the TNG movies were never really great and nemesis was certainly appalling. but JJ abrams makes star trek for dumb jocks. all action, no brains.
the analogy to military enlisting was particularly disgusting since that's a bastion for clueless morons that are all action and zero brains. not to mention in service of evil.
trek is high minded idealism, abrams betrays that.
Abrams TOTALY screwed the genre over and whats more disgusting is they been given more license freedom for the next one so they can pretty much do what they want !! i think mr frakes aka(riker) should speak out aand say what he thinks of the pile of crap 2009 star trek was a bulshit load of crap with very little story line in it it was more visual shite than a star trek movie load of crap i walked out after 32 mins i think stng has a least 1 more init bring back the goo dold days kill JJ OFF
@UncleMikeNJ it was dieing when they did Enterprise. Lets face it, the Franchise was running out of gas. Even the Last Next Generation movie didn't do very well (I liked it). I think the only option avalible was to start over. Granted I didn't like the fact Vulcan is gone in the Alternate cannon but what is, is.
@GESSO217 They could have done tonnes better than Enterprise by not interfering with canon and instead of moving backwards they moved FORWARDS in the timeline. I'm not a fan of prequels and they rarely work out. I cant think of any movie or series where they did this and it actually worked.
@Xellith Well the way sum ppl explain it is that the new star trek is a alternate reality from the star trek we know..... I dont believe it but it would make sense
@weather12guy Yea its an alternate timeline. However its similar to an episode of regular star trek where they go into the past but dont manage to preserve the timeline. Basically The Federation failed and The next generation, DS9, Voyager, TOS never happened. It's nicer to think that its just a parallel timeline but yea.. they threw everything out.
@stormshockin apparently the Enterprise - D was infested with spiders, maybe they also had problems with mice, rats and cockroaches. If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we get rid of vermin?
@stormshockin You had to see the episode to get it. The entire crew was "de-evolving", but not just to primates. Each person had different dormant genes that were becoming active and Barclay's were from a spider.
All this talk about what "a real fan" is supposed to like. Star Trek is about inclusion, not exclusion, first and foremost. There are people that like episodes like Threshold just as much as Best of Both Worlds and everything else in between. Every character has their fans, and every fan has a favorite moment in Trek. Who are we to dictate what one must and must not like? That sounds rather -- depressing.
Star trek was dying before 2009, why bcos there are too many treker nerds/geeks out there that hold the original trek canon as some kind of sacred holy book, Trekers killed trek.
JJ abrams revitalized the franchise and gave us new possibilities.
If you actually look into this, Nimoy approved this story line, one of the producers is a level 10 trekkie.
Trek XI brought trek to a wider audience which can only be a good thing in my opinion.
@monkeyhanger83 There it is again "revitalized the franchise"! What are you people paid to say that phrase? Nemoy would approve of a fan that looks like him if it made him money! His opinion is that of a struggling actor not of a fan of the show. Also, just because someone says he is a "level 10 fan" does not mean he is one. Not to mention some fans only watch Trek for the name and the violence. "Trek XI brought trek to a wider audience" another over used excuse... Brain washing that's it!
Bottom line is, JJ Abrams' version of "Star Wars" using Gene Roddenberry's characters did NOT work. Abrams has never had an original idea in his life and should NOT be directing feature films based on tried and true, well established franchises.
After enduring Voyager, Enterprise, and movies 7-10, I quite enjoyed Abram's Star Trek. I found it a suitable origin story for an alternate reality reboot of the entire Trek universe from the beginning. Trekkies whining about plot holes and inconsistencies with the source material need to take a closer look at their revered Original Series: it's quite full of plot holes and inconsistencies itself.
@SBFloppie We are not just winning about that, but about the movie it's self! It has massive amount of plot holes and inconsistencies to its self! It has no moral compass unlike ST 1-6 and TOS! The movie is the worst made Sci-Fi Film since Plan 9 from Outer Space!
@BondFreek From what I see, it's not so much "we" as it is "you". And really? You go straight for the "worst ever" award? It's not one of my favorite movies but it's definitely above half of the stuff with the Star Trek name attached to it. Frankly I could do with less of Roddenberry's preachy scifi; good science fiction explores aspects of the human condition that we all share in spite of time or technology...your "moral compass" went way beyond that to make scifi into a cheap object lesson.
@msinvincible2000 I do not get these people who say that Abrams killed Star Trek. Technically, he hasn't done anything wrong. Watch TNG: Parallels (Season 7 Ep. 11). This episode explains that there are MULTIPLE timelines happening in progress and is proof that,despite the movie's creation of a secondary timeline, the "regular" Trek universe was unaffected and everything from the Original Series onward still went on as it had before. Plus the new Star Trek revitalized the franchise to new people
@Ybarchov21 You don't get it! It's not the alternate time line that bothers us. (Parallel universes are not the same as alternate time lines) It's the whole Star Wars story line and bad science that bother us. The film had no point to it! It was not Trek! Also, the whole "the new Star Trek revitalized the franchise" sound like your brain washed because that's all people who like the film say. It makes me think of that Doctor Who episode: "The Sound of Drums" You SEEM to be brain washed.
@Trekfreek No point? It introduced the characters and creates a canvas to make more movies. And yes...it DID revive the franchise, just like Wrath of Khan did. Star Trek after TOS was just a little cult following and then Wrath of Khan came out and and made Star Trek look amazing. In fact, since Star Trek 2, 3, and 4 favored so well with people, they decided to make The Next Generation to appeal to the masses. Also, Star Trek is riddled with bad science and plot holes. That's what makes it good.
@Ybarchov21 Name one plot hole with in the wrath of Kahn (do not include the episode Space seed, stick to the movie!). Name two ridicules science in The motion picture! Or pick any movie you like. Just remember to evaluate them based on that particular movie nothing more! This new movie is riddled with them! They could have remade the best episodes of Star Trek put it on the big screen and it would have "revitalized the franchise".
1. A planet exploded and NO ONE NOTICED? Even if Ceti Alpha is ignored regularly, wouldn't Reliant's scanners say "Oh shit now there are five planets and it looks like one planet changed orbit, wtf happened?"
2. Since Reliant is looking for suitable planet, wouldn't there be a foot note saying "There is a crazy man named Khan in the Ceti Alpha system, be cautious." thus making the system not an viable option? Kirk logged it into starfleet records. Why would you ignore it?
@Trekfreek 3. The Enterprise is (slowly) attempting to put distance between herself and Reliant (which is about to explode). Whenever Enterprise is shown coming toward camera (or watching Reliant on its viewscreen), Reliant is alternately seen from its starboard side pointing at our 2 o'clock position, from port/aft listing hard to starboard, from its aft/top area, pointing toward 1 o'clock, and from starboard/bow pointing to 5 o'clock... yet Reliant isn't wobbling or moving, and Enterprise ...
@Trekfreek ...maintains a straight (shortest) course away from her...all suggesting Enterprise is traveling in four directions at the same time. That’s just poor movie making. And don’t use “Space Seed”? Space Seed is like the prelude to WOK, you just can’t ignore it. It’s like playing one movement in a symphony, you’re missing out on the rest of the symphony that makes it good. So besides Chekov not being there to see Khan, Khan says that “Two hundred years ago” he was a king. WOK is dated 2285
@Trekfreek HOWEVER in “Space Seed” it says that Khan escaped earth in 1996. Khan’s superior intellect made a rounding error of 100 years? I don’t think so. And speaking on superior intellect, Spock says Khan could have possibly change the prefix code which is the most insecure way Starfleet can handle a problem since all starship codes are on every starship. Since Khan knows everything about Starfleet’s ships, wouldn’t he prove Spock correct by already having changed the prefix code? ...
@Trekfreek He was SO badass in Space Seed, but then he gets into space and suddenly he becomes completely oblivious? Nope.
Those are some of NUMEROUS mistakes, and that's just in ONE Star Trek film (the greatest one in my opinion). Do I think it's a piece of shit since there are so many continuity errors and stupid mistakes and plot holes? No. It will always be one of my favorite movie.
If you hate the movie so much, what would have been your "PERFECT" movie Mr. Trekfreek instead of Trek 09?
@Ybarchov21 You can't can stick to STXI, because if you did I would be proven right! Just admit you like a bad movie! I admit I like Godzilla movies, they are bad movies! I don't look for "PERFECT MOVIES", but I do look for movies that stick with the story telling & film making rules. Did you know that in film school there are explicit films used to demonstrate what not to do when making a movie? (Yes, there are lots of people who love those films.) STXI should be added to the list! IT SUCKED!
@Ybarchov21 PS. (Torell to Kirk "He (Kahn) went wild he slit their throats, he wanted to tear the place apart! But he was late. He had to get back to Reliant in time to blow you to bits!" You might not have seen Kahn's rage but you saw the result...He was a "bad ass" in The Wrath of Kahn. That's why it's called The WRATH of Kahn. Also, Kahn was in Space the entire time in "Space Seed". Watch it again! See it is you who does not pay attention, you only want to see violence on the screen. SAD!
@Trekfreek 1. My point is proven correct since you can't refute any of the evidence I've placed in front of you.
2. I never said Star Trek 09 was perfect. I only asked you what your ideal movie would have been, which you can't think of one obviously.
3. Yes I do remember Khan's result from his wrath and it being a memorable scene and I do remember Space Seed being in Space (duh?). I was just saying that in Space Seed Khan reads up on everything about the Enterprise and Starfleet and yet ...
@Trekfreek he doesn’t use any of the Knowledge that could possibly give him a superior advantage over Kirk? Do you think the thought of “I’m going to make sure we don’t die and lose this ship so I’m going to change the Prefix code so Kirk can’t try that move on me” EVER went through his mind? He was smart enough to turn off life support on the bridge in Space Seed (a function that probably isn’t openly available I would imagine) but can’t change a 5 digit code? That’s unbelievable.
@Trekfreek 4. Never said I wanted more violence either. See, it is YOU that need to pay attention.
The truth is that Old Trekkies will kill the franchise. There has been a steady decline in Star Trek since DS9 and Voyager. When it finally came to Enterprise, that was the final nail in the coffin. Enterprise proved that you couldn’t do the same things on a Star Trek show that you could during TOS or TNG. And the answer to that problem is simple. Times are changing.
@Trekfreek What worked then, doesn’t work now.You have to change it for the new times. Imagine if they instead made a Star Trek movie of Voyager or DS9, or used the old Enterprise “50’s cassette tape” set instead of something that would actually look like a future spaceship.The movie would probably be a disaster.Trekkies hold the TV shows and old movies to such a high standard that they aren’t willing to admit that the whole franchise is filled with plot holes, bad science and perfect characters
@Trekfreek You can’t say that if Geordi La Forge has an idea that only works about .00001% of the time and then it magically works is good or the Enterprise goes to the center of the galaxy to see “god” is fantastic script writing?The fact is that it’s not. But that’s not the point of Star Trek.The point is that it’s a sci-fi story that sets the standard for humans living together and cooperating with each other and species different from them.It’s a society that humans should strive to achieve.
@Ybarchov21 I told you once. I DO NOT COMPARE MOVIES TO OTHER MEDEA! I judge them on their own merits! This new Star Trek is a bad movie as a standalone film! PS the old Star Trek used flat computer tapes also known own as discs; they did this 15 years before the invention of the 3.5 computer discs. Also in order to keep it relevant to any future shows they added wars in the Trek history, this let the tech remain relevant till the 90's. Wars wipe out technology sometimes.
@Trekfreek I did give evidence you green blooded son of a bitch and you can't refute it besides closing your eyes and saying "he didn't prove me wrong because I didn't read it". And Medea? Wife of Jason in Greek Mythology? Oh no wait...you meant MEDIA!!! You probably need to run a level 1 diagnostic on your head if you are going to spell crap wrong.
And for once, your right. You couldn't suspend the belief and you came out stupid. Congratulations. Go play with Neelix.
@Ybarchov21 Yes wife of Jason in Greek Nythology. I told you not to mention my spelling! I'm done with you. You don't want an inteligent conversation you just want to go on arguing over every little thing till time ends.
@Trekfreek A world with no money, food for everyone, the ability to travel anywhere you could possibly imagine, doing whatever you want to do, and to explore and go places “where no one has gone before”. That’s Star Trek. As for the new movie, I believe out off all the movies, it’s at the top half of the list and not “bad” as the little population of brainwashed people who tell other people that they are brainwashed say. So 2012 you can keep hoping that William Shatner will reprise Captain Kirk
@Ybarchov21 PS I don't care who plays whom on Star Trek THE MOVIE SUCKED! It was bad! Bad acting (not the actors fault. Happy?), bad story (It had no point!), Plot holes from the beginning to the last shot, Stupid science! Black holes don't work that way (rip-off of 2 other bad movie D's "The Black Hole" & Godzilla Godzilla vs. Megaguirus), & Young Spock knowing how to fly a future ship because he will 100 years later. No one can suspend this much disbelief in one movie & not come out stupid.
@Trekfreek You bring up a good point about Young Spock, but then again, we are talking about a very advanced ship designed BY Spock for easy use BY Spock... and plus Spock is a genius :)
@newfreshreview That's another thing, by the 24th century artificial intelligence is so advanced it would not mistake young Spock for old Spock. Example: in "Rascals" kid Picard could not get access to the main computer. Also, it would be like a man from 1890 trying to drive a standard transmission of today. This new Spock is not a genius, he did not instantly know that Kirk cheated, he also did not figure out how Scotty & Kirk got on board. The old Spock would investigated- not get angry.
@Trekfreek Except that the Enterprise computer works by voiceprint and Spock's ship works through genetic recognition, right? Didn't it scan him? His DNA would be the same... the Enterprise wouldn't have worked in "Rascals" anyway, since Riker locked out command functions.
Spock NEVER instantly knows anything... He always investigates. Remember how long it took him to figure out who fired the torpedo in "The Undiscovered Country"?
@newfreshreview Wrong. The TNG computer uses finger prints also, they don't change regardless of size. Also, DNA's look changes the same way finger prints' looks do. The older you get the more your DNA has aged as well. Also Picard out ranks Riker, he has access to locked command codes, unless he locked them and forgot, or some android impersonated him. "The Undiscovered Country" was produced by Trek veterans and approved by Gene himself. The new one was produced & approved by Star Wars Fans.
@Trekfreek You might be right about the ship recognition, but my point is that you cited "Rascals" as an example of how a younger Picard couldn't access the ship. I negated that be reminding everyone that, as far as I could remember, Picard had no access because Riker locked out the functions, not because of any problem with DNA. Rank has nothing to do with it; functions had to be unlocked by Riker.
@newfreshreview There have been many times where Riker, Worf and even Picard was able to override a lock out because they had superior rank or security clearance. Picard could over ride Riker’s lock out. He is the captain. The controls were put their as a compromise. Toovok complained and Janeway sided with Paris. He still did not get his hot rod fins! Watch the episode again! Paris even wanted to call the ship "The Paris".
@newfreshreview Regarding the Ship. Have you ever tried driving a Ford “Model A” car? All the controls are backwards compared to modern cars and it takes human power to control it. The car can only go up to 30 MPH and the motor shakes the whole car. It took me 3 hours just to figure out how to use the clutch. It took Spock five seconds to figure out how to use the controls. Impossible! The speed and delicate touch of the controls alone should have overwhelmed him.
@Trekfreek You've missed my point. A Model A was built by Ford for a larger audience. Spock designed the ship SPECIFICALLY for himself. Yes, it's hard to believe that it would only take 5 seconds, but if was designed to be easily used by Spock, why would it take him hours to master? It IS designed to be used logically, after all...
@newfreshreview Think again. Old Spock's ship was not built "SPECIFICLLY for himself", it was locked to his DNA. The same way you would lock your car. Even modern cars can be programmed to welcome you when you unlock them. No ambassador has that much power to be able to have a ship made specifically for him. It just is not DONE! If it was then why didn't all those Ambassadors in all the Star Trek shows needed rides from the Enterprise? "THINK PEOPLE, think!" (Lex Luthor Superman the Movie)
@Trekfreek "No ambassador has that much power..." Tom Paris built a ship for himself, and he was at best a Lieutenant. Remember, Spock at one time carried a rank of Captain with Starfleet. I think that would give him a lot of pull... Plus, it would be plain foolish to not at least CONSULT one of the most experienced field officers, especially when building a ship so scientifically advanced. It's not beyond reason that Spock had a hand in SOME of the ship.
@newfreshreview No. Watch the episode again. Tom Paris built a shuttle for his shipmates. He also had help from his shipmates. The ship was built to with stand the unusual events they have encountered and every one flew it despite of Tom's "Captain Proton" designed controls. That is why it was called "The Delta Flyer" not The Paris. It is also why Tom did not get his hot rod wings added to the shuttle. Stop trying to find reasons that don’t exist. The movie Sucked period.
@Trekfreek Maybe you should watch more episodes with the Flyer. Tuvok criticized Paris' design elements, especially those patterned after the Captain Proton holodeck stories. You really think that Paris put those Captain Proton controls on the Flyer for the ease of his crewmate's use? He clearly made the ship as a toy for himself and the entire series brings that up. Over and over and over again.
And btw, we know you think the movie sucks. Stop ending every post that way, geez.
@newfreshreview PS Do you really think that a logical person like Ambassador Spock would deliberately design a ship with a pointless gyro scope surrounding the ship. His ship is more like something Tom Paris the 3rd would design. The movie is just a bad movie.
@Trekfreek I don't mind movies that make sense... but I also like to have fun. I can't explain why a ship would have a gyro.
I do find it interesting that when I make a point, you change the subject. Sounds like you might be a nitpicker who just won't be happy no matter what. And hey, maybe I'm wrong about you.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've been a Star Trek fan most of my life, and I really didn't have a problem with it. But hey, to each their own.
@newfreshreview I'm not nit picking. A nitpicker would not let an inconsistency from the show to the movie pass. He would hate all the movies for little reasons that have nothing to do with the movies! PS. A True FANatic would not like the new movie because it erases the original show.
@Ybarchov21 No money yet people are buying corporate brand beers and using corporate brand phones in this movie. Kirk even dropped a coin on the bar. Next time pay attention to the movie instead of the action, you might be surprised how wrong you are. Also, I repeat "I don't care who plays whom on Star Trek, THE MOVIE SUCKED!!!!"
@Trekfreek and star in a movie where he was revived somehow but now has to deal with the problems of being elderly and fat, while I’ll go watch the new Star Trek sequel that will be released then and see what the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise 1701 will encounter next.
@Trekfreek Here's one... Khan sees Chekov, "I know you, you I remember." Yeah, and Chekov was never in "Space Seed", hadn't even joined the cast yet.
THEY'RE JUST STORIES!
Okay, so you don't want me to use "Space Seed"... how about this one... A missile that re-terraforms a planet?!?! One that also makes a planet out of a nebula?!?!
@newfreshreview I said stick to the movie. When you include the show you have to fill in the plot holes. Ricardo Montalban said Kahn met Chekov in the bathroom. The book said Chekov was dating MacGyver’s, I like to think that Chekov lead the team that stranded Kahn. None of the explanations are cannon. But the movie it's self has no large plot-holes. The Missile has the genesis wave and it is explained in the movie on how it works. PS Nebulas are future star systems. Look it up.
@newfreshreview I'm positive about Nebulas. Look it up. With every "suspension of disbelief" comes an explanation to aid in that Suspension. A good writer and/or director will provide that explanation, bad ones really on the audience to just ignore the absurdity. Spielberg is a good director. Every movie he made had a quick explanation, as i pointed out with my Jaws reference. Wrath of Kahn also had the explanation shown on a top secret film made by Kirk's girl friend. But the new movie-Nothing!
@newfreshreview You still don't get it. I judge every film by its self first. No tie in to other shows or movies. I judge them stricktly by them selves. Plot holes in side the movie can be over looked only if the movie has only one of them and if the plot hole might be given an explination in the sequel. The new Star Trek is FULL of plot holes that have nothing to do with any other Star Trek out there. They are only plot holes from STXI about ST XI in ST XI! GOT IT?!
@johnkerry7 I agree with TheDarkFrontier. The reason I liked Star Trek was because they told interesting stories about people and society and hopes and dreams for the future, and they told them well (well, most of the time, anyway). For me, the Abrams film didn't capture the old spirit of the shows at all. It was basically an attempt to bring new money into the franchise by appealing to casual ST fans and generic action adventure fans.
@eamonnwalker But thats the point, ST had become MEH, there is nothing wrong with introducing a new take on the franchise and appealing to more movie audiences. Eh, ill agree to disagree. I like the Originals TNG DS9 Voyager and the new movie.
And anyway, I'm not saying it was necessarily a bad thing making the movie. If nothing else, I know it's introduced more young people to the older series. It's just that for those of us who had been waiting seven years for a new Star Trek movie (or 11, for those of us who were somewhat disappointed with Nemesis), this wasn't really Star Trek for us.
@johnkerry7 "ST had become MEH"? Like Rear Window, 2001, Logan's Run & Babylon 5 Becoming "MEH"? Classic movies and TV shows can never become "MEH". They are only "MEH" to those who never REALY enjoyed them in the first place. The Only people who liked the new movie to the extent that you did are the ones who will either watch anything and everything with the Paramount/ Star Trek name or like anything with childish humor in it.
@BondFreek ah, so opinions are good only if they are yours And um, your post really makes no sense. So i have to have liked it all or not at all? I never said i didnt enjoy the past ST, but im sorry. To me it seemed to have run its course with the TNG series and there was no way to do a DS9 or Voyager.
And this may shock you, but there are people out there who dont, and indeed have a right not to enjoy the same things you do, I.E. 2001. Never even heard of Logans run and have seen 1 episode of B5. I know, those are all hard sci fi and anybody who doesnt jump for joy just thinking about them doesnt have a right to an opinion and all...but yeah...sorry, just not my cup of tea.
@johnkerry7 This may shock you even more! But those same people you mentioned never watched a single episode of Star Trek except for maybe rEnterprise, BUM Bum bum...! You can't say it's not your cup of tea till you actually watched them. "Trek Wars: J.J. Shits on Roddenberry" Is the worst film ever made. Bad acting bad camera, inconsistent/bad sets, bad dialog... It only had one thing that was better than "Plan 9 From Outer Space" & that is only because Ed Wood didn't have the budget, Good FX.
@HalfTangible Yes even worse than "Batman & Robin or the Star Wars Christmas Special", these films had a solid story arch where as Star Trek: The Wrath of Jar Jar Abrams has none.
No, people are ranting at the fact the new Star Trek film was an unintelligible mess of poorly-written, generic and contrived scenes, not because the uniforms look different or Spock's ears aren't how they should be. Taking a shot at a film for having a poorly-written story and when compared to the big ideas that Star Trek is capable of, is quite frankly dumbed down just to get people in to see the film, is in no way the same as raging at the X-men uniforms being black.
No, people are ranting at the fact the new Star Trek film was an unintelligible mess of poorly-written, generic and contrived scenes, not because the uniforms look different or Spock's ears aren't how they should be. Taking a shot at a film for having a poorly-written story and when compared to the big ideas that Star Trek is capable of, is quite frankly dumbed down just to get people in to see the film, is in no way the same as raging at the X-men uniforms being black.
J J Abrams should be executed for this joke of a film, and with exterminating the vulcan race. That movie was a spin-off and should never be taken seriously by any proper star trek fan.
I remember that episode. It's the one where time is all fucked up and it makes them act like nut cases. (Yeah I know I'm a total nerd to remember that.)
I'm a fan of TOS and TNG (and the other series too) and I loved the movie. Of course it's different - there's no sense copying the old franchise (which was great but still) It's fresh, naturally the special effects look better (some people complain even about that), the actors did amazing job EVEN THE ORIGINAL ACTORS GAVE THEIR BLESSING. Did people actually wait for an copy of the old series episode / movie? I think JJ Abrams did great work. Well he could forget the lens flares :D
@PointyEaredBastard If there is no sense in copying the old franchise than why did they make such a shitty copy? Only one original actor gave his "blessing" and he was in it. Besides what are they going to say "It sucks!"? They would lose their residual checks. Yes people were waiting for a copy of the original crew in a never before told adventure that had a moral point. Instead we get Batman and Robin the movie. "Freeze you later!"
@PointyEaredBastard You are not a real fan. A real fan knows that Star Trek is not about the adventure, or the explosions, or who is sleeping with whom. It's about the human condition. Do you really think they spit Kirk in two just to have Shatner fight and hug himself or have a whole movie dedicated to saving the whales just to have a time travel story? Star Trek is about ideas, not pulling swards out of one’s ass or promoting people who did not earn it. It's not even about green women.
@BondFreek So by saying I liked the new movie you can say that I don't know what Star Trek is really about? I wouldn't watch Star Trek in the first place if I was looking for explosions and action.
I find the movie entertaining. (unrelated note: Nimoy said he cried because he was so touched by Karl Urban's acting in the film - he though it was spot on) But if you think I'm not a real fan, that's your opinion. Thanks for sharing.
@BondFreek Whatever else it may be, (and to many it is those things) Star Trek is about making money for the producers and investors. Those who like explosions or green women may be fans for different reasons. A fan is simply a person who likes something. And to the producers, a fan is a paying customer.
At its core, it's not a social experiment or statement, it's entertainment. The human condition IS entertaining, so it works in that way.
@pburto "Good fan/bad fan, Real fan/fake fan. Who decides?" The old fans that live Star Trek like football fans live football. We are the ones who know what Gene wanted out of Star Trek. To fans we are also the paying customer and when we don't like a product we have the right and the responsibility to complain!
@pburto "Paramount" HA! All kidding a side... Every incarnation of Star Trek from latter years of TNG- Internet hit Phase II honor Gene's vision because it is his legacy, not Paramount's not yours, and not Jar Jar Abrams’s. It is wrong not to honor a man's legacy when that legacy has given so much to the world.
@BondFreek Sure, honor his legacy... with headstones, songs and candlelight vigils.
But his wishes aren't what should guide evolution of the product, except where it is useful to please the fans. New approaches can also be explored.
When this movie came out, before I saw it I said out loud to my fiance: It must address three things: 1) Captain Pike. 2) the middle name "Tiberius". 3) The nickname "bones". It delivered on all three, and as an old fan I was pleased. Nothing wrong with that.
@BondFreek You're mostly right. But the whale movie was specifically designed to just have a time travel story. The whales were the excuse Nimoy came up with. If you want to go further back, the point was to have a light hearted Star Trek movie, as the execs thought the franchise needed something less grim and dark.
But there was no intended message. It was an excuse plot. There's usually a few of those per season, too.
@trlkly Wrong again! The writing process always starts with "What can we do next?" As they write the keep in mind that it is Star Trek and needs a moral point. There were several ideas that added humor to the movies but only one could be used to make a moral point. Nemoy even said that they originally were trying to avoid a time travel story. If you were a fan you would know this.
@BondFreek Seeing as you can't even spell Nimoy, I seriously doubt you are a real fan, either.
And, sorry. I have Nimoy's autobiography. He says flat out that one of the requirements he was given was that it would be a time travel movie.
Finally, anyone who goes around telling other people that they aren't fans isn't a fan. They are just in it because they like to say shit about people.
@trlkly "Seeing as you can't even spell Nimoy" I can't spell period! That does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about! Nimoy has chainged the story manny times! I go by what Harve Bennet Said and what Nimoy said in his 1986 interview. Gene accepted Christianity ("Bread and Circuses") and his vision of the future included all beliefes and political points of veiw! "anyone who goes around telling other people that they aren't fans isn't a fan" You just said that you are not a fan!
@BondFreek I also have to point out that you are both a Christian and a conservative. Both of these things were anathema to Gene. His entire vision was that humanity evolved beyond both.
Also, I'd go back and read what the Bible says about saying crap about people.
@trlkly The Bible says "Don't bear fails witness against each other. I did not do this. I never told others that you were a liar, that you're not a fan, or that you did something you did not do. I challenged you and stated an observation to you about you, only YOU!
@Pruechelan In what way wrong? They already proved the characters developed slightly different... And besides, you'll accept that Spock's Vulcan father, Sarek, married a human, but a Half-Human Spock can't have a romantic interest? I'm more disturbed by Sarek... lol
@Pruechelan All Star Trek movies suck (well, maybe not First Contact) I dunno why, but ST is meant to be series episode, that's how I like it. The newest movie sucked most, main stream shit that didn't make sence, Kirk becoming Cadet-Captain, romance with Uhura, etc. Best part of it was Leonard Nimoy for 20 seconds in the end..
I can deal with making Sulu a fucking ninja; I can deal with Spock now having jungle fever, despite the fact he looks like he bats for the Romulans (you know what I mean); I can deal with Kirk being a juvenile delinquent who, weirdly, /doesn't/ get the girl.
What bothers me is that they both blew up Vulcan, and they basically reduced ST to a common-or-garden "HeyLetsBlowShitUp!" film. Roddenberry is probably spinning in his grave, considering his opinions on some of the later TOS movies.
@melodramatic7904 : I totally agree with you. I still dont understand why the top comments have so many thumps up. Maybe it it the forever alone generation of star trek? Little bumps in there faces, pony tails, fat and knowing every single quote and detail of every series.
O and I love the new movie. Way better then before all that. Finally some real story with real humor. Nom tong, what nom tong? xD
what the hell was this
lanseri 1 day ago
is this from a movie or an episode of TNG
NEXTGENCRAFTING 2 days ago
@NEXTGENCRAFTING both
lestat34208 3 hours ago
Absolute garbage. Die please.
hanneesh 4 weeks ago
See even Picard hates the new star trek movie
weather12guy 1 month ago
of course he panicked. 2009 movie was so pathetic
AliTubelog 1 month ago
@AliTubelog i thought it was awesome...
Dom20002007 1 month ago
what is :42 from???
AtumAten 1 month ago
i think star treck is great
kimvlaar 1 month ago
the TNG movies were never really great and nemesis was certainly appalling. but JJ abrams makes star trek for dumb jocks. all action, no brains.
the analogy to military enlisting was particularly disgusting since that's a bastion for clueless morons that are all action and zero brains. not to mention in service of evil.
trek is high minded idealism, abrams betrays that.
DanFrederiksen 1 month ago
@DanFrederiksen
To me star trek was always meant to be a tv series. Movies are an attempt to gain viewers, nothing more. nothing worth watching for trek series fans.
And JJ Abrams took it to a new level of pathetic.
AliTubelog 1 month ago
Abrams TOTALY screwed the genre over and whats more disgusting is they been given more license freedom for the next one so they can pretty much do what they want !! i think mr frakes aka(riker) should speak out aand say what he thinks of the pile of crap 2009 star trek was a bulshit load of crap with very little story line in it it was more visual shite than a star trek movie load of crap i walked out after 32 mins i think stng has a least 1 more init bring back the goo dold days kill JJ OFF
MrThehogster1 2 months ago
Comment removed
SplinterCellFrever 2 months ago
Comment removed
SplinterCellFrever 2 months ago
That was hilarious.
saquist 2 months ago 5
@saquist More like lame...
JEELEN1 5 days ago
JJ Abrams did what NBC, Fred Freiberger, Kes, and even Shatner directing a movie couldn't do. He killed Star Trek.
Ah, but, like Spock and the Enterprise itself, it will not stay dead.
UncleMikeNJ 2 months ago
@UncleMikeNJ No it was dead before Abrams got to it.
Hartzilla2007 2 months ago
@UncleMikeNJ it was dieing when they did Enterprise. Lets face it, the Franchise was running out of gas. Even the Last Next Generation movie didn't do very well (I liked it). I think the only option avalible was to start over. Granted I didn't like the fact Vulcan is gone in the Alternate cannon but what is, is.
GESSO217 1 month ago
@GESSO217 They could have done tonnes better than Enterprise by not interfering with canon and instead of moving backwards they moved FORWARDS in the timeline. I'm not a fan of prequels and they rarely work out. I cant think of any movie or series where they did this and it actually worked.
Xellith 1 month ago
@Xellith Well the way sum ppl explain it is that the new star trek is a alternate reality from the star trek we know..... I dont believe it but it would make sense
weather12guy 1 month ago
@weather12guy Yea its an alternate timeline. However its similar to an episode of regular star trek where they go into the past but dont manage to preserve the timeline. Basically The Federation failed and The next generation, DS9, Voyager, TOS never happened. It's nicer to think that its just a parallel timeline but yea.. they threw everything out.
Xellith 1 month ago
spider webbs on a space craft??
stormshockin 2 months ago 14
@stormshockin
It's... it's complicated. Well, actually it's very simple (Barcley turned into a spider), it's just very conviluted and the explanation is stupid.
Mrspikeprime 1 month ago
@stormshockin yup the crew had de-evolved and Barclay had turned into a strange spider thing
henniganwilson 1 month ago
@stormshockin Space Spiders wooooooo scary lol
HarpoonBanana 1 month ago
@stormshockin apparently the Enterprise - D was infested with spiders, maybe they also had problems with mice, rats and cockroaches. If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we get rid of vermin?
nozcr 1 month ago
@nozcr no its just Lt. Barkley who devolved in to a spider
enterprise1476 1 month ago
@nozcr at least it's not tribbles.
Fektthis 3 weeks ago
@stormshockin yes its has to do with the plot of the episode that clip is from.
enterprise1476 1 month ago
@stormshockin You had to see the episode to get it. The entire crew was "de-evolving", but not just to primates. Each person had different dormant genes that were becoming active and Barclay's were from a spider.
jtkirkfan2002 3 weeks ago
wtf is this ..
Ditrix 2 months ago
What episode is this?
Saiko47 2 months ago
Spock's gay he shouldn't be with Uhura but a hot guy!
buttersyrupnpancakes 2 months ago
@buttersyrupnpancakes That must be why spock and mccoy are always fighting.
awilliams1701 2 months ago
@awilliams1701 :P
buttersyrupnpancakes 2 months ago
@buttersyrupnpancakes Like Sulu?
WebVManReturns 2 months ago
@WebVManReturns i'm not against that. :P might be a good pair.
buttersyrupnpancakes 2 months ago
Uhura with Spock was pretty shocking. She belongs with Scotty, for goodness' sake. They'd better put that in the next movie!
TheInuyanma 2 months ago
Why all the dislikes?
rolas110 3 months ago
great!!!!!!
arckangel38 3 months ago
All this talk about what "a real fan" is supposed to like. Star Trek is about inclusion, not exclusion, first and foremost. There are people that like episodes like Threshold just as much as Best of Both Worlds and everything else in between. Every character has their fans, and every fan has a favorite moment in Trek. Who are we to dictate what one must and must not like? That sounds rather -- depressing.
Cyke101 3 months ago
@Cyke101 Amen.
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
Star trek was dying before 2009, why bcos there are too many treker nerds/geeks out there that hold the original trek canon as some kind of sacred holy book, Trekers killed trek.
JJ abrams revitalized the franchise and gave us new possibilities.
If you actually look into this, Nimoy approved this story line, one of the producers is a level 10 trekkie.
Trek XI brought trek to a wider audience which can only be a good thing in my opinion.
monkeyhanger83 3 months ago
@monkeyhanger83 There it is again "revitalized the franchise"! What are you people paid to say that phrase? Nemoy would approve of a fan that looks like him if it made him money! His opinion is that of a struggling actor not of a fan of the show. Also, just because someone says he is a "level 10 fan" does not mean he is one. Not to mention some fans only watch Trek for the name and the violence. "Trek XI brought trek to a wider audience" another over used excuse... Brain washing that's it!
Trekfreek 3 months ago
Bottom line is, JJ Abrams' version of "Star Wars" using Gene Roddenberry's characters did NOT work. Abrams has never had an original idea in his life and should NOT be directing feature films based on tried and true, well established franchises.
Enuff said!
Actionguy1 3 months ago 8
I had the same reaction watching that so-called movie:p
jhatc1 3 months ago
After enduring Voyager, Enterprise, and movies 7-10, I quite enjoyed Abram's Star Trek. I found it a suitable origin story for an alternate reality reboot of the entire Trek universe from the beginning. Trekkies whining about plot holes and inconsistencies with the source material need to take a closer look at their revered Original Series: it's quite full of plot holes and inconsistencies itself.
Also, it frequently was just plain bad scifi.
SBFloppie 3 months ago
@SBFloppie We are not just winning about that, but about the movie it's self! It has massive amount of plot holes and inconsistencies to its self! It has no moral compass unlike ST 1-6 and TOS! The movie is the worst made Sci-Fi Film since Plan 9 from Outer Space!
BondFreek 3 months ago 2
@BondFreek From what I see, it's not so much "we" as it is "you". And really? You go straight for the "worst ever" award? It's not one of my favorite movies but it's definitely above half of the stuff with the Star Trek name attached to it. Frankly I could do with less of Roddenberry's preachy scifi; good science fiction explores aspects of the human condition that we all share in spite of time or technology...your "moral compass" went way beyond that to make scifi into a cheap object lesson.
SBFloppie 3 months ago
@SBFloppie RRRRrrrrright..... I suggest you re watch Soilent Green, ZPG, and Colossus the Forben Project.
BondFreek 3 months ago 9
Comment removed
BondFreek 4 months ago
My reaction exactly. JJ Abrams, killed Star trek
msinvincible2000 4 months ago 3
@msinvincible2000 I do not get these people who say that Abrams killed Star Trek. Technically, he hasn't done anything wrong. Watch TNG: Parallels (Season 7 Ep. 11). This episode explains that there are MULTIPLE timelines happening in progress and is proof that,despite the movie's creation of a secondary timeline, the "regular" Trek universe was unaffected and everything from the Original Series onward still went on as it had before. Plus the new Star Trek revitalized the franchise to new people
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
@Ybarchov21 You don't get it! It's not the alternate time line that bothers us. (Parallel universes are not the same as alternate time lines) It's the whole Star Wars story line and bad science that bother us. The film had no point to it! It was not Trek! Also, the whole "the new Star Trek revitalized the franchise" sound like your brain washed because that's all people who like the film say. It makes me think of that Doctor Who episode: "The Sound of Drums" You SEEM to be brain washed.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek No point? It introduced the characters and creates a canvas to make more movies. And yes...it DID revive the franchise, just like Wrath of Khan did. Star Trek after TOS was just a little cult following and then Wrath of Khan came out and and made Star Trek look amazing. In fact, since Star Trek 2, 3, and 4 favored so well with people, they decided to make The Next Generation to appeal to the masses. Also, Star Trek is riddled with bad science and plot holes. That's what makes it good.
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
@Ybarchov21 Name one plot hole with in the wrath of Kahn (do not include the episode Space seed, stick to the movie!). Name two ridicules science in The motion picture! Or pick any movie you like. Just remember to evaluate them based on that particular movie nothing more! This new movie is riddled with them! They could have remade the best episodes of Star Trek put it on the big screen and it would have "revitalized the franchise".
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek STII: WoK
1. A planet exploded and NO ONE NOTICED? Even if Ceti Alpha is ignored regularly, wouldn't Reliant's scanners say "Oh shit now there are five planets and it looks like one planet changed orbit, wtf happened?"
2. Since Reliant is looking for suitable planet, wouldn't there be a foot note saying "There is a crazy man named Khan in the Ceti Alpha system, be cautious." thus making the system not an viable option? Kirk logged it into starfleet records. Why would you ignore it?
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
@Trekfreek 3. The Enterprise is (slowly) attempting to put distance between herself and Reliant (which is about to explode). Whenever Enterprise is shown coming toward camera (or watching Reliant on its viewscreen), Reliant is alternately seen from its starboard side pointing at our 2 o'clock position, from port/aft listing hard to starboard, from its aft/top area, pointing toward 1 o'clock, and from starboard/bow pointing to 5 o'clock... yet Reliant isn't wobbling or moving, and Enterprise ...
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
@Trekfreek ...maintains a straight (shortest) course away from her...all suggesting Enterprise is traveling in four directions at the same time. That’s just poor movie making. And don’t use “Space Seed”? Space Seed is like the prelude to WOK, you just can’t ignore it. It’s like playing one movement in a symphony, you’re missing out on the rest of the symphony that makes it good. So besides Chekov not being there to see Khan, Khan says that “Two hundred years ago” he was a king. WOK is dated 2285
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
@Trekfreek HOWEVER in “Space Seed” it says that Khan escaped earth in 1996. Khan’s superior intellect made a rounding error of 100 years? I don’t think so. And speaking on superior intellect, Spock says Khan could have possibly change the prefix code which is the most insecure way Starfleet can handle a problem since all starship codes are on every starship. Since Khan knows everything about Starfleet’s ships, wouldn’t he prove Spock correct by already having changed the prefix code? ...
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
@Trekfreek He was SO badass in Space Seed, but then he gets into space and suddenly he becomes completely oblivious? Nope.
Those are some of NUMEROUS mistakes, and that's just in ONE Star Trek film (the greatest one in my opinion). Do I think it's a piece of shit since there are so many continuity errors and stupid mistakes and plot holes? No. It will always be one of my favorite movie.
If you hate the movie so much, what would have been your "PERFECT" movie Mr. Trekfreek instead of Trek 09?
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
@Ybarchov21 You can't can stick to STXI, because if you did I would be proven right! Just admit you like a bad movie! I admit I like Godzilla movies, they are bad movies! I don't look for "PERFECT MOVIES", but I do look for movies that stick with the story telling & film making rules. Did you know that in film school there are explicit films used to demonstrate what not to do when making a movie? (Yes, there are lots of people who love those films.) STXI should be added to the list! IT SUCKED!
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Ybarchov21 PS. (Torell to Kirk "He (Kahn) went wild he slit their throats, he wanted to tear the place apart! But he was late. He had to get back to Reliant in time to blow you to bits!" You might not have seen Kahn's rage but you saw the result...He was a "bad ass" in The Wrath of Kahn. That's why it's called The WRATH of Kahn. Also, Kahn was in Space the entire time in "Space Seed". Watch it again! See it is you who does not pay attention, you only want to see violence on the screen. SAD!
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek 1. My point is proven correct since you can't refute any of the evidence I've placed in front of you.
2. I never said Star Trek 09 was perfect. I only asked you what your ideal movie would have been, which you can't think of one obviously.
3. Yes I do remember Khan's result from his wrath and it being a memorable scene and I do remember Space Seed being in Space (duh?). I was just saying that in Space Seed Khan reads up on everything about the Enterprise and Starfleet and yet ...
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
@Ybarchov21 You gave no evedence. And now you are ranting! Get a life.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek he doesn’t use any of the Knowledge that could possibly give him a superior advantage over Kirk? Do you think the thought of “I’m going to make sure we don’t die and lose this ship so I’m going to change the Prefix code so Kirk can’t try that move on me” EVER went through his mind? He was smart enough to turn off life support on the bridge in Space Seed (a function that probably isn’t openly available I would imagine) but can’t change a 5 digit code? That’s unbelievable.
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
@Trekfreek 4. Never said I wanted more violence either. See, it is YOU that need to pay attention.
The truth is that Old Trekkies will kill the franchise. There has been a steady decline in Star Trek since DS9 and Voyager. When it finally came to Enterprise, that was the final nail in the coffin. Enterprise proved that you couldn’t do the same things on a Star Trek show that you could during TOS or TNG. And the answer to that problem is simple. Times are changing.
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
@Trekfreek What worked then, doesn’t work now.You have to change it for the new times. Imagine if they instead made a Star Trek movie of Voyager or DS9, or used the old Enterprise “50’s cassette tape” set instead of something that would actually look like a future spaceship.The movie would probably be a disaster.Trekkies hold the TV shows and old movies to such a high standard that they aren’t willing to admit that the whole franchise is filled with plot holes, bad science and perfect characters
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
@Trekfreek You can’t say that if Geordi La Forge has an idea that only works about .00001% of the time and then it magically works is good or the Enterprise goes to the center of the galaxy to see “god” is fantastic script writing?The fact is that it’s not. But that’s not the point of Star Trek.The point is that it’s a sci-fi story that sets the standard for humans living together and cooperating with each other and species different from them.It’s a society that humans should strive to achieve.
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
@Ybarchov21 I told you once. I DO NOT COMPARE MOVIES TO OTHER MEDEA! I judge them on their own merits! This new Star Trek is a bad movie as a standalone film! PS the old Star Trek used flat computer tapes also known own as discs; they did this 15 years before the invention of the 3.5 computer discs. Also in order to keep it relevant to any future shows they added wars in the Trek history, this let the tech remain relevant till the 90's. Wars wipe out technology sometimes.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek I did give evidence you green blooded son of a bitch and you can't refute it besides closing your eyes and saying "he didn't prove me wrong because I didn't read it". And Medea? Wife of Jason in Greek Mythology? Oh no wait...you meant MEDIA!!! You probably need to run a level 1 diagnostic on your head if you are going to spell crap wrong.
And for once, your right. You couldn't suspend the belief and you came out stupid. Congratulations. Go play with Neelix.
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ybarchov21 Yes wife of Jason in Greek Nythology. I told you not to mention my spelling! I'm done with you. You don't want an inteligent conversation you just want to go on arguing over every little thing till time ends.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek A world with no money, food for everyone, the ability to travel anywhere you could possibly imagine, doing whatever you want to do, and to explore and go places “where no one has gone before”. That’s Star Trek. As for the new movie, I believe out off all the movies, it’s at the top half of the list and not “bad” as the little population of brainwashed people who tell other people that they are brainwashed say. So 2012 you can keep hoping that William Shatner will reprise Captain Kirk
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
@Ybarchov21 PS I don't care who plays whom on Star Trek THE MOVIE SUCKED! It was bad! Bad acting (not the actors fault. Happy?), bad story (It had no point!), Plot holes from the beginning to the last shot, Stupid science! Black holes don't work that way (rip-off of 2 other bad movie D's "The Black Hole" & Godzilla Godzilla vs. Megaguirus), & Young Spock knowing how to fly a future ship because he will 100 years later. No one can suspend this much disbelief in one movie & not come out stupid.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek You bring up a good point about Young Spock, but then again, we are talking about a very advanced ship designed BY Spock for easy use BY Spock... and plus Spock is a genius :)
newfreshreview 3 months ago
@newfreshreview That's another thing, by the 24th century artificial intelligence is so advanced it would not mistake young Spock for old Spock. Example: in "Rascals" kid Picard could not get access to the main computer. Also, it would be like a man from 1890 trying to drive a standard transmission of today. This new Spock is not a genius, he did not instantly know that Kirk cheated, he also did not figure out how Scotty & Kirk got on board. The old Spock would investigated- not get angry.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek Except that the Enterprise computer works by voiceprint and Spock's ship works through genetic recognition, right? Didn't it scan him? His DNA would be the same... the Enterprise wouldn't have worked in "Rascals" anyway, since Riker locked out command functions.
Spock NEVER instantly knows anything... He always investigates. Remember how long it took him to figure out who fired the torpedo in "The Undiscovered Country"?
newfreshreview 3 months ago
@newfreshreview Wrong. The TNG computer uses finger prints also, they don't change regardless of size. Also, DNA's look changes the same way finger prints' looks do. The older you get the more your DNA has aged as well. Also Picard out ranks Riker, he has access to locked command codes, unless he locked them and forgot, or some android impersonated him. "The Undiscovered Country" was produced by Trek veterans and approved by Gene himself. The new one was produced & approved by Star Wars Fans.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek You might be right about the ship recognition, but my point is that you cited "Rascals" as an example of how a younger Picard couldn't access the ship. I negated that be reminding everyone that, as far as I could remember, Picard had no access because Riker locked out the functions, not because of any problem with DNA. Rank has nothing to do with it; functions had to be unlocked by Riker.
newfreshreview 3 months ago
@newfreshreview There have been many times where Riker, Worf and even Picard was able to override a lock out because they had superior rank or security clearance. Picard could over ride Riker’s lock out. He is the captain. The controls were put their as a compromise. Toovok complained and Janeway sided with Paris. He still did not get his hot rod fins! Watch the episode again! Paris even wanted to call the ship "The Paris".
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@newfreshreview Regarding the Ship. Have you ever tried driving a Ford “Model A” car? All the controls are backwards compared to modern cars and it takes human power to control it. The car can only go up to 30 MPH and the motor shakes the whole car. It took me 3 hours just to figure out how to use the clutch. It took Spock five seconds to figure out how to use the controls. Impossible! The speed and delicate touch of the controls alone should have overwhelmed him.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek You've missed my point. A Model A was built by Ford for a larger audience. Spock designed the ship SPECIFICALLY for himself. Yes, it's hard to believe that it would only take 5 seconds, but if was designed to be easily used by Spock, why would it take him hours to master? It IS designed to be used logically, after all...
newfreshreview 3 months ago
@newfreshreview Think again. Old Spock's ship was not built "SPECIFICLLY for himself", it was locked to his DNA. The same way you would lock your car. Even modern cars can be programmed to welcome you when you unlock them. No ambassador has that much power to be able to have a ship made specifically for him. It just is not DONE! If it was then why didn't all those Ambassadors in all the Star Trek shows needed rides from the Enterprise? "THINK PEOPLE, think!" (Lex Luthor Superman the Movie)
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek "No ambassador has that much power..." Tom Paris built a ship for himself, and he was at best a Lieutenant. Remember, Spock at one time carried a rank of Captain with Starfleet. I think that would give him a lot of pull... Plus, it would be plain foolish to not at least CONSULT one of the most experienced field officers, especially when building a ship so scientifically advanced. It's not beyond reason that Spock had a hand in SOME of the ship.
newfreshreview 3 months ago
@newfreshreview No. Watch the episode again. Tom Paris built a shuttle for his shipmates. He also had help from his shipmates. The ship was built to with stand the unusual events they have encountered and every one flew it despite of Tom's "Captain Proton" designed controls. That is why it was called "The Delta Flyer" not The Paris. It is also why Tom did not get his hot rod wings added to the shuttle. Stop trying to find reasons that don’t exist. The movie Sucked period.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek Maybe you should watch more episodes with the Flyer. Tuvok criticized Paris' design elements, especially those patterned after the Captain Proton holodeck stories. You really think that Paris put those Captain Proton controls on the Flyer for the ease of his crewmate's use? He clearly made the ship as a toy for himself and the entire series brings that up. Over and over and over again.
And btw, we know you think the movie sucks. Stop ending every post that way, geez.
newfreshreview 3 months ago
@newfreshreview PS Do you really think that a logical person like Ambassador Spock would deliberately design a ship with a pointless gyro scope surrounding the ship. His ship is more like something Tom Paris the 3rd would design. The movie is just a bad movie.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek I don't mind movies that make sense... but I also like to have fun. I can't explain why a ship would have a gyro.
I do find it interesting that when I make a point, you change the subject. Sounds like you might be a nitpicker who just won't be happy no matter what. And hey, maybe I'm wrong about you.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've been a Star Trek fan most of my life, and I really didn't have a problem with it. But hey, to each their own.
newfreshreview 3 months ago
@newfreshreview I'm not nit picking. A nitpicker would not let an inconsistency from the show to the movie pass. He would hate all the movies for little reasons that have nothing to do with the movies! PS. A True FANatic would not like the new movie because it erases the original show.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Ybarchov21 No money yet people are buying corporate brand beers and using corporate brand phones in this movie. Kirk even dropped a coin on the bar. Next time pay attention to the movie instead of the action, you might be surprised how wrong you are. Also, I repeat "I don't care who plays whom on Star Trek, THE MOVIE SUCKED!!!!"
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek and star in a movie where he was revived somehow but now has to deal with the problems of being elderly and fat, while I’ll go watch the new Star Trek sequel that will be released then and see what the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise 1701 will encounter next.
Ybarchov21 3 months ago
@Trekfreek Here's one... Khan sees Chekov, "I know you, you I remember." Yeah, and Chekov was never in "Space Seed", hadn't even joined the cast yet.
THEY'RE JUST STORIES!
Okay, so you don't want me to use "Space Seed"... how about this one... A missile that re-terraforms a planet?!?! One that also makes a planet out of a nebula?!?!
THEY'RE JUST STORIES!!!!
newfreshreview 3 months ago
@newfreshreview I said stick to the movie. When you include the show you have to fill in the plot holes. Ricardo Montalban said Kahn met Chekov in the bathroom. The book said Chekov was dating MacGyver’s, I like to think that Chekov lead the team that stranded Kahn. None of the explanations are cannon. But the movie it's self has no large plot-holes. The Missile has the genesis wave and it is explained in the movie on how it works. PS Nebulas are future star systems. Look it up.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek Are you sure that nebulas form planets? I thought it was only stars...
And I am talking about suspension of disbelief. You'll believe in a world-changing torpedo, but not in a wee-designed ship.
You are clearly a selective viewer, but, eh, to each his own.
And it's great that you can fill in plot holes between established canon... as long as it doesn't involve the new film, because THAT'S TRASH!!!!!! lol
newfreshreview 3 months ago
@newfreshreview I'm positive about Nebulas. Look it up. With every "suspension of disbelief" comes an explanation to aid in that Suspension. A good writer and/or director will provide that explanation, bad ones really on the audience to just ignore the absurdity. Spielberg is a good director. Every movie he made had a quick explanation, as i pointed out with my Jaws reference. Wrath of Kahn also had the explanation shown on a top secret film made by Kirk's girl friend. But the new movie-Nothing!
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@newfreshreview You still don't get it. I judge every film by its self first. No tie in to other shows or movies. I judge them stricktly by them selves. Plot holes in side the movie can be over looked only if the movie has only one of them and if the plot hole might be given an explination in the sequel. The new Star Trek is FULL of plot holes that have nothing to do with any other Star Trek out there. They are only plot holes from STXI about ST XI in ST XI! GOT IT?!
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek O I got it all right... Never feed a troll.
newfreshreview 3 months ago
@newfreshreview Billy Goat Gruff...Right?
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek Ha! That's funny. :)
newfreshreview 3 months ago
@johnkerry7 I agree with TheDarkFrontier. The reason I liked Star Trek was because they told interesting stories about people and society and hopes and dreams for the future, and they told them well (well, most of the time, anyway). For me, the Abrams film didn't capture the old spirit of the shows at all. It was basically an attempt to bring new money into the franchise by appealing to casual ST fans and generic action adventure fans.
eamonnwalker 4 months ago
@eamonnwalker But thats the point, ST had become MEH, there is nothing wrong with introducing a new take on the franchise and appealing to more movie audiences. Eh, ill agree to disagree. I like the Originals TNG DS9 Voyager and the new movie.
johnkerry7 4 months ago
@johnkerry7 "Eh, ill agree to disagree."
I wouldn't ask for more.
And anyway, I'm not saying it was necessarily a bad thing making the movie. If nothing else, I know it's introduced more young people to the older series. It's just that for those of us who had been waiting seven years for a new Star Trek movie (or 11, for those of us who were somewhat disappointed with Nemesis), this wasn't really Star Trek for us.
eamonnwalker 4 months ago
@eamonnwalker
See, civilaty can happen in a conversation :)
johnkerry7 4 months ago
@johnkerry7 "ST had become MEH"? Like Rear Window, 2001, Logan's Run & Babylon 5 Becoming "MEH"? Classic movies and TV shows can never become "MEH". They are only "MEH" to those who never REALY enjoyed them in the first place. The Only people who liked the new movie to the extent that you did are the ones who will either watch anything and everything with the Paramount/ Star Trek name or like anything with childish humor in it.
BondFreek 4 months ago 2
@BondFreek ah, so opinions are good only if they are yours And um, your post really makes no sense. So i have to have liked it all or not at all? I never said i didnt enjoy the past ST, but im sorry. To me it seemed to have run its course with the TNG series and there was no way to do a DS9 or Voyager.
johnkerry7 4 months ago
And this may shock you, but there are people out there who dont, and indeed have a right not to enjoy the same things you do, I.E. 2001. Never even heard of Logans run and have seen 1 episode of B5. I know, those are all hard sci fi and anybody who doesnt jump for joy just thinking about them doesnt have a right to an opinion and all...but yeah...sorry, just not my cup of tea.
johnkerry7 4 months ago
@johnkerry7 This may shock you even more! But those same people you mentioned never watched a single episode of Star Trek except for maybe rEnterprise, BUM Bum bum...! You can't say it's not your cup of tea till you actually watched them. "Trek Wars: J.J. Shits on Roddenberry" Is the worst film ever made. Bad acting bad camera, inconsistent/bad sets, bad dialog... It only had one thing that was better than "Plan 9 From Outer Space" & that is only because Ed Wood didn't have the budget, Good FX.
BondFreek 4 months ago 2
@BondFreek Worse than Batman & Robin or the Star Wars Christmas Special?
... Yes, i know the special wasn't a movie but it sucked enough that that doesn't really matter :P
HalfTangible 3 months ago
@HalfTangible Yes even worse than "Batman & Robin or the Star Wars Christmas Special", these films had a solid story arch where as Star Trek: The Wrath of Jar Jar Abrams has none.
BondFreek 3 months ago
@johnkerry7
No, people are ranting at the fact the new Star Trek film was an unintelligible mess of poorly-written, generic and contrived scenes, not because the uniforms look different or Spock's ears aren't how they should be. Taking a shot at a film for having a poorly-written story and when compared to the big ideas that Star Trek is capable of, is quite frankly dumbed down just to get people in to see the film, is in no way the same as raging at the X-men uniforms being black.
TheDarkFrontier 4 months ago
@johnkerry7
No, people are ranting at the fact the new Star Trek film was an unintelligible mess of poorly-written, generic and contrived scenes, not because the uniforms look different or Spock's ears aren't how they should be. Taking a shot at a film for having a poorly-written story and when compared to the big ideas that Star Trek is capable of, is quite frankly dumbed down just to get people in to see the film, is in no way the same as raging at the X-men uniforms being black.
TheDarkFrontier 4 months ago
thank you! i hate the 2009 movie. its just not the same.
OpalRedverne 4 months ago
I kinda liked the new movie. Not as much as the TOS movies, but it was okay.
I also liked the Watchmen movie, as well as the comic.
People on both sides of the fanboy arguments can just suck it!
Yonkage 4 months ago
J J Abrams should be executed for this joke of a film, and with exterminating the vulcan race. That movie was a spin-off and should never be taken seriously by any proper star trek fan.
LoneRookRS1 4 months ago
I remember that episode. It's the one where time is all fucked up and it makes them act like nut cases. (Yeah I know I'm a total nerd to remember that.)
JaysonSR 4 months ago
@johnkerry7 Wait...what did they do to Havok!?! This is why i ignored any marvel films after the travesty that was x3. o_O
pumpkinwolf 4 months ago
What episode was that?
:O
masterofall66 4 months ago
God that movie was awful.
TARDISlore7 4 months ago
Epic rofl
crogeek 5 months ago
If it's nothing like Roddenberry's vision, then it's NOT star trek!!!!
Krshna28 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Krshna28 A Googleplex of thumbs up on this.
BUDA20 4 months ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH....
This was so funny.
DarthRushy 5 months ago
I should have known it was someone who can't accept the new movie,
mikethe4th 5 months ago
Sorry....sophomoric attempt at humor. But the humor is directionless and pointless.
visfati 5 months ago
Anybody know what episode this is?
GeorgeLynch1985 5 months ago
That was my reaction to Battlefield Earth.
WebVMan 5 months ago 2
I'm a fan of TOS and TNG (and the other series too) and I loved the movie. Of course it's different - there's no sense copying the old franchise (which was great but still) It's fresh, naturally the special effects look better (some people complain even about that), the actors did amazing job EVEN THE ORIGINAL ACTORS GAVE THEIR BLESSING. Did people actually wait for an copy of the old series episode / movie? I think JJ Abrams did great work. Well he could forget the lens flares :D
PointyEaredBastard 6 months ago
@PointyEaredBastard If there is no sense in copying the old franchise than why did they make such a shitty copy? Only one original actor gave his "blessing" and he was in it. Besides what are they going to say "It sucks!"? They would lose their residual checks. Yes people were waiting for a copy of the original crew in a never before told adventure that had a moral point. Instead we get Batman and Robin the movie. "Freeze you later!"
BondFreek 5 months ago 2
@PointyEaredBastard You are not a real fan. A real fan knows that Star Trek is not about the adventure, or the explosions, or who is sleeping with whom. It's about the human condition. Do you really think they spit Kirk in two just to have Shatner fight and hug himself or have a whole movie dedicated to saving the whales just to have a time travel story? Star Trek is about ideas, not pulling swards out of one’s ass or promoting people who did not earn it. It's not even about green women.
BondFreek 5 months ago 45
@BondFreek So by saying I liked the new movie you can say that I don't know what Star Trek is really about? I wouldn't watch Star Trek in the first place if I was looking for explosions and action.
I find the movie entertaining. (unrelated note: Nimoy said he cried because he was so touched by Karl Urban's acting in the film - he though it was spot on) But if you think I'm not a real fan, that's your opinion. Thanks for sharing.
PointyEaredBastard 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@BondFreek i dont think you understand the word adventure......
johnkerry7 4 months ago
@BondFreek amen!
msinvincible2000 4 months ago 2
@BondFreek Whatever else it may be, (and to many it is those things) Star Trek is about making money for the producers and investors. Those who like explosions or green women may be fans for different reasons. A fan is simply a person who likes something. And to the producers, a fan is a paying customer.
At its core, it's not a social experiment or statement, it's entertainment. The human condition IS entertaining, so it works in that way.
Good fan/bad fan, Real fan/fake fan. Who decides?
pburto 3 months ago
@pburto "Good fan/bad fan, Real fan/fake fan. Who decides?" The old fans that live Star Trek like football fans live football. We are the ones who know what Gene wanted out of Star Trek. To fans we are also the paying customer and when we don't like a product we have the right and the responsibility to complain!
BondFreek 3 months ago
@BondFreek Well, as Data once said regarding his creator Noonian Soong in the TNG episode "Inheritance" in 1993:
"His wishes are not necessarily paramount."
The same can be said of Mr. Roddenberry.
pburto 3 months ago
@pburto "Paramount" HA! All kidding a side... Every incarnation of Star Trek from latter years of TNG- Internet hit Phase II honor Gene's vision because it is his legacy, not Paramount's not yours, and not Jar Jar Abrams’s. It is wrong not to honor a man's legacy when that legacy has given so much to the world.
BondFreek 3 months ago
@BondFreek Sure, honor his legacy... with headstones, songs and candlelight vigils.
But his wishes aren't what should guide evolution of the product, except where it is useful to please the fans. New approaches can also be explored.
When this movie came out, before I saw it I said out loud to my fiance: It must address three things: 1) Captain Pike. 2) the middle name "Tiberius". 3) The nickname "bones". It delivered on all three, and as an old fan I was pleased. Nothing wrong with that.
pburto 3 months ago
@BondFreek You're mostly right. But the whale movie was specifically designed to just have a time travel story. The whales were the excuse Nimoy came up with. If you want to go further back, the point was to have a light hearted Star Trek movie, as the execs thought the franchise needed something less grim and dark.
But there was no intended message. It was an excuse plot. There's usually a few of those per season, too.
trlkly 3 months ago
@trlkly Wrong again! The writing process always starts with "What can we do next?" As they write the keep in mind that it is Star Trek and needs a moral point. There were several ideas that added humor to the movies but only one could be used to make a moral point. Nemoy even said that they originally were trying to avoid a time travel story. If you were a fan you would know this.
BondFreek 3 months ago
@BondFreek Seeing as you can't even spell Nimoy, I seriously doubt you are a real fan, either.
And, sorry. I have Nimoy's autobiography. He says flat out that one of the requirements he was given was that it would be a time travel movie.
Finally, anyone who goes around telling other people that they aren't fans isn't a fan. They are just in it because they like to say shit about people.
trlkly 3 months ago 2
@trlkly "Seeing as you can't even spell Nimoy" I can't spell period! That does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about! Nimoy has chainged the story manny times! I go by what Harve Bennet Said and what Nimoy said in his 1986 interview. Gene accepted Christianity ("Bread and Circuses") and his vision of the future included all beliefes and political points of veiw! "anyone who goes around telling other people that they aren't fans isn't a fan" You just said that you are not a fan!
BondFreek 3 months ago 3
@BondFreek I also have to point out that you are both a Christian and a conservative. Both of these things were anathema to Gene. His entire vision was that humanity evolved beyond both.
Also, I'd go back and read what the Bible says about saying crap about people.
trlkly 3 months ago
@trlkly The Bible says "Don't bear fails witness against each other. I did not do this. I never told others that you were a liar, that you're not a fan, or that you did something you did not do. I challenged you and stated an observation to you about you, only YOU!
BondFreek 3 months ago
Comment removed
TaintedMustard 3 months ago
@BondFreek This^^^^ is why I didn't like the new movie. Also, DAMN THAT ROMANCE WITH SPOCK IT'S WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!
Pruechelan 3 months ago 30
@Pruechelan In what way wrong? They already proved the characters developed slightly different... And besides, you'll accept that Spock's Vulcan father, Sarek, married a human, but a Half-Human Spock can't have a romantic interest? I'm more disturbed by Sarek... lol
newfreshreview 3 months ago
@Pruechelan All Star Trek movies suck (well, maybe not First Contact) I dunno why, but ST is meant to be series episode, that's how I like it. The newest movie sucked most, main stream shit that didn't make sence, Kirk becoming Cadet-Captain, romance with Uhura, etc. Best part of it was Leonard Nimoy for 20 seconds in the end..
BarlytheDwarf 3 months ago
@Pruechelan
IT IS WRONG. I WANTED TO TELL YOU HOW MUCH I LOOHOHOVE YOU
LtSurge659 2 months ago
@Pruechelan Why is it wrong? Where do you think little vulcans come from? Not from the stock i can tell you :)
azraelbum 2 months ago
@Pruechelan ...Wait, WHAT?! D8
MaiBeyblader 2 months ago
@BondFreek
"You are not a real fan."
No True Scotsman fallacy at work.
piplupsingularity 3 months ago
Huh?
karlhurricane 6 months ago
I can deal with making Sulu a fucking ninja; I can deal with Spock now having jungle fever, despite the fact he looks like he bats for the Romulans (you know what I mean); I can deal with Kirk being a juvenile delinquent who, weirdly, /doesn't/ get the girl.
What bothers me is that they both blew up Vulcan, and they basically reduced ST to a common-or-garden "HeyLetsBlowShitUp!" film. Roddenberry is probably spinning in his grave, considering his opinions on some of the later TOS movies.
hansellius 6 months ago 2
@hansellius I agree with that.. New movie was a entertaining film but wasnt star trek at all..
kd84afc 6 months ago
@kd84afc Yeah, exactly. Star Trek was always a bit more cerebral than other things, and the new film kinda ruined that. Oh well
hansellius 6 months ago 2
Picard whines like a bitch.
tsnyder700 6 months ago
The real actor loved the movie. As did every other star trek actor who saw it. Get over yourselves.
melodramatic7904 7 months ago
@melodramatic7904 : I totally agree with you. I still dont understand why the top comments have so many thumps up. Maybe it it the forever alone generation of star trek? Little bumps in there faces, pony tails, fat and knowing every single quote and detail of every series.
O and I love the new movie. Way better then before all that. Finally some real story with real humor. Nom tong, what nom tong? xD
Menorius 7 months ago
@Menorius Finally some real story? Are you fucking kidding?
billyboyjennings 6 months ago
@melodramatic7904 I know! I'm a trekkie and I LOVED the new movie- I'm so glad they're bringing it back!
mooskalvr 7 months ago
Fully fucking agreed.
Probablyacowtbh 7 months ago
This is freakin awesome!
WinterSalo 7 months ago
my reaction when I saw that movie :)
1701EarlGrey 8 months ago 2
See, even Picard thinks J.J. Abrams killed Star Trek!
UncleMikeNJ 8 months ago 2
Everytime Picard screams NO! in one of these videos I just about die laughing.
dastaylor 8 months ago
0:38, My reaction to new star trek!
thefinalfrontier1701 8 months ago
"You will experience fear - "
NO! NOOoOoO!
frogambassador 8 months ago
"It's Okay Picard, it's only a gay-arse mirror universe. It's not yours. X("
NodDisciple1 8 months ago
i agree with picard
SpoiledLogic 8 months ago