Added: 3 years ago
From: zennie62
Views: 77,970
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (254)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • da da dadadadada da da da da purrrrrrrr roaaaaaaa purrrrrrrrr roaaaaa

  • You didn't mentioned "Voyager."

  • I prefer the dimly lit bridge of the eighties star trek movies (not the motion picture of course that was lit up more like TOS)

  • the only ships that look more or less like they should do in this period in the history of star trek are the shuttle crafts! the bridge of the enterprise looks more like the USS relativity (a 29th century vessel) I would have prefered it if they had kept true to the design of that time period! its set prior to TOS and the subsequent movies could have seen the introduction of various iconic star trek vessels! and filled in some of the gaps in star trek canon!

  • @katakisLives they can get away with it though because the new movie is not canon

  • @xixJazmaNxix" new movie is not canon" Yet they wrote it to be canon, yet it's not but it is. Illogical (Head explodes). Sorry dude but since Paramount now owns Star Trek that makes it cannon, Even though it sucks harder than an industrial vacuum.

  • Funny how Lenard Nimoy sayed, back when Generations was to be launched, that he would never play in Star Trek again.........huh?

  • You mean 23rd century, not 24th, right??

  • @KKM121 Yeah 23rd century! the 24th century of course was the TNG era.

  • Paul McCartney has stated that he "heard" a tune in a dream and woke up with it still in his head...he went to his guitar and wrote "Scrambled Eggs" which he later re-named "Yesterday". Hearing music in your head does not make you a "douche", a "geek" or a "nerd". It means you are creative. You keep on dreaming music, zennie62, and thanks for your review of "Star Trek".

  • I think the new movie is amazing. really good. not as good as wrath of khan and search for spock ,but its really good. the new design of the ship was a nice touch.

  • it's a shame the film was so utterly crap then.........well, good action movie i suppose, would have been better if they just called it planet plod changed everyones name and just show it for what it is, some action flick.

  • hehe NERD ALERT!! HE HEARS STAR TREK MUSIC IN HIS HEAD!!

  • This douche is a super douche.

  • New Star Trek is good but Different

  • unlike back to the future, i guess they will not try to fix the timeline.

    I'm a big fan of the star trek franchise, i like all the incarnations of trek, and waiting for STO star trek online.

    Qapla'

  • Well there is no need to, since this is now an alternate universe.

  • I doubt they are going to piss away the past 40+ years.....they did it in a way to apeal to new fans and to the old ones as well.

  • Trailer was best part of the movie. The actual production was average.

    You got that right, the bridge is not right. Noone could work with so many lights in their eyes.

  • "Noone could work with so many lights in their eyes. "

    That bridge crew obviously did.

  • I liked this review . . . but it could have used a little more Spock! I've got a fever and the only prescription is more Spock.

  • Amazing, you turned out to be right: it was a huge hit. But that was obvious, the trailers made it smell like a winner.

    By the way, you look like you could play a good Star Trek alien yourself...maybe a Vulcan or an Andorian with some blue makeup.

    I would be very excited about a new Star Trek series. TV seems so empty without at least one Trek series on.

  • Zennie over all, I agree with you about the new movie, however, I was a bit reluctant on seing it at first, I thought it was going to be like New jack city in space! I was glad to see it was well thought through, and kept the Star Trek tradition alive! It kept me in my seat to! I am mixed on the Enterprise design, I think they could have used the original ship, and made a few subtle cosmetic changes along the way, I still loved it though!

    Marco

  • My observation exactly! Abrams is on a par with Lucas, Spielberg, Scoot, and Cameron. He can write his own ticket, now that he has created the blockbuster of the decade, and totally reinvigorated TREK, which I have loved for nearly 43-years!

  • ~clears throat~ Trekkie not Trekker ~blinks~ A common mistake though, I do believe.

  • this movie was amazing.

  • I loved every aspect of the new Star Trek movie. I hope that they create a sequel to this movie, and perhaps a new Star Trek series tv show. I'd love to see that happen. Star Trek despeately needed new blood, and I think they got it with this movie. I loved the bridge of the Enterprise. I also like the fact that although the saucer section of the ship looked very much like the Enterprise, everything else on the ship is totally different. I give it two enthusiastic thumbs up! Awesome movie!

  • Dude you rock!

  • Moment before the dawn, i saw a whale swimming towards the edge. Never again will the tyranny of the Dalai Lama ruler over the chinese. Pancakes are delicious.

  • ....? XD

  • this is a test for you

  • he crazy

  • NCC-1701-A

  • is the startrek saga we know possible after that what happened in the newest movie because vulkan gets destroyed???? for an example think at tuvok from voyager. he never will live and how often did he save the voyager??

  • your talking as if it makes a difference.

  • Well for historical reasons it does. You should do your homework too not just confirm something you just picked up on Wikipedia.

  • no1, i dont even watch star trek, i was looking for the online game and fell on this, no2, historical rasons? your acting as if star trek is some important thing in the world, and that calling yourself a trekker or trekkie is making any difference to what programme on television you watch, grow up.

  • and let me just add that im NOT telling him to grow up because he watches star trek, im telling him to grow up because of what he is saying.

  • Yes, the movie is a cetified box-office smash. You were correct!

  • don't forget voyager, or enterprise!! lol

  • Good video man..cheers..

  • Awesome

  • As the Vulcan says: LIVE LONG AND PROSPER !!!

  • Whoooo!

  • Anyone who is a TRUE Treker would shut there mouth cause the greatest thing about Star Trek is that ANYTHING is possible multiple time lines multiple dimensions ect. so before you nick pick a movie to death remember the mirror mirror universe? everyone with those gotees? stupid, but possible... so befor you complain first eat your goateed evil muffins then do it with your mouth full.. and remeber Tribbles are furryt space muffins, good day.

  • Ow, and why the fack should we be interested in ANY thing that you say or think??!

  • Old Spock(Leonard Nimoy) comes from the future in this new Star Trek movie and Shatner went to J.J. Abrams personally and told him that he wanted to do the same, he wanted to be apart of this movie and J.J. Abrams said that they both can think of dozens and dozens of reasons to bring back, becuase Kirk died in Generation(i think thats it, not a big Star Trek fan)but they didnt want to resserect Kirk cuz the film would then become about resserecting the old Kirk.

  • Check your facts, Kirk tells right here on youtube NO ONE AND NOT JJ did contact him for a cameo or any other part for the movie! NOTHING!

    I don't really mind that so much, he wouldn't have fit into the story anyway....

  • obviously he wouldnt fit in the movie because then it would have been all bout the old spock and kirk and reserecting kirk. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT Shatner wasnt contacted by anyone for while to possibly get a cameo apperance so Shatner took it into his own hands and went to JJ Abrams and asked him if he can be in the movie and JJ said "we both can think of many reasons to bring Kirk back from the dead" but they didnt cuz that would mean that it would be called Star Trek: Resserection of Kirk

  • In my opinion the only way to have got Shatner in... would be to have shown him in cameo while young Kirk is mind-melded by Spock. Specifically while Spock is talking about his friendship.

    But it's best left as is.

  • true, cant do anything now lol

  • i also agree with the post and am looking foward to this movie.

  • zennie62 is 100% right and RIGHT

  • Well, zennie62.

    1) I also picked up on the omission of VOYAGER. Do you have something against female captains?

    2) The brightness of the bridge can be put down to what we Brits call "The Ikea Effect", cheep tat.

    3) Do you know that the sequal has already been commisioned? So, Shatner may be in that one?

    Yes, I am a trekkie and proud. Can't wait to see the movie.

  • You are so cute!!!

  • That.s insane about the dream. But I was raised around Star Trek cuz my dad loved it when he was a kid. And the movie does look great. I even heard Leonard Nimoy is in it playing like Spock from the future.

  • I'm looking forward to seeing the movie. However, the minute it is mentioned or implied that the crew is roughly the same age, my bucket of popcorn will be launched at the screen and I'm storming out.

  • The third trailer music is also the music in the 2 new batman movies..

    Atleast i think so. oO

  • Enjoyed that mate - you forgot voyager tho - lol - loved TNG - grew up with it. There was always something about Kirk - tho - think this is going to be fantastic

  • Why would anyone want to remember voyager? pretty lame show. they had to bring Jerry Ryan in & dress her in skin tight clothes to keep an audience, don't get me wrong.. it worked. but so would better plots.

  • The most surprising thing about this video post is that even black people get that squeeky voice when they are geeks.

    Its just something that never occured to me... weird.... oh... and your a geek! :D

  • Deep space nine  is the BEST !!!!

  • i want my 2 minutes back.

  • Jay Leno has an amazing collection of old cars, as we know. He showed off this one car that has a steam boiler - the thing does 100 mph - on STEAM!

    Stuff like that will ALWAYS be fun.

  • This is a different take, that is it.

  • Did a few of Shatners (ex) wifes not die under suspicious circumstances? And was the Enterprise not build in space?

  • I agree with you. I don't like the brightness of the ship bridge.

  • ur all fucking gay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • I couldn't disagree with this opinion more - nor could I disagree more with the opinion of many of you who say "they got it right" ... for goodness sake folks - the VERY IDEA of Kirk driving a 1950's Corvette in what's supposed to be the 23rd century is SO dog-gonned STUPID and the OPPOSITE of what his character was about that it's not even worth writing about - but the reason I am writing is that all of you aren't even batting an eyelash to this silly film. Have fun - I won't watch it.

  • It looks more like a 60s era Vette, maybe 62 or 63.

    I don't think it's outlandish at all. People collect antiques now, why not in the future? And as technology improves, we will have better ways of preserving old gems like that.

    It could also be a reproduction. Guys will always like their badass toys, whether in the 1600s, 2000's or 2400s.

  • i stand corrected on the year (I think it's even later than that - it was the first of the "stingray" types) ... but everything else I standy behind - you can always rationalize this stuff down to "well it could be - it might be etc.etc." ... let me tell you - young people who win and become captains and quarterbacks and rock stars DON'T LOOK IN THE REAR VIEW MIRROR. They want what's new, what's cool and what's the best. Driving a 300 year old car is just silly.

  • Why would it be silly? It would still be fun, in any era.

    People still ride horses for the thrill of it. That's been around for thousands of years.

  • Because of what I just wrote - and further it's NOT what the character would do... and on top of it the director himself said this movie was not made for fans of the original series - so in essence what he's saying is "I'm going to take these characters by name only and do what I want". Get real - the very notion of this is just plain stupid (the vette thing) and it's only there to draw people in via identification - NOT thru character development.

  • Sure it is - Kirk was always a rugged guy, mountain climbing, riding horses - it would be plausible that he would be into badass toys like a Corvette.

    Also, Abrams said he "stuck to the canon" as much as possible.

  • TOTAL b.s. - a lot was "thrust" into the canon in the later films - which really weren't faithful to the character either - BUT - did not commit the egregious act of having him drive an F'ing 300 year old corvette. The very fact that you put in "badass toys" shows that Abrams gets that he could commit such b.s. and people would buy it. But the reality is - people are willing to buy crap all the time - and this is just that - crap. And if J.J. said that - he's lying-the corvette proves so.

  • Jeez - it's just a CAR.

  • Dude - it is just a car - and in fact, I love those old classic cars. But remember - certain cars are also symbols; they represent a time, a type of person, a lifestyle - and so-on and so-forth. When you take all of that into account, it just doesn't synch up to what the character of James T. Kirk was. EVEN IF you create a younger Kirk- all brash and bold - ask yourself: are you really looking at a young Kirk -or a "fill in the blank, 2009 young person" in order to attract young viewers?

  • Yes, and in the original Trek, the tight uniform highlighted Kirk's butt, and that was done to attract women to the show.

  • As far as the wardrobe department goes - the show did a lot of things to attract viewers - true - nobody is immune to that ... and that's exactly what Abrams is doing but to attract a younger audience... yet there's a big difference between dressing up or down and raping the characters of a show.

  • The young are always the target demographic. They were in the 60s and they are today.

  • Well duhh - no kidding - and that proves my point all the more ... these guys don't get that young people don't give a flying LEAP about 45 year old corvettes ...so why put it in? Becase the director either THINKS someone does (like the people he sold the project to, maybe) - or it's his BEST interpretation of something he just doesn't GET AT ALL. But he doesn't have to get it - he's raping/canablizing a "known brand" and that's all.

  • What things were "thrust" into the canon? Sulu flew a helicopter in IV, Kirk wore glasses in II, etc.

  • Everything you mentioned! The rock climbing, the horseback riding ...not to mention the above you just wrote. There were a ton of others things ... none of this was in the original series because it wasn't about "fill-in-the-blank" interests - but rather, strength of character, conviction of beliefs. There is such a gigantic difference between these "trekkies", "trekkers" and people who simply liked the show for it's adult-themed human-condition elements.

  • Well, TOS was only on for 3 seasons. They would have fleshed it out eventually, as they did in the movies.

    We learn little nuggets of things about the characters from TOS. As long as it's plausible, the it works.

  • Not at all ... TOS was very faithful to it's "bible" (the shows historical guide and continuity reference) ...in one particular episode ("A Piece of the Action") ..Kirk didn't even really know what a car was - but with Spock he figured it out as he'd seen pictures of them in the computer. He then attempted to drive one and could barely get the little roadster to move without it backfiring up and down the street. This caps it all.

  • Yeah, but that was a dumb episode. It was all done for comic relief.

    You're confusing me here - you seemed to say before that Abrams did this to appeal to young people, but now you're saying they won't be interested in it.

  • The episode showed cars weren't his thing...

    ...what I'm saying about the director is - he's trying to use a device in order to show the maverick nature of a character - but instead he shows how much he DOES NOT get the character. Next - yes, he's trying to appeal to the young with the frenetic style of direction - but the vette was either a mistake in that - or he's tossing a bone to people who watched TOS (which again is a mistake because anyone who get's Kirk will no this is b.s.)

  • I get Kirk - it would be in line with his character to drive a Vette off a cliff.

  • Kirk was nothing about that and your saying so shows you do NOT get his character. Kirk was about guts tempered by good judgment. This corvette thing is just plain stupid and you're trying to make it fit - that's a stretch.

  • But perhaps when he was a kid, he was the opposite, and Starfleet made him grow up. Anyway, he was always banging alien chicks, so I don't know if you're correct about his "good judgment."

  • Boinkin' hot alien chicks (or hot chicks of any kind) is the BEST kind of judgment in my book :)

  • Actually I agree with his post. I can see a teenage Kirk being just the type of personality to get up to something like that. The people we are as teens is not always the person we are as adults, and even the adult Kirk in the TV shows didn't always show good judgement. :)

  • Shatner wants some creative input...so he can't be in it...no one else sort of demands that, he does. Its a tribute to him anyway. I don't think he minds totally.

  • The Human adventure begins

    AGAIN!

    Really looking forward to seeing the new Trek movie.

  • The Movie better have a deep meaning to it, the way all star trek episodes are!

  • Trekie not treker damn you "TREKIE"

  • You can't even fucking correct someone properly. Shut your fucking face.

  • Seriously dude. Real Trek Dorks like to be called Trekkers. At least in the United States they do.

  • A trekkie is someone who got hooked on the show in it's original run in the 60s. A trekker is someone who got the ST bug on reruns, like I did.

    At least that's what it means in terms of TOS. As for TNG, I can't comment, since I wasn't into it and thought it was totally gay.

  • great review

  • I'm not too sure about all this bagging over VOY, DS9 and ENT series. I enjoyed them all, and I'm sure anyone who likes TNG could enjoy them too if they don't take them too seriously. I've seen all movies and all series, bar the animated TOS and I can say for certain that Abrams was doing the right thing to not bring kirk back in for this movie. That is the sort of thing that can bring down the quality of the movie and make it appear as a cash in. Be patient, they will squeeze him in there soon.

  • Oh get the fuck out.

    The new star trek looks like one tree hill with starships.

    It's comercial bullshit. I bet you this movie wont have any of the sciencey stuff, tractor beams and phaser remodulations, the stuff that makes star trek what it is.

  • LMFAO at the one tree hill comment.

  • Not One Tree Hill.....Doogie Howser MD.

    Would you let a bunch of kids......literally.....pilot a multi-BILLION dollar startship?

    HELL NO!

  • Exactly man.. i hate every single bit of the new "Star Trek" movie, its all about fast action, sex scenes and shallowness.. i hate the fact that hordes of people that NEVER liked star trek are attracted by this new movie. It shows how commercial and shallow its gonna be.. i have a feeling its gonna betray the core of Star Trek: Science, progress, diplomacy, technology.

  • unfortunately we havent seen originality for science advancement in star trek in decades. Plus the last series enterprise was awful and killed the franchise. This movie looks good and if it creates a new gen of trekies then great. Oh and this movie had special screenings and the reviews were so good that they already purchased a sequel script.

  • that's funny, my view of Star Trek TOS is beyond the technobabble, but instead on the trio characterizations of Kirk, Spock and McCoy

  • phaser "remodulations" didnt come out until they first encountered the borg, so no they wont have that...

    You people are bashing it and you haven't even seen it....watch it first then give it a rating...damn...

  • phaser "remodulations" didnt come out until they first encountered the borg, so no they wont have that...

    this movie is a reboot not a true sequel.

  • It's 'prequel' anyway.

  • while I enjoyed TNG I actually liked Voyager and DS9 and enterprise more, movie wise I liked  Nemesis, first contact, and undiscovered country. your right they all started from Star Trek and yes we needed a reboot.

  • you are a very smallminded peson the TNG is the best spin of from the star trek francise it was better then the cheesey origional not that it was rubuish but TNG is in a class aboth TOS ok get it in to your head

    and in star trek universe the fediration shipss are built in space so a hell of a lot of fuel is used just to get to the stratousphere and that is real phisics as well as some thing that happens in the tv show

  • good point. Starships are built in space!

  • Star Trek: The Original Series is set in the 23RD Century.

  • yet most peple arnt going to see it just because of the name oh well les peple in the line

  • Apparently Abrams thought of doing just that...but I think it might be worth waiting until the second or third movie in this retelling of the saga to see Kirk as we know him now.

  • 2:35 totally agree dude.

  • if not a TV show, i'd like to see Johnny Frakes in some direct to DVD USS Titan titles.

  • Regarding your comment about the brightness on the bridge...it could be another addition of realism being incorporated as you'd previously mentioned. In today's spacecraft i.e:the International Space Station the lighting is just as bright and sterile in appearance. Perhaps lighting the bridge this way wilk create a truer sense of realism? Also this plot brings Spock back in time AFTER Kirk's death to prevent a young Kirk's assassination. Having Shatner back would make no sense.

  • I would say that TNG is as good as the original series if not better. VOY and DS9 are where it falls apart. ENTERPRISE is just plain rubbish.

  • I agree. TNG had the deeper characterizations and was more of a "drama". The original series was more Star Wars-ish and less "serious".. more of a cowboy space western. This movie seems most similar to Enterprise in looks at least.

  • I know this film is going to make me buy Star Trek The motion Picture right through to The Undiscovered Country on DVD. And not for good reasons. Face it! Will you! This is going to be a letdown! Simon Pegg as Montgomery Scott?! No way!The Trekkie's Phantom Menace is on its way.I love the original 60s show and the original Crew's movies. Thats it.

    I like your optimism though. Good video.

  • I like the retro look of the uniforms from the original series, too.

    BTW, you forgot to mention Star Trek : Voyager.

  • its gonna be some time travel thing, thats why spock is in it

  • Good take on what we've seen so far. I say Shatner WILL be in this movie. All the stuff about him not being in it is just a marketing ploy..wait and see.

  • I hope it will be good!

  • only the choice of the actors seems to be good. i´m curious how they want to explain the change of the 1701 to an, in my opinion, ugly duck. i wonder if the movie can be worse then nemesis^^

    we´ll see...

  • HAY LEAVE THE GUY ALONE, I HAVE BEEN A TREKKER FOR OVER 30 YEARS .

    STAR TREK IS A WAY OF THINKING FEELING ACTING ON ONES HIGHER SELF. LAY OFF HES A GOOD FAN .

    BUT IF JJ ABRAMS SCREWS THE POUCH ON THIS ,ILL RAISE THE FIRES OF HELL UPON HIS DIR BEHIND .

    Sir you did say about the lighting on the bridge,

    Yes you are right there was only 1 ship with bright bridge

    answer.STAR TREK VOYAGER THE PROMETHUS ON HER MAIDEN VOYAGE,WHEN THE ROMULANS TRIED TO STEAL HER .

    TREKKERS ARE ABOVE PETTY .

  • Picard's era is the 24th century. Kirk's is the 23rd.

  • maybe u dont understand the entire story, dont judge it b4 u watch it. the countdown comics show how, 8 years after Nemesis, Spock is working with Picard, as well as Data reborn thru B4, and Nero. Nero gains access to the Enterprise-E's pc, finding out about James Kirk. Spock sets out to stop Nero, who believes he can go back in time and change history. Thus, where JJ's Star Trek begins.

  • totally left out voyager  haha

  • is this guy geordi?

    anyway, i agree with him

  • Holy cow, you are a total fan! I hate to disagree with you, (I have to disagree with almost everything), but I do agree Star Trek needs a reboot. But I think no one can beat TNG, and if Star Trek had stuck with the great drama we saw in the latter seasons, instead of babes and space battles we saw so much of in Voyager, DS9 and Enterprise, Star Trek would never have needed a reboot. I don't think that Abrams will give us an original Star Trek, but I'm undecided about the movie, time will tell.

  • Which Star Trek stars other than Shatner and Nimoy have moved on to "bigger and better things?"

    And do you really think JJ needed THIS movie to "write his ticket in Hollywood and throughout the world"?

  • once i´ve seen sulu in a macgyver-episode^^

  • Very nice, crisp and intelligent review. Cheers.

  • WTF is he on about DS9 never made a movie! Nutter...

  • I think you are right. I almost fully agree with everything you said. I think this movie is going to be spectacular, if dark.

    I too love sci-fi, and this is going to be wonderful.

  • you don't have to be a nerd to be a star trek fan

  • you are absoluty right i love star trek since i was little my dad watched it an it was amazing then an is it now this movie is gonna be the thing since the the beging of time =]

  • Twenty THIRD century!!!

  • Actually, I pooped a stool that sort of looked like a classic phaser. I wiped the blood off it and put in in a ziplock bag. It's now resting safely in the freezer until I see the actual movie to compare the film phasers to my "phaser" stool....

    Man, this is gonna be GREAT!!

  • I guess Star Trek Voyager wasnt worth mentioning... wtf?

  • dude, voyager sucked balls...not worth mentioning

  • And since this post, Majel Barrett (sp?) has since left us too. Rest In Peace Nurse Chapel.

  • She is involved in this film tho, she is still providing the voice for the computer

  • I always lieked the star treks movies but I hope they dont screw it up again by not putting maeking enuf fightws with the laser swords also I want to see han solo agen with that guy who figths with a black mask on but this looks good even tho I dont recognize any of the actors in the trailor expessially that gold robot with the small robot on wheels I hope the make it exsellent

  • You're joking... right?

    May the Prime Directive be with you...

  • My previous comment was to freshasdida, not zinnie.

    Zinnie: 5 stars.

  • ...wow

  • You mentioned Star Trek the Original Series, Star Trek The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Enterprise, but what about Voyager, I personally liked Voyager, its was original with the first female captain in the Star Trek legacy and the story about being lost in space, finding their way back home, it broke the mold from all the other series, which I enjoyed too no doubt . Voyager was unique, I like Janeway she was a great captain. Hope their is a comeback .... or return of Voyager.

  • I dont understand why people are having such a hard time with the fact that William Shatner isnt going to be in the movie. Its actually good that he isnt in it for many reasons the biggest being the Old Kirk is DEAD, and for all the realism they seem to be trying to put into the movie I dont see how the could justify bringing him back to life somehow. Im sure the could find a way but I think it would add a negative element to the movie.

  • Nemesis really screwed things up in many ways(photon torpedoes instead of quantum torpedoes on the Enterprise-E?!!?What were the writers thinking when they wrote that script?Did they even pay any attention to First Contact or Insurrection?Apparently not.).So,give it a rest and try to enjoy this new movie.I will.

  • The ship did have both installed in FC but in Nemesis the ship was given more Photon Launchers, the ship did use Quantums in nemesis but only once

  • This is a whole new vision of the Star Trek universe and I for one believe that it will be a good thing to bring it up to date and give it an infusion of fresh blood and new ideas.Look how many things Berman and co. changed,especially with Enterprise.That show flat out refuted many things that we Star Trek fans have taken for granted for many years.And Berman was Gene Roddenberrys' golden boy who took over the reigns starting withThe Next Generation and running through Enterprise,and Nemesis.

  • As every serious Trek fan knows,the U.S.S. Enterprise was built at the Utopia Planitia Yards that orbits Mars in the 22nd to 24th century.She was not built anywhere on Earth.Her first captain was Robert April.He was followed by Christopher Pike and Pike was followed in turn by James T.Kirk,who was her last commander before she was decommissioned.I think this new movie looks great so far.Yes-there will be changes and many of us Star Trek fans are going to be pissed off about them,but so what?

  • "As every serious Trek fan knows,the U.S.S. Enterprise was built at the Utopia Planitia Yards that orbits Mars in the 22nd to 24th century.She was not built anywhere on Earth."

    Picard's Enterprise was built at Utopia Planitia as is seen in an episode of TNG, but it was never mentioned in the original series where the Enterprise was constructed. In fact I don't recall Utopia Planitia even being mentioned during the original series.

  • Actually as every real star trek fans knows the original enterprise (not Archers Enterprise) was build at the San Francisco ship Yards. But after this movie you will be able to through every fact that you thought you know about star trek down the drain.

  • The original enterprise was partially built on earth then when being fitted was furbished in spacedock around earth. Later incarnations of the Enterprise where built at the new as then utopia planitia shipyards on mars. It was a matter of course that they moved to mars because of it's production facilities and its resources, more especially because of the rich resources they had from mining the astroid fields. That and it was cheaper to build and refit around mars.

  • and of course not forgetting all the other important engineering and other ships that where built there at the time and much later. Also remember that utopia planitia is the test bed for all ships, and all secondary things, such as weapons and munitions, ship interiors and other important things that they make there. But utopia Planitia as far as I am aware anyway wasnt built until around the mid 23rd century, so it's no wonder kirk, spock and the crew hadnt heard of it, it didnt exist then.

  • I personally am SO GLAD William Shatner is not going to have anything to do with the new movie, Thank God!

  • According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia Reference Guide: " NCC-1701 launched in 2245 from the San Francisco Yards orbiting Earth." I don't know if that solves anything or not.

    Commanded first by Robert April for 5 years, then Christopher Pike for 10 years, then James Kirk.