Books
Group avatar

Star Trek

It's more than just a TV show =/\=
  • Category: General | Started April 2007

« more discussions

  • New Star Trek Movie

    The new Star Trek movie by JJ Abrams is due to be shown in May of 2009. There will be a whole new crew headed by Christopher Pine (Captain Kirk) and Zachary Quinto (Spock). The first official pictures of them have just appeared and they certainly look good to me. What does everyone else think? Are you excited at this new opportunity for Star Trek to continue or have that sinking feeling that this will be the final nail in the Star Trek coffin.

    karracaz H started this discussion 1 year ago. ( reply )

52

replies
expand replies 
Sign in to participate in this discussion.
  • DOC-209

    DOC-209 

    I'm a little worried the powers that be at Paramount took a page out of George Lucas's playbook (ie, doing a prequel of sorts). I would much rather have seen a post-Dominion War DS9 or even a post-Delta Quadrant Voyager movie. With that said, I look forward to see what Abrams and company do, especially after Rick Berman milked the hell out of the franchise with the Enterprise series and the last two Next Gen movies Insurrection and Nemesis.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • karracaz H 

    I liked all the series except for Next Gen and Enterprise but The Original will always be closest to my heart so I don't personally regret the choice. Of course, there is the question of how modern (or futuristic) the Enterprise should look.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • SF_fan_mae

    SF_fan_mae 

    I would also much rather see post-war DS9, but if they had to go back to TOS, I would have preferred a plot focusing on another ship, with Kirk's (or Pike's) Enterprise involved only tangentially. I'd rather see other Federation planets and original aliens instead of dragging out Klingons and Romulans yet again.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • karracaz H 

    But didn't they try another ship and crew in the series Enterprise? That was supposed to be a new start...Archer was meant to be a kick-ass Kirk figure. Yet he turned out to be just a clone of Picard.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • Ana M

    Ana M 

    Maybe start again is the best way to bring new public to Star Trek.
    Most people only know the surface of the story.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • karracaz H 

    I'd agree with you. Starting again with young actors but using some of the most loved aspects of Star Trek will introduce it to a whole new audience. There are a lot of new fans waiting in the wings. If JJ Abrams manages to capture the magic that I saw when I first viewed the series, Star Trek may well l have another 40 odd years ahead of it.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • Tina Kubala

    Tina Kubala 

    It'll be great as long as they don't screw it up too much ;-)

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • CM S

    CM S (edited)

    I'd like to see a post Delta-Quadrant Voyager movie, but that said, I am looking forward to this movie. I saw the new Spock on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, and I was impressed.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • karracaz H 

    There's quite a few new pics out now. Look on trekmovie.com. And Empire magazine has more this month. Quinto as Spock looks the part but I also think that Chris Pine as Kirk has that pretty boy hero appeal. He's a great foil for Quinto's darkness. He also appears to have acquired that particular 'look' that Shatner's Kirk had, youth, good looks but a certain crafty quality.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • Thesally

    Thesally 

    Abrahms showed here in Spain 20 minutes of film. That movie has possibilities, I was with some friends at the cinema that day, and they shared that opinion of "Prequel no, thanks", but if they have changed their minds after seeiing that footage, maybe the franchise could rise again (I hope so ;-))

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • karracaz H 

    The second trailer is supposed to air in two days time but there is a pirated version available. I've viewed it a couple of times and it looks really great.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
    show 7 replies
    • Jeff

      Jeff 

      I just saw the trailer about an hour ago and I feel comfortable that a new generation should be able to embrace this series we love so well. The trailer I saw was a little grainy but it appears that the Earth looked damaged from the Eugenics War, and Kirks face when he arrives at what appears to be San Francisco and the Academy is priceless. Keeping my fingers crossed that the whole package plays out.

      posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
    • karracaz H 

      I liked the exciting beginning. Does that cop look like a robot to you? I think the buildings were on Vulcan. In a later scene Spock apparently beams down and rescues his parents. Doctor McCoy seems to be basically the same character, too! It is very promising.

      posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
    • Jeff

      Jeff (edited)

      Karracaz are you talking about the buildings where the young Kirk is racing the car ? My thinking was that they were the remenants of the Eugenics War. If those were the buildings you were mentioning. I think seeing Spock on Vulcan should be intresting.

      posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
    • karracaz H 

      Oh, no, I thought that was just a canyon somewhere. Vulcan comes a little later on. You see Spock beam down and then another shot of him with Sarek and Amanda with what looks like missiles being fired.

      posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
    • Mary S

      Mary S 

      I have to admit, I find the trailer very addictive. First viewing I thought it was good, but by the 2nd I had started to become obsessed with individual moments, LOL! Hoping that the "official" version will be a bit clearer visually.

      Since one would assume he starts Iowa, I had thought that those buildings in the distance might be some sort of grain storage facilities, but then again, we don't know how long or far he's been on that bike at this time, obviously headed for the shipyards.

      And as for the Eugenic Wars, it made me just realize how the discussion of the need to stick to strict canon is pretty ridiculous-- going by strict canon, one would have to be including a war that never happened 20 or more years ago as fact!

      Mary

      posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
    • Ross V

      Ross V 

      Greg Cox managed to show the Eugenics Wars in just the perfect light. I talked him a few years ago at Shore Leave and we talked about the Eugenics books and how the "war" was not one involving massive battles and such, but more a Cold War, minor battles and genocide and tribal, terroristic style wars that was going on during the late 80's, early 90's. Any damage that would be present in the scenes would most likely be the results of the Third World War, talking about in First Contact. (And personally, after 200 years, I am willing to bet most of the "damage" has been repaired).

      posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
    • karracaz H 

      Yes, Mary, I'm hoping the actual official trailer is clear enough to see some of the details. My appetite has certainly been whetted. I want more...!

      posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • Mara Jade

    Mara Jade 

    The new trailer looked really great. I hope that the movie will bring new life into Star Trek!

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • Ross V

    Ross V 

    Ok, call me a snob, but I don't think ANY movie could do justice to the Post DS9/ Post Voyager Return era as much as the more recent books have done. Whether it is Riker's Titan adventures, Bajor's acceptance into the Federation, Voyager's restructuring of the ship and separation of the crew, each of the books has breathe new life and excitement into a series that has seem to have lost it's way.

    (And the TNG / Titan books of DeCandido, Mack, Bennett, David, and Dillard have shown that, with no budget and graphic restraints, the action and destruction can be on a scale unimagined. The idea of the assimiliation of an ENTIRE Plantoid by the Borg- sorry, but that is something that could ONLY be done in the imagination).

    And as for "resetting" the TOS era- do you HONESTLY think that the Powers that Be are going to say "That's it- all that stuff in the past about Kirk and Spock and the crew- the 200+ books, short stories, and episodes- Forget they EVER happened. Now, only the NEW Abrams stuff is acceptable". Yes- this is going to be a new direction for TOS- and yes, we are going to see some HUGE differences between the two sagas- but if nothing else, it just means that we are going to be given a chance to choose and enjoy two different, yet similiar- Star Trek series- one with Shatner's Kirk, and one with the Pine's younger, more brash Kirk. Don't like one- then ignore it and enjoy the other.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
    show 1 reply
    • karracaz H 

      I'd agree totally with that. There's room in the Star Trek universe for all of us. I'm not really into The Next Gen so I don't follow that line of books. In fact, I have yet to read all the TOS books because I had a ten year hiatus out of Star Trek. Ten years worth of books takes time to catch up. I do hope that Kirk remains an honest captain. Make him brash by all means as long as there is also a softer side to him, too. I'd also agree that a movie can't go into the detail a book can. That's why I'm looking forward to a Movie Adaptation Novel. That's almost as exciting.... :)

      posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • Jeff

    Jeff (edited)

    There is an interesting article over on www.comingsoon.net that can be read at this link . JJ previewed 25 minutes of his movie...http://www.comingsoon.net/news/startreknews.php?id=50627
    Wish I had been there.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
    show 1 reply
    • karracaz H 

      I'm trying to stay clear of most of these articles now..... LOL! I don't want to know every single detail. So, I just skimmed through this article. But it does look as though the reviewer enjoyed what he saw.

      posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • Ana M

    Ana M 

    Seeing the trailer I must say that I want to SEE this movie.
    Maybe many people will think the same and it will became a blockbuster.
    I really love the Original Series and the TNG and DS9 and Enterprise. What I don't forget is the message of a better future, an optimist one that each Star Trek
    series brings within.
    I expect the same for the movie, that's all.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • karracaz H (edited)

    Apparently, there's going to be another trailer before the actual movie comes out. In that one we'll see Leonard Nimoy as the Elder Spock. JJ Abrams has a good reputation. I don't think he'll fail. Has anyone visited the Official Movie Site? It's been revamped and now carries both trailers, some nice photos, and various other information.

    http://www.startrekmovie.com/

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
    show 2 replies
    • Mara Jade

      Mara Jade 

      I'm looking forward to see a trailer with Leonard Nimoy. I'm so glad he's in the new movie.

      posted 11 months ago. ( reply )
    • karracaz H 

      It shouldn't be too long now before they release another trailer. Did you see the picture of Leonard from the movie? He looks a bit craggyier but still recognisable as 'our' Spock.

      posted 11 months ago. ( reply )
  • karracaz H 

    Another site:

    https://boldlygo.intel.com/content/index.html

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • susanbellnc

    susanbellnc 

    Does anyone else here have a problem with the fact that the kid Kirk uses the middle name Siberius?

    posted 11 months ago. ( reply )
    show 3 replies
    • Mara Jade

      Mara Jade 

      James Tiberius kirk, not Siberius. Unless he actually said Siberius in the trailer...then I would have a problem with it..since it is the wrong name.

      posted 11 months ago. ( reply )
    • karracaz H 

      They wouldn't make that mistake. Everyone now agrees that Kirk's middle name is Tiberious. It sounded like Tiberious to me in the trailer.

      posted 11 months ago. ( reply )
    • Christophe J

      Christophe J 

      I think I know what you mean, I kind of liked having that information known to just the tried and true trekers. Now everyone knows, sigh.

      posted 7 months ago. ( reply )
  • michelle H

    michelle H 

    i din't think its a nail, they are trying to capture a younger audience and we have to wait and see if they follow the higher standard of the trek universe.
    but i am wooried about redoing tos, to me that's sacred ground, none of the other series captured the excitment, although voyager came close...they should redo the next generation trek yu can only improve on that one.

    posted 11 months ago. ( reply )
  • karracaz H 

    Nooooo! I don't want to see The Next Generation. I want to see 'MY' Star Trek. Though I agree with you about Voyager.

    posted 11 months ago. ( reply )
  • Ana Santos

    Ana Santos 

    I say the trailer and took me almost all the interest to see the movie. I could only ask "Is this Star Trek?"

    For me that is an action movie that has a lot of unfortunate coincidences of names, it's not Star Treck as I know and like, it has no sowl, a lot of errors, and absolutelly no respect for the fans.

    If it is to capture a new audience it isn't the best way, whoever feels enthusiastic about that moovie will hate TOS.

    posted 10 months ago. ( reply )
  • Wide Reader

    Wide Reader 

    Film's been shown... two advanced screenings in fact. One in Stdney, Australia (the official one), and one in Austin, Texas - the sneaky one where Leonard Nimoy himself brought the film to an audience expecting to watch "The Wrath of Kahn".

    So far, reactions by both fans and newbies alike are - for the most part, possitive. So this just makes me want to watch the movie more. If you've looked at the movie's official website, I'm sure you've seen the different teasers, trailers and downloadable screen shots. Quinto looks great as Spock... others, well I guess they'll grow on me. I say this because if I read the audience reactions right - a sequel may very well be planned.

    Whether it is Trek enough remains to be seen - but at least one review said "this is how Star Wars prequels should have been done"- take it as you will, I would say this is positive for the franchise's popularity - at least, to new fans. I may agree that anyone who likes this apparently fast-paced movie, may find the TOS an entirely different experience... but at least it gets them curious to learn more about the Trek universe.

    Guess this means we won't be seeing the Titan and it's crew real soon on the widescreen - though maybe with this renewed interest, I hope we get to see said ship - and possible show, on TV (I can always hope, right?).

    posted 8 months ago. ( reply )
    show 1 reply
    • Ross V

      Ross V 

      RE: Titan on the small screen- to be honest here, I would say they are never going to be bringing Titan to the small screen. TNG has pretty much run the course of stuff they can show- and same for movies based on any other Star Trek Spin offs (DS9, Voyager, etc). Furthermore, if, by some twist of fate, Titan was to be brought to the public, everything mentioned in the books-
      new characters, plot lines, and additions to the crew (aka- the newest Riker- Troi to be added to the crew) will NOT be part of the series. (Have to realize that, since the authors have created these characters, it opens up some legal issues involved in royalities and such- one reason why Enterprise had T'Pol, instead of T'Pau).

      And as for a sequel- it is been announced that they WILL be making a sequel, even before the first movie has been aired to the general public......

      posted 8 months ago. ( reply )
  • Dog Lover

    Dog Lover (edited)

    I try to be rational. I really do.

    However, I am a dyed-in-the-wool Trekkie and I am actually anxious about the film Star Trek scheduled to be released this summer. Suffering all the real symptoms of anxiety - clenched stomach, nervous sweats, trembling fingers, etc.

    I'm annoyed about this whole attempt. Star Trek's success has always been based on the way that the future was portrayed - honor, integrity, loyalty, and the ship. Ironically, in the space-time continuum as defined by this franchise, the new film will deal with history. Admittedly, this "history" is a period in the future for us in real-life but, when you are a Trekkie, real-life has little meaning.

    The last TV series for the franchise, Enterprise, attempted this time period. I couldn't even watch past the first few episodes of that series. (I have all the other series on DVDs and have watched all of them numerous times.) Although the acting in that series was good, the writing acceptable, the obstacles faced were interesting, and it had a DOG (look at my member name) - a BEAGLE, the pet of Captain Archer (more than adequately peformed by Scott Bakula) - the technology was not appealing. Think of it - compared to real life, the technology was amazing. However, compared to the "future" Trek shows, the ship was like a school bus. I just couldn't get into it. The ship means EVERYTHING to us Trekkies. That is why I'm convinced that Deep Space Nine, although really good, just never captured our hearts as did Second Generation and Voyager. It was only after another ship, The Intrepid, and, of course, Worf joined that TV show that the viewership became as loyal as it did. Note: Hmmm. Was that ship the Defiant? Can't remember.

    I'll get the new movie once it is available on DVD but all I have to say is - "They better not screw this up!"

    I miss Roddenberry.

    DL

    posted 8 months ago. ( reply )
  • Christophe J

    Christophe J (edited)

    SPOILERS!!!!!

    Ok, now I am going to be more carefull with my lava lamp, aka red matter, don’t want to inadvertently start a black hole.

    So, …..just saw star trek yesterday, lot of lens flare they put in there. I thought the effect was good, made it seem less rehearsed, more on the move camera thing. The characters were great, the guy who did bones pulled it off well as did everyone else, loved seeing nimoy again as spock, I really think he is an awesome actor for that role.

    As far as the plot making sense, well, it can’t. The very fact the bad romulan went back into time to do what he did would change what spock would ultimately do learning from older spock what not to do when the time came.

    The fact that the time line isn’t fixed by the end of the movie is a first, they are just left in this alternate time line in which old spock does not know what happens when he was young? Just does not make sense. ....and worse, all the trek trivia we know is now tossed out the window since all events now will unfold differently? Have you no shame Mr. Abrams!

    I must also comment on the number of shuttles a starship can hold. Are they competing with the galactica for number of ships complement they can hold? I mean, geez, I remember the original enterprise carrying, two, maybe three shuttles, but, like, 15?

    Oh and lastly, why did the bad guys need that drill? A black hole would find itself easily into the core of the planet with the same destructive result without drilling a passageway there. I mean, the hole would act as the most powerful drill ....Right????!!!! I mean it would just fall through rock, it's a black hole man!

    But you know what, my very star trek ignorant girl friend absolutely loved the movie ...and I am pleased for that. =)

    posted 7 months ago. ( reply )
  • Matthew M

    Matthew M 

    First, from the standpoint of the average viewer, I agree it was a good movie.

    Second, from the standpoint of a fan I am a bit disappointed due to all of the facts Christophe J just stated. It seems like they are trying to restart Star Trek but it really breaks what is already there. Of course cannon does not apply to every media that Star Trek is in but it would have been nice that the movie would have at least tried to keep with the shows and books.

    I admit I will probably buy it when it comes out on DVD but I will not be counting it as cannon. If I did count it as cannon I think it would take away from the books I am reading now.

    The really sad part of all of this is that the authors have really made an effort to keep all of the books in cannon for approx. the last 15 years but this movie makes all of that effort void if it is counted as cannon. Unless the next movie does some more time travel and fixes this I think any future movies will be a bit disappointing to the Trek Fans.

    posted 7 months ago. ( reply )
  • Ross V

    Ross V 

    Ok, I am going to throw in my two cents on the issue.

    As a fan, I LOVED the movie. It was everything that I have been wanting to see in Star Trek but haven’t. A young, fresh faced crew brings an excitement, action, and thrills that the shows and the movies have been lacking for some time. Sure, there are a few holes in things- a kid being given a ship to command, a 17 year old in a bridge position, etc- but I find it is much more believable that THIS Kirk could do all the action and stunts that is scene on the screen (and matches what is described in many of the novels) then to picture a 40, 50, 60, and 70 year old SHATNER Kirk doing it…

    Ok, as for the “C” word- CANNON. Guess what- THIS ISN’T THE SAME KIRK!!! For me, I have no problems imagining that this is an alternative timeline, in a different, parallel universe. In this time, Vulcan is no more, the Enterprise looks like an Apple Store on Steroids, and Spock has a touch of the Jungle Fever for the ship’s cunning linguist. Therefore, this opens up a whole new REALM of exciting Star Trek stories… ones where the authors are free to make things BIGGER And BADDER. (I am picturing David Mack DROOLING over the idea of getting to write stories where this crew has to go and take on villains with force of nature schemes of galactic destruction- although after his work on the Destiny series, the body count is going to pale…).

    posted 7 months ago. ( reply )
    show 1 reply
    • karracaz H 

      I've seen the movie twice now and I have the book too. As a veteran fan of Star Trek I enjoyed the movie immensely. It doesn't follow canon because as Ross says, the time line changed once Nero went through the black hole and destroyed the Kelvin along with George Kirk. So, JJ Abrams Star Trek is an alternate universe. That doesn't affect the Prime Universe, apart from Prime Spock going missing from it. Apparently, in the Countdown graphic novel, Picard is still in existence in that universe.....!

      posted 7 months ago. ( reply )
  • DOC-209

    DOC-209 (edited)

    Alrighty, just saw the movie yesterday, so I thought I would share my thoughts.


    First of all, this was a really great movie--it was very well done and the cast seem to gel very well. There is none of the world-weariness that seem to permeate the Shatner and company later films (ie, Star Trek 3, 4, etc). The action was great (something that was lacking from the latest Trek films) and a healthy dose of humor that didn't seem forced. While this Trek universe doesn't seem to hold to the qualities that Roddenberry held dear, that very fact makes this movie seem like a breath of fresh air. Consequentially, this also helps to keep the movie from being predicable (a grievous crime that Trek films have done with alarming frequency over the years).

    This film holds closer to the classic series (and discounts all that came after), although JJ Abrams seems to have cherry picked the Trek universe for some of its best moments or ideas--for instance, the main villain Nero echos Khan in both his motivation and revenge obsessed behavior; the opening scene plays like an homage to V'Ger and the opening scene of The Motion Picture; the Seven Of Nine principal is in full flower with the actress playing Uhura, the open boiler-plate environs of 'Enterprise' are in abundance here (as opposed to the sleek, techie environs of TNG, with bridge of this movie's Enterprise being the sole exception), and the almost anti-hero portrayal of Kirk (at least early on) echos similar characters in DS9 to some extent.

    I will say this though--the bridge of the Enterprise looks like it was designed by Steve Jobs. I would say it looks Axiomized (ie, the ship in WALL*E)--all smooth corves and hovering 3-D touch screen terminals. No buttons or LCARS here. Actually, I kind of like it.

    posted 7 months ago. ( reply )
    show 1 reply
    • Christophe J

      Christophe J 

      I agree Doc, love the the new apple store on steroids bridge look!

      posted 6 months ago. ( reply )
  • Samantha M

    Samantha M (edited)

    It's great to see some intelligent discussion going on about this! I agree with most of you - it was an exciting, enjoyable movie on a movie-lovers level...and it was decent Star Trek, with its heart in the right place and a great balance of the interpersonal and intergalactic. That said, the more I think about what they've done to the timeline, the more it makes me uneasy...I'm a 24th century gal (those shows are my faves, they're the ones I grew up on), and the only way I've been able to keep from weeping when I think about the loss of Vulcan and the implications that will have for Starfleet and the Federation is to try very hard to convince myself to believe one of two things:

    1) this is an alternate timeline, a sort of mirror universe, and according to the mulitverse theory OUR Trekiverse is still out there and going strong; or

    2) changes to the timeline have a ripple effect, like a stone in a pond, and so while Kirk's voyages may be fundamentally changed, there's every chance that by 90-ish years later, when TNG begins, everything will be essentially back to "normal" (ie, canon as we know it as of March 7).

    Those anxieties aside, the casting, performances, writing and direction were excellent...DOC-209 I agree with you that the bridge, and indeed much of the ship, seemed mac-like, and a little blinding, but attractive nonetheless. I also agree about the cherry-picking of great plot devices - not just from Trek but a little from Wars as well (blasphemy!). I just went to a mini-con last weekend at a local theatre and they showed Khan and the new film back to back, and the echoes are truly uncanny, but not wholly unpleasant. Couple of things within the film did bother me though:

    -the Enterprise moves VERY awkwardly in this film. Maybe I just didn't notice it before, but she doesn't seem very maneuverable and it makes watching her around Vulcan a little uncomfortable.
    -also, Spock's dialogue (as wonderful as ZQ was) makes me cringe at points - "I too agree"? "as I once was as a child"? - COME ON! Spock is nothing if not articulate, and these are just pushing the envelope of articulate all the way into cumbersome.

    posted 7 months ago. ( reply )
    show 3 replies
    • Christophe J

      Christophe J 

      Maybe we should be thankful to abrams, I guess he could have just butchered the timeline of startrek but instead just gave himself an out by time traveling and having an alternate star trek. I guess from now on there will be two star treks? Is the universe big enough? Can give those of us who follow this a bit of a headache.

      posted 6 months ago. ( reply )
    • DOC-209

      DOC-209 

      Could be worse--if Micheal Bay had directed it, the Enterprise would have red flames painted on it and the movie itself would have been a series of explosion scences spliced together. Very Bay-tastic!

      posted 6 months ago. ( reply )
    • Samantha M

      Samantha M (edited)

      "Headache" begins to describe it, I suppose...I dunno, it just gives me a fluttery feeling in my stomach, this new timeline, I'm not sure why... will have to go for a fourth viewing sometime soon, alone, and try to be objective :) All the other times I've gone have been with people in my life who don't usually like Trek, but know I like it, so wanted to see it with me, and I think the company is colouring my judgement...

      Oh, jesus...Bay-tastic...although I'll say this, these are the very same writers (Orci and Kurtzman) who finally helped Michael Bay become a storyteller again and stop trying to be Corey from TROPIC THUNDER - they wrote TRANSFORMERS. So maybe with him, it woulda been lighter on story, but after three viewings I'm almost longing for an explosion to save my eyes from the lens flares!

      posted 6 months ago. ( reply )
  • Shannon Silver

    Shannon Silver 

    Hello all!

    I have to agree with Ross V, I also loved the movie. I was eager to see it after reading Wil Wheaton's enthusiastic review. As a hardcore trekkie and a harsh critic of some recent films (eg new star wars, fantastic four), I knew that if he didn't have any qualms with it, I probably wouldn't. In my perfect world, they'd continue making Next Gen movies, but I think this movie was just what the franchise needed. It is energized and relevant again. :D

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )
  • Mara B

    Mara B 

    I loved the movie. I think the actors did a great job. I would definetly buy it when it comes out on DVD.

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )
  • Ellen W

    Ellen W 

    The changes are enough to force any one who views Star Trek as novelizations of Star Fleet ship logs and novelizations of Star Fleet crew logs to view ST ENT and ST X the movie as happening in another alternative universe than TOS, ST THE MOVIE through ST IX, TNG, DS9 and VOY. The design of the NCC-1701 Enterprise is too different from Pike's and Kirk's Enterprise to belong in the same universe.

    posted 2 months ago. ( reply )
    show 1 reply
    • Ross V

      Ross V 

      Regarding the issue of alternative/ different universes. Actually, it is easy to explain- it is the butterfly effect, but on a galactic scale.

      It starts with the U.S.S. Kelvin. A ship that is out patrolling the galaxy. And on that ship was James T. Kirk's father- who ends up sacrificing his life, so that some may live. In the TOS timeline, Kirk's father was alive for part of Kirk's life, and was an influence on who he was to become. But in this version, he is killed- as well as the original captain.

      Two men- who's time was cut short. Now, along the way, things COULD have happened- The Captain could have, in years to come, been transferred off the ship, and put in charge of something else- maybe the shipbuilding facilities on Mars. And during his time, maybe he could have been one to hold onto traditions and favored the ship designs of the past. Thus, a few dozen years later, we get the TOS ship that is so iconic in my memories from the 60's. A ship that was build in outer space, and therefore, was designed to be ONLY flown in outer space.

      But, instead, the captain is killed- and with him, this idea of a traditional Enterprise.

      Or- it could have been someone- an ensign, a crewmember, even a visiting designer- on the ship at the time of Nero's attack that witnessed what was happening. This individual, witness the raw, destructive power of a ship almost 300 years from the future, starts to design a new class of ship that is able to stand up to a threat of this nature. They use what limited information they have, to designed- or recommend changes- to the new types of ships being planned. Gone are the straight lines and smoothed edges of the Enterprise, and instead, there is a more fluid, natural feel to the ship- almost the opposite of the ugliness of Nero's ship. And this new type of ship is built ON THE PLANET EARTH!!! It is build in a place were gravity is going to play a factor in its design- where the construction crews are having to work with the constant presence of gravity in the design, as well as making it aerodynamic enough to fly through an atmosphere to get to outer space. (And maybe the ship is even designed for future atmospheric flights...).

      So, see, it is possible to have the events from the movie- with regard to ship design- be in the same universe....

      (Although I still think parallel timeline is the best way to think of it.... )

      posted 2 months ago. ( reply )
  • To reply to this discussion, please sign in or join now.

Return to top