@Trekfreek Ur funny. Your just a freak anyway, weather bond or trek. Why you switch names? Bond getting his ass kicked?? Lol you truly are a freek! So I see you thumb up your own comments from diffrent names. That really makes you look like a jackass, you know? Anyone who has multiple accounts just to back up their OTHER accounts and try to look "popular" Is an idiot. Talk about getting a life.. How many diffrent accounts you got freak?? Sad.
@Trekfreek OOh TROLL!.. Is that your new word of the day? I love it! Im a Troll..wait TROLL!!!! There we are..thats much more effective! Unfortunetly, I can only "troll" with one account, unlike you..so I wont be as good as YOU at it, but Ill try to bravely march on, in your footsteps...Lool! TrekFreek....Im Laughing.. at your "Superior" Intellect....
I just watched the new movie again today, and I think anyone who says it was a "bad" movie is INSANE!! That was the best Trek movie since First Contact or WOK! It was very entertaining in my opinion and danm, what else is a movie supposed to be?
@mlee2001 "what else is a movie supposed to be?" Consistent, Solid story ark, believe able, and (Sci-Fi) Thoughtful. The new movie was none of these things. Video games have better story telling than this junk!
@BondFreek BooHooo Are you still crying? The movie came out over 2 years ago and your STILL crying?? Dont you think its time to man up and get over it?
Very good, but I really don't understand the folk who say Abrams "destroyed" 40 years of Trek. It's fictional, FFS. No one's going to demand your DVDs be smashed. You're taking it way too seriously.
fuck if they mix this mochery abrams crap with voyager or the other shows thats it. This is an infestation that is only being allowed because the rights were sold. How sad. I mean look at all the garbage hollywood has been making over the last several years. I am going to pretend this movie does not exist. I know what the orioginal trek show is. Even those remasters are garbage Ideally you have to say fuck paramount. It was thier call in the end to make this a quick buck w star wars abrams.
Plot for the sequel: 85 minutes of whatever crap they want to write -- Spock marries Uhura, Kirk and Khan destroy the borg, Soong builds a Data-Terminator to wipe out the Klingons, blah blah blah -- then Janeway shows up in a stolen, reconfigured time ship, crashes it into their experimental chronoton weapon, and the original timeline is restored.
The newest Star Trek film is the best Star Trek film ever. Loads of explosions and fights and great special effects. And the best part is that Vulcans are now an endangered species, which is great because I never liked them. I want to see more of those sexy green aliens with hardly any clothes on.
@redplague Yeah, and none of that silly, outmoded social commentary offering an encouraging call to a better future for humanity--pfft who needs that? Good riddance, Gene Roddenberry! Long live lens flares!
You know, all you "purist" Star Trek fans are the reason the show had such a limited fanbase in the first place.
I always thought Star Trek was stupid until I saw the 2009 movie; then I watched the original series and fell in love with it. I know there are a lot of fans with similar experiences, thanks to the new movie.
If JJ had any respect for Trek, instead of using a 'tarded "black hole*" to time travel and create a new universe, he should have used the Guardian and come up with a better motivation for Nero going back in time than a mega-nova** destroying Romulus.
*btw, real black holes don't do that...
**btw, stars don't explode that big; even supernovae run out of fuel before they leave their own solar systems...
Reading some of the comments posted on videos about the new film, it seems some think that the new Trek movie replaces the entire Star Trek series. This is badly mistaken, the new Star Trek film takes places in a parallel universe that was created, the original series is still canon and still exists.
As a cheap-drunken-one-night-stand-guilty-pleasure of an action movie, it was enjoyable.
As a Star Trek movie it was terrible (and a lame copy of the Nemesis plot to boot).
I liked Simon Pegg and Karl Urban as Scotty and Bones, but John Cho as Sulu? WTF. For one, the guy's Korean, not Japanese. For two, why not just open an arbitrary time rift and introduce Kal Penn as the new Geordi LaForge? Yeah, there's your innovative plot twist for the sequel.
the old star trek is gone. thxs j.j. dighead however the kids from know don`t like old school so the old star trek will die slowly and if jj.dighead make the sec move well.. You know what will happend then...
Absolutely brilliant lol. I do believe you have quite summarised a vast seething undercurrent of purist resentment! Most clever use of clips and editing to make the point. Most surreal because the guardian of forever plausibly could be able to access the multiuniverse possiblites as per that interpretation of quantum mechanics and the scene you showed does definently nicely bridge the gap: in fact i the next film could use it and be called 'reunification'....
Wow. I never realized how true this entire scene is taken in a different context. Abrams is gonna have to fix the timeline in the sequels! I mean, how can you just destroy over forty years of innovation? Just like that. Appalling doesn't even begin to describe it.
@vulcanluver Plus there are a lot of holes in it. For example, Chekov is seventeen in the new movie, while he's supposed to be twenty-two (roughly) in TOS. If the new movie is supposed to be around ten years (I'm guessing here) before TOS, then Chekov should be twelve. I know this seems like a relatively minor hole, but things like that annoy me to no end.
The thing that annoyed me is that the new movie was a very good movie, in a generic 'Space shooty movie' kind of way, the whole Star Trek universe was pretty much glued on for the sake of saleability.
I DID enjoy the movie, in an 'oooh look, shiny!' kind of way, but I simply could not seriously consider it part of the Star Trek universe, it completely missed the point that Rodenberry & Co spent 40+ years trying to make.
In all fairness, however, Star Trek almost never seems to transfer well to movies, even the best of the bunch, Wrath of Khan, actually kind of missed the point when you get down to it ;)
@SuperOfficerDibble WOK is perfect. Incredible music wonderful interactions brilliant acting the most moving scenes I can think of are Spock's death and funeral. Not sentimental sloppy crap like Quinto and Saldasa making out in the turbolift and stuff.
Oh, I agree that WOK was a brilliant movie, but it still kind of missed Gene Rodenberry's point, in fact, he was furious that Spock was to be killed, as well as in the 'Naval' approach to life aboard the Enterprise, he thought it made Starfleet seem to militarised.
Doesn't mean it's a bad movie, far from it, but it presented them in the wrong light as far as Rodenberry was concerned :)
Sorry but you're wrong. Rodenberry liked every thing in Star Trek II with the exception of the "Naval approach." Spock's death was a reaction to Nemoy saying he will only do one more movie.
When Star Trek III was being written there were plans of replacing Nemoy with a younger actor (Details are complex). When Nemoy stated he wanted to Direct the next one they singed him to a multi picture contract so they would not loose him again. My source, an interview with producer Harve Benet in 1981.
I sometimes couldn't figure him out. TNG first season was extremely "Naval" So much that it was too much even for me. It seemed very rigid compared to the TOS crew. And Roddenberry had virtually full control during season 1.
@SuperOfficerDibble in other words: they ruined virtually everything that made Star Trek awesome in he first place. The last scene of Search for Spock alone beats everything that JJ created. The sad thing is that probably most moviegoers cannot comprehend why.
'Agreed. The original series (and those which followed) clearly commented on social issues through S - race relations, power, cold war rivalries, interferance with cultures, rights, etc. were explored. Action was only present to advance the plot'.
Exactly. In the new movie the action WAS the story
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow. Looking at the comments here (mainly the negative ones), it is no wonder Star Trek fans get such a bad rap. No one has yet to present a clear, watertight case as to why this movies "isn't Trek," or why the movies is bad in general (the critics and movie going public would disagree with that one).
@agamemnonb5 Go and watch the original pilot until you understand the story then you will understand that we have given an AIR TIGHT case as to why it is not Star Trek.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ BondFreak:
What does the success of this movie have to do with the original series being a flop?
Also, you've disproven your own point. The original pilot is so different from the final product. The Cage was cerebral. The rest of the series was about a space cowboy and how many girls he could screw in one episode. So by your example, TOS is not Star Trek.
Boy are you dumb or just slow? The series was not just a space cowboy and who many girls did you see Kirk "screw"? Answer one in "Wink of an eye". Pay attention to the plots of the episodes they all where cerebral, From Encarta Dictionary: (North America) Cerebral: involving the psychological processes of thinking and reasoning rather than the emotions.
Agreed. The original series (and those which followed) clearly commented on social issues through S - race relations, power, cold war rivalries, interferance with cultures, rights, etc. were explored. Action was only present to advance the plot.
Kirk fighting the Gorn was to get him to realize compassion and how to resolve territorial disputes.
Action in the movie served no purpose, didn't change the characters, and was played purely for special effects and cheap gags. It make no sense.
You don`t need a clear `watertight` reason for thinking something sucks. The opinion of the general public is irrelevant to the cult fanbase of any franchise.
Actually, in this case you do. Especially when the best argument from the detractors is "it doesn't feel like Trek."
And don't forget it was a combination of the general public and Star Trek fans that made this movie a success. To disregard the opinions of the general public is to disregard those of Trek fans that liked this movie.
Not to mention your statement makes you seem like your saying non-trek fans can go to hell when it was non-trek fans that saved the franchise.
I did not mean that the opinion of `non-trek fans` is irrelevant in the objective sense, but it is to the devotee of the given franchise discussed. I don`t know which side of the camp you think I`m in, nor do I care, but I did not tell anybody to go to hell. I merely quantified a constant, wether having to do with Star Trek or anything else.
@agamemnonb5 "non-trek fans that saved the franchise." LOL if it had been up to non-terk fans Trek would have died after the second season and JJ wouldn't have had a chance to ruin this masterpiece with his shaky camera
A lot of people think ST11 was better than sex. A lot of other people think it's an abomanation. I think both sides are freaking out for nothing. It's a movie with both positive and negative qualities. JJ Abrams will not be directing every single Trek movie. For better or worse, I've been a Trekkie since I was knee-high to an Andorian. This movie is definitely NOT the worse sci-fi I've ever seen. We fans have to stop taking ourselves so seriously. We don't make the movies.
I respectively disagree Spacecowboy. It's a straw-man when you defend ST11 as having both positive & negative qualities. That's true for every other movie in existence, they're not perfect. Question is though for a movie: "Did its good outweigh the bad?"
The funny thing about Star Trek 11 was that its makeup is identical to Dragonball Evolution. The reason DBE suffered (Well deserved) backlash was because the canon was butchered, the plot was incoherent, the actors were from average to bad, and the special effects sucked. When ST11 was lucky enough to have two out of the four factors for making a movie rule or bomb in its favor. (Flashy Special Effects & Big Name Actors)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Realistically though, it's probably safe to have a billion or two just to:
A) Purchase the rights to Star Trek from CBS, or buy CBS (kinda tough, a public company) if necessary
B) Build a movie studio/production crew from the ground up, assuming you want the film to make loads of money and be seen
C) Hire the best writers/director/casting agents possible, as well as a massive publicity campaign and everything you can to stop newspapers from treating you like some aristocratic fan.
one thing that is great about this is that there are so many things and aliens in the trek universe that would sense a change in the timeline AND have the ability to correct it, that the movie by J.J has to take place in an alternate universe all together (including Nimoy-Spock) to make it work!
the Guardian is one of them, he (it?) would know if history was changed. not to mention Q, he even helped Picard once to prevent humanity from being deleted from the timeline. XD
indeed it must be in an alternate universe all together. since Romulus was not supposed to be destroyed in the 'Prime' timeline. it was supposed to be conquered by the Klingons in the early 25'th century
i dont remember the Klingon's conquering Romulus. but yeah Guinan would just wake up one day in the 24th century and think ''something is not right'' over time she would realise Vulcan was gone where it wasnt supposed to and warn Picard. Q may even appear and just tell Picard whats up. and the future time police (protected by temporal shielding) will see the universe alter around them, go back to when Nero appears and stop him. perhaps by re-directing him to another place.
there are so many ''fail saves'' in the Trek universe that would prevent anyone from altering the timeline on this scale that it cant be the same Trek universe. blowing up Vulcan after Nemesis may have worked, but not before TOS.
this created a continuity mess unlike anything we have seen before.
so
its just a movie set in an alternate universe from start to finish. and Nimoy played the elder Spock of that universe.
more simpler: the new movie is a remake. not a sequel or prequel
Works well as a "stand alone" film? Are you serious? This movie makes "Plane 9 From Outer Space" look like a master peace! Black holes as time tunnels. Villains to stupid to send a bot into the future to warn his people. Cadets with little experiences given command of a multi jillion-dollar space ship? A person from the 23rd century having no problem flying a ship from the early 25th century? Ship almost destroyed and the gravity and force fields still working? COME ON!
IT IS!!! NEXT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY THERE IS NO EASTER BUNNY! How dare you lie!!! It's all real! I even Superman! ROL!!! Ask a DUMB question and .... Are you that dumb to think people believe that Star Trek is real? Look just because I hate the crappie Star Trek movie and you like it does not mean I dont know what is real and you do. GET A LIFE! The world does not revolve around people like you.
I think it's you that needs to get a life. See, I'm what's called a well-adjusted fan who realizes that Star Trek is just a fictitious bit of fun. You, on the other hand, are one of the "fans" that give us true fans a bad name. All you do is constantly nitpick and nitpick not realizing that you look ridiculous in doing so. So why don't you get a life? While you nitpick fictitious technology in a movie that is supposed to just be a bit of fun, I'll be on a date tonight. See ya.
I'm not nit picking I'm just saying why the movie is bad from any direction. my opinion. Good luck on your date tonight. If you talk to her like you talked to me you will need it.
"please give jj and his team a chance they are new to star trek give em a chance- they are still learning. BOO HOOO!" All filmmakers know you only get one chance to get a movie right and a franchise you get even less of a chance. It has been my experience that when some one radically changes some thing, as JJ has done with Star Trek, and it gets green lighted for a sequel/series they continue to change it to get bigger profits not caring that they are destroying a classic. So, Stop Balling.
I'm just curious, when was it stated that the Klingons would conquer Romulus in the 25th century? I don't recall that episode. I suppose it could be New Romulus they conquer, assuming the surviving Romulans settle on a new world as the Vulcans do in this alternate timeline.
Excellent work! Man, with all the continuity violations plaguing the movie, it's no small wonder that Uhura "is frightened". They sent that movie's plot to hell in a handbasket. The horror! Outstanding analogy, GeneralGrin.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Okay well, you procure several billion dollars, find actors who take the roles seriously, hire a crew of stunt people, cameramen and special effects specialists and see if YOU can do better, mmkay? =)
They may not make but one episode a year, but it's still better than this shit that JJ Abrams regurjitated on the public! And They cost a fraction of what that little bastard Abrams spent too!
They have a guy who knows how to hold a camera steady, and there ore NO DAMNED LENS FLARES either!
Its just quite sad that the only thing you have going for you is your bad attitude and the bashing of someone else's hard work. Ah well. I guess not everyone can be a decent member of society.
Not to raise any ghosts but I've been reading a few "behind the scenes" book on Trek and there were a few surprises about Gene. First, on both the original Star Trek and TNG he would very often re-write another writer's script and take the credit himself. He wrote a "bible" for TNG writers that severely limited their creativity (see seasons 1 & 2 of TNG).When he left at the end of the 3rd season the show got better.He prefered a sterile universe like Star Trek : The Motion Picture. Hmm...
If you re-wrote a script to the point it no longer resembled the original, would you not take full credit? As for his "Bible" it was still being used in the series under the guidance of the producers Roddenberry picked to carry the torch. Unlike other consultant contracts, Rodenberrys stated that nothing can be filmed with out his approval. Even Star Trek VI had to get his approval before shooting. They had to change the conspiracy from a large group to a very small one & other minor changes.
Sure. And if someone else got credit for your ideas and work and you didn't get paid, that would be perfectly fine. Right? Like taking someone's novel, removing the author's name and replacing it with my own would okay. It's illegal and a violation of creative copyright.
No one said that the writers were not paid. and it is not a violation of creative copyright laws if the story no longer resembels the original. There are meany examples of this happening. The new Battlestar Galatica. took the terminator story combined it with Armitrage the third and Blade Runner re-wrote all thoes stories untill it no longer resembled them ecept for the trained observer. Even the new ST movie (that you like) never paid George Lucas and others for using their movie plots.
ROFL. I appreciate your humour. But I'm more interested in the creative side. TOS was lucky to have big name sci-fi writers actually begging to write for the show. Writers like Harlan Ellison, Theodore Sturgeon and Robert Bloch were just a few. But even their work suffered under the iron fist of Roddenberry. Ellison has been most vocal about what was done to his script for "City on the Edge of Forever".
There you go again brining up that crybaby Ellison, who did get screen credit &paid. If Roddenberry had not changed his script the show would have ended right there. You could not have Gun Smoke with out Marshal Dillon, Mission Imposable with out Jim Phelps, Or I Spy with out Robert Culp. So Star Trek with out James Kirk would have killed the show. Any other producer would have done the same thing, only in that case it just happened to be Roddenberry. PS. Everyone who really knew him loved him.
I had the chance to read the original script and I swear to you there are a few scenes that would've made the audience cry. Best Trek writing ever but we never saw it. You mention BSG. The new series was a complete departure from what the original creator had in mind. Yet it was popular and earned many awards. Paramount decided Trek needed a serious kick in the ass to revive the "franchise". Enter Abrams who I don't even know. I just enjoyed the movie. I don't have to justify my viceral reaction
Paramount does not care if Star Trek "needs fixed" They only wanted to exploit something to make money. The same reason they brought it back in the late 70's. Only this time there was no one to keep them from making it a carbon copy of what is popular. This new one is what would have been if Roddenberry had sold his rights to ST. Wait & see, the sequel is going to be a copy of SW:EP5 & 3 with sex from the new BSG. If you thought the flares & camera shake was bad in this one just wait for ST2.
I never said I had anything personal against Roddenberry. He was a man of vision, compassionate towards his fellow man. And he created something that brought me positive change early in my life. But as an artist/writer I really have to struggle just to make it every day. I'm not crying - I chose this course in life and I do what I love and what I do best. But if someone were to steal my work and make profit from it, you bet I'd be pissed.
I'm basically saying that though GR was close to bringing Trek's TNG down with his bible and sometimes lack of subtlety his ideals were still taken into account and fashioned by the writers to present it more realistically & subtle, making Old Trek great. I heard JJ Abrams actually had a man fired just for commenting on the questionable designs of the new Alternate Enterprise. Ironic, sounds like he's become the very thing that destroyed Trek, full autonomy over creativity. No eyebrows raised.
in the original script of Trek XI the Enterprise was actually destroyed in the very begining (and not the Kelvin) and Captain April killed by Nero.
the Enterprise that Pike and Kirk commanded would be the Enterprise A. so that's why the design is more similar to the Enterprise A and not the first one.
the first ship was changed into the USS Iowa, to explain how Kirk "was born in Iowa" and finally renamed the Kelvin.
If you've ever seen the TOS blooper reels there's one that shows GR on a balcony while overdubbed is "Hail the fuhrer! Hail the fuhrer!" This refered to his iron fisted control of everything on the show. Very often he would take a writer's script, bring it home and completely rewrite it. The original writer had no idea of what GR did until the show aired. And I've read in a few books that a lot of people felt TNG improved when GR was less involved.
I've a strong beleiver in the Star Trek movie curse. This says that the odd numbered films are complete failures while the even numbered ones are great successes. So far, this seems to have held true for all the Trek movies. This being said ST 12 will probably be an awesome film -lol-. Yes, I did say I like ST 11 but then I've always enjoyed ST: TMP (that's my little secret). Whatever comes Trek will always be Trek and the fans ultimately determine it's success.
Trek is dead. Jar Jar Killed it. Only a true fan can bring it back but the studio will not let it happen as long as the Star Wrek universe is making money. By the time this formula dies the old trek formula will be long forgotten.
If enough Trek fans are disenfranchised about the franchise they will descend upon Hollywood as they always have in the past. Nothing will be forgotten as long as they're around. Star Trek has given us 5 different series, 11 movies, countless novels, games, conventions, etc. No other show has given us such a cultural movement. When the human race is dead under a radioactive landscape, aliens will come down and find Trek everywhere. Nothing will be forgotten.
Out of those 5 series only the first two and second half of the forth was real Trek. Deep Space Nine had potential but then they got all Babylon 5 on us (I like B5 but only on B5). R-Enterprise was the beginning of Trek's down fall. Face it Trek is dead in Hollywood and it's not coming back. Thank heaven for fan videos; at least with them we can keep the spirit alive for a few years more.
@Neville6000. It's been four months since I said that. The only person being a baby is you. Why don't you go and be rude to some one who will tolerate you!
@BondFreek I dont know what your talking about. The new movie breathed new life and brought new fans to the trek universe. They cant keep using the same actors so they got new ones to play the characters. I dont see why so many people are crying and bitching about the new trek movie. Im a die hard fan for about 35 years and i loved the new movie.
@mlee2001 Shut up about the "breathed new life" shit! Fans of junk, like you, repeat it like a subliminal suggestion! Also DID I SAY "USE THE SAME ACTORS"?! NO!!!! You don't "see why so many people are crying and bitching about the new trek movie" because you are an "It's Called Star Trek & Produced by Paramount fan." You would love it if they wore rubber costumes from Doctor Who (1970's) and spoke baby speak! True fans know Star Trek is about ideas not lens-flares and Space battles!
@BondFreek Ok who died and made you the "official Star trek torchbearer?" Did gene rodddenberry crown you the big mouth piece to uphold what star trek is about? Fuck no! Your just a so called fan that thinks that their way is the only way to love and appreciate trek. That right there goes against what trek is about. open minds and new ideas. You dont know shit! It DID breath new life,dumbass. You dont know shit enough about me to judge what kind of fan i am or what i like so stfu!
@mlee2001 There it is again the "breathe new life"! Boy you are brain washed. It is you who knows shit about Star Trek and movie making. I'm not the only fan who is "the "official Star trek torchbearer"" There are hundreds of thousands of us who are fighting to preserve Gene's vision. One of us (that I know of) was actually in the new movie. He hates it too!
@BondFreek And there are hundreds and thousands of US who like the direction this is taking. And I bet your "freind" did'nt mind cashing that paycheck. It doesnt matter if he likes it or not, as an actor, you do what your told. its not a democracy. If he read the script and did'nt like it, he should have not done the movie. But to do it, cash the check then bitch about it is hypocritical.
@mlee2001 He is not that kind of actor and he did not get paid to do it. No one said it was a democracy. But we have the right to complain and try to get people to chose not to give up their hard earned money to Jar Jar Abrams the worst director of the 21st century.
Have you lot seen this: Star Trek Phase 2 - Special Featurette watch?v=xbMVLtFGiy4
Jogeta5 2 weeks ago
"Murderers...Assassins". no one could have said it better.
Why is it that as special FX get better, acting and writing get worse??
356butch 2 months ago
oh man, that was fucking brilliant!
aquateenhngrfrce 2 months ago
I'm starting to hate mlee. What a no good Troll he is!
Trekfreek 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek Ur funny. Your just a freak anyway, weather bond or trek. Why you switch names? Bond getting his ass kicked?? Lol you truly are a freek! So I see you thumb up your own comments from diffrent names. That really makes you look like a jackass, you know? Anyone who has multiple accounts just to back up their OTHER accounts and try to look "popular" Is an idiot. Talk about getting a life.. How many diffrent accounts you got freak?? Sad.
mlee2001 3 months ago
@mlee2001 I don't see any thumb ups. You must be daydreaming...TROLL!
Trekfreek 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek OOh TROLL!.. Is that your new word of the day? I love it! Im a Troll..wait TROLL!!!! There we are..thats much more effective! Unfortunetly, I can only "troll" with one account, unlike you..so I wont be as good as YOU at it, but Ill try to bravely march on, in your footsteps...Lool! TrekFreek....Im Laughing.. at your "Superior" Intellect....
mlee2001 3 months ago
I just watched the new movie again today, and I think anyone who says it was a "bad" movie is INSANE!! That was the best Trek movie since First Contact or WOK! It was very entertaining in my opinion and danm, what else is a movie supposed to be?
mlee2001 4 months ago
@mlee2001 "what else is a movie supposed to be?" Consistent, Solid story ark, believe able, and (Sci-Fi) Thoughtful. The new movie was none of these things. Video games have better story telling than this junk!
BondFreek 3 months ago
@BondFreek BooHooo Are you still crying? The movie came out over 2 years ago and your STILL crying?? Dont you think its time to man up and get over it?
mlee2001 3 months ago
McCoy is right: MURDERS!
frankstrawnation 4 months ago
I hate the fact that it seems that Roddenberry sold all his rights to Abrams who did so that all his work is an alternate versions of the "Prime".
DarthRushy 5 months ago
Very good, but I really don't understand the folk who say Abrams "destroyed" 40 years of Trek. It's fictional, FFS. No one's going to demand your DVDs be smashed. You're taking it way too seriously.
jimbopumbapigsticks 5 months ago
"Captain...I'm frightened" lol
kittykatBflat 5 months ago
fuck if they mix this mochery abrams crap with voyager or the other shows thats it. This is an infestation that is only being allowed because the rights were sold. How sad. I mean look at all the garbage hollywood has been making over the last several years. I am going to pretend this movie does not exist. I know what the orioginal trek show is. Even those remasters are garbage Ideally you have to say fuck paramount. It was thier call in the end to make this a quick buck w star wars abrams.
Danielboulder1 5 months ago
I wonder how Peter Jackson would have handled Star Trek.
WebVMan 7 months ago
Yeah all the new movie is is special effects, who wants to see that in a sci fi film
mikethe4th 7 months ago
The new Trek actors don't even look like grown men. Kirk has a button nose. He looks like mad magazine.
TheHandsomeCrab 7 months ago
Plot for the sequel: 85 minutes of whatever crap they want to write -- Spock marries Uhura, Kirk and Khan destroy the borg, Soong builds a Data-Terminator to wipe out the Klingons, blah blah blah -- then Janeway shows up in a stolen, reconfigured time ship, crashes it into their experimental chronoton weapon, and the original timeline is restored.
eamonnwalker 7 months ago
@eamonnwalker god you can only hope.
JJ abrams should die in a grease fire.
testy462 6 months ago
Wouldn't Kirk and crew simply merge with their new timeline selves?
hulkmeister23 7 months ago
Which episode these scenes are from? Thanks
TheMixrs 8 months ago
@TheMixrs City on the Edge of Forever
jtkirkfan2002 7 months ago
@jtkirkfan2002 Thank you very much
TheMixrs 7 months ago
FUck Abrams! Fuck him!
SpoiledLogic 8 months ago
The newest Star Trek film is the best Star Trek film ever. Loads of explosions and fights and great special effects. And the best part is that Vulcans are now an endangered species, which is great because I never liked them. I want to see more of those sexy green aliens with hardly any clothes on.
redplague 8 months ago
@redplague Explosions!? Hey! Are you Michael Bay!? ??? Oh, wow! No way!
Get the fuck outta here, Michael Bay! You ruined cinema! You make Hollywood suck ass! YOU suck ass! Get outta here! Asshole! >:(
WinstonSmith6079 8 months ago
@redplague I like this person
mikethe4th 7 months ago
@redplague Yeah, and none of that silly, outmoded social commentary offering an encouraging call to a better future for humanity--pfft who needs that? Good riddance, Gene Roddenberry! Long live lens flares!
GradStud28 6 months ago
there is only Khan
joeylodes 10 months ago
1:10 You and me both, Uhura. You and me both.
StoneKnivesBearskins 11 months ago 5
@StoneKnivesBearskins lol i had to laugh at that. seriously one of the best delivories ever.
thewewguy8t88 11 months ago
I'm a Trek fan and I enjoyed ST XI. It was a breath of fresh air in what had become a stale franchise. I look forward to what happens in the sequel.
Fbueller129 1 year ago
Uhura: Captain, I'm frighten.
I felt that way too. And the worst thing is; more is supposed to come. Shudder.
goldandsapphire 1 year ago 4
KILLERS ASSSINS
issenterprise1 1 year ago 2
I hope that in ST XII they find a way to fix the timeline so that this rubbish will never have happened and we can watch some real Trek instead.
aperson22222 1 year ago 4
You know, all you "purist" Star Trek fans are the reason the show had such a limited fanbase in the first place.
I always thought Star Trek was stupid until I saw the 2009 movie; then I watched the original series and fell in love with it. I know there are a lot of fans with similar experiences, thanks to the new movie.
Ransiastic 1 year ago
@Ransiastic And those of us who have been fans for years don't want to be lumped in with people like you.
bamapagedesign 1 year ago
@bamapagedesign Hm... A Star Trek fan is a Star Trek fan. We're all nerds here. Can't we all just get along?
Ransiastic 1 year ago
0:25
Spock: The fuck?
spork24601 1 year ago
@spork24601 Right? That made me lol!
If JJ had any respect for Trek, instead of using a 'tarded "black hole*" to time travel and create a new universe, he should have used the Guardian and come up with a better motivation for Nero going back in time than a mega-nova** destroying Romulus.
*btw, real black holes don't do that...
**btw, stars don't explode that big; even supernovae run out of fuel before they leave their own solar systems...
Dargonhuman 1 year ago
Prophetic episode...
0Soule0 1 year ago
Damn man, this just about brought a tear to my eye.
cloustron 1 year ago
Uhura, you're not the only one to be afraid U_U
78kokka 1 year ago
Reading some of the comments posted on videos about the new film, it seems some think that the new Trek movie replaces the entire Star Trek series. This is badly mistaken, the new Star Trek film takes places in a parallel universe that was created, the original series is still canon and still exists.
WormulonDCP 1 year ago
As a cheap-drunken-one-night-stand-guilty-pleasure of an action movie, it was enjoyable.
As a Star Trek movie it was terrible (and a lame copy of the Nemesis plot to boot).
I liked Simon Pegg and Karl Urban as Scotty and Bones, but John Cho as Sulu? WTF. For one, the guy's Korean, not Japanese. For two, why not just open an arbitrary time rift and introduce Kal Penn as the new Geordi LaForge? Yeah, there's your innovative plot twist for the sequel.
And don't even get me started on Uhura.
KelsonArwhi 1 year ago 3
@KelsonArwhi Kutner as Geordi, don't give any ideas to Jar Jar Abrams.
MasterMacLeod 1 year ago
the old star trek is gone. thxs j.j. dighead however the kids from know don`t like old school so the old star trek will die slowly and if jj.dighead make the sec move well.. You know what will happend then...
Xextreem 1 year ago
Ha ha, well done.
DOHC2L 1 year ago
lol so true...
JAGTHEGEMINI 1 year ago
Absolutely brilliant lol. I do believe you have quite summarised a vast seething undercurrent of purist resentment! Most clever use of clips and editing to make the point. Most surreal because the guardian of forever plausibly could be able to access the multiuniverse possiblites as per that interpretation of quantum mechanics and the scene you showed does definently nicely bridge the gap: in fact i the next film could use it and be called 'reunification'....
intermender 1 year ago
Wow. I never realized how true this entire scene is taken in a different context. Abrams is gonna have to fix the timeline in the sequels! I mean, how can you just destroy over forty years of innovation? Just like that. Appalling doesn't even begin to describe it.
vulcanluver 1 year ago 22
@vulcanluver He's not move on.
Hartzilla2007 6 months ago
@vulcanluver Plus there are a lot of holes in it. For example, Chekov is seventeen in the new movie, while he's supposed to be twenty-two (roughly) in TOS. If the new movie is supposed to be around ten years (I'm guessing here) before TOS, then Chekov should be twelve. I know this seems like a relatively minor hole, but things like that annoy me to no end.
saphira1001 5 months ago
I LOL'd at Original Spock's reaction at 0:27 =)
fecxor 1 year ago
Wow this is so fitting...
NerdilyDone 1 year ago
«Assassin ! Murderers ! » ^_^ my thought just after watching this so call Star trek 2009...
SuperPostman 1 year ago 4
This almost made me cry....while I was lol'ing.
TheColoradoan 1 year ago
The thing that annoyed me is that the new movie was a very good movie, in a generic 'Space shooty movie' kind of way, the whole Star Trek universe was pretty much glued on for the sake of saleability.
I DID enjoy the movie, in an 'oooh look, shiny!' kind of way, but I simply could not seriously consider it part of the Star Trek universe, it completely missed the point that Rodenberry & Co spent 40+ years trying to make.
SuperOfficerDibble 2 years ago 6
@SuperOfficerDibble
Meant to add:
In all fairness, however, Star Trek almost never seems to transfer well to movies, even the best of the bunch, Wrath of Khan, actually kind of missed the point when you get down to it ;)
SuperOfficerDibble 2 years ago
@SuperOfficerDibble WOK is perfect. Incredible music wonderful interactions brilliant acting the most moving scenes I can think of are Spock's death and funeral. Not sentimental sloppy crap like Quinto and Saldasa making out in the turbolift and stuff.
sondano 2 years ago 4
@sondano
Oh, I agree that WOK was a brilliant movie, but it still kind of missed Gene Rodenberry's point, in fact, he was furious that Spock was to be killed, as well as in the 'Naval' approach to life aboard the Enterprise, he thought it made Starfleet seem to militarised.
Doesn't mean it's a bad movie, far from it, but it presented them in the wrong light as far as Rodenberry was concerned :)
SuperOfficerDibble 2 years ago
Sorry but you're wrong. Rodenberry liked every thing in Star Trek II with the exception of the "Naval approach." Spock's death was a reaction to Nemoy saying he will only do one more movie.
When Star Trek III was being written there were plans of replacing Nemoy with a younger actor (Details are complex). When Nemoy stated he wanted to Direct the next one they singed him to a multi picture contract so they would not loose him again. My source, an interview with producer Harve Benet in 1981.
BondFreek 2 years ago 3
I sometimes couldn't figure him out. TNG first season was extremely "Naval" So much that it was too much even for me. It seemed very rigid compared to the TOS crew. And Roddenberry had virtually full control during season 1.
sondano 1 year ago
@SuperOfficerDibble in other words: they ruined virtually everything that made Star Trek awesome in he first place. The last scene of Search for Spock alone beats everything that JJ created. The sad thing is that probably most moviegoers cannot comprehend why.
sondano 2 years ago 3
Big news. Jar Jar has anounced that he wants the Gorn to be the bad guys and another time travel plot twist.
Just as I said A remake of this garbage only Gorn insted of Romulans.
BondFreek 2 years ago
'Agreed. The original series (and those which followed) clearly commented on social issues through S - race relations, power, cold war rivalries, interferance with cultures, rights, etc. were explored. Action was only present to advance the plot'.
Exactly. In the new movie the action WAS the story
Jack1981ish 2 years ago 4
Trek arguments are fun.
TyMan210 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow. Looking at the comments here (mainly the negative ones), it is no wonder Star Trek fans get such a bad rap. No one has yet to present a clear, watertight case as to why this movies "isn't Trek," or why the movies is bad in general (the critics and movie going public would disagree with that one).
agamemnonb5 2 years ago
@agamemnonb5 Go and watch the original pilot until you understand the story then you will understand that we have given an AIR TIGHT case as to why it is not Star Trek.
BondFreek 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ BondFreak:
What does the success of this movie have to do with the original series being a flop?
Also, you've disproven your own point. The original pilot is so different from the final product. The Cage was cerebral. The rest of the series was about a space cowboy and how many girls he could screw in one episode. So by your example, TOS is not Star Trek.
agamemnonb5 2 years ago
@agamemnonb5 @agamemnonb5
Boy are you dumb or just slow? The series was not just a space cowboy and who many girls did you see Kirk "screw"? Answer one in "Wink of an eye". Pay attention to the plots of the episodes they all where cerebral, From Encarta Dictionary: (North America) Cerebral: involving the psychological processes of thinking and reasoning rather than the emotions.
BondFreek 2 years ago 2
Agreed. The original series (and those which followed) clearly commented on social issues through S - race relations, power, cold war rivalries, interferance with cultures, rights, etc. were explored. Action was only present to advance the plot.
Kirk fighting the Gorn was to get him to realize compassion and how to resolve territorial disputes.
Action in the movie served no purpose, didn't change the characters, and was played purely for special effects and cheap gags. It make no sense.
BW022 2 years ago 2
You don`t need a clear `watertight` reason for thinking something sucks. The opinion of the general public is irrelevant to the cult fanbase of any franchise.
QAeternus 2 years ago 5
@ QAeternus
Actually, in this case you do. Especially when the best argument from the detractors is "it doesn't feel like Trek."
And don't forget it was a combination of the general public and Star Trek fans that made this movie a success. To disregard the opinions of the general public is to disregard those of Trek fans that liked this movie.
Not to mention your statement makes you seem like your saying non-trek fans can go to hell when it was non-trek fans that saved the franchise.
agamemnonb5 2 years ago
I did not mean that the opinion of `non-trek fans` is irrelevant in the objective sense, but it is to the devotee of the given franchise discussed. I don`t know which side of the camp you think I`m in, nor do I care, but I did not tell anybody to go to hell. I merely quantified a constant, wether having to do with Star Trek or anything else.
QAeternus 2 years ago
@agamemnonb5 "non-trek fans that saved the franchise." LOL if it had been up to non-terk fans Trek would have died after the second season and JJ wouldn't have had a chance to ruin this masterpiece with his shaky camera
sondano 2 years ago 4
Spock's like "Why the fuck am I so pissed off in that picture."
trollheimer 2 years ago 7
@trollheimer because Zach Quinto thinks he can play Spock when he in fact can't
sondano 2 years ago 2
Wow its almost like the guardian of forever was Generalgrin himself speaking.
Darkwizzrobe 2 years ago
Brilliant edit. Thanks for making it!
damonkey1989 2 years ago 4
Haha Spock's reaction to the other Spock was priceless!
crappyvideospotter 2 years ago 2
What a coincidence! "KILLERS!!! ASSASSINS!!!" is the same thing I said during the end credits of Star Trek: 90210.
MediaGold 2 years ago 7
Oh my! Your point of view is perfect !!! LOL!
netsfera 2 years ago
A lot of people think ST11 was better than sex. A lot of other people think it's an abomanation. I think both sides are freaking out for nothing. It's a movie with both positive and negative qualities. JJ Abrams will not be directing every single Trek movie. For better or worse, I've been a Trekkie since I was knee-high to an Andorian. This movie is definitely NOT the worse sci-fi I've ever seen. We fans have to stop taking ourselves so seriously. We don't make the movies.
spacecowboy5000 2 years ago 3
Thank you! Finally someone out there with some sense. Kudos sir.
SChaos1701 2 years ago 5
I respectively disagree Spacecowboy. It's a straw-man when you defend ST11 as having both positive & negative qualities. That's true for every other movie in existence, they're not perfect. Question is though for a movie: "Did its good outweigh the bad?"
1mPeRcEpTiBlE 1 year ago 3
The funny thing about Star Trek 11 was that its makeup is identical to Dragonball Evolution. The reason DBE suffered (Well deserved) backlash was because the canon was butchered, the plot was incoherent, the actors were from average to bad, and the special effects sucked. When ST11 was lucky enough to have two out of the four factors for making a movie rule or bomb in its favor. (Flashy Special Effects & Big Name Actors)
1mPeRcEpTiBlE 1 year ago 4
listen I have declared total war forever on star trek #11 the afterbirth...everyone who hates this movie follow me!
rocketshipstud 2 years ago 5
lol
"we don't exist anymore"
Everyone was replaced!! =P
Pvtjamesryan2 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Realistically though, it's probably safe to have a billion or two just to:
A) Purchase the rights to Star Trek from CBS, or buy CBS (kinda tough, a public company) if necessary
B) Build a movie studio/production crew from the ground up, assuming you want the film to make loads of money and be seen
C) Hire the best writers/director/casting agents possible, as well as a massive publicity campaign and everything you can to stop newspapers from treating you like some aristocratic fan.
TimThomason 2 years ago
LOL! This was funny :D
fakelandkelsey 2 years ago 4
Yeah, if only Spock and Uhura had seen themselves together!! I think Spock would have really been annoyed!
maleficentthegeek 2 years ago 6
Kirk's reaction: Bitch please, I was hotter than that!
BuffyTrekkie 2 years ago 9
Haha!!
erikos 2 years ago 3
Absolutely brilliant!
chickensuicide 2 years ago 5
Sigh! I felt frightened like Uhura watching the new movie!
This is an amazing work!
annafrancesca1 2 years ago 4
Maybe one of your best vids, general.
Embaucador 2 years ago 6
"...Annoyed Spock?..."
lol
b33jal 2 years ago 9
i think this should be the basis for the sequel to abrams blunder. FIX THE TIMELINE!!!!!
shawho 2 years ago 21
My reaction to "Star Trek XI: Abrams' Folley" was exactly the same as McCoy's, "ASSASSINS! MURDERERS! KILLERS!"
If you ever decide to re-edit, don't forget to include a few "harsh lens flares" eminating from The Guardian!
LOL!
Brilliant! Thank you!
Actionguy1 2 years ago 12
one thing that is great about this is that there are so many things and aliens in the trek universe that would sense a change in the timeline AND have the ability to correct it, that the movie by J.J has to take place in an alternate universe all together (including Nimoy-Spock) to make it work!
the Guardian is one of them, he (it?) would know if history was changed. not to mention Q, he even helped Picard once to prevent humanity from being deleted from the timeline. XD
henkman00 2 years ago 4
even Guinan would sense the change.
not to mention the future Time Police.
indeed it must be in an alternate universe all together. since Romulus was not supposed to be destroyed in the 'Prime' timeline. it was supposed to be conquered by the Klingons in the early 25'th century
GeneralGrin 2 years ago
i dont remember the Klingon's conquering Romulus. but yeah Guinan would just wake up one day in the 24th century and think ''something is not right'' over time she would realise Vulcan was gone where it wasnt supposed to and warn Picard. Q may even appear and just tell Picard whats up. and the future time police (protected by temporal shielding) will see the universe alter around them, go back to when Nero appears and stop him. perhaps by re-directing him to another place.
henkman00 2 years ago 8
there are so many ''fail saves'' in the Trek universe that would prevent anyone from altering the timeline on this scale that it cant be the same Trek universe. blowing up Vulcan after Nemesis may have worked, but not before TOS.
this created a continuity mess unlike anything we have seen before.
so
its just a movie set in an alternate universe from start to finish. and Nimoy played the elder Spock of that universe.
more simpler: the new movie is a remake. not a sequel or prequel
henkman00 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ah, who cares about continuity-whatcha-ma-jiggers? It's got explosions, hot girls, and space battles!!! Just shut up and enjoy it already!!!! >:D
Ugh... the age we live in...
Bobzeaux 2 years ago
Thank you!
My point exactly
It works well as a "stand alone" film, but has NOTHING to do with OUR firmly established "Star Trek" universe!
It was "Star Trek: The 'Plot Hole' Universe!"
Actionguy1 2 years ago 3
Works well as a "stand alone" film? Are you serious? This movie makes "Plane 9 From Outer Space" look like a master peace! Black holes as time tunnels. Villains to stupid to send a bot into the future to warn his people. Cadets with little experiences given command of a multi jillion-dollar space ship? A person from the 23rd century having no problem flying a ship from the early 25th century? Ship almost destroyed and the gravity and force fields still working? COME ON!
BondFreek 2 years ago
I stand corrected!
"Star Trek XI" really did SUCK, didn't it?
Actionguy1 2 years ago
You know it's fiction right?
SChaos1701 2 years ago
IT IS!!! NEXT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY THERE IS NO EASTER BUNNY! How dare you lie!!! It's all real! I even Superman! ROL!!! Ask a DUMB question and .... Are you that dumb to think people believe that Star Trek is real? Look just because I hate the crappie Star Trek movie and you like it does not mean I dont know what is real and you do. GET A LIFE! The world does not revolve around people like you.
BondFreek 2 years ago
I think it's you that needs to get a life. See, I'm what's called a well-adjusted fan who realizes that Star Trek is just a fictitious bit of fun. You, on the other hand, are one of the "fans" that give us true fans a bad name. All you do is constantly nitpick and nitpick not realizing that you look ridiculous in doing so. So why don't you get a life? While you nitpick fictitious technology in a movie that is supposed to just be a bit of fun, I'll be on a date tonight. See ya.
SChaos1701 2 years ago
I'm not nit picking I'm just saying why the movie is bad from any direction. my opinion. Good luck on your date tonight. If you talk to her like you talked to me you will need it.
BondFreek 2 years ago 5
"If you talk to her like you talked to me you will need it."
Hur Hur
SChaos1701 2 years ago
please give jj and his team a chance they are new to star trek give em a chance wait untill they are more experianced they are still learnig
luigi19987 2 years ago
"please give jj and his team a chance they are new to star trek give em a chance- they are still learning. BOO HOOO!" All filmmakers know you only get one chance to get a movie right and a franchise you get even less of a chance. It has been my experience that when some one radically changes some thing, as JJ has done with Star Trek, and it gets green lighted for a sequel/series they continue to change it to get bigger profits not caring that they are destroying a classic. So, Stop Balling.
BondFreek 2 years ago 2
I'm just curious, when was it stated that the Klingons would conquer Romulus in the 25th century? I don't recall that episode. I suppose it could be New Romulus they conquer, assuming the surviving Romulans settle on a new world as the Vulcans do in this alternate timeline.
rocketdave 2 years ago
in the last TNG episode we saw the early 25'th century and it was stated that Romulus is occupied by the Klingon empire
GeneralGrin 2 years ago
I want to give J.J. Abrams a Vulcan nerve pinch so badly...
sophomorictrash 2 years ago 7
That look Spock gives when he sees the other Spock is priceless.
chris14S 2 years ago 12
Agreed. Great vid.
tsthunt 2 years ago 4
Brilliant episode. Brilliant Film
Brilliant youtube video!
Camelsarse 2 years ago
Ha ha - well played!
N0NEoftheAB0VE 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
luved the new stratreck
onlyonemadfrog 2 years ago
Well watching this proves that there is and can only ever be one Captain Kirk.
craigjsm 2 years ago 11
Which Kirk are you talking about?
RichGilly 2 years ago
Will...iamshatner! Of course!
craigjsm 2 years ago 8
Excellent work! Man, with all the continuity violations plaguing the movie, it's no small wonder that Uhura "is frightened". They sent that movie's plot to hell in a handbasket. The horror! Outstanding analogy, GeneralGrin.
ursa41 2 years ago 5
Great Job!
ECTBWHO 2 years ago 4
BTW, I can't wait to see what you do once the DVD is out.
just64helpin 2 years ago 4
"Annoyed, Spock?"
just64helpin 2 years ago 5
fkn sweet!!
LETHLSS 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
LETHLSS 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...and all thanks to Nero huh, that son of a gun...
LETHLSS 2 years ago
Awesome!!!!!
jioplip 2 years ago 3
5 stars for the Guardian of Forever!
Also, great video as always. I've yet to see the new movie. I'm afraid to see what they've done to the Trek verse.
PragmaticHeathen 2 years ago 4
It isn't as bad as it might seem. The way in which they reboot the continuity is quite clever, actually.
starschwar 2 years ago
What they did to the trek universe is ok. It's just how they present it isn't.
CaptainPositron 2 years ago
J J Abrams has TOTALLY screwed up what was once "Star Trek!"
It's now known as, "Dawson's Enterprise," or is it "NCC-90210?"
Either way, it's NOT "Star Trek!"
It's simply a half assed attempt to make a sci-fi movie which contains elements of "Star Trek."
Actionguy1 2 years ago 24
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Okay well, you procure several billion dollars, find actors who take the roles seriously, hire a crew of stunt people, cameramen and special effects specialists and see if YOU can do better, mmkay? =)
GacktGoddessShoujo 2 years ago
Several billion dollars? Just how much do you think movies cost to make?
Plus, one person didn't do all that, so saying it to just one peron is silly.
BuffyTrekkie 2 years ago 8
"...several billion dollars,..."
You don't have the first frikkin' clue, do you?
And yes! There are people who can do it better!
Jim Cawley and his crew at "Star Trek: Phase II."
They may not make but one episode a year, but it's still better than this shit that JJ Abrams regurjitated on the public! And They cost a fraction of what that little bastard Abrams spent too!
They have a guy who knows how to hold a camera steady, and there ore NO DAMNED LENS FLARES either!
Mmkay, bitch?
IhateRosiePerez 2 years ago 7
Its just quite sad that the only thing you have going for you is your bad attitude and the bashing of someone else's hard work. Ah well. I guess not everyone can be a decent member of society.
Bye now :)
GacktGoddessShoujo 2 years ago
Yeah, isn't it a shame how Jay Jay bashed the crap out of Gene Roddenberry's hard work?
MediaGold 2 years ago 28
You mean in creating a "Wagon Train to the stars?"
SChaos1701 2 years ago
Not to raise any ghosts but I've been reading a few "behind the scenes" book on Trek and there were a few surprises about Gene. First, on both the original Star Trek and TNG he would very often re-write another writer's script and take the credit himself. He wrote a "bible" for TNG writers that severely limited their creativity (see seasons 1 & 2 of TNG).When he left at the end of the 3rd season the show got better.He prefered a sterile universe like Star Trek : The Motion Picture. Hmm...
spacecowboy5000 2 years ago 3
If you re-wrote a script to the point it no longer resembled the original, would you not take full credit? As for his "Bible" it was still being used in the series under the guidance of the producers Roddenberry picked to carry the torch. Unlike other consultant contracts, Rodenberrys stated that nothing can be filmed with out his approval. Even Star Trek VI had to get his approval before shooting. They had to change the conspiracy from a large group to a very small one & other minor changes.
BondFreek 2 years ago
Sure. And if someone else got credit for your ideas and work and you didn't get paid, that would be perfectly fine. Right? Like taking someone's novel, removing the author's name and replacing it with my own would okay. It's illegal and a violation of creative copyright.
spacecowboy5000 2 years ago
No one said that the writers were not paid. and it is not a violation of creative copyright laws if the story no longer resembels the original. There are meany examples of this happening. The new Battlestar Galatica. took the terminator story combined it with Armitrage the third and Blade Runner re-wrote all thoes stories untill it no longer resembled them ecept for the trained observer. Even the new ST movie (that you like) never paid George Lucas and others for using their movie plots.
BondFreek 2 years ago
ROFL. I appreciate your humour. But I'm more interested in the creative side. TOS was lucky to have big name sci-fi writers actually begging to write for the show. Writers like Harlan Ellison, Theodore Sturgeon and Robert Bloch were just a few. But even their work suffered under the iron fist of Roddenberry. Ellison has been most vocal about what was done to his script for "City on the Edge of Forever".
spacecowboy5000 2 years ago
There you go again brining up that crybaby Ellison, who did get screen credit &paid. If Roddenberry had not changed his script the show would have ended right there. You could not have Gun Smoke with out Marshal Dillon, Mission Imposable with out Jim Phelps, Or I Spy with out Robert Culp. So Star Trek with out James Kirk would have killed the show. Any other producer would have done the same thing, only in that case it just happened to be Roddenberry. PS. Everyone who really knew him loved him.
BondFreek 2 years ago
I had the chance to read the original script and I swear to you there are a few scenes that would've made the audience cry. Best Trek writing ever but we never saw it. You mention BSG. The new series was a complete departure from what the original creator had in mind. Yet it was popular and earned many awards. Paramount decided Trek needed a serious kick in the ass to revive the "franchise". Enter Abrams who I don't even know. I just enjoyed the movie. I don't have to justify my viceral reaction
spacecowboy5000 2 years ago
Paramount does not care if Star Trek "needs fixed" They only wanted to exploit something to make money. The same reason they brought it back in the late 70's. Only this time there was no one to keep them from making it a carbon copy of what is popular. This new one is what would have been if Roddenberry had sold his rights to ST. Wait & see, the sequel is going to be a copy of SW:EP5 & 3 with sex from the new BSG. If you thought the flares & camera shake was bad in this one just wait for ST2.
BondFreek 2 years ago 49
I never said I had anything personal against Roddenberry. He was a man of vision, compassionate towards his fellow man. And he created something that brought me positive change early in my life. But as an artist/writer I really have to struggle just to make it every day. I'm not crying - I chose this course in life and I do what I love and what I do best. But if someone were to steal my work and make profit from it, you bet I'd be pissed.
spacecowboy5000 2 years ago 5
I'm basically saying that though GR was close to bringing Trek's TNG down with his bible and sometimes lack of subtlety his ideals were still taken into account and fashioned by the writers to present it more realistically & subtle, making Old Trek great. I heard JJ Abrams actually had a man fired just for commenting on the questionable designs of the new Alternate Enterprise. Ironic, sounds like he's become the very thing that destroyed Trek, full autonomy over creativity. No eyebrows raised.
1mPeRcEpTiBlE 1 year ago 4
in the original script of Trek XI the Enterprise was actually destroyed in the very begining (and not the Kelvin) and Captain April killed by Nero.
the Enterprise that Pike and Kirk commanded would be the Enterprise A. so that's why the design is more similar to the Enterprise A and not the first one.
the first ship was changed into the USS Iowa, to explain how Kirk "was born in Iowa" and finally renamed the Kelvin.
GeneralGrin 1 year ago 2
@GeneralGrin that would have made a good film in my view
AlexOoiue 1 year ago
now the original script sounds better than the movie itself.
MrHoppers002 1 year ago
If you've ever seen the TOS blooper reels there's one that shows GR on a balcony while overdubbed is "Hail the fuhrer! Hail the fuhrer!" This refered to his iron fisted control of everything on the show. Very often he would take a writer's script, bring it home and completely rewrite it. The original writer had no idea of what GR did until the show aired. And I've read in a few books that a lot of people felt TNG improved when GR was less involved.
spacecowboy5000 1 year ago
I've a strong beleiver in the Star Trek movie curse. This says that the odd numbered films are complete failures while the even numbered ones are great successes. So far, this seems to have held true for all the Trek movies. This being said ST 12 will probably be an awesome film -lol-. Yes, I did say I like ST 11 but then I've always enjoyed ST: TMP (that's my little secret). Whatever comes Trek will always be Trek and the fans ultimately determine it's success.
spacecowboy5000 1 year ago
Trek is dead. Jar Jar Killed it. Only a true fan can bring it back but the studio will not let it happen as long as the Star Wrek universe is making money. By the time this formula dies the old trek formula will be long forgotten.
BondFreek 1 year ago 2
If enough Trek fans are disenfranchised about the franchise they will descend upon Hollywood as they always have in the past. Nothing will be forgotten as long as they're around. Star Trek has given us 5 different series, 11 movies, countless novels, games, conventions, etc. No other show has given us such a cultural movement. When the human race is dead under a radioactive landscape, aliens will come down and find Trek everywhere. Nothing will be forgotten.
spacecowboy5000 1 year ago 5
Out of those 5 series only the first two and second half of the forth was real Trek. Deep Space Nine had potential but then they got all Babylon 5 on us (I like B5 but only on B5). R-Enterprise was the beginning of Trek's down fall. Face it Trek is dead in Hollywood and it's not coming back. Thank heaven for fan videos; at least with them we can keep the spirit alive for a few years more.
BondFreek 1 year ago
@BondFreek:Oh, shut up and stop being such a baby.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000. It's been four months since I said that. The only person being a baby is you. Why don't you go and be rude to some one who will tolerate you!
BondFreek 1 year ago 3
@BondFreek I dont know what your talking about. The new movie breathed new life and brought new fans to the trek universe. They cant keep using the same actors so they got new ones to play the characters. I dont see why so many people are crying and bitching about the new trek movie. Im a die hard fan for about 35 years and i loved the new movie.
mlee2001 4 months ago
@mlee2001 Shut up about the "breathed new life" shit! Fans of junk, like you, repeat it like a subliminal suggestion! Also DID I SAY "USE THE SAME ACTORS"?! NO!!!! You don't "see why so many people are crying and bitching about the new trek movie" because you are an "It's Called Star Trek & Produced by Paramount fan." You would love it if they wore rubber costumes from Doctor Who (1970's) and spoke baby speak! True fans know Star Trek is about ideas not lens-flares and Space battles!
BondFreek 4 months ago
@BondFreek Ok who died and made you the "official Star trek torchbearer?" Did gene rodddenberry crown you the big mouth piece to uphold what star trek is about? Fuck no! Your just a so called fan that thinks that their way is the only way to love and appreciate trek. That right there goes against what trek is about. open minds and new ideas. You dont know shit! It DID breath new life,dumbass. You dont know shit enough about me to judge what kind of fan i am or what i like so stfu!
mlee2001 4 months ago
@mlee2001 There it is again the "breathe new life"! Boy you are brain washed. It is you who knows shit about Star Trek and movie making. I'm not the only fan who is "the "official Star trek torchbearer"" There are hundreds of thousands of us who are fighting to preserve Gene's vision. One of us (that I know of) was actually in the new movie. He hates it too!
BondFreek 4 months ago
@BondFreek And there are hundreds and thousands of US who like the direction this is taking. And I bet your "freind" did'nt mind cashing that paycheck. It doesnt matter if he likes it or not, as an actor, you do what your told. its not a democracy. If he read the script and did'nt like it, he should have not done the movie. But to do it, cash the check then bitch about it is hypocritical.
mlee2001 4 months ago
@mlee2001 He is not that kind of actor and he did not get paid to do it. No one said it was a democracy. But we have the right to complain and try to get people to chose not to give up their hard earned money to Jar Jar Abrams the worst director of the 21st century.