evolved entity by the Next Generation era. Either you would have to have some sort of massive breakdown (a la the Cardassian war or even worse as the books portend) or it would suffer from the same dry boring feeling as _Insurrection_ which was so bad I know several people who have actually forgotten it existed.


----------



## dreadlk

I see your Point But: Look at my spoiler reply.



Fontano said:


> I disagree with your first spoiler:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> "What really pissed me off was the Casual way that they Just blew up V* it was'nt like they developed anything around it or even any kind of significans, it could have been any other planet and the story would not have lost any of it's impact. It was just a deliberate action to kill all the old stories in one fell swoop."
> 
> But they did explain it, and why.
> Per my brother in-law, who reads all the books, comics and other things, there is a bit more to the story then the movie showed.
> 
> The Vulcan's took a LONG time to decide to help save Romulus from that Super Nova. And when they decided to help, it was too late, and Romulus was destroyed.
> 
> Nero, laid blame to that on Spock since it was Spock who promised he/they would help.
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> IF they had explained that in the movie it would have made a heck of a lot more sense. In the movie it's just a quick blurb that the Romulans where pissed because the Vulcans did not help them in time, so for the typical trekker who may have watched every series and Movie but not read any of the books, it seemed like WTF why would the Vulcans be helping the Romulans in the first place, last time we saw the two they where practicaly at War, the Romulans tried to invade Vulcan etc. Yes they did help in the Dominion war but that was only to save themselves from the Dominion. Last time we saw Spock was a Fugitive in hiding on Romulus! So this great leap that JJ made was based on info we should know from Trek Novels :eek2:
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 
> Old Spock explained to Young Kirk, that Nero marooned him on that moon, so he can see Vulcan be destroyed in the same way Nero saw his planet and loved ones be destroyed.
> 
> So it wasn't "willy" nilly. If they blew up another planet, what real significance would it have had to "Star Trek". It has been done before, but Vulcan or Earth in this timeline has MAJOR significance to star trek.
> 
> But to the other comment:
> "JJ Abrahams has single handidly decided to rewrite Star Trek and make all the other shows done before his become nothing more than an Alternate reality dream. "
> 
> Why is it an Alternate reality dream?
> As I noted in my other reply, the theory of multiple times lines existing at the same time is almost a staple of the Star Trek experience.
> 
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 
> It's an Alternate reality dream because the New Trek is now the only Trek! The other version of the federation no longer exists in the real world, for example you cannot have Star Trek III anymore because theres no Vulcan to resurect Spock, so therefore events in 4 and the others cannot exist. In any case they have made it possible to Null and void everything thats ever been made.
> 
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 
> So JJ, The writers of this movie, Paramount, and probably many other TREK people, decided to take Star Trek down one of these other timelines. It's not like JJ did it on his own.
> 
> So this movie, and the next "few" will go down a different timeline/path, then the past 40ish years. Doesn't make then a dream, just a different timeline/path.
> 
> One that we can still enjoy time and time again in re-runs and DVDs.
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 
> Dont get me wrong, I Loved the Movie, its probably the best one ever made except for Wrath of Khan. At the same time I feel the pain that those die hard trekkers must be feeling. They have spent a life time reading books watching episodes learning the complete world of Star Trek and keeping all the previous writters faithfull to the Time Line. Now they find everything has been nullified in one fell swoop and the Kid nest door who just saw this new movie knows as much about the Trek Universe as they do.
> _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 
> 
> 
> As for continuing down the post Next Generation timeline.
> I think that would have been extremely difficult to do.
> Sure you could have used the Next Generation characters and did another movie in their series, folding in some Voyager and DS9 maybe.
> 
> But really, the actors are not spring chickens anymore, and for what was crafted and worked as a reintroduction of the series, I am not sure how that would have played out.
> 
> Just Pick one member from the Old cast like Picard and outfit him with a new younger enterprise crew, then wait till half way through the Movie and Kill off Picard, let the younger second in command take the Helm and Dish out some revenge in a non Starfleet way and your left with a new crew that the Fans can relate to. Simple
> 
> I don't think you could have introduced new characters and started an Enterprise-G (skipping F as that just didn't look right), not enough time to develop the characters for a show that thrives on characters.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I haven't seen the movie yet... I already planned on buying the Blu ray when it is released later this year.

From what I've heard about the concept, though, I think I like it better than what I'd originally feared. I originally (a few years back when talk first began) thought they might try recasting young actors and have the "continuing" voyages of the original crew. I think *that* would have been a mistake, as we would forever compare them to the classic characters and original actors and say "Shatner Kirk would never do that"...

This way, with a diverging reality, any comparisons of new to old go out the window because this is not that universe.

It's always fun to play "what if" and wonder if original stories had different outcomes... this crew gets to do that. They can have something entirely new OR revisit something similar and put a different spin on it.

The only other alternative would have been to have "The New New Next Generation"... but I think that's been done to death. TNG was good.. I liked Voyager and DS9... and I liked Enterprise for an attempt to go backwards (I still think that show should have been allowed to continue to grow a few more seasons)... but each new future season built on the old carries all that baggage and need to one-up its predecessor... and it's bound to fail.

Consider with this new movie/direction... they could even revisit TNG with new versions of those characters at some point if they wanted. They can really do anything they want now.


----------



## cadet502

Saw it today. 4 thumbs up. Loved the casting, writing was good. I avoided reading too much about it so I didn't know what the concept was going to be. I think it was an elegant way to avoid all us geeks complaining about differences.

My 20 year old son is wanting to see TOS episodes now. Set up an SL on two different channels to catch a bunch of them. I think they're also available on CBS online. 


.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I just saw it today, AWESOME movie, I really enjoyed it, best one yet. I came out feeling all pumped up and excited. 

BTW, can we get the 2 threads combined?


----------



## Chris Blount

*Possible Spoilers ahead:*

Not a bad movie. Looks like a good "reboot" for the franchise.

Did anyone else get the apple eating joke while Kirk was taking the Kobayashi Maru test? My son and I were laughing our butts off while everyone else in the theater sat wondering why. I like the references to the old stories. Pretty funny.

Two things I'm kind of disappointed with:

1. This movie pretty much looks like all the other action movies these days. I personally am getting real tired of the "shaky camera" syndrome going on in Hollywood. Why don't they just keep the dang camera still!!!

2. Kind of disappointed with the music score. The Star Trek movies have always been known for their sweeping and majestic scores. The score for this film sounds too much like the Batman movies of the late 80's and 90's.

Other than that, a very fun movie and worth a look. I like the direction it might go. They could actually re-tell some of the classic stories in a different way. Remember, the Doomsday Machine is still out there somewhere.


----------



## LarryFlowers

*Star Trek* posted a record breaking $8.3M just for IMax Theaters in it's opening weekend. The record had been held by the "*Dark Knight*" at $6.3M.

The IMax money contributed to a weekend estimated domestic take of $76.5M, leaving Paramount execs grinning ear to ear. The Studio had estimated a $50M take for the weekend.

Apparently another good indicator of ongoing success for the movie is that Saturday's take beat Friday's.

Larry


----------



## koji68

*** May contain spoilers ****

I liked the movie but the reset left me disenchanted. I had no read anything about it purposely so I kept waiting until the end for them to find a way to restore the time line. Seems like a cheap trick so they don't have to maintain continuity but the continuity of the universe is what kept the core fans happy.

I liked Dr. McCoy and Scotty characters very much. There were many details for the core fan that were awesome. Like the explanation of the "Bones" nickname. Or the red shirt doing what red shirts do.

To me it was like eating a nice meal and finish with a nasty desert that spoils the whole thing.

I won't be following this new time line if new movies come out. I won't run to the theater or buy the DVDs. To me it has even spoiled the existing time line that was destroyed with this movie.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I don't know about ruining things...

On TNG Data's Head is something like 200+ years older than his body because he went back in time and got his head blown off and buried, then reattached to his body again in the future.

On Voyager Harry Kim was killed, but his duplicate (from some kind of magic duplicating nebula) came over before the alternate Voyager was destroyed.

On DS9, Chief O'Brien died in the future but his future self (who somehow didn't have the radiation poison that killed his past self) went back in time and assumed his life.

I guess what I'm saying is, there's a long list of in-continuity things that I'd point to before I'd consider a reboot that actually acknowledges altered timeline as ruination.


----------



## joshjr

I liked it alot. I hope they make another one. Im not a Trekie but found this movie to be very good. I will probably watch it in theaters again.


----------



## djlong

I went in with rather low expectations. I was all set to REALLY *NOT* like this movie. Fortunately, the once scene that I couldn't stand was at the beginning and there was lots of good stuff to help me forget it. When I get this on Blu-Ray, I'm going to want to rip it to my server and edit out that one wretched scene.

I have a few minor quibbles, and one moderate quibble, about the movie but the bottom line is that I *enjoyed* it and feel like it was NOT money wasted.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

After years of anticipation, my friends and family finally stepped into the theatre on May 9, 2009, to do something we thought we would never have the pleasure of doing again: watch a _Star Trek_ film. Oh, for sure we expected there to be such a film, but we didn't expect it to be a pleasure. The last two were unmitigated turkeys, and it had been 13 years since the last watchable one.

I'll presume by now that everyone knows that this is a total reboot, the first for the franchise. Unlike other bankable properties like Batman or Bond, this series has striven to take its continuity quite seriously. Ever since its second TV incarnation as _Star Trek:The Next Generation_, the series has moved away from its roots as a well-intentioned drama limited by its television budget into sprawling, epic technology-filled movies that have increasingly required a dual major in Klingon studies and warp-field theory to understand.

For the lifelong fan like me, that's a reward for over forty years of adherence to the Prime Directive. It's quite a burden for the ever-growing segment of the population that wasn't born when the series debuted in 1966. It's made Trek inaccessible for that holy grail of market research, those aged 18-34, who were born at least six years after the first show went off the air.

No, this is not your father's _Star Trek_, the ads tell you up front. This latest film compares to the earlier efforts the same way Red Bull compares to Scotch. It's fast, frenetic, and demanding, in a way that no Trek film never has been. It's a thrill-ride, 2009-style, and if you've never seen a Trek film before, worry not; you can learn everything you need to just by sitting next to a geek for five minutes.

Most of the argument about this film comes from those who now feel that their lives spent arguing Trek minutiae are now invalid, because this film ignores anything that gets in the way of the plot. Still, those who feel left out have failed to notice the literally hundreds of ways that devotion to the Trek canon has been rewarded. Whole lines of dialogue are lifted from the old series and movies; easter eggs abound from beginning to end. Watch the first scene and you'll be reminded of the first scene from _Star Trek II:The Wrath of Khan_, and watch the last scene to see Admiral Pike in a wheelchair wearing a decent copy of Admiral Kirk's uniform from _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_. Even JJ Abrams' loving exterior flybys of the _Enterprise_ remind you of similar shots used (and reused) in the first three Trek films.

The film offers one more olive branch to old-school Trekkers like myself; instead of simply rebooting as was done to Bond and Batman, there's a reason things have changed. If all that's not enough to help the old men like me embrace this film, I don't know what is. I know there are those who would have seen the canon slavishly adhered to, but let's leave the Federation for a moment... this is a film that had to make $350 million to break even. The last one made about $45 million. Paramount had no reason to make such a grand film to satisfy an aging population of Treknophiles.

By now, you've all read enough reviews to know the basic plot points, so I'll skip that and simply answer the two questions I've been asked over and over: Is it Trek enough for you, and is it any good?

Yes, it's Trek enough for me. Trek is optimism, and fun, and good humor. I know there have been some very dark bits of Trek, but in the end, Trek has always been about having a good time in a world that is better and fairer than ours. And yes, it's good. Astonishingly good in fact. Aside from a few clumsy bits that I can only attribute to Mr. Abrams style as a filmmaker, it's actually very good. It's demanding as a film, requires your attention and presumes you're smart enough to follow without a ton of exposition. The characters are fun and although there's not a huge amount of growth in most of them, they're easy to get to know and like.

Of course, no film is perfect and I must reluctantly add a few complaints. First is as I said, there's not a huge amount of emotional growth in most of the characters. The only character who experiences pain and sacrifice is the one who shows very little emotion. While Zachary Quinto does an excellent job conveying this pain subtly, this film has nowhere near the heart of _Star Trek II_ for example.

I must also show my age in writing that this film moves so darn fast, it's a bit hard to keep up. Dialogue has been pared down in favor of long effects sequences that are riveting but still decrease the connection between audience and characters.

Overall, I applaud this latest film. I'm ok with the "old canon" continuing while this "new canon" starts. I can make room in my heart for both. To end with a quote from classic Trek, "Sorta gets you right here. Or in your case, Spock, right here." (thumps hip with fist.)

Now, when's the next one coming out?


----------



## paulman182

Excellent review, Stuart. I didn't see the new movie this weekend but probably will at some point.

The first six Star Trek films are really the only movies I watch repeatedly. I do feel some sadness because those adventures now will never "really" happen, but the new movie is evidently so good and so true to the best of the spirit of Star Trek, that the sadness is overcome by the simple fact that we're seeing new, good Star Trek again. 

And as you pointed out, most of us thought that would never "really" happen, either.


----------



## Fontano

paulman182 said:


> I do feel some sadness because those adventures now will never "really" happen


But they WILL/DID happen.
Just not in this timeline / parallel universe that we are currently watching.

All that has changed is that we are not watching the same timeline.
And when you think about it, when you combine all the series together, with all the time travel arcs, we really have been watching a splintered timeline branch.

It hasn't been a straight line.

Going back to Doc Brown's explanation of timelines, the Star Trek timeline went off on a tangent many many times, never to return to the exact same one.

Even one of the GREATEST Star Trek movies IV The Voyage Home, RADICALLY changed the timeline, we just didn't know the full eventual outcome of that timeline. They go back in time, pick up a whale and bring it back to the future to change things. Not to mention all the other things that happened in that particular movie.

Look at all the times in the Trek experience time travel was involved, and it always had some sort of impact and changed the timeline.


----------



## LarryFlowers

Stuart... I couldn't have put it better myself...

I know there are some Trekkers out there who will complain and to them I have to say...

tlhap Dung 'oH

Larry


----------



## Chris Blount

Good review Stuart. 

I am of the opinion that there is plenty of room for a new Star Trek franchise. The old one played out well and will always exist for those who wish to enjoy it. 

This "new" Star Trek will not only re-energize the series but also bring in more followers. 

When I get to feeling reluctant about accepting the new Star Trek, I think of the line spoke by Kirk in Star Trek III: "Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant".


----------



## Capmeister

I was asked about problems with canon in this movie. I replied "I defer the question to Captain James R. Kirk of the United Earth Space Probe Agency."


----------



## coldsteel

Mark, I think I saw on Zap2it that they're already working on a sequel.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Capmeister said:


> I was asked about problems with canon in this movie. I replied "I defer the question to Captain James R. Kirk of the United Earth Space Probe Agency."


Ah, "Tomorrow is Yesterday". One of my top five.

I don't think the "R" was anywhere beyond "Where No Man Has Gone Before"...was it?

Mike


----------



## dreadlk

None of the things you mentioned had any effect on the time line. Data's head sat in an undiscovered Collapsed Mine for 100's of years until it was found in TNG timeline.
All the other examples you gave also had ZERO effect on the time line.

The problem with Star Trek 11 is that they have made sure to change the timeline in a Major way, so that anything is now possible.

Gene Roddenberry said that Star Trek is a optimistic Story of the Future. Many people have tried to destroy that because a bright optimistic future is "Boring". Luckily those people have always failed because the FAN base punished them for deviating from Roddenberry's vision.

So to counter the studio executives devised a Plan to make sure that whatever they created would be so big that the die hard Trekker Fan base would have to be silent while the rest of the public was handing out resounding applause.

Just look at how much money they have spent promoting this Movie, it's probably more than they spent on the last four movies combined.

I liked the movie but I am really worried about where this will all go to next, I fear that in 5 years from now we may be seeing a new Star Trek universe in both movies and new TV series that has nothing to do with Roddenberry's vision of the future but just another Dark Gloomy vision like so many other Sci-Fi shows.



Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know about ruining things...
> 
> On TNG Data's Head is something like 200+ years older than his body because he went back in time and got his head blown off and buried, then reattached to his body again in the future.
> 
> On Voyager Harry Kim was killed, but his duplicate (from some kind of magic duplicating nebula) came over before the alternate Voyager was destroyed.
> 
> On DS9, Chief O'Brien died in the future but his future self (who somehow didn't have the radiation poison that killed his past self) went back in time and assumed his life.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is, there's a long list of in-continuity things that I'd point to before I'd consider a reboot that actually acknowledges altered timeline as ruination.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Look, Roddenberry's vision was a great one, but there does come a point where it has to be more than that. The TV series already went through a dark and gloomy period and a lot of people didn't have a problem with that. 

I think the mistake would be thinking that Roddenberry's vision was the only thing there was. If that were true Trek would die... it almost did before this film was started. 

As for the purists who want to choose to ignore the new canon, I say fine. There's a lot of established canon to keep them going. However, this new film is a great way to introduce millions more people to the idea of a better, brighter future filled with tolerance and dedicated to learning. What better vision is there than that?


----------



## Drew2k

I'm skipping all discussion to post that I just printed tickets for the 9:05 PM showing tonight in the Director's Hall at my local Island 16! It's not IMAX, but it is stadium style reserved seating and does have wait service at the push of a button. 

Can't wait to join in on the discussion!


----------



## dreadlk

*SPOILERS*

You have plenty of shows out there that are already"More than that" for example Terminator gives another vision of the future, so does a few dozen other series and movies. Point is, why has Roddenberry's vision lasted so long while other have faded? Why go out and Destroy it when you can just as easily go and make a Brand new show based on something else! Not that they have destroyed the Trek vision yet, but it's whats coming next that I fear.

Stuart I loved the movie but I think the Destroying of V* added nothing to the Movie, it could have been any other Planet and once you added the words "Earth is Next" you would have had the same impact! JJ and the Studio only killed V* so that they had a blank slate to change everything else in the future movies.

There is this very annoying assumption dloating around that you had to change the time line to make the movie be good! I see nothing in this movie that benefited from the timeline being changed! Please let me know of a scene in the Movie that gained something by it? Kirks Father as far as the shows are concerned was never even mentioned so his outcome could have been exactly what we saw in ST-11.

Pike, who cared!

Soo little is known about Young Kirk and Spock (Geeky books not included) that they could have easily made three movies of this same caliber without changing the Timeline.



Stuart Sweet said:


> Look, Roddenberry's vision was a great one, but there does come a point where it has to be more than that. The TV series already went through a dark and gloomy period and a lot of people didn't have a problem with that.
> 
> I think the mistake would be thinking that Roddenberry's vision was the only thing there was. If that were true Trek would die... it almost did before this film was started.
> 
> As for the purists who want to choose to ignore the new canon, I say fine. There's a lot of established canon to keep them going. However, this new film is a great way to introduce millions more people to the idea of a better, brighter future filled with tolerance and dedicated to learning. What better vision is there than that?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

dreadlk said:


> None of the things you mentioned had any effect on the time line. Data's head sat in an undiscovered Collapsed Mine for 100's of years until it was found in TNG timeline.
> All the other examples you gave also had ZERO effect on the time line.
> 
> The problem with Star Trek 11 is that they have made sure to change the timeline in a Major way, so that anything is now possible.


I left out one of the Granddaddy timescrews of them all...

In "Yesterday's Enterprise" a ship from the past comes to the future... Everything is immediately changed, and the Enterprise is a warship and Tasha Yar is no longer dead!

So... the episode ends with the out-of-time ship going back to the past BUT taking Tasha Yar with them...

Somehow the should-be-dead Tasha is alive in the past, mates with a Romulan, and has a daughter that comes back and plagues the Enterprise crew again later.

I'd have to say that one pretty much altered the timestream.

I'm all about continuity and credibility... but this particular new movie was essentially designed to offshoot an alternate reality, so I find it hard to complain about that unless the movie was awful.


----------



## paulman182

I believe that changing the timeline was the only acceptable way to make a new movie series about the original characters and I applaud Abrams and the writers for coming up with the idea.

Otherwise, every second of every new movie would be under a microscope as we search for "cannonical violations" which would disappoint us if present, and effectively straight-jacket the filmmakers if they were not.


----------



## djlong

dreadlk said:


> *SPOILERS*
> ...
> I loved the movie but I think the Destroying of V* added nothing to the Movie, it could have been any other Planet and once you added the words "Earth is Next" you would have had the same impact! JJ and the Studio only killed V* so that they had a blank slate to change everything else in the future movies.


I think the destruction of *that* *particular* *place* was designed to highlight with a radioactive neon Sharpie pen that this is NOT the old Star Trek and that, indeed, this is a "reboot"


----------



## Mike Bertelson

djlong said:


> I think the destruction of *that* *particular* *place* was designed to highlight with a radioactive neon Sharpie pen that this is NOT the old Star Trek and that, indeed, this is a "reboot"


Absolutely true.

After this there can be no doubt that this is new. It's not Star Trek...but it is now. :grin:



Spoiler



My hope is that it doesn't get glossed over in future installments. I don't want to see what's left of the Vulcan race to find a new planet to colonize and everything be hunky-dorey with the same status they hold in version 1...IOW there needs to be some conflict; some suffering; the nomads of the galaxy clawing to retain identity while relying on UFP to support and defend them in Rev A. Ok, a bit melodramatic but you get the point. 



I absolutely loved this movie but I was on the fence about the implications. I now think this is the ideal situation. We have the familiarity of characters and setting while getting completely new stories to follow.

Heck, if we're lucky we could have a new TV series. 

Mike


----------



## Steve615

From vh1.com & MTV News:
J.J. Abrams and company are ready to continue in the "alternate reality" the reboot created.
At least one sequel is already in the works for this franchise.
Summer 2011 is the current timeframe for the sequel to hit theaters.
The sequel will deal with an "unpredictable future".

http://www.vh1.com/movies/news/articles/1611063/20090511/story.jhtml

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/03/31/star-trek-sequel-announced-before-franchise-reboot-hits-theaters/


----------



## flexoffset

I'm not a Trekkie but I've seen enough episodes in passing that I know who everyone is. We saw the movie Friday night at the 9:50pm showing in an absolutely packed house. You really need a 35 ft screen or IMAX to appreciate the scale of the ships and support structures.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I have to concur with an earlier post that I have absolutely no recollection of any of the soundtrack after Kirk's car ride. 

The lens flares got on my nerves but I'm gonna try to drag my wife in to see it before it leaves the big screen.


----------



## elaclair

I had the astute privilege many years ago to spend an evening with Gene Roddenberry. If that evening showed me anything, it was that Star Trek was not Gene's only vision...and not all of them were optimistic. Gene WAS very optimistic in his views of the future, but he was also a realist. I sometimes think that people base too much of Star Trek canon on that single vision, without considering that Gene would not necessarily be upset with a less-than-happy timeline.


----------



## JM Anthony

Just got back from seeing it in Imax. What an experience! Definitely worth it.

John


----------



## djlong

Now that I've had a couple of days to digest the movie, I'd like to be able to communicate with the federation via some sort of time-warp. What would I say?

Hey - Vulcan. Have you ever heard of "planetary defenses"? Even on Earth in the 21st century we would be able to fire missiles from high-flying jet fighters to attack a ship sitting just above the atmosphere drilling us with a Ginsu Knife Mega Beam. ...and cutting that umbilical cord would be EASY. Oh - and while you're at it, have you considered things like evacuation plans, alert statuses or anything else like that?

Hey - Romulans. You have a 'drill' that cuts through a planet? Ever think of using it on ships?

Hey - Federation. For centuries, we've had a concept called "point defense". Nowadays, when someone fires torpedoes at us, we launch counter-meastures, chaff pods, throw up flak - all kinds of things to discourage the torpedo from reaching it's target? When (between now at the 23rd century) did we stop/forget and why?

And since when can shields that are allowing torpedoes to blast craters into your superstructure, turning your hull into swiss cheese, be called "down to 32%"? Anything that is allowing that kind of damage is, in my dictionary "Inoperative". Helmsman! Set shields to 'Not worth a sick dingo's kidney' setting!

At least the tactics weren't as bad as the "Starship Troopers" movie.

Mind you, I still liked it.


----------



## coldsteel

djlong said:


> Hey - Federation. For centuries, we've had a concept called "point defense". Nowadays, when someone fires torpedoes at us, we launch counter-meastures, chaff pods, throw up flak - all kinds of things to discourage the torpedo from reaching it's target? When (between now at the 23rd century) did we stop/forget and why?


I guess they forgot the ADDs and PH-3s in Star Fleet Battles...



djlong said:


> And since when can shields that are allowing torpedoes to blast craters into your superstructure, turning your hull into swiss cheese, be called "down to 32%"? Anything that is allowing that kind of damage is, in my dictionary "Inoperative". Helmsman! Set shields to 'Not worth a sick dingo's kidney' setting!


I've seen an optional rule in SFB (again) called 'leaky shields, where 1/4 to 1/5 of damage gets through.



djlong said:


> At least the tactics weren't as bad as the "Starship Troopers" movie.


They had tactics in ST? I can't remember the last time someone was that stupid. Wait, yes, the British at Concord and Lexington...


----------



## Balestrom

Long time trek fan, loved the movie!

But... can someone explain to me how Iowa came to possess a canyon? I live in Iowa, grew up here so I am pretty sure I'd know about one since the only place flatter is probably Nebraska. 

Perhaps that means that Iowa is destined for one our well known mid-west earthquakes? 

Okay, enough bashing. Like I said, I absolutely loved the movie! I really hope this kick starts the franchise!


----------



## dreadlk

SPOILERS

The Movie was so full of these kinds of things that you kind
of had to just skip over them to enjoy the movie.

I liked how "Captain" Spock leaves the Ship during a battle to go down and rescue his parents, then Spock kissing Urhura in Public, then his father professes his love for his mother, something he could not even do on his Death Bed in TNG.
Vulcan logic was nowhere to be found in the actions of these characters, only in their speeches.



djlong said:


> Now that I've had a couple of days to digest the movie, I'd like to be able to communicate with the federation via some sort of time-warp. What would I say?
> 
> Hey - Vulcan. Have you ever heard of "planetary defenses"? Even on Earth in the 21st century we would be able to fire missiles from high-flying jet fighters to attack a ship sitting just above the atmosphere drilling us with a Ginsu Knife Mega Beam. ...and cutting that umbilical cord would be EASY. Oh - and while you're at it, have you considered things like evacuation plans, alert statuses or anything else like that?
> 
> Hey - Romulans. You have a 'drill' that cuts through a planet? Ever think of using it on ships?
> 
> Hey - Federation. For centuries, we've had a concept called "point defense". Nowadays, when someone fires torpedoes at us, we launch counter-meastures, chaff pods, throw up flak - all kinds of things to discourage the torpedo from reaching it's target? When (between now at the 23rd century) did we stop/forget and why?
> 
> And since when can shields that are allowing torpedoes to blast craters into your superstructure, turning your hull into swiss cheese, be called "down to 32%"? Anything that is allowing that kind of damage is, in my dictionary "Inoperative". Helmsman! Set shields to 'Not worth a sick dingo's kidney' setting!
> 
> At least the tactics weren't as bad as the "Starship Troopers" movie.
> 
> Mind you, I still liked it.


----------



## dreadlk

Agree 100% and thats about the only purpose it had, it added NOTHING to the story.



djlong said:


> I think the destruction of *that* *particular* *place* was designed to highlight with a radioactive neon Sharpie pen that this is NOT the old Star Trek and that, indeed, this is a "reboot"


----------



## dreadlk

Almost nothing is known about this period in Trek history, they could have done just about anything they wanted without the need to interfere with the Timeline. The only exception, making the Characters Dark, Dishonest or out of Character. Thats pretty much what this movie is trying to do, Create a Kirk thats a wild cannon and a Spock that lacks logic.



paulman182 said:


> I believe that changing the timeline was the only acceptable way to make a new movie series about the original characters and I applaud Abrams and the writers for coming up with the idea.
> 
> Otherwise, every second of every new movie would be under a microscope as we search for "cannonical violations" which would disappoint us if present, and effectively straight-jacket the filmmakers if they were not.


----------



## dreadlk

It really created only a minimal change to the timeline, the survivors of Enterprise C where never heard from again in Both Timelines, it was only Tashas Daughter that survived and her character did not start to effect the Timeline till after the Events that sent her to the Past! IOW she did not come back and kill a 10 year old captain Picard.

ST-11 on he other hand changes events 200 years in the past, in such a way that anything is now possible. Do you think that Earth after ST-11 is going to be the Happy go lucky space adventures; after seeing there main partners planet destroyed by a single ship.



Stewart Vernon said:


> I left out one of the Granddaddy timescrews of them all...
> 
> In "Yesterday's Enterprise" a ship from the past comes to the future... Everything is immediately changed, and the Enterprise is a warship and Tasha Yar is no longer dead!
> 
> So... the episode ends with the out-of-time ship going back to the past BUT taking Tasha Yar with them...
> 
> Somehow the should-be-dead Tasha is alive in the past, mates with a Romulan, and has a daughter that comes back and plagues the Enterprise crew again later.
> 
> I'd have to say that one pretty much altered the timestream.
> 
> I'm all about continuity and credibility... but this particular new movie was essentially designed to offshoot an alternate reality, so I find it hard to complain about that unless the movie was awful.


----------



## dettxw

Balestrom said:


> Long time trek fan, loved the movie!
> 
> But... can someone explain to me how Iowa came to possess a canyon? I live in Iowa, grew up here so I am pretty sure I'd know about one since the only place flatter is probably Nebraska.
> 
> Perhaps that means that Iowa is destined for one our well known mid-west earthquakes?
> 
> Okay, enough bashing. Like I said, I absolutely loved the movie! I really hope this kick starts the franchise!


Did they think that no one would notice? :lol:
Looking at the filming locations listed by imdb.com I would assume that the area around Bakersfield stood in for the Iowa farmlands, but I really don't see a canyon area in the list. I noticed the very recognizable Vasquez Rocks in the film but no canyon there. Wonder if they used a place such as the Colorado river canyon at Moab, Utah as they did in _Thelma & Louise_?


----------



## Mark Holtz

They may have used the Greenscreen Rocks in Hollywood.


----------



## RobertE

Balestrom said:


> Long time trek fan, loved the movie!
> 
> But... can someone explain to me how Iowa came to possess a canyon? I live in Iowa, grew up here so I am pretty sure I'd know about one since the only place flatter is probably Nebraska.
> 
> Perhaps that means that Iowa is destined for one our well known mid-west earthquakes?
> 
> Okay, enough bashing. Like I said, I absolutely loved the movie! I really hope this kick starts the franchise!


For the canyon, I guess it could be from mining all the raw materials for the shipyard.


----------



## pfp

Good movie. One question though... has this red matter been brought up before?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

dreadlk said:


> It really created only a minimal change to the timeline, the survivors of Enterprise C where never heard from again in Both Timelines, it was only Tashas Daughter that survived and her character did not start to effect the Timeline till after the Events that sent her to the Past! IOW she did not come back and kill a 10 year old captain Picard.
> 
> ST-11 on he other hand changes events 200 years in the past, in such a way that anything is now possible. Do you think that Earth after ST-11 is going to be the Happy go lucky space adventures; after seeing there main partners planet destroyed by a single ship.


To be fair, one person's minimal is another's everything. Small changes cascade over time.

There's also Star Trek "First Contact" where the Borg go back... and we see the Borg again in "Enterprise" send a message home calling them to earth for a different reason than just because Q exposed them to the Enterprise in TNG.

Then there's all the stuff with the Mirror universe originally visited on TOS, but visited several times on DS9 and then Enterprise had a crossover with the Mirror universe that also was a crossover with the "Tholian Web" episode from TOS.

So Trek "continuity" already has at least 2 alternate universes that it had been tracking... Who's to say that this "new" one in the current movie isn't the beginning of the Mirror universe? Or just adding another to the pile.

Oh, and lest we forget the Voyager 2-parter "Year of Hell" where the main villain was retroactively wiping civilizations out of existence with MAJOR ramifications throughout the timeline... and his defeat at the end changed the timeline yet again.

Voyager had a few other temporal adventures, as did Enterprise with their Temporal "cold war"... so if Trek is consistent with anything, it is monkeying with the timeline.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

pfp said:


> Good movie. One question though... has this red matter been brought up before?


The prequel comic book tie-in is the first time it comes up.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Red_matter

Mike


----------



## paulman182

dreadlk said:


> Almost nothing is known about this period in Trek history, they could have done just about anything they wanted without the need to interfere with the Timeline. The only exception, making the Characters Dark, Dishonest or out of Character. Thats pretty much what this movie is trying to do, Create a Kirk thats a wild cannon and a Spock that lacks logic.


Right, for this movie they would have had considerable freedom without changing the timeline; but not enough freedom to keep interesting stories going for another twenty years or so of sequels.


----------



## djlong

coldsteel said:


> I guess they forgot the ADDs and PH-3s in Star Fleet Battles...
> 
> I've seen an optional rule in SFB (again) called 'leaky shields, where 1/4 to 1/5 of damage gets through.


Oh Lordy... I *have* that stuff! ...in a closet, up on a shelf, covered with dust, but I even have the boxed "Federation and Empire" strategy game...


----------



## Marlin Guy

spartanstew said:


> HERE'S  a new review for you Trekkers:


Found it. :lol:
Thanks for the direct link, Stuart.


----------



## solmakou

Best scene ever:


Spoiler



Right before the credits when the crewperson got sucked out into space with the explosions blaring and right when the camera goes into space pure silence. Was really well done IMO.


----------



## coldsteel

djlong said:


> Oh Lordy... I *have* that stuff! ...in a closet, up on a shelf, covered with dust, but I even have the boxed "Federation and Empire" strategy game...


OT, but I found a copy of Module T, the tournament rules, at a local game shop for $5, in shrinkwrap... 

Want to get rid of some of that?


----------



## dreadlk

All of the time line episodes your talking about where fixed at the end of each episode with only minor changes occuring.

The parallel universe episodes where just that, it had nothing to do with changing the time line.

In Your example of "Year Of Hell", the weapon was turned onto the Krenin time ship itself and therefore it was wiped out of existance which then led everything it ever did to be undone. Thats why the Guys wife was alive again and everything was back to normal at the end.



Stewart Vernon said:


> To be fair, one person's minimal is another's everything. Small changes cascade over time.
> -snip-
> -snip-
> Oh, and lest we forget the Voyager 2-parter "Year of Hell" where the main villain was retroactively wiping civilizations out of existence with MAJOR ramifications throughout the timeline... and his defeat at the end changed the timeline yet again.
> 
> Voyager had a few other temporal adventures, as did Enterprise with their Temporal "cold war"... so if Trek is consistent with anything, it is monkeying with the timeline.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

dreadlk said:


> All of the time line episodes your talking about where fixed at the end of each episode with only minor changes occuring.
> 
> The parallel universe episodes where just that, it had nothing to do with changing the time line.
> 
> In Your example of "Year Of Hell", the weapon was turned onto the Krenin time ship itself and therefore it was wiped out of existance which then led everything it ever did to be undone. Thats why the Guys wife was alive again and everything was back to normal at the end.


That's the thing, though... one man's minor is another's major. For the bulk of the beta, gamma, & delta quadrants one planet exploding in the Alpha quadrant is a minor change.

If someone goes back in time and kills your great great great grandfather that's a HUGE deal to you... but it might very well not affect much of anything else with regards to the timeline.

In "Year of Hell" it was said that those guys had been on their "mission" for at least 100 years (time for them passed differently because they were outside the continuum)... So they were mucking with the timeline prior to when Voyager stumbled across them and ultimately put a stop to it... which means in TNG, DS9, and perhaps earlier than that... we don't know if we were seeing episodes that were affected by changes the timeship made OR "real" Star Trek continuity.

Heck.. even "continuity" within Star Trek has its problems.

I just don't see what I've heard about the new movie as being that big of a deal to the point of "ruining" as some folks think. We can always watch classic Trek, and they weren't going to have new adventures with the old actors anymore... so one might even argue that going in a completely new direction and making a radical change is a good way to test the waters and get things going.


----------



## dreadlk

I think your missing the point of what I was saying. It did not matter if they where mucking with time for One million years, the machine they created erased all time for anything that it was pointed at. The fact that the weapon imploded on there own ship; erased their own timeline and therefore everything they ever did from the moment the ship itself was created. It was all reversed, all the planets and people they ever destroyed where restored in that instant!

Hence the Final scene when you see him working on the blue prints for the ship and his wife is alive and back with him. Remember it was his use of the weapon the very first time that killed his wife.



Stewart Vernon said:


> In "Year of Hell" it was said that those guys had been on their "mission" for at least 100 years (time for them passed differently because they were outside the continuum)... So they were mucking with the timeline prior to when Voyager stumbled across them and ultimately put a stop to it... which means in TNG, DS9, and perhaps earlier than that... we don't know if we were seeing episodes that were affected by changes the timeship made OR "real" Star Trek continuity.
> .


----------



## jrwinter

today is the 15th!!!!


----------



## pfp

jrwinter said:


> today is the 15th!!!!


uh, ok?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

dreadlk said:


> I think your missing the point of what I was saying. It did not matter if they where mucking with time for One million years, the machine they created erased all time for anything that it was pointed at. The fact that the weapon imploded on there own ship; erased their own timeline and therefore everything they ever did from the moment the ship itself was created. It was all reversed, all the planets and people they ever destroyed where restored in that instant!
> 
> Hence the Final scene when you see him working on the blue prints for the ship and his wife is alive and back with him. Remember it was his use of the weapon the very first time that killed his wife.


I did get your point... but my point was, how do we know when the events that we saw in other Star Trek episodes took place? Did they take place in the time-corrected post-Year-of-Hell episode universe? OR Did they take place in the mucked-around-with universe while things were being erased.

I don't think anywhere in the most geeky of Trek geekdom is there a definitive statement on alternate timelines and temporal paradoxes that conclusively says that all episodes share one concrete timeline that is THE timeline independent of any paradoxes.

Like in Star Trek II Wrath of Khan where Khan says to Chekov, "I remember you. I never forget a face"... even though Chekov was not on the show until Season 2, and "Space Seed" was a Season 1 show. That can be a glitch OR an alternate universe 

Ok, I'm yanking your chain a bit on that one... Ultimately, if the new Trek movie is good, I just don't see how it can ruin anything else. It's good on its own and new sequels can build upon that... or it is bad and new sequels will change direction again. In either case, the old Trek is still around to re-watch... and we can wonder all we want about the Temporal anomalies...

In fact, 10 years from now they could make Star Trek 20, and in that movie someone goes back in time and stops the events from Trek 11 and brings things back again.


----------



## djlong

dreadlk said:


> Thats why the Guys wife was alive again and everything was back to normal at the end.


This is also known as "Hitting The Giant Red Reset Button At The End".

I hate shows that do that. Get me interested and invested into the plot and then, at the end, insult me by saying none of it mattered or happened.


----------



## djlong

coldsteel said:


> OT, but I found a copy of Module T, the tournament rules, at a local game shop for $5, in shrinkwrap...
> 
> Want to get rid of some of that?


I'll have to see what I have. I know I drilled out rulebooks to put things in bonders.. I've got a lot of "Nexus" and SSD books... I remember buying the original "booklets" way back when... Heck I even have the PC game that used the SFB rules for it's underpinnings. And looking to my left, I see the hint book for it - "Star Trek: Starfleet Command - Strategies and Secrets".


----------



## elaclair

djlong said:


> This is also known as "Hitting The Giant Red Reset Button At The End".
> 
> I hate shows that do that. Get me interested and invested into the plot and then, at the end, insult me by saying none of it mattered or happened.


Not to skew the topic too much, but I think the best example of "thumbing your nose" at the Giant Red Reset Button was the last episode of "Newhart" (the series where Bob Newhart owned a B&B out in the country) On that series finale, at the end Bob wakes up in bed...on the set of one of his earlier series where he's a psychologist married to Suzanne Pleshett (sp) and says "Emily, I just had the strangest dream...." Classic, just classic.

Anyway, back on topic, with the timeline reset I look at it this way, now we won't have to sit through_ Star Trek V_ or _Star Trek: Nemesis_ again


----------



## SamC

Normally I would see a ST movie on the first day, but various things kept me from it until yesterday.

Sorry, but this one just leaves me cold.

First, I agree with everything everyone has said about Roddenberry's 60s era vision of an optomistic science based future. That vision has persisted in the face of 100s of long-forgotten dark SciFi distopian drip, and I would also point out the mid level complexity which has persisted while simplistic stories of super-aliens for children as well as the overly complex goo that only hardcore geeks can follow have also died away.

So now a "reboot" where we are to accept the death of 99% of the members of, and the home planet of one of the two most important races in the series. And this does not get fixed at the end of the movie. Is there something more dark possible?

Then, we are to accept that, and here I will disagree with the list posted, that 99% of most of the TOS episodes, and every Voyager episode did not "really happen" any more.

And then, in this reset, James T. Kirk is not, as in the real world Navy, a man who earned his way to being the Capitan of a ship by a career of achievement in increasingly responsible positions, comanding a crew of people, who, again as in the real Navies of the world, ended up assigned to a particular ship over time based on fate, achievement and need, but rather a rebelious youth promoted six levels of rank based on performing well in a single event, where he was, unbelievably, made thrid, then second, then in command, despite being a cadet, with all of the other main characters likewise falling into their appropriate roles and ranks from this single event. That is, and yes this is an appropriate word for use in SciFi, unrealistic. 

I'm sorry, but just making another episode of ST with new actors would have suited me just fine.


----------



## dreadlk

SamC you pretty much have the same view as me, except I did like the Movie, but I agree Roddenberry had a vision and that vision was just killed.
Amazing how a guy creates a show that has lasted longer and touched more people than any other show ever made; yet someone comes along and messes with the Core just so they can have a greater creative license.

The sad part is that we all cheer because for at least two hours we where entertained.

Lastly if they where hoping to catch a whole new audience of younger kids at the expense of Baby boomers etc. they made a lousy trade!

Kids today have the attention span of a Gnat! 
Today it's Star Trek, next week it will be Terminator. All of my nephews etc thought that "Matrix" and "Lord Rings" was the end all be all of stories, now you can't even get them to sit down and look at it for 2 minutes, it's all so boring for them.



SamC said:


> Normally I would see a ST movie on the first day, but various things kept me from it until yesterday.
> 
> Sorry, but this one just leaves me cold.
> 
> First, I agree with everything everyone has said about Roddenberry's 60s era vision of an optomistic science based future. That vision has persisted in the face of 100s of long-forgotten dark SciFi distopian drip, and I would also point out the mid level complexity which has persisted while simplistic stories of super-aliens for children as well as the overly complex goo that only hardcore geeks can follow have also died away.
> 
> So now a "reboot" where we are to accept the death of 99% of the members of, and the home planet of one of the two most important races in the series. And this does not get fixed at the end of the movie. Is there something more dark possible?
> 
> Then, we are to accept that, and here I will disagree with the list posted, that 99% of most of the TOS episodes, and every Voyager episode did not "really happen" any more.
> 
> And then, in this reset, James T. Kirk is not, as in the real world Navy, a man who earned his way to being the Capitan of a ship by a career of achievement in increasingly responsible positions, comanding a crew of people, who, again as in the real Navies of the world, ended up assigned to a particular ship over time based on fate, achievement and need, but rather a rebelious youth promoted six levels of rank based on performing well in a single event, where he was, unbelievably, made thrid, then second, then in command, despite being a cadet, with all of the other main characters likewise falling into their appropriate roles and ranks from this single event. That is, and yes this is an appropriate word for use in SciFi, unrealistic.
> 
> I'm sorry, but just making another episode of ST with new actors would have suited me just fine.


----------



## dreadlk

Trek was good because it showed the most positive outcome that we as a species could possibly have if everything went just right! That has now been changed by a single movie. If ST gets Darker and more desperate with each passing movie, what will be remembered, the Future that Roddenberry tried to portray or JJ Abraham's version?
I think the latter will be all that kids will remember and that's sad because there are dozens of other series and Movies that all offer that same dreary expectation of the future.



Stewart Vernon said:


> -
> Sniped
> -
> -
> Ultimately, if the new Trek movie is good, I just don't see how it can ruin anything else. It's good on its own and new sequels can build upon that... or it is bad and new sequels will change direction again. In either case, the old Trek is still around to re-watch... and we can wonder all we want about the Temporal anomalies...
> 
> In fact, 10 years from now they could make Star Trek 20, and in that movie someone goes back in time and stops the events from Trek 11 and brings things back again.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

To be fair, the Star Trek that aired has never really been Gene's original vision. His original vision was a bit more evident in the original pilot... which the network suits didn't like... and made him make some changes (like not having a woman be 2nd in command... Gene really was ahead of his time).

There were also compromises made for marketing and tie-ins... like the infamous IDIC pin for Spock that was essentially created and written into the original series just to sell a trinket.

So while I respect Gene and am glad he was around and invented Trek for us to enjoy in all the incarnations... I can't pretend it has always been true to his vision and solely meant to portray positive human development. It really is just a TV show. A good one, mind you


----------



## Dr_J

I love time travel stories in general. However, I'm having a hard time coming to grips with the staggering implications of what I saw yesterday. I'm now supposed to believe that the Star Trek universe going forward from even before the time of TOS will not have a planet Vulcan, and that there are now only a handful of Vulcans left in the universe? Love 'em or hate 'em, there is no Star Trek without planet Vulcan as far as I'm concerned.

Time travel and alternate reality stories in general are loads of fun and usually give glimpses into not-so-rosy alternate outcomes, sorta like during the Xindi war in "Enterprise" where the Xindi actually carry out their plan to destroy Earth and then wipe out every last human in the universe. Then at the last minute, the normal timeline is restored, and life goes on. However, that's not what happens here. I was hoping that the Enterprise would get sucked into that black hole, and when they emerged on the other side, the normal timeline would be restored. (Hey, if the Romulan ship and Spock's tiny ship could make it through a black hole in one piece, why not the Enterprise?) However, they blasted free, and now we're stuck in this new timeline without Vulcan. It's just hard to believe and comprehend. If there are going to be future movies, in what direction are they going to go? I would love for them to go and restore the timeline, but that's probably wishful thinking.

The movie itself was fine and exciting--it had it's moments. I loved seeing Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru test. It was alluded to in "The Wrath of Khan" that he cheated to win, and now we saw it! The actor's performances were strong, and we got to hear the Star Trek theme at the end--I was wondering when we were going to hear it. After 6 1/2 years of no new movies and 4 years of no new TV series, it was great to see some new Star Trek again. However, the implications of this new alternate timeline cast a very large shadow over the whole thing, IMHO.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

From an enjoyment perspective, I love time travel stories when done right.

From a writer's perspective, however, most time travel stories violate a pretty big part of good storytelling.

Generally speaking, one goal of a story is that characters in the story change and grow and are somehow different (better or worse) for their adventures. In the time travel stories where the original timeline is restored by the end of the tale, it is arguable whether anybody really learned anything because the story ends where it began with nothing changed... and often many of the people involved don't even keep a memory of the altered timeline once corrected.


----------



## space86

Would Benicio del Toro be a good actor to play Khan in the sequel?


----------



## dreadlk

Also Spock will be Really DEAD after Wrath of Khan!
No Vulcan temple to revive him.



elaclair said:


> Anyway, back on topic, with the timeline reset I look at it this way, now we won't have to sit through_ Star Trek V_ or _Star Trek: Nemesis_ again


----------



## paulman182

dreadlk said:


> Also Spock will be Really DEAD after Wrath of Khan!
> No Vulcan temple to revive him.


Maybe this is meant in a humorous way, and if so I apologize, but you do realize that in the new universe Kahn might be killed in a car wreck as an infant? Or be elected president? Or whatever?

That's what the creation of this timeline allows, infinite possibilities.

Now they won't have to endlessly remake the originals, or tiptoe around them to avoid breaking continuity.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

paulman182 said:


> Maybe this is meant in a humorous way, and if so I apologize, but you do realize that in the new universe Kahn might be killed in a car wreck as an infant? Or be elected president? Or whatever?
> 
> That's what the creation of this timeline allows, infinite possibilities.
> 
> Now they won't have to endlessly remake the originals, or tiptoe around them to avoid breaking continuity.


Actually, Kahn had been frozen onboard the SS Botany Bay for nearly 250 years by the time Kirk was born.

Khan Noonien Singh and his followers escaped earth after the Eugenics Wars in the 1990's. The events that put Khan in space had happened centuries before the reboot occured.

Besides, they could bring elements of one of the best of the movies into the new timeline...I'm just sayin' :grin:

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson

dreadlk said:


> Also Spock will be Really DEAD after Wrath of Khan!
> No Vulcan temple to revive him.


Actually, Spock's Katra was reunited with his body via the Fal-tor-pan; a procedure not a temple.

One could argue there were potentially millions of Vulcans off world when it was destroyed (colonies, ships, expeditions, embassys, etc) so I'm sure some one knows the rite of Fal-tor-pan.

It's a theory...:grin:

Mike


----------



## clueless

Regarding altered timelines and temporal paradoxes I tend to agree with Janeways quote:

Ever since my first day on the job as a Starfleet Captian, I swore I'd never let myself get caught in one of these Godforsaken paradoxes. The past is the future, the future is the past, *it all gives me a headache*." -- Janeway (Future's End Pt. I)


----------



## djlong

Ok, THAT quote is the first redeeming feature [and a damn good one!] I've seen come from Voyager (just wasn't to my taste but I know some people liked it).


----------



## paulman182

MicroBeta said:


> Actually, Kahn had been frozen onboard the SS Botany Bay for nearly 250 years by the time Kirk was born.
> 
> Khan Noonien Singh and his followers escaped earth after the Eugenics Wars in the 1990's. The events that put Khan in space had happened centuries before the reboot occured.
> 
> Besides, they could bring elements of one of the best of the movies into the new timeline...I'm just sayin' :grin:
> 
> Mike


I stand corrected. That prevents my examples from happening, but my point is still good--there is no reason for Kahn to be in any of the new movies unless they want him to. Anything could happen to him or the Enterprise that would prevent their paths from crossing.

I agree, STII was a really good movie. But it's been done, and needs no remake, IMHO.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

paulman182 said:


> I stand corrected. That prevents my examples from happening, but my point is still good--there is no reason for Kahn to be in any of the new movies unless they want him to. Anything could happen to him or the Enterprise that would prevent their paths from crossing.
> 
> I agree, STII was a really good movie. But it's been done, and needs no remake, IMHO.


It's wide open from here. Include or not include anything they want. 

Mike


----------



## dreadlk

Yep I agree it's wide open.
If you look at it logically after your number two partner is blown away by a single ship that also happened to be trying to destroy earth, the next Logical Direction for the federation to move towards is one of extreme paranoia and Bigger and badder ships. That spells action packed movies in the future and most likely the death of ST as we know it



MicroBeta said:


> It's wide open from here. Include or not include anything they want.
> 
> Mike


----------



## Jimmy 440

We saw it today and loved it.we're goining to go see it again on Monday.


----------



## space86

Would Benicio del Toro be a good actor to play Khan in the sequel?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Just got back from seeing this gem.

Both Mrs HDTVFAN and I loved the action, the actors, the special effects, the plot, and the intent to move the movie along - a pretty quick 2 hours and 6 minutes.

Equally...the casting was brilliant, and obviously, so were the actors in playing the legendary roles. The idea of writing a script and then having new actors carry our the roles of people we've watched for 40 years seems daunting - but JJ Abrams and the cast pulled it off with flying colors (pun intended).

I had high expectations, and they were met and then some.


----------



## space86

I read online that the sequel with Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, and the rest of the new cast, will come to theaters with a targeted release date of May of 2011.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

As far as sequels go... there's actually no reason to do a "Khan" remake.. because with the major altering of the reality in this new Trek, there's no reason to believe any of the Kahn related stuff will happen.

Kahn might very well continue to float around in suspended-animation for another generation or more since it was something of a Fluke that the old-continuity Enterprise found him in the first place.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Stewart Vernon said:


> As far as sequels go... there's actually no reason to do a "Khan" remake.. because with the major altering of the reality in this new Trek, there's no reason to believe any of the Kahn related stuff will happen.
> 
> Kahn might very well continue to float around in suspended-animation for another generation or more since it was something of a Fluke that the old-continuity Enterprise found him in the first place.


IMHO, a remake of "Space Seed" would be pretty frakkin' phenomenal.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I almost said that myself... With the new continuity it actually would make more sense to revisit "Space Seed" than "Wrath of Khan".


----------



## coldsteel

Well, finally got the time to go see this. Loved every minute of it. Loved the inside jokes (ADM Pike in a wheelchair, wearing what 'suspiciously' looked like ADM Kirk's uniform in ST:TMP). Only quibble was the 'brewery' look of parts of Engineering. Kept looking for Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas...


----------



## Steve615

From variety.com:

Paramount Home Entertainment's *Star Trek* DVD and Blu-ray release is about to again go boldly where no one has gone before.

The packaging itself will include a bonus feature that opens up an interactive tour of the U.S.S. Enterprise. 

With the packaging feature dubbed "augmented reality",consumers will be able to hold their disc packaging in front of any standard webcam to unlock an interactive hologram on the computer screen,through which they can tour five cabins on the Enterprise,even shooting enemies from the ship's deck.

Users will have to log in to a website to access the feature,but they control the hologram by holding the disc packaging.

The technology has been used before for magazine covers and other types of product packaging,though this is considered a first for a major home entertainment release.

Street date for the three different DVD versions of the film is currently slated for 11/17/09.

The two-disc DVD and three-disc Blu-ray versions will also include a digital copy of the film.

More info about the forthcoming release can be viewed at the following link from Variety.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118006106.html?categoryid=20&cs=1&ref=mv


----------



## hdtvfan0001

coldsteel said:


> Well, finally got the time to go see this. Loved every minute of it. Loved the inside jokes (ADM Pike in a wheelchair, wearing what 'suspiciously' looked like ADM Kirk's uniform in ST:TMP). Only quibble was the 'brewery' look of parts of Engineering. Kept looking for Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas...


You hoser....


----------



## dodge boy

coldsteel said:


> Well, finally got the time to go see this. Loved every minute of it. Loved the inside jokes (ADM Pike in a wheelchair, wearing what 'suspiciously' looked like ADM Kirk's uniform in ST:TMP). Only quibble was the 'brewery' look of parts of Engineering. Kept looking for Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas...


In the episode the Managere wasn't he in a device that kept him alive and all he could do was answer yes or no by flashing a light once or twice???


----------



## coldsteel

dodge boy said:


> In the episode the Menagerie wasn't he in a device that kept him alive and all he could do was answer yes or no by flashing a light once or twice???


Yep, fancy wheelchair.


----------



## coldsteel

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You hoser....


Take off, eh?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

coldsteel said:


> Take off, eh?


:lol::lol::lol:

As for Star Trek - the Blu Ray is set for a November release, and the preorders have already launched it into the top 10 at Amazon.....think that one is gonna be a big seller. Best Buy also has a promo version for pre-order (with Star Fleet insignia pins), and it is selling quite well to....

...all 3 months before the Blu Ray even comes out....


----------



## coldsteel

Yep, that and a Razorback (NOT from Arkansas) are on the Xmas list.


----------



## 3dfan

As for me this movie is not bad but I doubt if they should shoot the sequel...


----------



## coldsteel

3dfan said:


> As for me this movie is nort bad but I doubt if they should shoot the sequel...


Why not?


----------



## dreadlk

From what I have read they already had a complete go on a Sequel before the first one was even released. I aslo heard that the sequel has been written and filming is not far off.


----------



## Steve615

From Yahoo Movies:

It appears that a robot named R2-D2 (from the Star Wars franchise) had a brief cameo appearance in the film. 

More info on this and some other interesting news in regards to E.T. at the following link.

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/buzz-log-r2-d2-star-trek.html


----------



## elaclair

Steve615 said:


> From Yahoo Movies:
> 
> It appears that a robot named R2-D2 (from the Star Wars franchise) had a brief cameo appearance in the film.
> 
> More info on this and some other interesting news in regards to E.T. at the following link.
> 
> http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/buzz-log-r2-d2-star-trek.html


Interesting....well my disc should arrive today. I'll certainly look for that little bugger first chance I get, and report back.


----------



## DJSix

Thanks for the link Steve, I saw R2 in the movie (47:39 roughly). Hard to believe anyone was able to spot R2.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

DJSix said:


> Thanks for the link Steve, I saw R2 in the movie (47:39 roughly). Hard to believe anyone was able to spot R2.


I finally did...by single-framing it along...otherwise....almost impossible to notice...


----------



## elaclair

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I finally did...by single-framing it along...otherwise....almost impossible to notice...


Yup, I finally found the little bugger, and you most definitely have to single-frame it....


----------



## Mike Bertelson

I haven't had a chance to watch it on my TV yet. I tried to watch the digital copy on my laptop but it doesn't show up very well.

We're gonna watch it Friday night.

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001

MicroBeta said:


> I haven't had a chance to watch it on my TV yet. I tried to watch the digital copy on my laptop but it doesn't show up very well.
> 
> We're gonna watch it Friday night.
> 
> Mike


R2D2 (from 'Star Wars', of course) can be seen floating in the debris field at the 47:39 mark on the Blu Ray version....but it pretty much takes a single frame advancing view to catch it....I stopped about 47:38 and advanced frame by frame, and then paused to see the bugger in the upper right third of the screen...it was easier to spot in on my larger Home Thater screen.


----------

