Wow, really liked, the plot I thought was ok to good. I had so much fun watching the characters interact. I guess I forgot how much fun it was to watch them together. I know it's not the original, but for me it had the spirt of the original right on, and for that I really really enjoyed it. :yippy:

The preview lends itself to think it might be a bit "darker" but I was fine with the way it played out.

I laughed myself into a coughing for the whole part of "Bones" getting Kirk on board the Enterprise. The numb tongue thing was just too good. It was funny without being stupid.


They make another one with these actors, it will easily get my money.

Will see again in Imax...

Mark

Went last night to a first run theater in Westwood, near UCLA. Saw it with my college age daughter and a very enthusiastic audience. What a hoot. Great fun movie. They stayed very true to the original theme, time line and characters while injecting lots of new life into it. Very well done.

Now that they have a new cast for the original crew, they can resurrect the whole series and really live long and prosper.

- Pete

So how was the Shaun of the Dead guy as Scotty????

I'm not familure with the actor, but the character blended seamlessly. He played it kind of like a comic streight man.

- Pete

So how was the Shaun of the Dead guy as Scotty????

The interactions between him in Kirk in crisis mode were like flashbacks to the original series except Shaun of the Dead guy was a lot more excitable.

Mark

Took Mom to see it today...

More comedic parts than I thought there would be, and a lot of "feel-good" interaction and dialog. But the non-stop action made it fully worthwhile.

Went last night to a first run theater in Westwood, near UCLA. Saw it with my college age daughter and a very enthusiastic audience. What a hoot. Great fun movie. They stayed very true to the original theme, time line and characters while injecting lots of new life into it. Very well done.

Now that they have a new cast for the original crew, they can resurrect the whole and really live long and prosper.

- PeteThat's exactly what I was thinking after seeing the movie today.

Agree with the previous posts. Great character interaction and very well done overall.

Not sure that I would have gone down that same road in terms of the story line and it's impact on Trek history, but I really enjoyed the movie.


Paul

seen it twice so far. loads of fun. Live long & Prosper

So how was the Shaun of the Dead guy as Scotty????

I had reservations about Simon Pegg but none after seeing the film....twice now.

It was a hoot.

I saw this movie recently. Liked it. Better then some of their older films. Can't wait till it comes out in Blu Ray.

With this "reboot" of history, maybe this will do away with the one-piece jump suits in season one of ST TNG. :D


Please forgive my ramblings. I am drinking one stiff gin and tonic... :smoke:

With this "reboot" of history, maybe this will do away with the one-piece jump suits in season one of ST TNG. :D

Please forgive my ramblings. I am drinking one stiff gin and tonic... :smoke:

No, that was cogently stated.

Gheyness of those outfits only exceeded by the ones in the first movie -

http://www.afi.com/Images/tvevents/laa/archive/gal_Wise_Robert_9.jpg

I had a great time watching it last night...somehow it had the flavor of Alias and LOST, can't imagine why :D

I just got back from seeing it, :thmbsp::thmbsp::thmbsp::thmbsp:

Excellent, probably the best of all the Trek movies.

I really thought it captured the spirit of the Classic series and the performances were excellent all around.

Trivia: Chris Pine who plays Kirk is the son of Robert Pine who was Sgt. Getraer on CHiPs!

Just came back from seeing this movie and I thought it was GREAT! If you're a fan of classic Star Trek then I suggest you see this. It was great seeing the interactions of the characters again. I'm sure there will be a few more movies as this is an alternate timeline or is it?!! That stuff drives you mad when you try to understand it.

Astounding. It was 40 yrs ago this year that TOS went down in flames, a victim of high production costs & low ratings (But they were NEVER very good to begin with). Who'd a-thunk that a basically failed sci-fi TV series would go on to become a worldwide cultural phenomenen ?

Well...it would appear that I am in the minority....(j/k) this movie was excellent! Character interaction was great, intro scene with car was fantastic (Kirk's attitude)...even the tension between characters was great. This is definitely a buy when it comes to blueray.

My favorite line:

McCoy: (excitedly) "You've got dry tongue syndrome?? - I can fix that!"

Hey, I've got dry mouth syndrome just now - I can fix that too.

That is nice.

The orginal Star Trek was before my time but I really enjoyed the movie. IF they make another I will for sure go to see it.

Astounding. It was 40 yrs ago this year that TOS went down in flames, a victim of high production costs & low ratings (But they were NEVER very good to begin with). Who'd a-thunk that a basically failed sci-fi TV series would go on to become a worldwide cultural phenomenen ?

Well if you base the success or failure solely on TV ratings, then yes it was a failure. If you are saying the story lines were not that great, then I have to disagree with you. These were a lot of great one. Some were not good, a few were bad, mostly the last season contains the worst of TOS.


As for failed sci-fi TV series, you need to look at "Lost in Space". If you look up "failure" in the dictionary, there is a reference to that show.

loved it.

nuff' said

sequel coming out in 2011
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/

Well, I guess there always has to be one.....

I liked it, but I didn't love it. Just didn't really feel true to the original characters to me. Saw it in Imax on opening night too.

Well, I guess there always has to be one.....

I liked it, but I didn't love it. Just didn't really feel true to the original characters to me. Saw it in Imax on opening night too.

Please explain how it was not true to the original characters. Please tell me you did not think Kirk was a boyscout, in either time line...

I saw this new Star Trek last Friday. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being highest, I would rate it a solid 5.013. It was an OK summer movie to me.

Jeez you guys are tough. I loved it, and after seeing T4 last night I loved it even more. My god was T4 bad. The worst sequel of any genre since Blues Brothers 2000.

Jeez you guys are tough. I loved it, and after seeing T4 last night I loved it even more. My god was T4 bad. The worst sequel of any genre since Blues Brothers 2000.
damn you just destroyed my hopes T4 would be good :(

I am going to see it!

Gohan

Saw it on the Friday of opening weekend, went with my oldest son Brett, both of us in Starfleet uniform, natch!

Wife and Brett's fiance and Lessa went too. Although Lessa didn't like the loud soundtrack/FX, we all enjoyed the movie immensely.

I thought there was plenty of new story to create these familar characters while giving us enough nods to original timeline to satisfy most hardcore Trekkers. As for the deviations into an alternate timeline, I can work with it. After all, if you read any ST books, comics, or audio stories, they take our familiar friends into different places and realities.

What has always attracted me to Star Trek is the characters, their lives, the feeling of family and making them so interesting that I crave to be around them, to see what happens to them, and how they make the future something to hope for.

That Star Trek has always tackled difficult social subjects in allegory and science is icing to me.

For me, all the series except Enterprise (which I didn't get to watch much of) are very good for their time and production values/budget. Sure, there are clinker episodes in all of them, but I usually learn something new about my ST friends each time I see them.

Sort of like coming here to AK and reading about what each of you thinks about so many different things.:thmbsp:

and after seeing T4 last night I loved it even more. My god was T4 bad. The worst sequel of any genre since Blues Brothers 2000.

So I'll infer that T3 was better than T4?

:saywhat:

Astounding. It was 40 yrs ago this year that TOS went down in flames, a victim of high production costs & low ratings (But they were NEVER very good to begin with). Who'd a-thunk that a basically failed sci-fi TV series would go on to become a worldwide cultural phenomenen ?

You sir can go stand on that side of the room.

:D

I thought it was wery wery good.

dew.

So I'll infer that T3 was better than T4?

:saywhat:

I have to say T3 was less offending as T4. By "offending" I mean that while it wasn't a very good film, it didn't make me angry, only disappointed. T4 on the other hand, makes me want to boycott everything that the writer, director, and studio ever create from here on out.

Please explain how it was not true to the original characters. Please tell me you did not think Kirk was a boyscout, in either time line...

Nope.

I've seen it twice now, and I am very pleased with it. TNG will always hold the special place in my heart, but this movie has raised my interest in TOS and the pre-NextGen movies.

I imagine that, before too long, they'll do some similar treatment for TNG's characters, and perhaps we'll really see Picard and Kirk swap places with Picard's youth spent in quiet and serious study... :scratch2:

I have to say T3 was less offending as T4. By "offending" I mean that while it wasn't a very good film, it didn't make me angry, only disappointed. T4 on the other hand, makes me want to boycott everything that the writer, director, and studio ever create from here on out.

Rotten Tomatoes, thumbs down, IMDB, thumbs up. Based on my own reaction to the films I've seen, I seem to follow IMDB trend so I think I am going to like it.

Please report back after seeing it.

One word I keep seeing in a lot in the posts is "fun," and I have to agree. So much science fiction since The Matrix has been dark, depressing, doom and gloom, the future will be horrifying, etc. It was nice to root for the good guys, laugh a little, and enjoy a Sci-fi (sorry, Harlan Ellison) movie for once instead of leaving it thinking "I hope that's not how the future turns out."

(SPOILER ALERT, DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT)

I would like to tell JJ Abrams that we're all now officially sick of time travel plots though. I've had my fill of that stuff on Lost. And I think Abrams even knows we're tired of it, as witnessed by Kirk saying, "Spock, going back in time and changing things is cheating."

All in all though a big :thmbsp:

Saw it last week, liked it quite a bit, excelent movie. (as others have said, entertaining)
Went with 2 friends who 1 thought it was a very good movie and other thought excelent.

---------

Saw T4 tonight, liked it, thought it was a pretty good movie, To me star trek was better.
Went with 2 friends who 1 thought it was a very good movie and other thought excelent.

I just bought the sound track by Michael Giacchino. Beautifully recorded, especially the Fench horn opening.

Saw Star Trek yesterday with my college daughter who was seeing it her second time. Unfortunately, my one piece Star Fleet uniform was at the cleaners. A total of 3 people in the theater at 3:45 on a Wednesday afternoon.

I'm surprised how much I liked it. Lots of reissues lose too much in the new story lines and rely solely on making the story more relevant and adding special effects. While there was "lots-o-action" throughout, I'm surprised how much I liked the casting particularly when you project TOS characters back in time. The characters are played a bit over the top but that could be chalked up to youthful exuberance too. In the end, I found them very credible.

IMO, the opening Corvette scene was a bit cheesy but thrilling, but exactly the kind of thing you'd find in the original TOS (but without the special effects). Although the story was a bit murky in parts, the action and character interaction carried it along very well.

Definitely worth seeing, IMO even if you are not a TOS fan.

Saw Star Trek yesterday with my college daughter who was seeing it her second time. Unfortunately, my one piece Star Fleet uniform was at the cleaners. A total of 3 people in the theater at 3:45 on a Wednesday afternoon.

I'm surprised how much I liked it. Lots of reissues lose too much in the new story lines and rely solely on making the story more relevant and adding special effects. While there was "lots-o-action" throughout, I'm surprised how much I liked the casting particularly when you project TOS characters back in time. The characters are played a bit over the top but that could be chalked up to youthful exuberance too. In the end, I found them very credible.

IMO, the opening Corvette scene was a bit cheesy but thrilling, but exactly the kind of thing you'd find in the original TOS (but without the special effects). Although the story was a bit murky in parts, the action and character interaction carried it along very well.

Definitely worth seeing, IMO even if you are not a TOS fan.


***Spoiler alert***

The Corvette scene, at least in the movie, is edited and shown differently than depicted in the novelization, which may or may not follow the original screenplay. It is never clear which is "most correct" or "new canon". Anyway, according the to audiobook version of the novelization, young Jim Kirk lives with his stepfather in Iowa. Contrary to what is suggested in the movie, Jim Kirk has a brother, George Kirk (presumably Jr.?) who is older, maybe exiting teen years. George Kirk would correspond to George "Sam or Samuel" Kirk, seen in a TOS episode. George is in an argument with his stepfather and storms off the farm after talking with Jim, who is washing the Corvette. Although the Corvette now "belongs" to the stepfather, in reality it was George Sr.'s antique car, so it is a material tie to the kids real deceased father. The stepfather is going to get it spiffed up to sell, inciting the boys anger. George leaves and is headed down the road outside the farm. Jim takees awhile to build up his anger to act but starts the Corvette and takes off - not clear (yet) what he intends to do with it (the look before you leap attitude Captian Pike referes to later).

You'll recall Jim passing and yelling "Hey Johnny" to a slim older boy on the road from his farm - that would be George Jr., his brother in the novel. When he is pursued by the aerocop (my tm, he turns sharply right and crashes through a fence gate of a restricted area and guns the Corvette engine. In my mind, he know exactly where he is and what he's going to do - destroy the Corvette so his stepfather cannot profit from it. My belief is bolstered by the fact that Jim accelerates toward the chasm ahead (downshifts and guns the engine) while jumping out at the last second.

We'll have to see if there was any deleted scenes on the DVD release to confirm the above that is depicted in the novel.

Bart

Thanks for the background, it now makes more sense. I was groping for a reason it was included other than an attempt to somehow make it more "relevant." Wish that info was somehow conveyed in the film. Regardless, featuring some type of "flashback technology" is a recurring theme on all of the Star Treks.

Thanks Mech, that makes everything fit much better. I remember Kirk referencing his brother in the original series episode titled "Operation Annihilate". Your explanation of the Corvette significance makes sense.

Fascinating.

for many years now i have been very disappointed with what hollywood throws our way. although the technology exists to present us with dazzeling special effects and production quality to the likes that we have never seen, they are consistant with poor quality story lines and paper mache character development. so rings true with this film.

i was very excited when i saw the trailer for star trek, i was hoping that it might be worth the 50 bucks this time around. WRONG!

perhaps i was having difficulty separating myself from the original series, but i was not all impressed with the new characters and the way they interacted. none of them had the zing of the originals, and i understand that since it takes years for the writers to develop them, but nonetheless there was a strange oddity that i can not explain that bothered me about that.

the ship exterior and interior was outstanding, but the engineering section looked like a borrowed set from the "hunt for red october". you would think that with the capabilities of light speed that they would be able to do away with nuts and bolts. guess even in the future, snap-on will play an important role in space exploration.

kirk kinda slid in the capt`s chair by default, :scratch2: you would think the great captain of the flag ship of the federation would have a more meaningful
development. :yes

spock and uhura? wow that was unexpected, guess he wanted to follow in his father`s foot steps. so much for vulcan disciplines, whats next??? humor??? fibbing???? or maybe he was just planning ahead when he was deep in space needed a backup when he would experience "pon far".:nono:

oh yeah, what is red matter??? to tell you the truth i don`t really want to find out..............................:thumbsdn:

even with all these flaws i will give it an honest 6/10 since the production was very good.

hi Kptn Howdie,

Nice analysis and can't say I disagree tremendously. However, if you're a fan of TOS, you had the benefit of seeing them and all the episodes which provided so much opportunity to develop the characters and their relationships. And they had the benefit of being cast as full blown adults and career starfleet officers so we get that "military" command structure benefit too.

In developing a movie to provide a back story for all the characters, there's only so much time to be given to anyone, let alone all 7 of the main TOS characters and Captain Pike. Also given the mandate by Paramount/CBS that the movie be accessible to non-Trekkers (less exposition and more action, the problems that limited previouos ST movies), and the pacing that demands, I suggest that we got the gist and introduction to their budding relationships. What I'd also say is its going to be fun and interesting to see how they build on this movie in future sequels, of which I'd predict at least 2 to come.

And consider that there are some great curves thrown at us - Spock/Uhura, the willingness of Sulu and McCoy to volunteer (fencing?) or bend the rules (vaccine illness), Chekov (boy math genius geek), and Scotty (underappreciated engineering genius who was damn funny!) - already that's got me interested in what will come next.

And then of course, how the Kirk (captain) and Spock (first officer) relationship grows with this back story in place - tie in McCoy's growth as the Chief Medical Officer and I think you can see great things coming - assuming the writers will do a great job. I complement the actors on doing a damn nice job with what they had, I think it will be even better.

They'll be plenty to talk about at the Creation Entertainment Star Trek Convention in Las Vegas come August - good or bad, Star Trek has now got a buzz it has been sorely missing for awhile now so good for them.

BTW, as of now (and probably will be a little higher tomorrow) Domestic gross is $216M and worldwide gross is $318M so its doing very well and over double ST:First Contact, the best grossing previous movie. Should easily top $325M and then there's the DVD/BlueRay sales at Thanksgiving or Christmas.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/TRK11.php

Regards,

Bart, EMH (Emergency Medical Hologram)

Everyone has there own views and that is fine,

But I loved the cast, and felt they did an excelent job of interacting with one another
in a believable and entertaining way, that gave you real feelings about them this time.

Some random thoughts...

I like the cast and I will get used to the new Kirk. IMO, the actor who played George Kirk would have been a better James Kirk. I wish there was more of Kirk's mother to show how the young James developed but instead we got the ridiculous Corvette scene.

The new Star Trek borrows a lot from the Wrath of Kahn. There is a single believable villian in both movies that makes for great action and tight story lines. Both have terrific ship flying and fighting scenes. There is significant character development in both movies. For example, in Kahn we meet Kirk's ex-wfe and son.

The new Spock is much more interesting. The half human as a flaw angle and "Uhura or the ship" choice will undoubtedly feature in the sequels.

Agreed with the comment on the engineering section set. The iron girders and heavy pipes look like they came out of the Titanic. Anyways, the ship's design is a visual treat.

Awesome music. The USS Kelvim scenes play like a music video.

Earth sequences were interesting but please, no more Corvettes!

Saw it last night with the wife. We both thought that not since Star Wars in the summer of 1977 has a Movie of this type been so much fun to watch. Granted as a 19 year old Star Wars was near mind blowing and as a 51 year old Star Trek would be watched with more reserve.

BUT step by step it blew me away.

But then I'm one of those guys who just listens to the Music not the Stereo.

AND SYLER OH MY GAWD

I saw it last night too. I liked the movie, but sadly I was disappointed by the theater experience.

The DLP projection had crummy black level and I think someone forgot to turn on the surround system.

I have to say T3 was less offending as T4. By "offending" I mean that while it wasn't a very good film, it didn't make me angry, only disappointed. T4 on the other hand, makes me want to boycott everything that the writer, director, and studio ever create from here on out.
I really liked T2 AND T3. I would be hard pressed to pick a favorite. I thoght they pulled it off great. I don't do theaters. I'll be looking forward to T4 on rental. If it doesn't suck, I may buy it. Otherwise...

Matrix was awesome. Great story, etc. The follow ups were garbage.

What I'd also say is its going to be fun and interesting to see how they build on this movie in future sequels, of which I'd predict at least 2 to come.

it would be "fun and interesting" to see this development in front of my tv, but on the big screen its would be just "expensive".

seems the populus these days is very easy to please :tears:

it would be "fun and interesting" to see this development in front of my tv, but on the big screen its would be just "expensive".

seems the populus these days is very easy to please :tears:

I fail to understand the condescending attitude, but, I digress...

You said:


perhaps i was having difficulty separating myself from the original series, but i was not all impressed with the new characters and the way they interacted. none of them had the zing of the originals, and i understand that since it takes years for the writers to develop them, but nonetheless there was a strange oddity that i can not explain that bothered me about that.

Well one had 2.5 hours to accomplish what the original did in 3 years... As for your lack of explanation, remember that in the old show, you are seeing the end result of their interaction. They had to start somewhere, only now, the time line has been changed. So these people meet in a different setting and of course they would interact differently.

You also said:


spock and uhura? wow that was unexpected, guess he wanted to follow in his father`s foot steps. so much for vulcan disciplines, whats next??? humor??? fibbing???? or maybe he was just planning ahead when he was deep in space needed a backup when he would experience "pon far"


Well Branan and Braga(sp?) have already altered the Vulcan disciplines, well actually after they were slightly modified in ST 5. There is no going back.

You also added this tidbit:


oh yeah, what is red matter??? to tell you the truth i don`t really want to find out..............................

The call it science FICTION for a reason...

I really liked T2 AND T3. I would be hard pressed to pick a favorite. I thoght they pulled it off great. I don't do theaters. I'll be looking forward to T4 on rental. If it doesn't suck, I may buy it. Otherwise...

Matrix was awesome. Great story, etc. The follow ups were garbage.

T4 is easily the worst of the movies. Come on, transporting a grey whale into the future to stop a menacing alien?

T4 is easily the worst of the movies. Come on, transporting a grey whale into the future to stop a menacing alien?

Isn't T4 terminator not Trek?

I find it at least a little insulting that basically everyone in this thread liked the new Trek
but somehow were just blindly taking what they give us and saying it was good enough?

For me this was a very well done movie, and extremly entertaining from start to finish. :thmbsp::thmbsp:

It's fine if someone didn't like the movie, but those that did at least give them credibility.

I fail to understand the condescending attitude, but, I digress...


imagine having a negative opinion RIGHT HERE ON THIS FORUM!! I apologize for my condesending attitude. Perhaps my issue is related to years of canadian oppression. from now on, i will keep my attitude in check, and my opinions to myself.

I sincerely hope that this incident will not lead to war.....................:tresbon:

imagine having a negative opinion RIGHT HERE ON THIS FORUM!! I apologize for my condesending attitude. Perhaps my issue is related to years of canadian oppression. from now on, i will keep my attitude in check, and my opinions to myself.

I sincerely hope that this incident will not lead to war.....................:tresbon:

My "condesending attitude" comment was not directed at your opinion of the movie. but, rather your "seems the populous these days is very easy to please" comment.

Moderators Note:

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion of this film pro or con. Surely there will be diverging viewpoints about any film, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, take care to be respectful of others when doing so.

If the engineering section of the Enterprise NCC-1701 had been painted glossy future white w/ more flashing & indirect lighting, would that have made everyone happy?

Isn't T4 terminator not Trek?

Star Trek 4!

I have seen the new Trek once. If my memory is working ok, there are a few loose ends that do not fit smoothly into the established Star Trek Chronology (as subtitled on the large paperback book: The History Of The Future).

Vulcan has been destroyed. It's survivors are establishing a 'colony' elsewhere.

Spock's mother Amanda is dead. There is no tension between Sarak and Spock - they actually talk to each other. It seems that aged Ambassador Spock is still alive in his past. Young Spock struggles openly with his emotional half, and privately allows himself a bit of romance.

The ship is different. What most struck me is that the engines do not look like the first generation Enterprise starship. And the transporter effects are different.

We now know that Romulus will be destroyed in several hundred years when it's host star goes nova. Ambassador Spock will be, or already is (?) trapped in a time loop.

Since the introduction of The Next Generation all new Star Trek shows have tried to fit into the established Trek universe. Maybe I am the last person to realize this, but I believe the Trek producers have scrapped everything that has been done before. If no new plot device snaps everything back the way it was, the old history of the future is no more. Trek is reborn with a clean slate and nobody knows nuthin' about which heroes and villains and technologies will shape the new stories. Hold on to your wallets. Resistance may be futile...

Yep, seems that the time travel has altered the original time line and now everything is different than we are used to.

I would imagine the sequel will be aimed at either putting it back on track, or starting over fresh with a whole new series without the need to work within the old framework. that might be a good thing considering some of the lousy ST Movies that have been made.

Since the introduction of The Next Generation all new Star Trek shows have tried to fit into the established Trek universe. Maybe I am the last person to realize this, but I believe the Trek producers have scrapped everything that has been done before. If no new plot device snaps everything back the way it was, the old history of the future is no more. Trek is reborn with a clean slate and nobody knows nuthin' about which heroes and villains and technologies will shape the new stories. Hold on to your wallets. Resistance may be futile...

Take off the rose colored glasses. Star Trek The Next Regurgitation changed Trek history in the pilot episode. They further changed it in the 1996 movie, Star Trek: First Contact.

Uh... repeat after me ...


"New time line..."



Sounds like a new ,fresh re-start to the show...and it looks good too...


My only problem was the camera movements in the fast action scenes..... even the average eye doesnt loose details like that.

Next time (mr. director)...hold the camera still when shooting...lol

Take off the rose colored glasses. Star Trek The Next Regurgitation changed Trek history in the pilot episode. They further changed it in the 1996 movie, Star Trek: First Contact.

I wear no rose colored glasses, and I am not a Trek-can-do-no-wrong kind of fan. 1960s Star Trek and a lot of 1960s rock music were two things you had to like because of what they could have been if they had been born perfect. But I still liked them. I also liked TNG which became a better series after Gene Roddenberry's influence waned. DS9 was a self limiting format from day #1, and by the time it got involved with the Dominion war I had lost interest in it. Voyager had promise, but the trip home evolved too slowly, and it eroded the Borg's invincibility to make them manageable adversaries. Mankind became one of two races capable of kicking Borg butt. Yay for us! Regardless, I liked it's last episode. The last series, Enterprise, was a victim of franchise fatigue and the limitation that it could not accomplish greater things than the original series. It had it's suspense and adventure, but it was doomed to inferiority.

As for TNG's pilot episode, I do not understand how it changed Trek history. It was a Roddenberry-ish plot examining what 'we' were doing 'out there'. Q held 'us' up to examination. There was a scary alien life form. 'We' could have shot at it, but instead resolved the perceived threat through understanding. TNG was minor refinements to the Kirk-era format with a new ship and crew.

And as I remember First Contact, it changed nothing. It actually kept a change from happening.

In spite of the few and small imperfections that crept into the Trek universe over the years I like all the series. Not all the story lines shine equally but they all have a few memorable gems. What I have watched was not time wasted. :D

As for TNG's pilot episode, I do not understand how it changed Trek history. It was a Roddenberry-ish plot examining what 'we' were doing 'out there'. Q held 'us' up to examination. There was a scary alien life form. 'We' could have shot at it, but instead resolved the perceived threat through understanding. TNG was minor refinements to the Kirk-era format with a new ship and crew.

And as I remember First Contact, it changed nothing. It actually kept a change from happening.

In spite of the few and small imperfections that crept into the Trek universe over the years I like all the series. Not all the story lines shine equally but they all have a few memorable gems. What I have watched was not time wasted. :D

Forget the plot of the pilot episode, most have. However the story line change was this; according to the pilot episode earth fought a nuclear war. This was not the case of the TOS history. Earth fought a Eugenics war (Space Seed), but, not a planet wide nuclear war.

Spock in Omega Glory says to Kirk, "this planet fought the nuclear war that your planet avoided."

First Contact reinforces this change by Riker stating that 250,000,000 people died in Earth's nuclear war.


Yes TNG was better after Roddenberry let go of the show. Well that and after Will Wheaton was jettisoned from the cast.

I actually liked TNG quite a bit, maybe even my favourite series, I know dare I say it..:nono:

The last series, Enterprise, was a victim of franchise fatigue and the limitation that it could not accomplish greater things than the original series. It had it's suspense and adventure, but it was doomed to inferiority.




Yes franchise fatigue is very common, when you put out a very bad movie like "Nemesis". That will leave a bad taste in the mouths of even the most ardent of fans. The poor writing of the first seson or two by Brannan and Braga did much to get Enterprise off to a slow start.

I actually liked TNG quite a bit, maybe even my favourite series, I know dare I say it..:nono:

Yes it was pretty good, once Roddenberry was no longer contributing, Wesley Crusher was no more, and Riker grew a beard. :D

They could have done a much better job of casting Picard though... :thumbsdn:

Picard was also the captain I was most fond of and connected with incidentally..:)

Second that.

I find Picard a much more well rounded and rewarding character, which allowed the writers more room to work and develop. As much as I enjoy TOS, the writers only had a limited amount of space to work within Kirk's character structure, simply because Kirk was defined early on as such a hard-charging womanizer. I think placing Riker (a Kirk-like character) in the second chair was a great decision on the part of the TNG staff: allowing Picard to be a leader of a more classical archetype.

I think placing Riker (a Kirk-like character) in the second chair was a great decision on the part of the TNG staff: allowing Picard to be a leader of a more classical archetype.

Which Patrick Stewart did with the utmost perfection (IMO). :yes:

Scott

Which Patrick Stewart did with the utmost perfection (IMO). :yes:

Scott

Patrick Stewart was not the problem. It was Picard the character. Janeway was more a man than Picard!

Fotno spake thusly:

"I find Picard a much more well rounded and rewarding character, which allowed the writers more room to work and develop. As much as I enjoy TOS, the writers only had a limited amount of space to work within Kirk's character structure, simply because Kirk was defined early on as such a hard-charging womanizer."

The TOS writers were hamstrung mostly by a shoestring budget. It is amazing the show even lasted three seasons.

Are you telling me that a GOOD writer could not develop Kirk's character more? I find that idea, absurd. With TOS lasting only three seasons, TNG had four more seasons to develop their story lines. They also had more creative freedom as well. Let's keep things in perspecitve.

I refer you to the following, quoted from earlier in this very thread:

Moderators Note:

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion of this film pro or con. Surely there will be diverging viewpoints about any film, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, take care to be respectful of others when doing so.

I refer you to the following, quoted from earlier in this very thread:

That is agreeable, but, I was talking about a writer's ability. I did not realize that was being disrespectful. My apologies to you sir.

Forget the plot of the pilot episode, most have. However the story line change was this; according to the pilot episode earth fought a nuclear war. This was not the case of the TOS history. Earth fought a Eugenics war (Space Seed), but, not a planet wide nuclear war.

Spock in Omega Glory says .to Kirk, "this planet fought the nuclear war that your planet avoided."


Interesting contradictions, these. Star Trek is a great wide franchise, begun and fleshed out by many people. I am sure that under pressure to keep a steady flow of workable screenplays in the pipeline that a busload of background trivialities got scrambled. I'll restate: Star Trek is not perfect. It is something you have to like for what it could have been had it been born perfect.

Now that the subject has been brought up, I have my own favorite trivia contradiction. (Before I get too far along with this I should warn that I have my own naming system for Trek movies IV through VI based on Trek III's title The Search For Spock. Trek IV becomes The Search For Whales, Trek V becomes The Search For God, and Trek VI becomes The Search For Peace. I have nothing for Trek VII because when Kirk disappeared nobody went looking for him.)

Anyway, in Trek V: The Search For God, the Enterprise ended up in the center of the galaxy actually looking for God, only to find a malevolent creature imprisoned there looking for a means of escape. Few people remember that in the 1970s animated series story The Magicks Of Megas-Tu the Enterprise went to the center of the galaxy and there discovered a race of half-goat half-men creatures all capable of feats of magic.

The imperfections are there if you want to dig deep enough in the grand faux universe of Star Trek.

Interesting contradictions, these. Star Trek is a great wide franchise, begun and fleshed out by many people. I am sure that under pressure to keep a steady flow of workable screenplays in the pipeline that a busload of background trivialities got scrambled. I'll restate: Star Trek is not perfect. It is something you have to like for what it could have been had it been born perfect.



If roddenberry wrote the pilot, then shame on him. For him to have been a visionary, to make that blunder, he must have lost his vision.

No show is pefect, but, he had plenty of time between the end of TOS and TNG to come up with something better than that awful plot device.

If Brannan and Braga wrote that mess, then shame on them for not reading up on trek history. Maybe they were lazy and took the easy way out.

A nuclear war has been over done in Sci-Fi. What Roddenberry did in TOS with Space Seed was refreshing. I think Enterprise did a good job expounding upon that story, with Brent Spiner playing Dr. Sung's(?) grandfather.

Trek history is further fleshed out, for better or worse, in the novels the Trek overseers authorize for publication. In reading some of those I have learned that the V'ger satellite from Trek I was actually intercepted by the Borg before Q's playful introduction to them and sent back to gather information about the Federation for possible conquest. There was another which established that Trelane, Squire of Gothos, was actually Q's nephew. Of course these items do not become part of the TV/film Trek universe. From the little I have read on the storyline submission process, prospective outside-the-system writers have to remember a few things. (1) Remember, you are borrowing characters from someone else's universe. (2) Subject those characters to a solvable problem. (3) Scare the hell out of them during the story. (4) Back them out of the problem without changing anything.

One further contradiction. There was an original series episode where an alien enhanced Enterprise was driven to Warp 13 to break through the galaxy rim's energy barrier. TNG later established Warp 10 as the highest possible speed achievable with that technology. As has been said, the logic bugs are out there.

One further contradiction. There was an original series episode where an alien enhanced Enterprise was driven to Warp 13 to break through the galaxy rim's energy barrier. TNG later established Warp 10 as the highest possible speed achievable with that technology. As has been said, the logic bugs are out there.


Well maybe TNG was right based on the knowledge of TOS era engineers, but, what happened to transwarp drive??? :D

Forget the plot of the pilot episode, most have. However the story line change was this; according to the pilot episode earth fought a nuclear war. This was not the case of the TOS history. Earth fought a Eugenics war (Space Seed), but, not a planet wide nuclear war.

Spock in Omega Glory says to Kirk, "this planet fought the nuclear war that your planet avoided."

First Contact reinforces this change by Riker stating that 250,000,000 people died in Earth's nuclear war.


Yes TNG was better after Roddenberry let go of the show. Well that and after Will Wheaton was jettisoned from the cast.


Please review "The Omega Glory" again. The actual quotes are:

Kirk: "Yangs...Yanks...Yankees!

Spock: "Komhs....Communists? The parallel is almost too close, Captain. It would mean they fought the war your Earth avoided. In this case, the Asiatics won and took over this planet"
- Transcibed from the Episode I just watched :D

There is no specific mention of nuclear war here, on Omega IV or on Earth. The references for Earth, in the context of 1960's world views, may be interpreted (my emphasis), as the Cold War and the escalation of that war into armed conflict between the West and Communism. If we avoided that war as stated, it can be interpreted that, at least between the West and Communism in the later mid to late 20th Century, no major armed conflict erupted (Roddenberry's hope for the "future").

McCoy's mention in this same episode about Biological Warfare in the 1990's has an eerie prescience (Anthrax scares, possible vectors like SARS, Botulism, Ebola, even HIV and the like), suggesting that conflicts continued to happen.

The Eugenics Wars erupted along ideological issues with genetic manipulation and genetic engineering, again beginning in the 1990's (again prescient in regards to DNA technology, cloning, Human Genome mapping, etc. in the 90's and this decade). Some 30 million people died in this "war" although it was not clear how they were destroyed. The Memory Alpha page refers to "bombed" out of existence.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Eugenics_Wars

There is no mention of East vs. West, Yanks-Comm's in this context. Indeed, the Eugenics Wars were fleshed out in later series as Augmented genetically ("Superior") vs. non-augmented. The war was documented as occurring in though the mid to late 1990's, possibly lasting in to the 2000's.


The Nuclear Wars occurred as an aftermath of the Eugenics Wars, when a multitude of conflicts arose and many world governments were destroyed. Parts of those conflicts included "Eco-Terrorists" like Colonel Green (From TOS: The Savage Curtain, referred to by Spock in TOS: Bread and Circuses, and ENT: In A Mirror Darkly, Part II) whose inital attacks in 2026 was acknowledged as the beginning of WW III. This set the stage for Nuclear War to whomever had access to the weapons (not seemingly from country governments but more from terrorists, tyrants and military commanders who gained access to all the stockpiled weapons of the 20th century - sounds frighteningly familiar to today??).

The Radiation sickened populace that Colonel Green exterminated strongly suggests nuclear war, or at least "dirty bomb" type technology.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Phillip_Green

Yes, the subsequent events of WW III from 2026 to 2053 are mostly fleshed out in later Star Trek vehicles like ST:First Contact, ST:TNG, and ST:ENT. But much of the foundations or story "sparks" come from statements first used in ST:TOS. Subsequent writers and producers have tried to envision the "future" through filling in the "history", thus giving more substance and storyline to the show.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/World_War_III

I think most writers, including Braga, and Berman, and others, did a good job balancing writing entertainment with staying reasonably true to the "future history" that TOS first established or suggested, and then they fleshed them out. We (collectively the fans) might have wanted to do it differently, but that's what they (writers, produceres, and, yes, the studio) decided to put out and generally accepted as "canon".

As for Roddenberry, well, it was his vision that established the tenets of Star Trek, and when he wrote or outlined the pilot, that was in the midst of the Reagan ERA with the Cold War escalating further. It was not a hard stretch to again outline how humanity would have sank deeper into oblivion (Nuclear War, narcotic controlled soldiers, genocidal wars - much of this is happening now or may happen - frightening isn't it, so his vision is not far off). He used Q to bring all of humanity's failures into focus, and re-establish the Star Trek theme that Humanity eventually conquered that and evolved for the better.

One other thing. "Brannon and Braga". His name is Brannon Braga, and he was writing a lot with Rick Berman. I suspect you are referring to Berman and Braga in regards to the writing?

BTW, Brannon Braga, since starting in 1993 on TNG as a story editor, worked his way up into head writer, producer and Exec. Producer for Star Trek series and movies. Of course, not everything he's done is critically acclaimed but much of it is interesting and does reflect a solid knowledge and understanding of the ST universe. He has since gone on to do great work on the series 24.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0103804/

EDIT: so essentially, even though there was not a specific mention of nuclear war in TOS's future, it did not specifically exclude it.

Regards,

Bart, EMH

EDIT: so essentially, even though there was not a specific mention of nuclear war in TOS's future, it did not specifically exclude it.

Regards,

Bart, EMH

Thanks for filling in some of the gaps. I still have a problem with their version of trek history.

In Space Seed, kirk says to spock, something along the lines of, "i wonder why there is no mention of this flight (DY-100) in the history tapes?" Spock replies, "Captain, would you let a war weary population know that 30 of their supermen are missing?"

Now if there was a full scale nuke war with a side order of Eugenics and Bio warfare, and for dessert they will be having a total collapse of governments, oh and the check comes to 250,000,000 dead, do you think spock would have used the phrase "war weary"? I don't.

Oh and if did happen as the TNG episode says, do you think the remnants of civilization would care about 30 supermen blasting off into space? I think the answer is, "no".

Then there are a couple of other episodes, where they go back in time, circa 1969, and no mention amoung themselves about this upcoming devestation? In fact why was there never any mention of this planet wide nuke war in TOS? Something like that is bound to have come up at some point. you don't forget something like that. We have people today, who still debate the cause of the The Great War, and that pales in comparison...

Now on to the TNG pilot episode. If as you say Roddenberry is writing the pilot with the Reagan era and nuclear buildup in mind. Too bad! Roddenberry has already written his trek history in TOS. He can not change it, just to suit his political whims.

I do not have a problem with a tactical nukes being used. In fact I never ruled that out in the first place.

I am not referencing anything from Enterprise, Voyager, or DS9. That would be revisionist history, if Farpoint is indeed a blunder. I am speaking strictly from a TOS reference.

Then there is the Warp capable Phoenix in First Contact. How was he suppose to return to earth, once he made the maiden voyage. Seems to me, he is asking a lot of an converted ICBM...

Here's where the fun really starts. It's easy to criticize from the home recliner when a writer puts a little spin into a story that interrupts one's suspension of disbelief. So consider this: just how easy is it to create a workable and interesting Trek story?

A show of virtual hands, please... How many have ever tried to write a piece of Trek fan fiction?

Here's where the fun really starts. It's easy to criticize from the home recliner when a writer puts a little spin into a story that interrupts one's suspension of disbelief. So consider this: just how easy is it to create a workable and interesting Trek story?

A show of virtual hands, please... How many have ever tried to write a piece of Trek fan fiction?

Sure, writing a story that has a compelling plot is hard. Well except for people like Jane Austin, Charles Dickens, et al... :D

I am not a writer, however, these people are writers. They should get to know the history of the show, and write in accordance with that history.

Picard was also the captain I was most fond of and connected with incidentally..:)

Patrick Steward took a bit of getting used to as captain. Turned out to be good choice. Next Generation was good as were the movies. Enterprise had two flaws. One casting Scott Bakula as the captain was a poor choice. I could not believe he got the part. Two, puttting it on a crappy network(Paramont)with poor ratings did help the show. It actually got better in the last 2 years. On any other network with an audience Enterprise might have succeded.

The new film was a hoot. Loved the whole thing. Some questioned the Corvette scene. It was funny. The cast was cool. They nailed Scotty and MaCoy. Kirk and Spock were right on too. Will try to see it again. Will buy it on DVD. And I dont buy movies. As an old time Trekie I was not dissappointed. Good stuff.

Eric:thmbsp: