And it cxonfirmed my original thoughts. Typical hollywood rubbish, a real let down and a massive missed opportunity.

I wish I lived in the star trek world as I would scoot back in time (everyone is doing it) and take my capital ship that pulls G like an f16 and blow the crapola out of JJ's very generic and common form script.

My thoughts only

It's the only Star Trek film that hasn't put me to sleep.

I saw it for the second time last night as well, and I see what you mean about the 'generic and common form script'. Wasn't this basically the same story as 'Nemesis'?

...but hey, it's a ST movie! While they can always be better, I've never regretted watching one.

To each their own I guess but I really like the new JJ Abrams film. The weakest ST movies for me are Insurrection and Star Trek V and even those two have some good aspects to them.

Regardless of whatever one may think about the new JJ-verse Star Trek, one fact that remains is that unlike the previous couple ST films it made a ton of money for Paramount. ST: Enterprise and ST: Nemesis were both big commercial flops so Paramount could have either discontinued the franchise for good or it could have given another film-maker a shot at reviving it. I'm glad the latter happened.

I thought Insurrection was one of the better ones, but I did have somewhat of a crush on Picard's 300 year old bird.

ST seems to have disappeared from all the TV channels that I have access to. Must be years since I've seen any of the series.

Insurrection was a 2 hour boring Trek TV episode. It almost made Star Trek V look good. Almost.

I second that, the best ST movie so far.

It is the only Star Trek movie I would like to see burned in a fire never to see the light of day again.

And now we have another JJ Abrams Trek abomination on the way.

The Prime Universe Trek is the only true Star Trek.

Found it pretty uninteresting; formulaic, very 201x Hollywood. Doubt I'll ever rewatch it.

But then it did catch me at my most irritated with the tiresome, lazy, Hollywood reboot culture, so I probably went in with something of a negative mindset!

[full disclosure: I am not a fullblown trekkie/trekker]

one thing the new series does need is more lens flare? yes?


I agree it had a lot of hollywood rubbish. The timetravel fallback or cop-out was a big part of that rubbish. Of course, that is way for teh franchise to branch out (and give the finger to any semblance of continuity imho! LOL).

I think the new characters were done very well! I especially enjoyed watching the 'young' bones, spock, and Kirk (I do wish they would tone down Kirk's arrogance since he comes off like an arse sometimes, but maybe this initial OTP attitude was the intention).

I am looking forward to the new Star Trek with this cast.

I also thought that Kirk seemed too arrogant, especially in the Kobyashi Maru simulation scene.

The casting was great, except for maybe Scotty since Simon Pegg seems too familiar from other stuff.

I guess a lot of the time travel nonsense was a way to get Nimoy into the movie to provide some authenticity, which is somewhat reminiscent of ST:Generations.

I don't think that Kirk was portrayed as being overly-arrogant in the JJ film. If you recall ST:TOS, there were plenty of times when Kirk let his ego run wild. It wasn't until Kirk was significantly older (starting with ST II) that he became a lot more introspective and cognizant of his own mortality and limitations.

Pegg is a far better pick than Cho! I mean, I was thinking "Harold and Kumar Fight the Romulans" when I saw him.

Anyway, saying "this is better" is so purely subjective as to be meaningless. The fact is the new film was very successful, far more than the last 2 and especially the last one, and it revived what was otherwise a dead franchise. Between Enterprise and Nemesis, the first Bush administration saw the death of both the film and TV sides of ST for the first time since 1970.

You may not like the direction they took with the reboot, but there's one unavoidable fact...the money proves you're in the minority, and that more people liked the reboot than the "classic" films and series we'd been getting 10 years ago. They'll go where the money is, since the "classic" fans did so much for their bottom line watching Enterprise and Nemesis.



The Jedi Master

Yeah- the JJ Kirk is going to be a little different because his childhood was different. No dad, getting into trouble, instead of Starfleet dad and always getting into trouble. It will be interesting to watch.

I've been going through all the original Star Trek movies (1-6). Man, the special effects certainly come and go (ST V especially- obviously budget woes) but the characters are great. ST-TNG comes close, but the other series just fail. I mean, who's gonna believe a Bajoran and a shape-shifter could... wow, that was lame.

I thought that as well, but then some thoughts came into my head which were extremely inappropriate for the ST universe....
Anyway, DS9 turned into the 'Love Boat'. The scenes where Worf became emotionally attached were painful to watch.

To me ST-TNG was a big fail. 7 years of random encounters? Snore! Same with Voyager.

DS9 is the only Star Trek series I have bothered to watch all episodes of, and even more than once.

If there's one thing I've discovered while discussing Star Trek on the internet is that there is no consensus among fans which ST shows were the best and which ones were the worst.

Yeah, he was acting a like a bit of a prick. Instead of hoping that Kirk would 'stick it to the man' in the Kobayashi Maru sim scene part of thought it would serve him right if he failed! LOL

Interseting comment about Pegg. I am not too familiar with his works so I have not suffered from any over-exposure. Whoopi Goldberg, who played Guinan(sp) in the ST:TNG show and in a couple of movies, can be seen all over the media airwaves in our country and I have heard similar comments about her.

Pegg's mostly done British stuff. Mainstream US has been limited to ST and MI 3 and 4/Ghost Protocol.

Well, there's Paul, that was a US film AFAIK but not big budget.
His lower-profile stuff, though, is brilliant.
Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Spaced...



The Jedi Master

My own ideas don't stay the same either, so I'm sure there's no way to have a full consensus. LOL
After watching a lot of DS9 recently, I still put it at the bottom of the list. I like the cast members, but the characters just seem weak and not very believable (even for scifi).
TNG went from #1 to #3 now, with Enterprise and Voyager in #1 and 2 respectively. They have a better action-to-drama ratio and they don't make you resent 2 out of 3 episodes as dull. I'm really surprised by Voyager as I'm going through it, now on season 6. Like TNG, the first few seasons just weren't good, but about season 4 it found it's stride and it's extremely well done. Also, more original episodes than the other series, and less of the old "Star Trek formula" shows that get recycled so much.

I wouldn't say Enterprise was a flop by any means. Not only a great show, cast, characters (Hoshi and Mayweather fell flat, no idea why) but the production quality was top notch. I wouldn't call 4 seasons a flop in the scifi world. Longer than TOS which had no competition and only 2 competing tv channels. Enterprise had a longer run than most scifi shows out there, just not the other new Treks.

Perhaps "flop" was an overstatement. I should have said that Enterprise failed to meet expectations of both the network and many fans.

To me it is the story, and some of actors that sets DS9 apart from the other shows.

The whole backdrop of the coming of the Dominion War, and it resolution gives an more epic and coherent feel to the show, and some of the characters are the best ever made in Trek and was given proper developments:

- Weyoun, shifty and sleazy, and capable of utter cruelty and yet in the next breath he is the most charming person alive.
- Julian Bashir, from idealist to hardened cynicist.
- Garak
- Dukat
- Benjamin Sisko, from war-wearing grieving widower, to bajoran supporter to war leader.
(- Damar to some degree too. His slow fall into decadence and eventual self-redemption)

I agree. I wasn't that thrilled with DS9 at the start, but I think it evolved very well.

I can't remember the character's name, but there was also the the Starfleet officer that joined the Maquis that Sisko had a few run-ins with that was pretty good too.

I've noticed that with the exception of ST:TOS, it seems that all of the ST tv series needed a couple of seasons to establish itself and find its "way" before they were firing on all cylinders. That's a luxury that shows these days don't have.

Michael Eddington? Yeah, he was the "betrayer" that became almost rote in the new ST series. TNG had Ro. Voyager had Seska. Only Enterprise seemed to skip that, although I suppose T'Pol could be, she just betrayed the "other" side.

Anyway, I agree that every ST series seemed to start from scratch, mostly because of the characters of course because by the time DS9 started the writers all knew what to do from 6 years of TNG. I've also found that when rewatching the series, all except TNG are helped by already knowing the characters versus the first time you watch them. Already knowing Kira and Bashir and Sisko made rewatching the early DS9 seasons more enjoyable, and same with Voyager. My memories of Voyager were "passable until 7 shows up", but this time I found many of the earlier eps were also quite good. I'm on the final season of Voyager right now (and SG-1 actually), and it's really a great season. DS9's final season suffered from the Dax problem, but was also one of the series' best, possibly 2nd right after S6.



The Jedi Master

I was disappointed with J.J.'s take on Star Trek, although I thought the casting was superb. However, my family, who are not quite the hardcore sci-fi nerds I am, loved it. I think what sci-fi geekdom has witnessed here is the co-opting of one of their treasured standard bearers by mainstream America, with all that entails.

It was a fun movie. But it was lousy science fiction.

The original Star Trek was a hardcore SF lovers dream, written by mainstream science fiction authors of the day, and full of challenging (and, at the time, controversial) themes. Its creator was very interested in getting the science as right as he could, within the limits of what would be acceptable to audiences of the time. His efforts inspired a generation to pursue careers in science.

TNG and its siblings were less groundbreaking, and were often little more than space-based soap opera. It speaks volumes about their regard for the science behind the fiction that their screenplays often contained passages of dialogue with the phrase [insert technobabble] in place of genuine ideas.

The original Star Trek movie was, for all its faults, an honest attempt at real science fiction. Subsequent films fell further and further down the rabbit hole until we found ourselves basking in the glow of endless lens flares and explosions that is the Star Trek reboot.

It may inspire ticket sales, but that's about it.

It seems that you are referring to "hard scifi" and admittedly there is limited box office appeal for those kinds of films. Movies like Blade Runner, Gattaca, Dune and The Andromeda Strain did poorly at the box office.

And you make a good point about ST: The Motion Picture and it is no coincidence that it is often derided by many as being "slow and boring".

It was 2 ST: Phase Two scripts turned into one, although one of them was no more than a redo of "The Changeling." Of course, as TNG showed they weren't above rehashing TOS plotlines for awhile even then.



The Jedi Master

The next movie need more of the green girl, lots more

Too bad she died in the Federation attack against the Narada.

Which one? I'd like to see more of the 2nd one. I'm pretty sure she was on the Enterprise still at the end of the last film.



The Jedi Master

I'm pretty sure Navigator was referring to the Orion girl who was Uhura's roommate at SF Academy.

QFT!

Yes, and even Kirk mixed them up.



The Jedi Master

Rachel Nichols is the actress who played the hot Orion girl.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4162755840/nm0629697

ya, she was the redhead who played scarlet in the G.I. Joe movie. Hot.

I thought the Abrams one was the best, but for, maybe....

Ah yes, the classic "Khan" Seinfeld episode.

Abram's ST was a good action flick, I just don't think ST is an action franchise. Abrams (or one of the head honchos) mentioned it himself in the extras, saying that ST had always been more like submarine warfare - slow and deliberate - while Star Wars was the action flick. If I'd wanted to see an action flick I'd have been very happy with ST.

As far as casting, I was probably trying to judge by the TOS cast so I wasn't too excited by them. Maybe with a completely open mind I would have been more impressed. Scotty was too silly, IMO, but I guess it fit well with the Dr. Seuss/Willy Wonka/Super Mario Bros engine room.

And Diora Baird played the OTHER hot Orion girl.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4277765376/nm1401531
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1401531/


See, the problem is audiences aren't going for "submarine warfare" SF films. Those that get made are indie films with small budgets and small grosses. So, the choice is "action-oriented ST", which they've always had but has been in small doses, or NO ST. I prefer ST with action to none at all, YMMV.



The Jedi Master

+1

I've always thought of it as more like battleships trading blows rather than submarines. That's what I want to see---the big guns slugging it out.

You bring up an interesting point. Let's look at the final battle in the Mutara Nebula from "Wrath of Khan". In that battle you have the Z axis being used extensively, you have a severe case of "fog of war" and you have the hunter and prey reversing roles as the battle progresses.

I'd say that incorporates aspects from both a battleship vs. battleship exchange AND an attack submarine vs. attack submarine exchange.

Well, the point is submarine warfare is 99% thought and analysis, and 1% shooting. In "The Corbomite Maneuver" Kirk spent most of the hour given him thinking of a way to prevail, and he did prevail. Chris Pine's Kirk would have have spent maybe a minute in thought then started trying to overpower the scout ship that had Enterprise in tow.

My thought on the difference between legacy ST and the reboot is that the legacy series started to become more soap opera-ish - families on board a ship of the line, a school for the kids, Wesley Crusher, Worf's son Alexander, etc - and political. Maybe too much crap was thrown in the mix between the 3 series (TNG, DS9, Voyager.) Maybe THAT'S what started the apparent dissatisfaction with the legacy series.

That's certainly a possibility but I think the greater cause was simply Star Trek fatigue. By the time "Enterprise" started, a total of 24 seasons of Star Trek on tv had already been produced!

one + of JJ's Movie is Zooey!

Naomi Wildman, ECheb, I think 7of9 ended up raising like 4 kids.

Like most of their episodes, it would change as needed. "Balance of Terror" had the Enterprise in the role of a surface ship and the Romulan ship in the role of a submarine, with its cloaking device, so they would just do whatever worked for the story being told.

That's a great episode with Mark Lenard playing the Romulan commander but of course most fans know him mostly as "Sarek".

In addition to being one (if not the only) actor in the Star Trek Franchise to have played a Vulcan, a Romulan and a Klingon.

That's right, he was the Klingon commander of the ship that gets absorbed by V-Ger in "ST: The Motion Picture".

Kind of like a destroyer vs sub, like the movie The Enemy Below.

It was good getting to see him reprise his role as Sarek twice on TNG.

It was also good getting to see all the old Klingons again on DS9.


The Jedi Master