Star Trek 2009

I don't have an opinion about the movie yet, because I have yet to see it. But I plan to, and I'll listen to your opinions with interest.

They basically created a new history, due to the intervention of time travelling Romulans. It was OK, but I wouldn't rave over it.

It seems to me that a new history is the very last thing that the fans want.

I've seen very good reviews for it, no negatives yet.

I'm looking forward to it enough that I could be convinced to attend a theatre to watch it (a rare concession for me). Changes to the story line don't worry me in the least - I've forty years of suspending my disbelief. But I thought I heard that this one is more of a return to the original series concept, which is what hooked me for all the others (and there were some baaaad ones).

The Wrath of Khan was fabulous but the one with the whale was stupid.

and this is why unbending fanboys are the most annoying people in the world

let's face it, george lucas destroyed his entire star wars empire with 3 prequels that were actually part of the mythos not re-imaginings

re imaginings are great, take it for what it is, all the old stuff they love is still out there, nobody's burning the masters of all previous incarnations or confiscating their dvd's

i say bring it on

Sure. If they want to slap the millions of serious, long-time fans in the face, we'll see how that works out for them.

I haven't seen it yet, but I'm planning on going soon. Last week I saw Wolverine, and thought it was pretty boring. So I'm hoping Star Trek is more satisfying.

Even though I love the original series and TNG, I don't mind some freedom of creativity in the new movie. I think of each series as an isolated form of cinematic art, not necessarily as a thread which needs to be maintained.

A review from THE ONION
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=a-section

That cracked me up I love The Onion.

Best reviewed new film of 2009 according to Rotten Tomatoes. Only negatives from Anthony Lane in The New Yorker and Roger Ebert, unusual since I've stopped even relying on his reviews -- he doles out 4 stars like they're M&M's lately and his reason is rather lame -- a nostalgia for the old TV series, which actually was very uneven (I could name a handful of six good scripts). Looks to me like Abrams aimed toward a total space opera, getting rid of the corny philosophical gimmicks -- which is, after all, "Star Wars." The mainly good reviews laud the character studies and the excellent performances of the primarily new young cast. There aren't as many special effects as the trailers infer.

"Gene Roddenberry was the hack who created the series back in the 40's"

91% as of tonight on Rotten Tomatoes with a consensus: Star Trek reignites a classic franchise with action, humor, a strong story, and brilliant visuals, and will please traditional Trekkies and new fans alike.

Lot of great features there and also on the film's own site, including many different trailers:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/?critic=creamcrop

Great looking Enterprise -- it's now my wallpaper.

Ok, I just got back from seeing the film. I think I would give it a 7.5 out of 10 on the IMDB scale. I really liked the casting and the updated characters, the dialog is good and the situations are good. If anything is weak I would say it's the basic conflict of the story and the annoying tendency of Hollywood to treat Black Holes as "magic doors" which can cause any weirdness they care to dream up. I understand that they need a bit of poetic license to give the film some panache, but there's poetic license and then there's gimme a break.

Before going into the film, the casting I thought I was going to have the toughest time with was Karl Urban as McCoy, but surprisingly his was the portrayal I think I enjoyed the most.

The new Enterprise (actually an "Old" Enterprise) looks like they designed it with lements dferom a 57 Chevy. Kinda retro. Anybody in the production talk about the design of Enetrperise?

Why did they even call it Enterprise? Jeez , that would make it about number 6 in the chain

It doesn't have the streamlined smoothness of the original TV model, which I think had more to do with the budget than anything else. That opening shot was the most expensive intro for any TV show up to that time. It looks like Rosborne is pretty much in line with the reviewers who seem to be in the B to B- area or three stars to two-and-a-half stars. I'd be curious about the impact of the IMAX version. The screenshots I've seen are rather more romantic about space travel than the original series who were stuck with a lot of painted space backgrounds and rubber suited aliens. The old controls in the bridge are now laughable and Saturday Night Live really did it in with a spoof on the cheap set. By Star Trek Generation, the special effects had advanced by leaps and bounds. How this movie has to be judged should be is it better than the usual space opera. J. J. Abrams was interviewed stating that he wanted more credibility and a better connection to the characters. Well, will see what the box office is tomorrow with a few complaints here and there from Trekkies (which I'm not -- there was too much good sci-fi out there to get all warm and cozy with ST, but then I'm only part nerd like Spock is only part human).

The problem is that the fans of the original series are aging baby boomers and even next-gen fans are getting a little long in the tooth. If ST is to survive, it must retain what made it unique and modernize the rest. We'll see if it can pull that off.

I can't speak for all Trekies, but I'm a Trekie who grew up with the original series, and I don't mind the new story line.

We went to the 6:30pm show last night and I expected it to be crowded, but it wasn't. The theater was only about 80% full when the show started. Before the show three employees from the theater came out dressed in Star Trek shirts and did a trivia game and gave out Tribbles and Movie tickets. Unfortunately all their trivia was derived from the movies, not the original TV show. Theaters in the North East never do stuff like this because unlike the "friendly south", us North Easterners are suspicious cynical crabby people who don't want to talk to anyone and don't want to be bothered. But for some reason, the audience was fairly happy with the little trivia show.

I was surprised that the audience wasn't full of teens/kids. Instead, it was full of aging Trekies like me, many of them far more fanatical although nobody came dressed as a Klingon or anything. During the show applause broke out whenever one of the new characters was shown, and especially when people were slow to recognize the character for who they were ("Bones" McCoy for example). The movie did a good job of filling in the backstory for some of the characters including the origin of "Bones" name.

When the Enterprise was first revealed and they did the slow pass over the NCC-1701, applause broke out again.

Even though Star Trek has been revived in many forms over the years, none of them have ever revisited the original characters at the point in time where TOS began and when most of us viewers were kids. I found this movie oddly evocative of childhood memories and some type of strange connection to the characters, almost as though they were kids and I was their parent, knowing what their lives would bring them.

Trekies will get something out of this movie that younger audiences will never even be aware of.