Warning: Minor spoilers ahead.
I love Sci-Fi. The Sci-Fi I watched as a kid is the reason I do what I do today.
But, more-over, I love great Sci-Fi. And some of the best Sci-Fi we’ve ever seen has come from the Star Trek universe (be it The Original Series, The Animated Series, The Next Generation, etc.).
Some of the greatest writers of our time have worked on these shows. D.C. Fontana, Harlan Ellison, Larry Niven and David Gerrold immediately spring to mind.
So when we found out J. J. Abrams was going to be making a movie that took place in The Original Series timeframe (and with the original characters)… I was… concerned.
Turns out — those concerns were justified.
I saw the new movie the first moment I could. And you can listen to my review of it in the latest episode of Casta Blasta (hint: There’s four guys on CastaBlasta. I’m the one who didn’t love it so much.)
I’m not going to go into a full on review here. Whether or not I like this movie shouldn’t matter to you. If you like Star Trek, you really should see this film.
What I would like to talk about is what a colossal mistake this film was to make. (We’re talking a Dr. Richard Daystrom level of mistake here.)
“But Bryan! The movie did great openning weekend! And so many people are enjoying it and being exposed to Star Trek for the first time! How can that be bad?”
That is a great question. And I’ll give you the quickest answer I possibly can.
JJ’s Star Trek reboots the franchise. But that’s not the real problem.
The problem is that it reboots the franchise… while making it a direct continuation of the timeline from the original Star Trek.
What this means is that it’s not a completely different “thing”. If you or I sit down and watch JJ’s Star Trek we cannot simply consider it on its own merits. Because it is directly tied, by the events in the film, to the original Star Trek Univers (Pre-JJ).
Also this means that, since JJ’s Star Trek is in the same “universe” and has a direct timeline connection to the pre-JJ Trek (as opposed to a “pure reboot with no connection”), several problems immediately crop up.
- All those great moments in Star Trek? Not there any more. Tribbles? Gone. City on the Edge of Forever? Not there. Wrath of Khan? Nope. Not happening. So now, when we sit down to watch those wonderful shows — those epic moments in Sci-Fi history — we know that the new Star Trek movie has erased them from that universe.
- What if there is a chance of seeing a new series or movie (or game) based on the many existing Star Trek series? While those chances may have been slim before… they’re a lot lower now.
- It was “rebooted” as a film, not a television series. Which means we aren’t likely to ever get those defining moments that made Trek what it is (seriously… how likely is it they’ll make a Tribbles movie?).
- Because it was an expensive movie. And because any sequels are likely to go up in price (there are some great actors in this movie… they aren’t likely to get cheaper). How likely do you think it is we’ll get a constant stream of new Trek movies in this universe? Not likely. Maybe one? Two? Then it’s done.
- JJ’s Trek is designed to also appeal to the Gilmore Girls / Greys Anatomy fans. Spock making out with Uhura? Really?
The result?
The original Star Trek (Pre-JJ Abrams) has been rendered inert and impossible (or at least extremely unlikely) to expand upon in TV or film form.
And the odds of getting a large quantity (and quality) of movies and TV shows from this “new” timeline of Trek, well, that looks pretty slim even with this movie doing well at the box office.
And, even if we do get that, good odds it’ll be more akin to the super, over the top drama that has been the hallmark of some recent Sci Fi (ala Lost and the final two seasons of the new Battlestar Galactica). ie. “Not Star Trek”.
So, what’s this all mean? It’s definitely not good, I’ll tell you that.
Can it be fixed? Sure. This is Sci-Fi. You can fix anything.
Maybe if they brought in some of the “old guard” of great Sci Fi writers that have contributed so much to the Trek universe (see the writers above for a good starting point) to fix it…
But. In the mean time. I think it’s safe to say this new Star Trek movie did about as much to kill off Star Trek as you possibly could do.
May 13th, 2009 - 6:36 pm
I was never a giant fan of Star Trek, enjoyed a few episodes here and there of the original series, and watched lots of Next Generation while being unable to sleep at 1 AM many nights back in the day.
Possible Minor Spoilers Ahead:
Before watching the new film I rewatched the Next Generation movies (I’m 22, tng was just more ‘my era’) and I noticed nearly every single one of them involved some type of time travel plot … how disappointed I was when seeing this pop up again in the new installment - can’t we have a good Star Trek film not relying on this crutch?
On topic of this ‘new’ time line, although Kirk’s past is slightly different, and Spock has a slightly different view of things, I really don’t see how many events of the original series couldn’t still happen completely as normal (sure, certain home planets aren’t there now which will void certain occurrences).
May 13th, 2009 - 6:37 pm
Uh… I’d say that had already been effectively accomplished by the general crappiness of the entire runs of Voyager and Enterprise, not to mention that last two crummy movie outings (Insurrection and Nemesis).
Were there interesting stories remaining to be told in that universe? Perhaps. However, practically speaking, it’s unlikely we were going to see anything new in terms of TV or movies from that timeline regardless of the existence of this new movie.
May 13th, 2009 - 6:40 pm
I think that the way J.J. did actually leaves room for TV, more movies, and even continuation of the “old” timeline, since this is basically now an “alternate universe.” Seems like pretty much anything could be written in, for any timeline. As long as the writing quality is high, it’ll be all good.
All those great moments did happen…now we’re just seeing a “fork” of something else…that also happened. At least that’s how I’m looking at it to keep myself happy!
May 13th, 2009 - 8:10 pm
Your point 1 about the series/film events not there anymore. How is this so? Old Spock exists in the new universe and he has memories/knowledge of those events… surely therefore they happened?
May 13th, 2009 - 9:41 pm
Uh, you make no sense. What the new timeline has done allows the writers to not have to deal with the weight of 700 hours of canon. Instead, they can pick and choose any character, story, set-up from TOS they want (save anything on Vulcan or involving Spock’s mom, so goodbye “Amok Time” and “Journey to Babel”), and use it or re-tell it or re-imagine it in grand and epic ways.
And the proof of this is that by your reasoning, the Kobayashi Maru never happened. Uh, yes it did. Still happened, as part of the new timeline, but it unfolded in the same way.
This Trekkie loves this game-changer (although is very sad about Vulcan).
May 13th, 2009 - 10:16 pm
I went to see this movie with my co-workers who were not sci-fi fans (only me and the boss are and he sponsored the outing). I was the only one who hated it…and likely my boss did too but didn’t want to spoil the fun of the group since it was his idea to see it! Removing the entire planer Vulcan changes everything…EVERYTHING! This was not necessary and really screws over the entire Star Trek Universe that we know. While on the surface of this it may seem minor, but it is ultimately too drastic a change in the timeline. Vulcan is one of the most important planets in the Trek universe. I would have been happier if this movie had jumped into the other “Mirror Universe” timeline or something rather than create yet a new Trek timeline to get all of us confused. The Borg may not be relevant in this timeline! And as Bryan suggested, all of the things that we know and love about Trek are just gone! The Tholian Web? Who knows! While the film was interesting and well done, I am supremely disappointed at this turn. Will there be new shows and movies? Maybe a few movies…but they really need to take it to TV and I don’t see that happening. Bryan, you’re absolutely right and miles ahead of the rest of us in your thinking.
May 14th, 2009 - 12:13 am
@GabrielBell Word.
You make a great point regarding the writers not having to deal with all the canon.
A perfect example is the problem DC has with its multiverse. They’ve had way too many cooks in the kitchen over the years, and now any attempt to maintain continuity over the thousands of storylines requires crazy storytelling acrobatics.
Same thing here. Now we’ve got the same basic set of characters, but now the writers are free to tell stories without having to worry about whether they’re violating some obscure bit of canon that comes from the animated series, or some book written 20 years ago.
May 14th, 2009 - 2:31 am
Hi Bryan,
I understand your reasoning, and in part I agree with you. Although here are my reasons for actually having a more friendly stance towards the film.
1) Sure, this film means that ToS+movies, TNG+movies, DS9 & Voyager probably never happen, or happen in quite the same way. Although, it’s okay because we have them all on video, we can still watch them at home even though the time-line has changed. So, what this film has done, in the great tradition of open source programming, has forked the project. It’s as simple as that, I see this as a fork of Star Trek.
2) If we disregard time-line issues and look at the film on its own merits, it was a good fun, well acted, action film.
May 14th, 2009 - 6:50 am
If feel your pain Bryan. Good thing I didn’t go this see yet and I DO NOT plan to either. Back when they announced the movie, the minute I heard that “allmighty” JJ was going to be involved, I said to myself “AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!”. Now, the movie is out and I can happily say that I made the right decision, but having said that, it is still REALLY embarrassing and SAD to hear how they rebooted this franchise…
Regards
André
May 14th, 2009 - 3:40 pm
What’s a star trek???
May 14th, 2009 - 5:23 pm
Bryan, I know you’re a Dr Who fan but not aware of your feelings towards the current version of the TV series so the following observation may not a great example :p
When the BBC brought back Dr Who in 2005 with Russell T Davies, respected and popular TV writer, at the helm it has become one of the most popular shows on British TV. The effects are flashy and whizzy, the stories fast paced with more female friendly elements. The science bits rarely are accurate but when were they ever? (Even season 18 makes little scientific sense) and RTD performed a reboot in the sense that Gallifrey is gone and any continuity clashes that may arise can be explained with one phrase, “Time War”.
My point being that JJ and co, like RTD, have taken a beloved show that has been in the doldrums for years and made it more popular than it ever was. You have a point that this is a film not a TV show and thus you won’t get the barking mad and wonderful stories that made the original series, but really, were we ever going to get a ST tv show that would be popular enough now to keep the series alive in the public consciousness?
I am a big Trek fan but an even bigger Who fan, and I know the pain of the late 90s, thinking that the Fox TV movie would be the last I would see of the good Doctor outside of books and CDs, but really, even that kept the BBC putting money into writing the books and cds until the new show we always wanted reappeared. Perhaps trek will have a few movies before going back to it’s roots with a TV show with weird gods and green skinned girls.
That ramble went on too long, will now hide.
May 14th, 2009 - 6:30 pm
TOTALLY disagree. First, what is to say that this wasn’t supposed to happen? Were their landmarks mentioned in the new movie? If not, it’s QUITE possible that the Vulcan’s new planet may be the old one…or this is a new timeline. EITHER way, this IS Star Trek…the next movie or tv series can find a way to revert the timeline. In fact, that makes for a INTERESTING movie.
May 15th, 2009 - 4:34 pm
True, it’s not like the Star Trek universe was going anywhere anytime soon.
I always thought of Star Trek as having the more “hard” sci-fi edge, despite the general campiness. What I find endlessly amusing is that in order reboot Star Trek they basically made it into “Battlestar Galactica meets a Mountain Dew commercial”.
May 15th, 2009 - 4:58 pm
Spot on.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with rebooting the canon entirely–that is what Abrams and his writers should have done. Instead, they wanted to tie in an old franchise actor–Leonard Nimoy as Spock–in order to give their new franchise legitimacy. The used time-travel to accomplish this, but they didn’t really think through the implications of their plot.
Thing is, the original time-lime which Nero and Spock hail from has been rendered void. It does not exist. Nothing about time-travel in the Star Trek stories suggests that succesfully changing the past creates a new time-line.
Robert Orci has been going around claiming that the original time-line is intact–but his claim is not worth anything. If you take the plot of this new “Star Trek” seriously, it means that time has been successfully altered and all those other Star Trek stories and characters have been wiped out from existence.
May 15th, 2009 - 10:11 pm
A number of people, both traditional fans and newcomers, would seem to agree.
But I would go further and argue that this film did not even stand on its own merits. A week after viewing it, I am still shaking my head at various sections of plot that make absolutely no sense — in any universe — and a variety of plot devices that seem to have been blatantly stolen from George Lucas. How is blurring the line between Star Trek and Star Wars going to help either franchise?
I posted my own review of the movie in my blog:
http://thirdcathode.blogspot.com/2009/05/movie-review-star-trek-2009.html
And for those who, like me, are still shaking my heads, there are a variety of Facebook groups forming to discuss the consequences of J.J. fumbling his way through a dreaded sequel - search around.
May 16th, 2009 - 7:13 am
I remember when one of my classmates in college, who was well liked by everybody, got caught plagiarizing a term paper and got expelled. What’s going to happen to JJ and crew? I mean like most, if not all, of this film was blatantly stolen from other production teams.
For example this video is meant to be funny, but it’s really spot on:
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892
May 20th, 2009 - 2:08 am
I do not believe this movie will spawn enough fans to demand, or desire, a television series. The ratings did pretty well at the beginning, as expected when so much media, advertisement, and attention, was given to JJ Abrams. But now, it’s looking like my prediction is coming true. The numbers are slowing down, and I don’t believe they’re going to bust their projected five hundred million mark.
Look! It was a fun movie, but it WAS NOT a Star Trek movie. JJ’s team made no attempt towards pleasing the Trek Fans, combined with the fact that his attempt was to reach to a totally new fan base.
They obviously have no understanding of what made Star Trek last so long. Star Trek didn’t need styles of Mission Impossible III, and it certainly didn’t need to be taken to a new level. His “new level” will be the reason why Star Trek will eventually die, if not already.
“Fans of Movies” will never become Star Trek fans simply because JJ gave them an action-packed flick. They’re not the kind of fans that devote themselves to something they love. They just want cheap entertainment. A starship trooper is a science fiction film designed to be volatile entertainment. Star Trek, on the other hand, was both entertaining, and inspiring. In reality, Star Trek served as an inspiration for the creation of new technologies. However, the expansion rate of technological advancements appears to be declining, at least in our country. I find this quite interesting that the decline in Star Trek seems to match the decline in our own countries ability to dream, design, and bring about new technologies. We’re still too accustomed to improving what’s already been invented. Look at Paramount and all these reboots. This is a classic example of what happens when people lose vision, and the desire to invent new things or ideas.
Star Trek was a dream that one day man could travel to distant planets, and learn as we grow with each adventure, and encounter new races and species. JJ’s Star Trek has no inspiration, EXCEPT to be a Super Hero. Not that his version of Kirk became a Super Hero.
Star Trek has been ruined forever. The only way to repair the problem is to get rid of Star Trek, and some how, get Star Trek away from Paramount. What Star Trek needs is another visionary like Gene Roddenberry at the wheel. For those who simply want to see action, there are other movies that suppose those desires. Star Trek was meant to inspire for the good of all audiences, and not necessarily the “Thrill Seekers”. The only loyalty those fans have….well, actually they aren’t loyal to anything, or to anyone. *laughs*
I love my Star Trek, and I always will. But I will NEVER consider JJ’s perversion as Star Trek. To Heck with him!
Joseph
May 20th, 2009 - 2:19 am
2) If we disregard time-line issues and look at the film on its own merits, it was a good fun, well acted, action film.
AND THAT’S ALL IT WAS! I find it quite interesting that some are willing to accept this as a simple “Fun” and “Action-packed” film, and somehow find it within themselves to call it Star Trek. That’s the same as taking Star Wars Episode I, changing the name to Star Trek, and BAM! You now have an action packed Star Trek film.
JJ stole ideas from George Lucas, and used CGI that did not match.
On a different side, did everyone notice how awkward it was to have a highly advanced bridge, but a Budweiser Engineering? I mean, come on! How was it that Star Fleet, in JJ Abram’s time line, was able to create such a fantastic bridge, but the rest of the ship looked like the early 1900’s Titanic age? And you’ve got to admit it folks. That was ONE UGLY ship in all angles..what few we were given. Was it me, or did everyone else notice the short Enterprise scenes? *laughs* I’d say that JJ Abrams was trying to hide his mistakes.
Joe
May 20th, 2009 - 4:36 pm
I listened to the review; thanks for the video you’ve provided.
I fully agreed with the negative comments about Star Trek. The Monster scene was pointless, and was nothing more than JJ Abrams attempt to sell an American monster to the Public. His goal was to create an American Icon monster like Godzilla is/was to Japan. The problem is he doesn’t seem to know that King Kong was America’s beast that defeated Godzilla (in American films), while Godzilla defeated King Kong in Japanese films.
Things I hated:
1. Weird externals of the Enterprise - just to disproportionate.
2. Fancy bridge with a Budweiser engine room
3. Shaky Cam
4. GGI - overdone
5. Weaponry - no phasers or photon torpedo’s. JJ’s version was too much like Star Wars
6. Actor that played as Dr. McCoy
7. Spock being picked on by young Vulcan kids
8. Weak villain
9. Fast and weak ending
10. No viewing screen…only Bridge Windows
11. Lt. Uhura had no significance of her profession; she’s the ships communications officer.
12. Kirk too violent
13. Not enough views of the Enterprise or any other ship. The best view was the longest view as it escaped the black-hole
14. Warp Transportation Beam (Unrealistic)
There are more, but those were the primaries.
Things I liked:
1. Action
2. Dive from space scene
3. Ending credits with the original Star Trek music
4. Warp scenes
That’s about it. In general, the movie was horrible, although entertaining. However, because of the amount of negativity I have for this film, I cannot consider this to be a present, or future, genuine Star Trek film. JJ Abrams did a horrible job, just as he did with Clover Field.
Regarding it’s profit margins:
Star Trek was a successful advertisement campaign. Some of the speakers forgot to consider that new movie-fans went to see Star Trek, but primarily because of the negative hype towards Star Trek fans (This isn’t your fathers Star Trek), and because it was advertises larger than any other Trek in history. Thus, they received the initial profit margins because of it’s successful marketing campaign. However, I’ve polled several fans-of-movies who enjoyed the Star Trek film, and asked them if they would become Star Trek fans. All of them said “No!”
Star Trek made its money on merchandise, as well as movie tickets, DVD’s, toys, models, etc. I do not see any fans-of-movies lining up to purchase Star Trek merchandise. Thus, the only profits to be expected are from theatric profits and DVD profits. Other than that, Star Trek will remain dead.
Star Trek should be buried that it’s past may remain a legend. If in anything, I recommend starting a totally new Star Trek, with new characters, new ship, with a future universe. This would preserve the old which upholds the new.
Joe
May 21st, 2009 - 2:06 am
I find it quite humorous that websites are posting articles about Trek Fans in an uproar because the new movie is fun to watch. I think they’re flattering themselves a bit. Their idiotic opinion is that Trek fans are numb to action, thrill, and excitement. Get a grip main-stream. This isn’t the Obama campaign! *laughs*
We Trek fans love what you love about movies, but Star Trek wasn’t just another movie for your temporary pleasure. It was a fictional universe we could enjoy as a child, and as an adult.
When you to go football games (assuming you enjoy football), are the folks with painted faces, and freaky hairdo’s retarded, or dorky? No! They’re merely having fun. Trek fans are the same way; they attend conventions dressed in their favorite costume, and to them, it’s fun.
What a lot of us true trek fans are upset about is not the graphics, action, or thrilling moments. [I’ll break it down to your own language to make it simple]
We (Trek Fans) are not happy that mommy left daddy for another guy! Make sense?
JJ Abrams has taken what Trek fans have loved since childhood, and twisted her into a street girl dressed in neon colors, and pink lip-stick in the hopes of attracting more business from the main-stream. Why is this bad for fans? Because nobody in the main-stream likes sleeping with the same girl, or dating the same guy for life; in short, commitment is just a word in the English dictionary, but to you it has no true meaning. We True Fans were committed to Star Trek (as our own), but lately, it has taken away from us. And because Star Trek isn’t something you value as special, it’s just a joke that many of us fans are upset.
JJ Abrams has erased 40 years of our history, in order to start a new history. Fine, some of that is OK. But then again, it’s not. (Breaking it down into your language again). There was nothing wrong with my wife. I loved her just the way she was. But she decided to get boob implants, drop a few dozen pounds, color her hair blond, and now she’s roaming the streets looking for the one-night-stand. Now do you understand why a lot of Trek fans are upset? It has nothing to do with graphics, action, or thrilling scenes. It’s about JJ Abrams and Paramount taking an idea that we loved, from Gene Roddenberry and us, and perverting it’s appearance in order to attract a new type of crowd which we call, “Main Stream” or “One-Night-Stands”. This is bad because the main-stream doesn’t know a thing about commitment. Thus, you will not be able to do what we’ve done for the past 40 years…..keep Star Trek alive even through the thick and thin. More importantly, It wasn’t the fans that caused Star Trek to die. It was Paramount who did it, with low budget films (which we still supported), and minimal production costs. Yet JJ Abrams was given more money than what was provided to produce 4 or 5 previous Trek films. Besides, they purposely killed Star Trek so that they can do what they’re doing to it now.
I hope I was able to communicate this properly. So stop flattering yourselves as though JJ Abrams is doing you a favor by filming a Trek you’ll be committed to. Huh Oh! There goes that “C” word again. *laughs*
Geez!
Joseph
May 22nd, 2009 - 2:33 pm
I’m a doct… errr a Star Trek fan, not a damn movie addict, who eats any kind of crap Hollywood decides to fart out. Hence, no new Star Trek for me.
This movie is maybe “… some kind of Star Trek?” /Zefram Cochran/ but it’s not the one i loved. And i doubt it will ever be.
May 23rd, 2009 - 3:01 pm
Don’t blame you Chain-Q. This movie was garbage. Sure it had a little fun and excitement, but if I wanted that, I would become a fan of Terminator, Matrix, and so forth. Star Trek survived as long as it has because it was above all the general main-stream movies. That’s why their movies never last long, and are never regarded as legendary. Their minds are so feeble, and their intelligence very limited. That’s why I explained to them in street-terms. Even then, they still won’t get it. *Laughs*
So what’s up DOC?
Joe
May 25th, 2009 - 10:31 pm
[...] Two more blog posts by others, saying the same thing as I do here. 1 Comment » Fabricio Zuardi wrote on May 25th, 2009 at 3:24 pm PST: [Spoilers ahead] Technically Romulus planet is still there in the alternative timeline, and the from-future Spock can easily prevent it’s destruction this time by arriving early. As for Vulcans the colony can be as inspirational IMHO as their old home. I thought it was an acceptable branch. [...]
May 26th, 2009 - 4:46 am
I definitely agree that using a temporal anomaly to ‘rewrite’ or ‘reboot’ the Star Trek franchise is a serious mistake. It’s a mistake because it breaks so many rules, including unwritten Star Trek writing rules. As you pointed out, it seems to practically eliminate TOS, TNG and the rest effectively saying these never happened. How pretentious and disrespectful is that to both Gene and the previous canon?
Worse, it also sets two precedents for future Star Trek reboots. First, it says that it’s now okay to use temporal anomalies as serious plot devices (bad move and seriously trite). Second, by not eliminating this timeline rapidly, it breaks the tradition in Star Trek that all temporal anomalies must be righted (at the end of an episode, multi-part episode or film). It didn’t happen in JJ’s film, but we haven’t yet reached the end.
So, assuming this film is only Part 1, then we still need to see Part 2 and possibly even Part 3. That means, JJ Abrams can right this boat in the subsequent films. In fact, the seed is already there. As long as Ambassador Spock is eventually returned to his timeline before the timeline forks, he can prevent the JJ fork entirely. This story would prevent this JJ fork from ever occurring. Such a story also leaves Gene’s canon safely alone. Of course, such a story also means that JJ will have to sacrifice his own story to right the temporal wrong. That means that none of this movie will have ever happened. Which effectively means it’s no better than a ‘dream’ sequence (other than Ambassador Spock recounting his recollection of it).
I suppose that this ending may end up more palatable to the viewing audience after the end of 2 or 3 films. But, to continue to allow this forked timeline to exist effectively says that neither Paramount nor JJ really have respect for Gene’s legacy. If they wanted a rethink, this isn’t it… and yes, there are plenty of ways to create compelling stories that don’t involve temporal anomalies. Battlestar Galactica proves that.
Thanks for your article.
–
Brian
August 8th, 2009 - 12:01 am
Reply to Pete:
quote: “The original Star Trek (Pre-JJ Abrams) has been rendered inert and impossible (or at least extremely unlikely) to expand upon in TV or film form.
Uh… I’d say that had already been effectively accomplished by the general crappiness of the entire runs of Voyager and Enterprise, not to mention that last two crummy movie outings (Insurrection and Nemesis).”
Those 2 films were far from crummy (Nemisis was no worse than the new the souless J J Star Trek), Insurrection probably a tad too sophisticated, emotional and spiritual for your general ’small minded’ brainless mass audience, J J Abrams souless Star Trek was a money maker nothing more, and what a waste.
Commercialism kills intellect faster than the X-Men.
September 16th, 2009 - 5:12 pm
I’m fan of Star Trek from Czech Repuplic.
My english is bad.
But I want say this:
I hope, that the creators of new “Star Trek” achieve make the Star Trek in second try.
JJ seems as adult, intelligent man. I don’t see why he don’t know what is the Star Trek.
If here are some people, who are not like the Star Trek, and they want change this and that one, why they are not interesting by other things?
Star Trek is the idea, message, hope. But this? Sorry but this is the championship in anal alpinism.
It would be better terminate the Star Trek while he is strong and keep in mind what he was.
December 29th, 2009 - 10:51 pm
Haw Haw, Abrams just voided the whole Next Generation timeline! No “Make it so”, no “Grazerites”, no “let’s talk our way out of this’! Haw Haw Haw! Bring on the green Orion babes, the Kzinti, villainous klingons (both types), and those oh so short skits! Yes!
January 13th, 2010 - 12:29 am
My god i aggree with your post 100%. So much that i dont even know where to begin..
I never liked TOS but was a die hard fan of TNG, DS9, VOG, THE MOVIES, even Enterprise. This movie completely erased the timeline..
The movie visually was great, and there is things I could have let slide for example:
The enterprise being built when he was a teenager.
The enterprise being built on land (even though all starfleet ships are built a Utopia Plantitia: sorry about the spelling)
I could even let it slide that a mining ship can be so outfitted that it was a warship.
But what i cannot let slide is:
Kirk a fresh out of school cadet who cheated on his test automatically gets bumped up to first officer.
Non of the fleet was guarding earth, head quarters of the federation.
Non of the fleet was guarding Vulcan, a head planet in the federation.
Uhora hooking up with spock.
Chekov was a complete joke. made me cringe everythime he spoke.
Spock coming back in time not to stop the destruction of his planet or fix the error in the timeline, but to make sure kirk and him become buddies.
scotty happens to be on that ice planet.
Nero has 150 years to prepare Romulus from being destroyed, but instead he decides to destroy the fed instead. AHH genius without the fed Romulus would be destroyed in the future either by the Borg or the Dominion. Or the Klingon’s wouldn’t be held back all those years and would have took over the alpha quadrant.
Vulcan was destroyed. Making all previous movies and tv ep with vulcan in it irrelevant. Which in turn erases Commander Tuvok from the timeline since he was born on vulcan.
I dont know how they are going redo Kahn since he had a prominent beef with Vulcan, not a planet that was made or founded for a bunch of Vulcan refugees.
Why in the world are they flying around with gallons of red matter.. if it only takes a drop to cause a black whole.. if a real enemy got a whole of that, the galaxy would be in trouble.
Im pretty sure in TOS timeline and before they had not yet made first contact with Cardassians, but Uhora ordered Cardassian ale at the bar.
They made the Romuluns of the 24th century to be some evil looking orks with tattoos. But around that time Romulus has a some what uneasy peace treaty with the federation, and the Klingon to protect the alpha quadrant from outside treats. ie the dominion, the Borg.
If their trying to escape a singularity why would they dump their warp core???.. They wouldn’t have the speed to escape it, let alone the blast.
Why is their a cannon in IOWA.
Why would you leave your keys to a 1950’s Corvette, which lasted 3 centuries a third world war, and the scrap yard, where a lil kid can take it up and drive it.
Man there is soo much things to list that was wrong with this movie.
If they wanted to revamp it they should have had a regular story line explaining how they came together.. They did not need to put time travel in it. Nemoy did not need to be in this movie. His whole purpose of this movie was to explain that the other time line and other shows is no longer relevant. Nemoy should be pissed that Abrams did this.
Also the temporal police from the 30th century would have fixed the error once they caught wind of it..
What was the point of spoks mother dieing.. What was the point of this entire movie.
Really when i think back about it, it was just so that Abrams could remake a franchise to make a few bucks.. Disregarding the fans.. Disregarding Gene R. Disregarding Rick B. Disregarding the movies, video games, and books. And just take a big shit on the time line/Universe of star trek.
And to all the Trekkers who like this movie, please please go and watch TOS all the way to Voyager.. and then you will hate this movie with a passion.. Cause basically this movie erased 40 years of franchise, 200 years of story time line..
JJ Abrams is an asshole. I for one will be boycotting any thing he is a part of.. One thing this movie has done for me is show me what he is about. eff him, eff his movies, and i hope he doesnt touch anything to do with any scifi show again.
February 2nd, 2010 - 8:05 pm
I cut my teeth on TNG, enjoyed DS9, and got sick of Voyager. The franchise had grown stale, and anyone who doesn’t see that is too blinded by his own fan-boyish whims to actually care about Trek. This is exactly what the series needed. Kirk, Spock, and Bones, the great triumvirate of sci-fi, are universal characters belonging to more than just three actors and a generation of loyal fans.
This has the propensity to cut through all the techno-babble which later series such as Voyager fell into. Most problems in voyager were solved by baning on a console and yelling technobabble at the computer.
I can honestly say that I enjoyed this “reboot-ish” prequel far more than what Lucas did to his own works.
Moreover, this gives the universe a completely fresh start.
Maybe I’m the only one who thinks that being an endangered species makes the Vulcans MORE interesting and potentially powerful, and I hope to see them evolve into a race of seer-like sages.
And, at the end of the day, a simple conversation between Jean Luc and Q could right this whole thing, happening in a meta-narrative beyond what Abrams story encompasses. If this “not a reboot” reboot flops, there are ways of correcting.
Fear not.
May the force be with you…er…I mean…
Live long and prosper.
-J.M.J. West
April 8th, 2010 - 4:45 pm
I keep asking myself, Why didn’t Abrams hire Mike Okuda to check his continuity? Or anybody for that matter, that was actually familiar with the canon. It was a big budget movie and they couldn’t hire a consultant to tighten up the plot for the trekies.
I think behind the scenes Abrams and the other higher up folks at Paramount had a good laugh at the trekies, by not bothering to deal with the continuity errors. I just don’t undertsand how all this happened, especially in an age when directors release “special directors cut” editions with all the nerdy stuff (like Watchmen for example). Trekies didn’t even get that bone thrown to them.
However with all this, I was thinking that we should just consider the Abrams Star Trek the “Mirror Universe” told as revisionist history. Once the Abrams version is no longer “Hot Stuff” hopefully a writer knowledgeable about “canon” can come along and upend the whole story and say, “well, that was the Mirror Universe and nobody told you so at the time”. BTY, I was influenced to this idea on another board.
My point is, we should just accept this universe to be the mirror universe of the Terran Empire. It makes all the continuity issues more tolerable:
1) This would explain why the USS Relativity doesn’t show up to fix the timeline. Because it’s the mirror universe and the future Federation doesn’t care about what happens in the Mirror Universe timeline.
2) This would explain why there is no George Samuel Kirk. The Mirror Kirk may not have had a brother in the Mirror Universe, so he is essentially George, but is named Jim due to the destruction of the USS Kelvin and early death of his father Lt Kirk. It also explains why he is such a trouble maker without conscience, unlike the original Captain Kirk. Mirror Kirks background was never discussed, so to a certain degree anything goes.
4) This would also explain why Uhura and Spock have a relationship. This Mirror Spock doesn’t care about his bond with T’pring and with the destruction of Vulcan she dies anyway. Not the best explanation in the world, but its better than just outright ignoring the Amok Time episode.
3) Why does Pike not get court martialed for doing such a poor job defending the planet Vulcan and directing the Federation fleet? Because he is an officer of the Terran Empire, not the Federation. To some degree the Terran Empire doesn’t care otherwise, whether Vulcan survives or not. Since the Romulan Empire is independent in the Mirror Universe, the issue of defeating a new powerful Romulan Ship is a more pressing matter than saving Vulcan.
4) It would also explain why the USS Kelvin looks so weird. The design of the Kelvin that we see in the Abrams film could have been influenced by the appearance of the more advanced Constitution class USS Defiant, which appeared in Tholian space during the time of Captain Archer from the Terran Empire, not the Federation. This could explain the earlier diversion of the timeline that precedes Nero and Narada and makes everything so radically different (i.e. technology differences, earlier ecounters with the Cardassians and the existance of nokia)
I think it will be cake for writers to retcon this version of Star Trek in the future. If the Tholians could open a gateway into an alternate future universe, then the Red stuff that Spock was using could do the same effect into the past. In fact this timeline could be an attempt by the Terran Slave resistance to keep the Terran Empire from losing power to the Alliance with the assistance by maniputating the time line in the Mirror Universe behind the scenes.
June 22nd, 2010 - 9:08 pm
First, Enterprise the series totally wasted any timelines that had been established by books, movies, TV Series. The franchise needed a kick n the ass and this was a perfect way to do it. Kahn is still out there, the Bottany Bay was launched before the timeline change so they should have been un-effected. The Doomsday Machine is still on a course to The Rigal Colony, Maybe the Vulcans will dabble in cloning now the build up the race, or maybe there will be a little more human/vulcan interacial stuff going on. The possibilities are limitless now.
June 24th, 2010 - 3:14 pm
It is sad to see Star Trek go the way it has. JJ Abrams and his writing cronies are so terrible at what they do… and they just keep going from story to story wanting to put their tainted stupidity in/on anything they can in Hollywood. Unfortunately for us trekkies, Abrams woke up one morning and thought “Today I think I will ruin Star Trek.”. Most everything he does that I have seen is cringe worthy… especially if you’re intelligent.
Anyone who liked the new story… is either someone who doesn’t like Sci-Fi, is a moron, or a trekkie holding out a hope because of being so starved by Paramount. Ahhh… Paramount. To me, they ruined it. They don’t really like having the Star Trek brand any more because it comes with a huge fan base, some stigma, and they didn’t really know how big it was going to become, now they can’t handle it any more.
Right now at this point of time, with all the technology at the disposal of the entertainment industry, Star Trek, and by it I mean the original linearisation, could be epic. Everything that the writers of the series’ dreamed could now be realised. Some awesome TV, and movies… and from there, games.
Paramount needs to reach out to it’s fan base and embrace Trek… they need to become more involved, because if there is one thing they can count on… it’s that trek fans will want more and more.
If anyone with power and influence from Paramount is reading this, please think about using some actual trek fans give you a direction… or some ideas, we would be more than willing to help. Hell, get in contact with me… I have some great ideas.
July 10th, 2010 - 4:48 am
All those moments DID exist. What JJ Abrams did was create a parallel universe. The concept is not new. In TOS there is one such episode, in TNG there is an episode where hundreds of Enterprises from different universes are shown, and DS9 has several such episodes too.
If they did a TV series with the new Trek they could actually even throw an episode here and there where they visit the universe we have known. In a sense the old Spock did not simply come from the future, but also passed from one universe to the other.