New Movie: Star Trek 11 in 2008

[DaddyTorgo]

lol

[DaddyTorgo]

you're also from Cleveland

[Calis]

I just got back from seeing this. I've never seen a prior Star Trek movie, and only seen a handful of episodes and didn't care for them. I also am not a fan of Lost at all, so the JJ Abrams angle didn't save it for me. The only experience I really have with the universe was playing some Next Generation game on I believe it was the Genesis. That game rocked.

The people who put together the trailer did an excellent job though, and I was actually pretty excited to see this. Overall I'd say it was a very fun summer blockbuster type movie. Great special effects, some good one-liners, and decent acting for the most part.

Obviously I don't have the least bit of interest in the timeline or any tinkering they did with it. It did come across quite obviously in the movie though that this alternate world was setup specifically to get out of any issues with that.

My fiance went and was even less excited than me, but she ended up absolutely loving it. She wants to see it again and even wants to check out more Star Trek stuff now.

I'd say it's pretty successful and just what that franchise needed. I think fans should be happy with anything at this point, as it could not have been at a lower point. I think you'll see a lot of things spun off due to this movie.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Calis

I just got back from seeing this. I've never seen a prior Star Trek movie, and only seen a handful of episodes and didn't care for them. I also am not a fan of Lost at all, so the JJ Abrams angle didn't save it for me. The only experience I really have with the universe was playing some Next Generation game on I believe it was the Genesis. That game rocked.

The people who put together the trailer did an excellent job though, and I was actually pretty excited to see this. Overall I'd say it was a very fun summer blockbuster type movie. Great special effects, some good one-liners, and decent acting for the most part.

Obviously I don't have the least bit of interest in the timeline or any tinkering they did with it. It did come across quite obviously in the movie though that this alternate world was setup specifically to get out of any issues with that.

My fiance went and was even less excited than me, but she ended up absolutely loving it. She wants to see it again and even wants to check out more Star Trek stuff now.

I'd say it's pretty successful and just what that franchise needed. I think fans should be happy with anything at this point, as it could not have been at a lower point. I think you'll see a lot of things spun off due to this movie.

I guess. For me the proof will be in the sequel's though. If the sequel's continue to be as intellectually-vapid as this I'll be done with it. Star Trek was never supposed to be so "dumbed down." It was always "thinking person's sci-fi"

[Calis]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I guess. For me the proof will be in the sequel's though. If the sequel's continue to be as intellectually-vapid as this I'll be done with it. Star Trek was never supposed to be so "dumbed down." It was always "thinking person's sci-fi"

I would like to see this. I guess my enjoyment came from having almost zero expectations so I can understand being disappointed. In fact one reason I enjoyed it was for once I had no prior history and could enjoy it for what it was with no expectations.

I would love to see one that was a bit more "high-brow" though. The action scenes I actually found myself losing interest in and was waiting for more dialog or character development. I'd like to see it tackle something a little meatier, but this is quite clearly intended as a summer popcorn flick, and I'm guessing from the audiences I saw out there it's going to do very well so I would expect more of the same.

[DaddyTorgo]

exactly - and intellectually i can understand the need to make this movie this way in order to show paramount that the franchise is still viable and that they should back a sequel, just at some point i'd like it to be a little more high-brow

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I don't have any interest in Star Trek (at least not since the early movies) but after reading the wiki page, I was amazed at how bad the latter movies were. Sounds like they had to do something drastic or else this franchise would have existed solely for hard-core nostalgia.

There wasn't a ST:TNG movie that I didn't enjoy at least a little, especially First Contact. I guess I'm easy to please since I tend to not over-analyze things in movies of the fantasy and sci-fi genre.

[DaddyTorgo]

*shrug* maybe i just went into this movie with expectations too high or something

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I guess that's my complaint. It's not about ideals or philosophy anymore. It's just like any other action-movie franchise...heavy on style and light on substance.

Dude, it's JJ Abrams.

[Tigercat]

The problem with the Star Trek movies is that for them to succeed on a large level, they often have to deviate from "Star Trek." Star Trek I and IV were probably the most successful that are in line with the core principles that are "Star Trek" and yet I wouldn't call a probe attacking Earth(both movies) the ideal plot start for a movie with Roddenberry's Star Trek vision, regardless of what happens afterwords in the plot.

Final Frontier and Insurrection had the most ideal "Star Trek" plots, but were perhaps the two worst movies in the series. Wrath of Kahn is perhaps the best Star Trek movie, but, like the new Star Trek, was a space opera at heart. (WoK did perhaps have more of the Star Trek vision behind it though.)

I guess what I am saying is, the movies all deviate to some degree, and to get the maximum amount of people interested and behind these characters, the makers of this movie chose to give it one of the biggest deviations into action movie/space opera.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I guess what I am saying is, the movies all deviate to some degree, and to get the maximum amount of people interested and behind these characters, the makers of this movie chose to give it one of the biggest deviations into action movie/space opera.

Absolutely. And it'll make new fans and lots of money, which is what it is all about (it is a business). But for me, it was "eh." Casting was outstanding, and I would love to see a regular series with these actors playing the beloved characters in deeper story lines. But since the series is now just another empty, vapid action movie, I'll probably just catch the sequels whenever they hit cable. I just don't enjoy action movies like I did when I was young. Oh well.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Absolutely. And it'll make new fans and lots of money, which is what it is all about (it is a business). But for me, it was "eh." Casting was outstanding, and I would love to see a regular series with these actors playing the beloved characters in deeper story lines. But since the series is now just another empty, vapid action movie, I'll probably just catch the sequels whenever they hit cable. I just don't enjoy action movies like I did when I was young. Oh well.

yah

[Racer]

I went and saw this today having never seen a Star Trek movie or TV episode before. I thought it was good, not great. I'd probably give it a B or B+.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Absolutely. And it'll make new fans and lots of money, which is what it is all about (it is a business). But for me, it was "eh." Casting was outstanding, and I would love to see a regular series with these actors playing the beloved characters in deeper story lines. But since the series is now just another empty, vapid action movie, I'll probably just catch the sequels whenever they hit cable. I just don't enjoy action movies like I did when I was young. Oh well.

As an addendum, with the care that this crew put into the characters (for the most part) I would be shocked if they don't intend to have stronger traditional star trek themes in the sequel.

If they do only make only shoot em up SciFi movie's out of this franchise, then shame on them. There is room to do better than that.

[SFL Cat]

Thought the story and main villian were lame. However, I enjoyed it for what it was, a summer Star-Wars-esque popcorn action flick. I thought Karl Urban NAILED McCoy. Quinto was a decent Spock. Pine as Kirk...rather meh IMO!

[SFL Cat]

DOLA

I can see where Daddy Torgo is coming from. For the most part, I absolutely despise reboots. It's like someone rewriting Harper Lee's "To Kill A Mockingbird," to make it more politically correct or more "relavant" to modern readers.

[DaddyTorgo]

here's a good explanation of a scene that really struck me as totally jarring, even notwithstanding all the time travel stuff, just very "untrue" to the whole idea of Star Trek:

And speaking of emotional compromise, the scene that left the worst taste in my mouth was Kirk pushing to Spock to the brink. Now, Kirk, Scotty, and we, the audience, know that Kirk's doing this for good reason. But no one else on that bridge knows. All they see is a guy trying to make a man who has just lost his planet and his mother lash out. I could only think as I saw this scene, that if I were on that bridge, I would figure Kirk as either a sociopath who would do anything to get the center seat, including breaking a man on the worst day of his life, or someone so pissed off and "emotionally compromised" himself at being marooned on Delta Vega that he shouldn't be running their lives, either.

[Ryche]

Urban definitely most "nailed it" as far as the characters. I thought it was a lot of fun, even with some holes that have to be overlooked (how did the future black hole send vessels back in time) Wife enjoyed it too coming from a background where she really likes TNG and can't stand the original series.

I don't know if Star Trek movies really work when they try getting too intellectual. The two best original movies were based on revenge (Wrath of Khan) or comedy (Voyage Home) Neither was really that deep. It seems that when they tried very deep stories, it just didn't work in a movie format. The series were much more appropriate for this as the characters and plots had more time to develop over multiple episodes.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I guess. For me the proof will be in the sequel's though. If the sequel's continue to be as intellectually-vapid as this I'll be done with it. Star Trek was never supposed to be so "dumbed down." It was always "thinking person's sci-fi"

I'm actually kinda stunned by your reaction to this movie.

First off, the original time line was dead, Star Trek itself was dead, no more stories, no more anything. We had 5 series, some awful cartoons and 10 movies to sit back and re watch ad infinitum on TNT and TBS with their overloud commercials. Honestly, the characters you know and love so much were being bastardized and destroyed as it was.

Now I will agree that the overall "campiness" really needs to go. I was not thrilled with scotty nor the seeming push at one liners, the humor just got pushed a bit too hard.

As for being dumbed down, I didn't see that, but your idea that the old timeline was a "thinking mans sci-fi" is beyond ludicrous. Every single series and every single movie was filled with vapid "I can see the next 5 scenes coming a mile away" type writing and filming. In 40 years of Star Trek I imagine if I look hard I might find a score of episodes or even moments that were truly a "thinking mans sci fi".

This movie doesn't degrade the past, it includes it, it says the stories you know and love, the universe that you grew up knowing and understanding CREATED this new beginning, this new chance for ongoing stories with a chance to see what these characters could be "IF" things happened another way.

Obviously there are things they need to tweak, but to think this new beginning in some way shits on the fans? The only reason it exists is because of the fans, and with this new beginning is a chance to carry on Rodenberry's vision and create NEW fans, because dare I state the obvious, the current batch is getting OLD.

Its like playing a video game, you've played it for years and you have an entire world built up that you have understood from the beginning, and its BORING. So lets hit teh rest button and do it all over again.

"What far better dreams I may have dreamt, had I but dreamt something....else."

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

and yet I wouldn't call a probe attacking Earth(both movies) the ideal plot start for a movie with Roddenberry's Star Trek vision, regardless of what happens afterwords in the plot.

I might be completely missing the point, but Roddenberry wrote Star Trek I.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

here's a good explanation of a scene that really struck me as totally jarring, even notwithstanding all the time travel stuff, just very "untrue" to the whole idea of Star Trek:

And speaking of emotional compromise, the scene that left the worst taste in my mouth was Kirk pushing to Spock to the brink. Now, Kirk, Scotty, and we, the audience, know that Kirk's doing this for good reason. But no one else on that bridge knows. All they see is a guy trying to make a man who has just lost his planet and his mother lash out. I could only think as I saw this scene, that if I were on that bridge, I would figure Kirk as either a sociopath who would do anything to get the center seat, including breaking a man on the worst day of his life, or someone so pissed off and "emotionally compromised" himself at being marooned on Delta Vega that he shouldn't be running their lives, either.

I assumed that the previous scenes with Spock going all anal retentive and stupid as to dropping Kirk off on delta vega made the rest of the crew realize he was fucked in the head and also realized that kirk was doing what he was for a reason.

but perhaps I overthink things

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

I might be completely missing the point, but Roddenberry wrote Star Trek I.

Indeed, I actually saw both of those movies as being very "Gene ROdenberry-ish" He was always about the unknown coming up in our face and finding a way to deal with it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'm actually kinda stunned by your reaction to this movie.

First off, the original time line was dead, Star Trek itself was dead, no more stories, no more anything. We had 5 series, some awful cartoons and 10 movies to sit back and re watch ad infinitum on TNT and TBS with their overloud commercials. Honestly, the characters you know and love so much were being bastardized and destroyed as it was.

Now I will agree that the overall "campiness" really needs to go. I was not thrilled with scotty nor the seeming push at one liners, the humor just got pushed a bit too hard.

As for being dumbed down, I didn't see that, but your idea that the old timeline was a "thinking mans sci-fi" is beyond ludicrous. Every single series and every single movie was filled with vapid "I can see the next 5 scenes coming a mile away" type writing and filming. In 40 years of Star Trek I imagine if I look hard I might find a score of episodes or even moments that were truly a "thinking mans sci fi".

This movie doesn't degrade the past, it includes it, it says the stories you know and love, the universe that you grew up knowing and understanding CREATED this new beginning, this new chance for ongoing stories with a chance to see what these characters could be "IF" things happened another way.

Obviously there are things they need to tweak, but to think this new beginning in some way shits on the fans? The only reason it exists is because of the fans, and with this new beginning is a chance to carry on Rodenberry's vision and create NEW fans, because dare I state the obvious, the current batch is getting OLD.

Its like playing a video game, you've played it for years and you have an entire world built up that you have understood from the beginning, and its BORING. So lets hit teh rest button and do it all over again.

"What far better dreams I may have dreamt, had I but dreamt something....else."

i understand your point, and honestly maybe by the time the sequel is released i'll share it, but right now i'm just a little let-down by it I guess. i can see myself sharing some aspects of your point already, but I'm just not all the way there.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i understand your point, and honestly maybe by the time the sequel is released i'll share it, but right now i'm just a little let-down by it I guess. i can see myself sharing some aspects of your point already, but I'm just not all the way there.

Good I'd hate to have to hop a train and beat yer ass until you agreed with me

[DaddyTorgo]

lol

[DaddyTorgo]

it's funny, cuz i love all the "alternate universe" trek novellas that i've read (not mirror universe, but the new "shattered mirror" collections), so maybe it was less of that aspect of it that bugged me and more of the stuff like the fistfight on the bridge, or just haphazardly blowing up vulcan almost as an afterthought, or the spock+uhura romance?

[RendeR]

I agree with you on the destruction of Vulcan, they really glossed over that way too easily. The race that discovered Earth had warp capability and helped humanity stretch its legs in space....are now orphans...and well, ok, lets move on with life...definitely could have been written better.

The fist fight made sense to me, Kirk was a firey passionate young cadet/officer, this is recounted many times in the old setting.

The Romance sorta threw me at first, but then I remember the TOS episode where everyone gets infected by something that makes the act all drunk and stupid, and Nurse Chapel professes the fact that she's always been in love with Spock. I think they took that idea and decided to see what happens if Spock never gets his full Vulcan teachings in and has to deal with his emotional side.

[RendeR]

I certainly won't argue that there are no holes or over the top items that need addressed, but for what this movie is, a new beginning, a new doorway as someone else mentioned for us to walk through and rediscover this universe again, I think it really was spot on.

[darkenigma510]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

"not in this timeline" to me = "you wasted your time caring about the other timeline" essentially

You must not like sci-fi then.

[fantom1979]

I think the difference is (at least with Star Trek), is that the timeline always got fixed. Yesterday's Enterprise and Year of Hell are good examples of that. This does not look like it will be "fixed". A lot of Star Trek fans are having a hard time with that. I think I have come around (at least I have come around more than DaddyTorgo, I think), but I cannot blame them for being upset.

[Peregrine]

Of course the timeline won't be fixed - now they have carte blanche to make whatever they want happen - klingons turn out to be peaceful allies of the Federation? Sure, why not - alternate timeline. Need a few more planets destroyed, go for it. It's the screenwriter's dream - they can ignore all the past stuff and just do whatever they feel like.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Of course the timeline won't be fixed - now they have carte blanche to make whatever they want happen - klingons turn out to be peaceful allies of the Federation? Sure, why not - alternate timeline. Need a few more planets destroyed, go for it. It's the screenwriter's dream - they can ignore all the past stuff and just do whatever they feel like.

And t his will sound crazy but they can also feel free to kill major characters.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by rowech

And t his will sound crazy but they can also feel free to kill major characters.

And this is the point for the writers. Drama can't be successful unless there is risk. The audience won't be as invested in the suspense without a real possibility of harm, and the alternate timeline allows the writers to eliminate the notion that no matter what happens, all will be alright in the end.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by rowech

And t his will sound crazy but they can also feel free to kill major characters.

i don't doubt that that's coming - depending on your definition of "major"

[samifan24]

I have to say I really enjoyed the movie, everything except the aforementioned destruction of Vulcan, which I agree they glossed over too quickly. Otherwise I though this was an accessible reboot of a great franchise and yes, I hope it brings in new fans to Trek.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by rowech

And t his will sound crazy but they can also feel free to kill major characters.

No! I want an exact rendition of all old episodes and movies and these new movies just to contain the new actors.... How can they change everything!!!!!



/jk

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I guess. For me the proof will be in the sequel's though. If the sequel's continue to be as intellectually-vapid as this I'll be done with it. Star Trek was never supposed to be so "dumbed down." It was always "thinking person's sci-fi"

I have no idea what movie you watched. Other than the "rebooted" timeline, a lot of this was classic Trek, warts and all.

You have silly sci-fi concepts like time travel, red-matter created singularities and babbling on about transwarp and transporter mathematics. It's almost like Abrams swiped a classic TNG script. For fans of the old series, there was plenty of morality debate lessons on cheating vs. the no-win scenario and quoting of Star Fleet regulations. Thankfully we didn't have any violations of the Prime Directive to argue about.

The idea that Star Trek is a "thinking person's sci-fi" is just bizarre to me. Star Trek have always been pop-culture sci-fi. Star Trek was always at its worse when it takes itself too seriously. Star Trek as a morality play is fine but if we're going to be elite snobs about it, Star Trek was never a thinking-man's anything -- it had all the sublety of a kick in the nuts. The morality plays and methaphors were allways pretty transparent and not all the well disguised.

I say all of this being a huge Star Trek fan. I wasn't sure what I'd make of this. But of the 11 movies, I'd be tempted right now to put it at No. 1 on my list. The first movie was OK but not great. II, IV and VI were the best with the original cast. III was a disaster based entirely on fixing the ending of Wrath of Kahn. V was an unmitigated abortion. The TNG movies were decent, although there were as many turds as blossoms in there too.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I guess that's my complaint. It's not about ideals or philosophy anymore. It's just like any other action-movie franchise...heavy on style and light on substance.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

hmmm (from another board)

From Roger Ebert's 2-star review of Nemesis:

I'm sitting there during "Star Trek: Nemesis," the 10th "Star Trek" movie, and I'm smiling like a good sport and trying to get with the dialogue about the isotronic Ruritronic signature from planet Kolarus III, or whatever the hell they were saying, maybe it was "positronic," and gradually it occurs to me that "Star Trek" is over for me. I've been looking at these stories for half a lifetime, and, let's face it, they're out of gas.

I'm only picking on you for the material you quoted because it reflects a revisionist history of the Star Trek movies. Trek fans hated Nemesis -- as did everyone else. Shinzon was a pitiful excuse for a villain, a bad-guy concept recycled from some bad refected scripts for a Cathy Lee Crosby guest appearance.

Sincerely, I'm guessing you're a Trek fan who really wants to hate this. Understandable, there are a lot of Trek fans who fit into that category. Personally, I would have liked to see a prequel that fit into the original universe too. But like the Star Wars prequels, that wouldn't be as good as the originals.

If you can divorce yourself from the idea of Star Trek universe and timeline, there's a lot to like about this movie. Plenty of homages to the original series.

In fact, my only real complain is that the homages may be a bit too true to the original. Everyone seems like they are doing an impersonation of the person they are playing a bit too much. I'd like to see them make this roles more their own than simply do Shatner doing Kirk.

[DaddyTorgo]

idk that i could put it at #1...no way it beats out II or IV or VI - not even sure it beats out First Contact IMHO, although it probably beats out the rest

[DaddyTorgo]

I think I am just irritated that it didn't fit into the original timeline - although as a storyteller i can uderstand the reasoning it can't.

just wish maybe they'd taken it, fit it into the original timeline and then done 1 more sequal (on the 5 year first mission say), and then introduced a parallel crew to follow or something.

no reason it needed to be rebooted - still plenty of stories that could have been told

[Young Drachma]

I want a DS9 movie.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I want a DS9 movie.

Benjamin Sisko was the man.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I want a DS9 movie.

I would have been in favor of that, but it's never going to happen. Then again, they wrapped it up fairly tidy at the end (minus the Emissary plot- glaring problem- but that's an argument for another time). It got a proper sendoff, mostly

SI

[sterlingice]

I liked it a lot. Saw it on an IMAX here. Paid homage without being too much of fan service. Quinto was excellent but anyone who had watched Heroes already knew that would probably be the case. The guy playing Kirk does a decent job, too, I thought but as my wife said, "it's not exactly a complex role"- hard to be good, hard to screw up. As has been said, Urban just nailed it. I thought the casting was a good job all around.

Played a little more fast and loose with the science than Star Trek is typically used to but I'm also not someone who cares so much about that. Just don't bludgeon me with huge plot holes and this one did a good job with avoiding that (except for the "tossed on the ice planet part TO FIND KEY PLOT DEVICE"- that was hokey and inconsistent). Nero's kindof a crappy villain but that's not new to the Star Trek movies. Khan was from the series and the Borg queen was just an extension of the Borg and those were probably the two most "notable" movie villains.

I'd like to see it again to get some second thoughts. I enjoyed it, but I'm curious if it loses something upon another watching- is it good for a summer action movie (keep in mind the scale) or just really shiny and well polished?

SI

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by samifan24

Benjamin Sisko was the man.

This.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

idk that i could put it at #1...no way it beats out II or IV or VI - not even sure it beats out First Contact IMHO, although it probably beats out the rest

In fairness you cannot compare this to any of the previous movies OTHER than I and First Contact. Because it, like those two was the introductory movie to a new series of movies and as such it ranks very well. I think its better than I and pretty equal to First Contact.

Movies II, IV, and VI already had a depth of character to fall back on in the movie side of it, let alone the old series. SO its not fair to compare a raw beginning to a polished vehicle for trek storytelling.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I think I am just irritated that it didn't fit into the original timeline - although as a storyteller i can uderstand the reasoning it can't.

just wish maybe they'd taken it, fit it into the original timeline and then done 1 more sequal (on the 5 year first mission say), and then introduced a parallel crew to follow or something.

no reason it needed to be rebooted - still plenty of stories that could have been told

Technically DT, they DID take this from the original timeline, think through it again. Everything in this movie happened BECAUSE of the original timeline, Spock was there to give us the convenient truths =)

As to the notion that no reboot was needed and there were still stories to tell? hogwash, Star Trek was a stagnant pool of fetid muck just waiting to be forgotten without this movie.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I think I am just irritated that it didn't fit into the original timeline - although as a storyteller i can uderstand the reasoning it can't.

just wish maybe they'd taken it, fit it into the original timeline and then done 1 more sequal (on the 5 year first mission say), and then introduced a parallel crew to follow or something.

no reason it needed to be rebooted - still plenty of stories that could have been told

I think the evidence is to the contrary. TNG was a HUGE shot of adrenaline to the franchise that the films drained from it, especially V. DS9 had a lot of problems and I was never a fan, even during the Dominion War arc. To jumpstart the franchise again, they shot Voyager to the Delta quadrant to throw out the rules and create a new environment. By the time Enterprise and Nemesis rolled around, it was clear that crew was out of ideas.

Originally Posted by RendeR

In fairness you cannot compare this to any of the previous movies OTHER than I and First Contact. Because it, like those two was the introductory movie to a new series of movies and as such it ranks very well. I think its better than I and pretty equal to First Contact.

Movies II, IV, and VI already had a depth of character to fall back on in the movie side of it, let alone the old series. SO its not fair to compare a raw beginning to a polished vehicle for trek storytelling.

First Contact was the best of TNG movies but it still wasn't a great movie. Kahn was the best of the bunch because it had character and action. IV and VI were good popcorn movies but I don't think they were as good as this.

Originally Posted by RendeR

Technically DT, they DID take this from the original timeline, think through it again. Everything in this movie happened BECAUSE of the original timeline, Spock was there to give us the convenient truths =)

I reverted to my nerd roots this evening and started looking at exactly this line of thought and checking out the Trek wiki. It's actually brilliant and makes me appreciate this movie any more. Really, it's not a "reboot" -- with Spock, we know that what actually happened is that the moment Nero's ship traveled through the black hole and destroyed the Kevlin and killed George Kirk, he created an alternate timeline. Up until then, everything that happened in the movie is faithful to the orginal Roddenberry timeline. Creating an alternate reality rather than "re-imagining" of the original is not necessarily an original take (see Terminator) but it is remarkably well done.

[DaddyTorgo]

i guess...i guess *shrugs* just idk...can't help thinking about the old timeline that i guess we'll never get to play in again and that makes me sad

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

just wish maybe they'd taken it, fit it into the original timeline and then done 1 more sequal (on the 5 year first mission say), and then introduced a parallel crew to follow or something.

+1

Wife wants to see this one, son will go see pretty much anything as long as there's fresh popcorn. I'll end up going but with very little enthusiasm I'm afraid.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i guess...i guess *shrugs* just idk...can't help thinking about the old timeline that i guess we'll never get to play in again and that makes me sad

I wouldn't bet on that. There was less chance to see the old timeline before this movie than there is now. The franchise was dead creatively and financially, with the money being the most important part. If the movies are a success, there will be incentive to go back to TV and you have an excellent chance of seeing the original timeline there.

I'll admit in that respect I don't much see any difference regarding the timeline. TNG had almost nothing to do with the TOS aside from the stray reference. DS9 had a lot of crossover with TNG but Voyager was very much a standalone show that could have taken place anywhere and had no connection to the original characters. Enterprise had a lot of backstory that made it appealing to Trekkies but no one else.