Star Trek XI still sucks

This poster ALMOST says it all. But I ran out of room to list all of Nero's inanely stupid behavior and motivations. I also couldn't find a font where the zero's matched the ones used on the release date. Oh well.

Yes. I determined that Nero doesn't wait a mere 28 years, he waits 38. Thirty fucking eight. I could be wrong though, I refuse to buy the DVD on principle, I don't wanna pirate it either. I mean, imagine being so unlucky as to get busted for it, and it's a movie I detest? No. Besides I don't want it on my computer, and I don't want to ruin a DVD, it's more entertaining and mentally stimulating if I leave it blank.

Anyway, yah. 38 years.

Again I could be wrong and though that poster sums it up, let me break it down and I'll be happy to correct myself if anyone can clarify.

Nero shows up in the past; Kirk is born (at the wrong time in the wrong place).

Flash forward to Kirks wanton destruction of historical artifacts, neatly mirroring Orci's, Kurtzman's and Abrams' destruction of Trek itself.

When he drives the car off the cliff (into a gorge sized quarry) I figure he must be AT LEAST 10 years old. Then after an interlude where we see Vulcans logically hating a halfbreed and calling his mother a whore; we get the infamous '25 years later' fade.

Now, anyone who's watched Transformers 2 knows that Orci and Kurtzman obviously failed 3rd grade math because in that movie they make it clear that they think 5-1+1=6. But, in an arguably simpler equation 10+25=35, and that actually manages to be true in base 10.

At this point we see barhopping date rapist Kirk (who logic dictates is at least 35... unmarried and going to bars... what else does logic say about him?) get dared into going to Starfleet Academy... we then get another message that tells us 3 years have passed.

Follow along. 10+25+3= 38. Still true, still in base 10.

38 years pass before the actual action of the ... it pains me to say this word in reference to this movie... plot... ugh... gets underway.

Now, even if Orci and Kurzmans excuse for Nero's procrastination REALLY IS that he and his crew were captured by Klingons and thrown in Rura Penthe (which raises more questions than it answers, particularly since it doesn't actually manage to answer any), the two have stated, on record, that Nero and crew were imprisoned for 25 years.

Follow me again through the simple math. 38-25=13. There are still 13 years unaccounted for.

And this is assuming Kirk was only 10. He could've been younger... but, personally I think even 10 stretched credulity, as far as a child being able to drive that car is concerned. Never mind where they got the gas or why his step dad kept it's tank full.

Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman are so incredibly stupid it stopped being funny months ago.

This is more old news but I've been away and despite having a computer, I've been bad on staying up to date.

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/09/17/j-j-abrams-says-star-trek-will-boldly-go-allegorical/

"In many ways a sequel will have a very different mission."

So, instead of the movies mission being to promote the sociopatich asshole New-Kirk from soon to be expelled cadet to Captain in the span of a three hour tour, show Spock with jungle fever, and take scotty on a tour of the willy wonka factory, you're actually going to try and write a movie?

"It needs to do what [Gene] Roddenberry did so well, which is allegory," says Abrams. "It needs to tell a story that has connection to what is familiar and what is relevant."

What? You mean it's irrelivant that people still use Nokia and drink Budweiser in the future? People connect to that don't they? Surely the new movies success helped boost sales of Nokia and Bud as much as Picards drinking habit sparked thousands of people to try a tea they've never before heard of!

"It also needs to tell it in a spectacular way that hides the machinery and in a primarily entertaining and hopefully moving story. There needs to be relevance, yes, and that doesn't mean it should be pretentious."

So you won't be showing the willy wonka tubes, turbines and Mac computer screens as much? And relevant without pretention? Really now Abrams, calm down, you've none of the former and too much of the latter, that's clearly far too ambitious for you.

Orci echoed Abrams....

Because you always want the writer under the director/producers thumb. Nothing well written ever comes from writers insisting that the director, producers and all the other suits, are idiots that don't know anything about the material.

Orci echoed Abrams, noting that it had been one of the biggest criticisms of the new Trek. "One of the things we heard was, 'Make sure the next one deals with modern-day issues.'

Like how much do nokia phones cost in the 23rd century? what sort of coverage do they have? Planetary, interplanetary? I mean, can I talk to my cousin on Mars and my grandma on the moon without having to pay roaming fees?

We're trying to keep it as up-to-date and as reflective of what's going on today as possible. So that's one thing, to make it reflect the things that we are all dealing with today." When asked if "modern day issues" meant war, terrorism, and torture, Orci agreed that was "an approach" they were taking.

Because torture was never ever addressed in ToS, TNG or DS9. War and terrorism were never ever mentioned in TNG or DS9 either. Bajorans? Cardassians? Please, Cardassians just make alcoholic beverages for cadets to order in bars before a spectacular bar fight scene.

Many feel that the films should reflect the original 1960s series and hint at social issues.

Who? Where? All the complaints I've seen have been about how horrible the writing and confused the direction was.

Others feel that such blatant allegory can make a film feel very dated in a few short years, and want Trek to just stick to telling good adventure stories. After all, taking a political stance stands to alienate many moviegoers, though controversy is always welcome from a publicity point of view.

Yeah, Star Trek IV was popular because of it's stupid save the whales message, not because it was a well written funny fish out of water story.

And Star Trek VI was so good because of it's obvious cold war is over allegory, not because it was a well written mildly suspensful whodunnit.

No. Good writing isn't what makes trek movies good. It's the issues. Miss the point a bit more why don't you?

Star Trek is definitely heading into problematic waters.

I can't believe they said it. Though it's not clear whether they did or the writer of the piece did.

Anyway...Heading? It was dragged out by Abrams' undertow the minute he was hired. Then Orci and Kurtzman summoned up a hurricane and sharks with frickin laser beams just to make sure there was no chance of surviving within the first five minutes.

Sci-fi has always been at its best when it reflected the modern world, but it is such a fine line to tread because you don't want your sci-fi epic to be full of thinly disguised Communists when the geopolitical climate changes.

Indeed. Because trek has always been about epic film making and not good stories. Jebus. Besides; it was OUR HEROES that were the thinly disguised commies. Really now, no money, perfectly egalitarian society, and everyone wore red in the movies until the TNG ones, even then, the ones in red are in command.

While I think issues of pre-emptive strikes, war, and torture might be general enough to be forever relevant, I worry that trying to tackle them will just be clumsy.

You guys certainly don't have the grace to pull it off, you're absolutely right about that.

It already feels dated in some ways, and it's difficult to imagine Starfleet saying anything new on the subject.

Yeah, because STAR TREK has already addressed all of these issues, since 1966.

War movies are always made and always have the same core, and good ones are damn good! Whether it's a Vietnam movie, a WWII movie or even a flippin' Civil War movie.

Dated? Try timeless and part of the human condition. You just can't handle it because it's beyond your scope. Trek is all about the human condition.

If Star Trek is going to tackle something I hope they go gentle, and tackle prejudice through Spock and Uhura's relationship. There's some racial and gender issues there just waiting to be mined for a background story.

Seriously? Interracial dating is taboo? Maybe in the deep south and other bastions where white folk barely ever see anyone darker than a red neck.

Gender issues? Watch trek sometime will you?

Addressed in ToS, addressed in TNG, addressed in DS9, even Voy and Ent managed to address it!

Do you mean gay? That's not a gender issue, it's a sexuality issue, though they ARE often confused for one another. A lot of gay trek fans have clamored for years that it needs to be specifically addressed in trek.

I disagree.

Let me count the ways it's already been addressed.

Lonely nerdy women have sworn Spock and Kirk were gay since the 60s.

How can a Frenchman with perfect British received pronunciation that can't maintain long term relations with women NOT be gay?

How can Wes be anything other than a flamer? He wore a rainbow pride sweater almost every episode. He dated Ashley friggin Judd... but didn't DO anything with her except play a game. He gets all surly and disinterested in Starfleet after he lied and cheated for his dashingly handsome upperclassman... comes back to the Ent and gripes... hangs out with an old Native American and participates in his 'scared rituals' and LEAVES THE UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW IT with a man who's forehead literally looks like an ass and is dressed in a skin tight silver speedo. I rest my case with Wes. Sure, Wil happens to be straight, but don't confuse a nerdy actor with his nerdy GAY character.

Bashir started off flirting with anything in a skirt... but he ends up dating a woman who's been more men than women.

She was also another woman before who dated a coworker of his, and when a man was his bosses mentor.

One of her previous female incarnations found herself still attracted to a woman she was married to when she was one of the he's she used to be.

How's that for gender issues?

Sticking the the gender bending of the Trill; Dr.Crusher couldn't cross her own sexuality when the man she loved became a woman.

Riker loved a gender-bender who refused to go along with their societies concept of being gender neutral so much he risked his career for the heshe!

Harry Kim anyone? 'Oh my girlfriend back home... in SAN FRANCISCO, I can't cheat on her'... even though the odds of getting home are nil, and the sexiest twins ever wanna date me. We know which way Mr.Kim swings.

Malcom Reed? All Americans automatically assume anyone with a British accent that isn't Hugh grant is a bit of a puff anyway. He had no love interests in a show that matched everyone with everyone and was terribly fond of shower scenes and rubbing gels. Friggin' Hoshi was considered 'sexy' in that show. Sad, but true. Without a female love interest, Malcom was clearly gay.

And? Other than Kirk, Spock and Picard, these characters really DO read as gay, bi or at least very open... with only ONE being slightly prejudiced (Dr.Crusher) about it, and that was over her own inability to cross, which didn't make her feel any better about the situation.

None of them faced any real problems due to their apparent sexuality. Quite simply put, by the 23rd, and absolutely by the 24th century, no one gives a fuck if you're gay or not.

No reason to address it specifically. THAT would be ham-fisted. Get it under the radar, imply it, get the audience to infer it. Then, just maybe, like the characters, people watching also simply won't care whether or not anyone is gay.

Clearly, far too subtle for the three musketeers currently in charge of the future direction of Star Trek.

I didn't mean to turn this rant against Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman into a plea for homosexual fans to pay more attention and admit trek has no need for purely openly gay characters. I just hated how much time was spent on 'relationships' in Voy and Ent. That's not what trek is about, gay or straight.

Not that these three yahoo's would know what the hell Trek is about, as they've so amply demonstrated time and time again. I'm sure while exploring Uhura's and Spocks relationship, they'll delve into Spock and Kirk ACTUALLY being gay for one another. They're dumb enough it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that they think it's a continuity nod. They don't even know the difference between continuity and canon...

ugh, enough said for today.

More half assed explanations from Orci and Kurtzman

Podcast of these two idiots trying to address the obvious problems with the new movie

The original post I stumbled across

Why time travel?

We didn't wanna tell a story where everyone knows what happens.

So instead we'll tell a story in a universe where it's been established time and time again when you alter the timeline you have to make things right again somehow or THIS UNIVERSE SHOULD NOT EXIST. But, since we remade the universe, we threw that rule out. We're too cool for your nerdy conventions.

Coindicences on hoth.

Just to refresh you on what those coincidences are:

1.Nero stranding Spock on hoth.
2.Spock stranding Kirk on Hoth.
3.Scotty being exiled to Hoth.
4.Spock knowing the calculations that would get Scotty and Kirk back to the enterprise.

Their cop out reason for all these coincidences?

Because time and space itself wants to correct itself by bringing Kirk and Spock together.

So it works on the unconscious minds of everyone in it to try and fix everything up.

Because even the new universe knows; THIS UNIVERSE SHOULD NOT EXIST. And you don't even have to be Guinan to know it.

We're still too cool for your nerdy conventions, even though we threw the rules out we're still trying to obey them in our half assed way. Because everything we do is half assed.

And with two such enormous asses, you'd expect a lot more than just a half of one.

The corvette and wanton destruction of a 300 year old artifact.

Because we wanted to establish what everyone knows; Kirk is a badass. But we wanted to do it with a big fisty ham that makes him look like a sociopathic little dickweed instead.

Oh and we tried to establish that his step dad was the real dick. Meaning his mom is a fucking retard and an obviously horrible mother for letting her husband be such a dick to her FIRST BORN CHILD (who's father, by the way, in case you forgot the scene that was just shown, was tragically killed and may need extra love and attention... maybe).

It also implies she's a horrible judge of character; meaning Kirks real dad was probably also a dick, or at least it's fairly safe to presume so judging from his moms track record. He just happened to have one crowning moment of glory before he died, y'know, to redeem himself vis a vis, Vader.

We really wanted to reiterate that the new-kirk, like the new-coke, left a bad taste in real trekkies mouths by leaving no uncertainies that he was BORN to be a total douchebag.

Further subtext: because we're actually star wars fans, so suck it.

The big gorge in Iowa?

Uh, that's er uh... That's a quarry.

Because in the future, huge megalithic monuments are built on a regular basis and they require huge quarries to be dug that are thousands of feet deep and nearly a mile wide and stretch on for several miles long, looking like gorges instead of quarries.

Iowa of course has the best stones to build 23rd century pyramids with.

Further subtext; holy shit these trekkies are fucking nerds, we never even thought about that! Iowa doesn't have gorges! Fuck me, next time we write about a location we should consult... what are those things? Maps? Christ I didn't even know where Iowa was before they brought that one up!

No one mentions the biggest offense in this scene; NOKIA?

In the words of MacReady: Yeah, fuck you too!

Families on board?

Ok so they didn't have families on board starships until the 24th century... so why WAS Kirks momma on the Kelvin?

Because Kirks momma was also a starfleet officer.

Who was on active duty still, 9 months into her pregnancy.

These guys are brilliant! What a fool I was to doubt their writing prowess!

The doozy: 25 year wait?

First off; at least 28 years. Pay attention to your own movie, thanks.

You're gonna LOVE this one.

Ahem. I'm serious, I'm not making this up, they filmed the scenes and everything!

Ok... I have to compose myself because this is just such ... you be the judge. Ready?

The Kelvin, a ship approximately 1/100th the size the Narada (if that, I'm being generous, by at least an order of magnitude, to the Kelvin) Rammed the retardedly huge death sta.. er... Narada, and damaged it SO badly... that a Klingon convey happened by and took Nero and his crew as prisoners.

And then threw them into a prison camp.

And it took them 25 years to escape.

When they did, they took their ship back and blew up 47 klingon vessles.

So yeah... The Klingons either took 25 years to repair the Narada, and didn't pick up any of it's advanced technology and integrate it into any of those 47 warships, nor thought about using it as a warship themselves... Because why would a warrior society think of such things...

Tactics, strategy, and technological advantages have no place in war!
Every Klingon knows that.

Or: after escaping a Klingon gulag the stalwart Romulan miners repaired the ship that had been sitting around DERELECT for 25 friggin' years, and blew up 47 warships.

Ahem.

Oh, that makes so much more sense than them just waiting around for 28 years doing nothing. Thanks for clarifying.

Uhura is Spocks sex toy? Uhura and Spock? Really?

Because Orci and Kurtzman never before saw Star Trek when they finished the script. Oh, wait that's not their answer.

Because Spock and Uhura flirted in the show. And, since Uhura was a smart, mature woman they felt she'd gravitate to a more intellectually mature man.

OH.

Yeah, of course.

Yeah.

All the time, yup, I remember that, they were ALWAYS flirting, it was episode... er... and then uh... and that one time with that kiss... wait that was Kirk...

WTF.

Wait.

Uhura WAS smart and mature, and knew how to handle herself... in the original series. In the movie she was bright, sure. And she knew how to handle herself too; but in a more manipulative way.

No? Refresh me, how'd she get onto the enterprise? It wasn't by using her blatant physical charms and her influence on HER TEACHER THAT SHE WAS FUCKING was it?

No no, it was because she was so smart and mature. I'm the moron for assuming she was just sleeping her way to the job of her choosing because that's how it looked.

I missed the subtext.

She's not a ho, she's a post modern feminist.

Like Britney Spears, Christina Aguilara and the Pussycat Dolls.

And of course, a smart intelectually mature woman will OBVIOUSLY gravitate towards that sort of man.

She wouldn't be single, as she was in the real universe, and be quite content with it.

Nope.

See, that Uhura was a lie.

I know, because of all the times she was blatantly flirting with Spock, and he was illogically returning those flirtations.

WTF show were they watching? Seriously.

Gratuitous Orion Slave girl

So yeah... Kirk fucks green chicks. Except of course, he never did. Nope. Seriously watch Star Trek sometime, ok.

Some of us happened to know that, because some of us, yeah... guilty, we watched star trek.

We thought it was ... odd... it fit in it's own way, but odd, that he was messing around with the Orion, seemingly just to get at Uhura.

I mean they'd so far painted Kirk as a huge douchebag, but still, we clung to our old picture of Kirk pretty well and it seemed too out of place for him.

So they filmed more material showing that Kirk started the relationship with the Orion in order to gain access to the Kobayashi maru computer simulation so he could cheat so he could finally beat the friggin thing.

So, New-Kirk isn't just a womanizing cad! No SIR! He's a MANIPULATIVE womanizing cad. That's so much better!

Thanks Orci and Kurtzman! You've done such wonderful things for Star Trek!

Two Spocks, one room; no boom.

When Kirk asks Senile Spock why he won't come with him to the enterprise, he heavily implies it's because he can't meet his younger self without making the universe implode in on itself. Considering how bad this new timeline is, I think that would be the best thing really but, I digress.

At the end of the movie, the senile old bastard goes and introduces himself to himself.

And nothing happens.

Ok so... uh, 'writers', get yourself out of this corner.

Oh you read that according to more recent theories, which TNG, and DS9 writers knew about, and incorporated into their time travel eps, time travel can just create parallell universes where you can kill your own grandpa and nothing bad will happen?

Yeah, we knew that, we'd been watching trek for the last 40 years.

Why didn't Spock seem to know that? Was he lying to young kirk? Is Spock as senile as Nimoy clearly is?

Yea yea, I know it won't actually cause anything to blow up, at most it causes an odd paradox.

I watched Yesterdays Enterprise.

I know who Sela is.

I saw 'cause and effect'

I saw Trials and Tribble-ations.

And every other friggin' show that dealt with time travel and different universes that were created by time travel.

I get it.

You obviously don't.

Spock seemed to think it would destroy the universe.

You established that it may.

WHY DID YOU DO THAT IF YOU KNEW IT WOULDN'T?

I know; you only wanted young Kirk and Scotty going back to the ent, I get that too.

But, there are many different ways to come up with a way to leave old Spock behind. None of which involve IMPLYING THAT OLD SPOCK MEETING YOUNG SPOCK WOULD DESTROY THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM.

Note further; that despite the fact that a NEW universe is created, it has a nasty habit of rewriting the established universe, and this tends to create all sorts of horrible things that need to be corrected by further time travel so that some semblance of the original history is preserved. For sanity's sake at the very least.

Jebus it's amazing how much more ignorant you sound trying to come up with ways not to sound totally ignorant of trek.

Fandumb?

Has my extreme displeasure over the atrocious new Star Trek movie made me into an unpleasable fan?

The movie is simply bad beyond all reason. Had it been any other franchise; I'd have simply ignored it and never seen it. But it wasn't, it was Trek and so I purposely subjected myself to it, thinking it couldn't possibly be worse than Star Trek V.

I was wrong of course.

But isn't that subjective? It's taste right?

Yes, and absolutely not.

Yes, in that some people may enjoy mindless action, wanton violence, and sloving problems by blowing your problem up.

Absolutely not, in that Star Trek has never been about mindless action, wanton violence and solving your problems by blowing it up.

True; in Star Trek II, VI, VII, IX, and X, the bad guy was literally blown up at the end.

Only two of those movies were well received. Even by Trekkies. Hell, even Trekkers.

So how did these movies end?

Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan
Khan blew himself up with his own doomsday device; on purpose. He was that magnificent of a bastard.

Star Trek VI: the Undiscovered Country
Chang was shooting whilst cloaked (unfair advantage!) and using the comm channels to inundate everyone with Shakespeare. You'd have done everything you could to blow him up too.

They had to come up with a rather special torpedo to kill him; and the single torpedo only dropped it's cloak and marked the ship to let Excelsior and Enterprise both continue to open fire on it's location.

So what about the others? They weren't as well liked, even by trekkies. Lets look at how the bad guys were blown up, even though this isn't why we didn't like the movies, it does indicate a lack of creativity that we didn't respond well to.

Star Trek Generations
Soran; blown up when he tried to launch his doomsday missile that Picard had sabotaged.

Star Trek Insurrection
Ru'afo; blown up when he tried to launch his doomsday device that Picard had sabotaged.

Star Trek Nemesis
Shinzon; blown up when he tried to shoot the Enterprise with his doomsday device that Picard had tried to sabotage, but that Data succeeded in.

Anyone else detect a pattern?

It seems to me that the TNG movies became virtually obsessed with replicating Khan's badassery, and in such attempts succeeded only in being derivative and having most of it's movies be rather uninteresting.

Star Trek (no name) has repeated this with it's weak villain being blown up by the doomsday device. Whilst making the mistake of trying to replicate the original crew AND retelling their story and changing everything while pretending that it's somehow all the same too.

What's worse is that according to the intertube; Kutzman and Orci are already writing the next script, and the buzz is they want to somehow involve Khan himself.

Do they think by using Khan himself they can somehow NOT be derivative?

Or have I just become an unreasonable fan and a perfect representative of fandumb?

Focus

While I've noticed quite a few people speaking up against the movie, and most do indeed bring up all the salient points defending why they hated the movie, and why it was indeed, a crapfest spectacular...

There's no focus. I myself am guilty of this. I can rant about how bad this movie is from every direction, for unlike Khan, my thinking isn't merely two dimensional.

The thing is, we need to focus on what really makes this movie so awful.

Story, or rather, lack thereof.

When we rant on about lens flares, slapstick humor, pointless jar-jar sidekicks, Kirk being a sociopath, the nonsensical redesigns of sets, ships, unifroms, props, the characters being merely caricatures, or how the only real message and values this movie has is "Pew Pew Pew! BOOM!", we look a bit... well... like obsessive nerdy trekkies.

Which we are, and I'm proud to see I'm not alone here. But, the fact remains that pointing out these flaws makes us look a bit silly. We are a bit silly. Never the less, we also love trek, and have until now, many great reasons to. Paramount has now decided that we stalwart and faithful fans, many who have dedicated ourselves to Trek for thirty to forty years, aren't paying THEM enough. We aren't who they want trek to appeal to.

I can't blame them. Steven Hawking and Bill Gates are trek fans, how many geniuses or fantastically successful nerds are fans of, say... Independence Day (I can't help bringing up that stupidly mindless movie), or the new version of Star Wars? We're proud of having critically minded highly intelligent nerds in our midst's. We're elitists, we demand a certain bare minimum and we always have. It's probably why Trek appealed to so many of us in the first place.

How do you appeal to such people? Hire good writers? Good directors? Technical advisers? But... why bother when you can just skip all that, hire whoever the flavor of the month is, get some hack writers, and release whatever crap they put together in the summer, along with loads of advertisements, and make millions while laughing all the way to the bank?

The problem is Paramount, but, we need someone between them and us, to firmly say NO, that's not star trek, slap another name on it, this one isn't for sale.

Until then, we need to make our voices heard, and we need to FOCUS on what it is about the movie itself that was so dreadfully horrible.

Again, it's the lack of story. The entire movie rests on the fact that Nero, after going into the past, for no rhyme or reason, WAITS 25 years for Senile-Spock to show up. Then, after he does, WAITS another three years before doing anything. Couple that with the preposterous Hoth scene, and you see; this story lacks any actual thought.

When questioned directly, Orci and Kurtzman, the writers, said nothing about this massive oversite. 'What did Nero and his crew actually do during the better part of 30 years?'

The answer? They don't know. "It's a rich field for fan fiction." A-holes. Base your movie on something you gave no thought, that's brilliant.

I could go on about how even waiting to begin with makes no sense. They could've at least thrown out a line of dialogue to help try and explain why they waited, even if they clearly didn't give any thought to the how they kept that ship up and running, and how a crew full of angry and distraught Romulans didn't mutiny just to go back home and try to start anew...

See, it's easy to rant about how DUMB it is, and it starts bringing up a whole host of other issues. This is exactly why we need to focus on that one little fact.

25 years of waiting followed by another 3? This should be our chief concern. What else could make these self styled 'writers' squirm more than pointing out that they based their entire film on something they gave no second thoughts to.

We know why. It was convenient; it shows Kirk as a sociopathic barhopping perv, it allows him to enter starfleet on a dare, so that he can conveniently meet the entire crew, so that he can get stranded on the same planet as Scotty and Senile Spock, so they can get back to the Enterprise for the willy wonka tube ride and tick off young Spock to take command, so he can rescue the captain so that they can both skip six ranks and we can pretend any of that makes any sense.

It starts off stupid and gets downright retarded by the end. Each dumb idea builds upon the last and just snowballs until we get this giant avalanche of idiocy.

It all starts with Nero waiting 25 years, then another 3. We must reiterate this over and over, and demand that these two hacks never write a Star Trek script again. Yes, JJ Abrams has his coming too, but first things first.

Focus.

Paramount Censoring Critics of Star Trek XI?

My best friend pointed out to me that the Star Trek Magazine asked for criticisms of the new movie, and it was filled with naught but praise.

Taken alone, this doesn't mean much. The Star Trek Magazine isn't necessarily under Paramounts thumb enough to alter it's editing practices. Perhaps... then again, it's quite hard to go against the apparent popular sentiment.

But, taken with the fact that ANY negative comment about the movie is deleted right away from various sites that ARE without any doubts, under Paramount's thumbs, I do think something quite foul is afoot.

You want to crap all over trek? That's one thing, we trekkies will deal with you in due time.

But, you stick your head in the sand, and pretend no one has anything bad to say about the movie? That's censorship. That's not only anti-trek, it's anti-American.

SO, let us test the theory shall we?

WRITE TO THEM! Tell them what you thought, tell them why you detested this movie!

Star Trek Magazine, Titan Magazines
8205 Santa Monica Blvd. # 1-296
West Hollywood, Ca 90046

startrekmail@titanmail.com


tinyurl,com/stmfacebook

The real reason I'm ticked off at Star Trek XI

Think about things for a second. About reality, not trek. For all the actual in-universe reasons this movie is bad, and even for all the horrible storytelling... Divorce yourself entirely from these issues and think about Star Trek as it simply exists in the real world.

The reason they can even market a star trek movie is because of star trek fans.

Were it not for us, trek would've been yanked off the air 40 years ago and never heard from again.

That's an indisputable fact. That's reality. That's history.

Why then, would you make a star trek movie, aware of the existence of millions of fans who've made this franchise possible, and then ignore us completely?

The movie was made for mindless drones, it was made to sell Nokia, it was made to appeal to people who have no idea what Star Trek is. It's made to appeal only to people who've heard of Kirk, Spock, Scotty and McCoy...

The movie is filled with nothing but plot contrivances and hollywood cliche. Many blockbusters are.

But, there was no reason to make a Star Trek movie like this.

A non-trekkie wouldn't have heard of Kirk, Spock, Scotty, McCoy, Sulu, Uhura or Chekov... because were there no trekkies; there'd have been only one series that lasted only three seasons.

Again; star trek only exists because of fans. Without us, what would trek have been?

No reruns.
No movies.
No TNG.
No DS9.
No Voyager.
No Enterprise.

No star trek buzzing about in the background of non-trekkies lives. No trekkies to poke fun at. No conventions.

No knowledge of trek at all, because it would've only been a single series that was yanked after three seasons; too few for syndication.

Why would you make a new star trek movie and ignore that fact?

If indeed, our reality was different, then the movie could be made, and honestly, no one would really care. Trek would've been like the brady bunch, or any other number of old TV shows that died out and got a stupid movie made. It wouldn't have even have that much appeal; because these movies were always made of shows that lasted more than 3 seasons, of shows that had fans of one sort or another.

But that isn't what happened with trek is it?

The last movie bombed. Why?

Trekkies watched it and didn't like the story. It was weak, it was full of holes.

Paramount's response?

Remake Trek entirely. Why?

Because apparently, trekkies aren't buying garbage.

But, if you remake the franchise, if you keep it mindless; you can churn out mindless film after mindless film. If you market it right, if you make sure it's released at the right time; you can always make money off of people. You can gain new fans who aren't such critical thinkers and you can hire anyone at all to write, produce and direct, because no one watching will be paying attention.

So why does this tick me off? Because I'm a trekkie.

Because I'm part of the reason Star Trek existed up until now.

But, even if I wasn't this movie would bother me. Gene Roddenberry was extremely protective of Star Trek. He had integrity, and he wanted his show to maintain a certain degree of integrity. Star Trek was his baby. Now, maybe I only know this because I'm a trekkie. Maybe it isn't common knowledge, but I think it is, and if not it should be.

What if they remade Citizen Kane and turned it into a mindless action flick and ignored the entire original plotline?

That is just a single film, but it represents the same thing; one persons masterpiece.

Star Trek as a whole may not be a masterpiece. It has it's share of bad episodes and bad movies, even before this abomination. But overall, Star Trek is Gene's masterwork. And, even the worst movies that came before were as true as they could be to his overall vision.

Even Deep Space Nine, doubtlessly the darkest of the Star Trek series, would have garnered the approval of Gene, due to the excellent story-telling, well developed characters, and it's examination of rather complex human issues. It stayed true to trek because of it's darkness. It was the only way to boldly go where no one had gone before at that time. It touched on issues trek had only implied before, and it showed them vividly.

This movie is quite the opposite. Not just because it's boldly going where we've been while ignoring the fact that we've been there (while telling us we haven't and that this is an origin story), it's mindless.

It's careless with it's characters, it tries to employ canon to effectively erase it (while telling us it's not) and it's story rests on believing one unbelievably convienient plot point after another.

Had it not been made specifically to appeal to uncritical audiences, it would've tanked worse than any other trek movie has.

Orci and Kurtzman reveal they don't know jack about Trek

take a look at this nonsense from the 'scribes' who know only the way in which one strings together words, not how to actually WRITE anything that's coherent, about the various 'nitpicks' trekkies have made.


Note that I'm disappointed in my fellow trekkies for first of all; acknowledging these fools as star trek writers. Secondly, if you're going to acknowledge that they're 'writers', call them out for their real writing mistakes; IE how the plot makes no sense, how the characterizations make no sense etc. These guys aren't sci-fi writers, they're not trek writers. They shouldn't be writing sci-fi at all in my opinion.

There are two basic types of sci-fi, hard, and soft, sometimes they mingle, and particularly talented writers can handle it.

Hard sci-fi stories tend to have weak characters, and a weak story, backed with scientific speculation about technology, how it affects society etc, which is all backed by hard science itself. Thus the name.

Soft sci-fi tends to focus on the characters, the story, and scientific speculation can vary from wild to mild, with explanations as to how anything works varying just as much... from the detailed to the dismissive. The speculation could have a scientific basis, or it could be way out there. Either way, sci-fi in such stories tend to be the setting which, while often important in true science fiction, never eclipses the story or characters.

Star Trek has always been more 'soft', but it's technical fans have been adamant that even it's soft way out there tech be treated, within star trek, as if it were hard. Non-technical fans could care less, so long as the characters act the way they should, that the story is compelling, and overall thoughtful.

The result is that it's VERY hard to stray too far from the technical when dealing with the core audience. A trek story has to be good, be true to characters, true to the universe, and hardest of all; true as it can be to the technical details of how anything functions. Trek has never succeeded in pleasing all it's fans with this duality. Sometimes it's displeased both. But with 40 years that include five TV series and 10 movies, nevermind thousands of books... you can't please everyone all the time. BUT, even not counting books, we've been exposed to thousands of hours of the Star Trek universe. Before now, our biggest complaints have been a few episodes, and the fifth movie. Universally, we nearly all agreed that Star Trek V; the final frontier, was a joke.

Now we've got the new movie. It violates all the softness of star trek, and ignores the... er... 'hard', in favor of, as I've stated before, mindless action sequences.

There are a few things here that rile me up. I'm not even a big fan of technical trek, but I have to say the dismissive nature of Orci and Kurtzman is insulting. I'm not surprised, the story itself indicates they know nothing of trek... but to do so little research and call yourself a writer is just ... it's retarded is what it is.

Anytime someone brings something technical up, these two respond in a glib, haughty and pious tone. As if they knew the issue before hand when clearly they didn't. Even if they did, they have the nerve to act as if they're the ones in the right for flushing down 40 years of canon without any apparent rhyme or reason.

When someone brings up an actual plot point that was retarded; they indicate clearly they hadn't given it much thought, and respond with more glib and dismissive answers. They're insulted that trekkies who were paying attention not only hated what they did with the technology, even the story isn't up to our standards.

If you're not prepared to deal with trekkies, maybe you shouldn't attempt to write star trek.

Most galling; someone brings up Nero just waiting around for 25 years (the biggest problem in the movie in my opinion), and instead of saying something that would make sense... they just say that 'canon doesn't say what they were doing, it's a rich field for fan fiction'

No, a-hole, it's a rich field for you to have written something that made sense, it's a huge problem that you could've turned into a decent plot HAD YOU USED YOUR MIND.

Over and over these two fools show they clearly don't know star trek from any angle.

They and J.J. Abrams should never be allowed to touch Star Trek again.

the type of fan Star Trek XI appeals to

A perfect, if not THE perfect example of why I don't ever want to see a trek movie this mindless again.








We had some screwy fanbase before, but if you asked them what the heck happened in Star Trek III, they'd be able to tell you. And, they'd be completely coherent.

Some actual trekkies were screwy in the same way; shallow crushes and the lot... but again, I'd be willing to bet even the strangest housefrau slashfiction writer churning out disgusting homosexual fantasies involving Spock and Kirk at least KNEW WHAT STAR TREK WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT!

why Star Trek XI was an abomination

After taking a few days to get over my post-tramatic stress disorder from seeing the new star trek film, I've decided to honestly review the film without picking the standard Trekkie nits.

That is to say, that just like the movie did, I'm going to abandon every single thing I know about star trek.

I don't need to be a canon obsessed crazy trekkie nerd to pick apart this movie, I just need to be a fan of well written well directed movies.
Which is something I also happen to be.

I plan on taking bits I can recall that makes this movie bad and exposing it to the light of reason. It's not going to be pretty.

First off; it's a mindless action flick. Trek has never been, nor should it ever again be, a mindless action franchise. Don't get me wrong, I can enjoy a mindless action movie, I truly can. Seriously, I enjoyed independence day. How much more mindless can one get? They have their place, they serve a purpose... but...

Let's look at the simple word 'trek' and how it separates it from star wars as a simple and very classic example. We know what someone means when they say trek or wars whether they put a childish 'vs' in there or not. We know how vastly different the two are. Whether you're a fan of one or of both; you'd be hard pressed to make a case (until now) that between the two franchises, Trek was the least thoughtful, and most action oriented of the two.

Trek dealt with reality through fiction, trek, as the word itself implies, was about the journey. Wars was, unsurprisingly, about a literal WAR between good and evil, nothing more and nothing less.

Throwing out canon and continuity is only insulting to hardcore trekkies who even know what's being thrown out to begin with.

Throwing out what trek has always been about is insulting to trek itself. Scratch that, it's beyond insulting. It threatens to destroy what trek has been about for 40 years. I'm not nearly as upset about minor canon and continuity infractions as I am about this prospect. The prospect of trek becoming nothing more than mindless entertainment gives me nightmares. Because if trek goes down this dark path, I really won't have much left. Occasionally I may hope to be surprised by a decent film or TV show, and of course, I've always got books to keep me company...

But if trek becomes what this movie seems to indicate; then truly, trek as it has been is over. The Borg of the American idle variety will have assimilated it to their collective. And no, I didn't just misspell something, I choose my words carefully.

So, before anyone actually started writing or coming up with visual effects for the new movie, they screwed everything up. Simply by deciding it was going to be an action flick where the good guys win because good triumphs over evil, Star Trek itself was violated.

The movie starts off attempting to establish that everything you may have known about star trek is null and void. The problems with this scene are many, and indicate the problems with the movie as a whole.

When the huge Romulan mining ship shows up, it opens fire on a tiny Starfleet ship called the Kelvin. This moment, we're told to believe from on high (From J.J.Abrams), is the moment which changes the timeline.

The problem with this, is that the Kelvin was already breaking with canon and continuity in at least 10 different ways BEFORE history becomes altered.

But, that's just canon.

I'm going to focus on the non-canon issues. I'm going to focus on what makes this movie, as a movie in and of itself, stupid. And how that alone is enough for us to band together as trek fans, to ensure that never again shall we be subjected to such mindlessness under the name of Star Trek!

Let's start out with what I've actually heard people praise. The characters are left intact.

Really? Let's examine that shall we. I won't bring up canon, I'll just tell you how the characters are portrayed in this movie, and you can use whatever knowledge you may have about the characters to determine how false this is.

Kirk is shown as an easily lead, maladjusted sociopath. He's handed instant gratification time and time again, and never has to pay any price for the choices he makes. He never once bats an eyelash over anyone's death, friend or foe. And, despite the fact that he was about to be kicked out of the academy before graduating for cheating, he's given full promotion to CAPTAIN (follow me, that's six full ranks in what can be no more than a few days at most) and given command of the Enterprise, to boss around people he went to the academy with, who actually managed to pass without cheating, and joined because they felt the need, not on a dare as he did.

Spock is a halfbreed torn between two worlds. However, he's reassured by his father immediately after deciding to join starfleet that it's ok, and so has no real reason to be torn at all anymore. He's highly logical, but also apparently none too accomplished at emotional control, even BEFORE his planet is blown up.

Bones likes to gripe. They got bones down, and got a great actor. However, they failed to offer any sort of insight into why he's such a grouch, especially at such a young age. You'd think it would be a good time to explore it, what with it being during his academy days and directly after.

Uhura is a good looking black chick in a tight red mini dress and go-go boots with a silver funky hearing aid. She's also Spocks plaything, and apparently has no idea how to handle herself.

Sulu is a fantastic pilot... who doesn't know how to take the parking break off. He thinks fencing is advanced combat training, and also apparently thinks fencing doesn't refer specifically to European fencing but applies to any hollywood version of what a generic asian sword art may look like.

Scotty is a wiry redhead with an overly emotive accent and manners who conducts wild experiments with a lack of technical data and gets banished for them. He's very fond of telling a small troll to get down from places. He doesn't seem terribly ready to fight if you insult anything he takes pride in.

Chekov is a 'wiz kid' with an accent thicker than you've ever heard who's too old to possibly be the same Chekov from the original series. It must be his older brother, who happens to have the exact same name as the character we're familiar with.

If you've ever watched the original series, or the movies, you'd know that none of these descriptions sound terribly familiar, outside of McCoy.

YET! They all do interact as if they have personalities completely contrary to the ones they're portraying. How nifty!

Now, here's some plot details that don't make the grade either.

Lets start with the big bad and his big bad ship; Nero and his mining ship from the future...

Ok, look, I know the Romulans have a fetish for Earth's ancient Rome, but Nero? And, is this what people are going on about when they say J.J. Abrams likes to put 'hidden messages' in the crap he produces? Oh, how clever; Nero watched Rome burn, so this one watched Romulus burn, then he'll watch Vulcan and Earth burn... meanwhile the script and direction is so bad, J.J. has been watching star trek itself burn.

Is this J.J.'s idea or the two hack writers who claim to be trek fans? To my knowledge, not a single Romulan character has had a name of a Roman person. The Romulan culture reeks of Rome; but their names don't. Nero as the bad guy? Oh how original! Lets demonize the guy named Nero!

And again with these two writers saying they're trek fans? Is it them or JJ who decided the Romulans in this movie look NOTHING like the established romulan looks? This isn't canon! This isn't me not letting go of what's supposed to be new! Follow me; this ship is from the timeline we know, yes? Ok, when did romulans lose their ridges? When did they decide not to wear the pointy bangs? When did they decide to get tatoos and shave their heads? Is that just a mining thing? That just adds confusion where none need be added.

Speaking of miners... What's up with the Romulan STAR EMPIRE? One star goes nova, wipes out two planets, and there's no more empire? Where's the romulan fleet? All in orbit of Romulus, picking their noses and wondering if they should do anything about their star about to go nova?
This isn't canon; this is the movie. They introduce the concepts and right away if you're paying attention, you've got to wonder... a single mining ship is all that's left of the Romulans????

A single mining ship and a miner named Nero is going to take it upon himself to change history?

Then for 25 years do nothing but wait around for Spock?

Then not make his move for at least another 4 years after Spock shows up?

He destroys a starfleet ship, supposedly THE moment the timeline changes; and for almost 30 years, starfleet doesn't retaliate?

He stays pissed off all this time? His crew does too? He maintains that huge ship and crew for an entire generation all on his own without any help at all?

I mean really, he didn't even think: hey maybe if I go to the the Romulan Empire as it exists in the past, with my extremely advanced technology, I can install myself as ruler, ensure the star never goes nova, AND have a fleet to back me up when I go to destroy Vulcan and Earth?

No.

He waits around for 25 years for Spock to show up. So he can calmly take his ship, his red matter, which is never explained in the slightest, an then maroon the old man on Hoth?

The movie mentions he starts crap with the Klingons.

Where are they? And, why would he stir up trouble with the Klingons at all?

A single MINING SHIP is too much for either Starfleet or the Klingons to try and face unless it shows up, lowers it's retarded drill and drips a bit of red matter into THE CORE OF THE PLANET?

Even then, just send in some cadets... the real starfleeters are busy. With what preytell? What's so important that the fact that two founding worlds of the federation itself are about to be wiped out seems rather trifling to you?

Of course, mining to the core of a planet isn't going to create any changes to the planet on it's own, you have to drop some sort of mystery goo in there. Right?

And why the hell does the stupid drill have to be in the atmosphere? Just so there can be a platform where you can have a fight scene that requires a parachute scene and another pointless death scene?

I'm just supposed to accept all this?

Just like I'm supposed to accept that young Spock strands Kirk on the same planet that Nero stranded old Spock on? And how that JUST SO HAPPENS to be the same planet Scotty was exiled to?

And how Scotty JUST SO HAPPENS to be there because of a transwarp experiment gone awry, and he couldn't figure out why... but it also JUST SO HAPPENS that Spock knows the exact mathematical reason why...

None of this is remotely trek. When trek asks us to accept something that's hard to accept, they usually try to set it up beforehand, or at the very least, make sure that it's only one or two things per movie, which can be easily explained away due to nothing more than our knowledge of the trek universe and our ability to make right what seems out of place, so long as the story is good enough to compel us to jump through such hoops.

Every scene in this movie asks us to accept the unacceptable. Not even on a canon or universe continuity level; but on the level of trying to take this movie as it's own entity, wholly seperate from everything Trek we've ever known.

It asks us this by dangling a pretty light show and another nifty action sequence before our eyes. As if we're infants or cats. As if we won't notice detail, cohesion or pesky things like character development.

It asks us to ignore canon and continuity, then attempts ham fisted homages and half-assed tips of the hat to canon and continuity throughout the entire film.

We're trekkies.

You don't have to be a slave to canon...

But try to write a story that's at least self consistent and makes some sense!

Time to take back Trek

after stewing about how awful the new star trek movie was, and looking at comments people were making about how GOOD it was on different sites, including youtube... I also noticed I wasn't the only one who thought this movie was horrible. I do seem to be one of the few though, who can't stand what this movie does to trek, not just in terms of canon... like I said I can handle that someone wants to reset trek from the beginning... it's that they've turned it into mindless action.

I don't mind wanting it turned into an action platform. The first movie could've used a bit of action.

But Star Trek has NEVER been mindless. There were so many moments in this movie which could've been turned into pure trek moments and preserve at least integrity. Not one of them panned out. Instead; nods to trek were included, most of which only real trekkies would catch, which really comes out as an insult.

So, anyway. I'm going to see what me and my best friend can do to try and take star trek back. The old fasioned way. Trek was taken off the air after only 3 seasons; trekkies were appalled. Letter writing campaigns and self-orginized conventions lead to an actual response. Trek was shown in reruns, the first space shuttle to be tested was named Enterprise, and finally, we got a movie.

Albeit a slow moving one with a very silly plot. Even it's plot was far more intelligent than the new movies is.

It took time. But, those were the days before we had such instant communication. So hopefully, before the next movie gets into pre-production, we real fans of trek, who don't want Trek to become a mindless platform that makes money from the masses who are content not to ever watch something that makes them think, we can take it back, halt production, and get some real Star Trek writing back into our beloved franchise.

Star Trek, the Mindless Frontier

My worst nightmares have become a reality.

I must apologize to JJ Abrams however, for it was unfair of me to blame him and him alone, he's merely the director. I can only blame him for the atrocious look of the film, and for any bad direction I see, which I couldn't spot much of during the laser show which was Star Trek XI (reboot).

I blamed him only because I hadn't seen the movie (well it hadn't come out yet!), and I knew that everything he touched has been horrible in my opinion. The new Trek movie is no exception, but it's completely unfair to blame Abrams alone.

The lions share of the burden falls upon the two writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. These two even said they were fans of trek (not sure if they uttered the word trekkie or not), so though I dreaded that JJ would dumb it down, I hoped that perhaps with two people who knew trek actually writing, some semblance of a decent plot and story may make it through the typical hollywood abattoirs.

I was wrong.

If these two hacks are trek fans, I'm Gene Roddenberry.

That the movie destroys 40 years of canon and wipes out the last 25 years of continuity, I expected, and though it's frustrating, these facts are the least of the new movies problems.

I can accept an invalidation of canon, as insulting as it is.

I can accept a 'reboot' that tries to reimagine Star Trek from square one.

What I can't accept is a rebooting of the very spirit of what Star Trek has always been about.

In short; Intelligent, relevant story driven plots, characters that didn't feel forced, and an optimistic vision of the future of humanity have all been abandoned in the new movie.

At it's worse, star trek was a bit silly and preachy. But at it's best? It waxed profound, and it could move even a passing casual viewer.

I will not sit idly by as they continually slap me in the face time and time again, with trek references that show they know something about trek, and have chosen to ignore all that it implies.

Star Trek is not a mindless action movie franchise.

I can sit here and list everything wrong with this movie, and all the ways in which it isn't star trek, without once citing some nerdy trekkie canon or technical issue. I would point out issues of story alone, of how it doesn't fit in scope, story, plot, mood or in any other way with any of the previous trek movies.

I can't really do it without spoilers though. So, I'm going to sit on that for a while. Besides, I will have to bring up canon issues now and again; just based on the various 'nods' this movie is supposed to be making, in order to highlight that the nod is really more of an insult.

I also want to wait until some of the hub-bub dies down, and the children who currently think star trek is cool are distracted by the next shiny object to enter their field of view. I can't deal with their sort of mentality, or more appropriate lack thereof.

Suffice it to say; if you like mindless action movies and have no problem at all seeing a Star Trek movie that's as well written and ploted as 'independence day'... you'll probably like the new movie.

If that description sounds like an abomination... and I hope it does, you're not alone.

Live long and prosper. Because unless we do something, Trek won't.

The Return...

It's been ages since my last post. And, perhaps you should ignore the earliest ones.

It's not just my return however, I need to talk about. No. I need to talk about something I should've been talking about all along, something which had I been talking about it, I'd have no need to talk about it the way I'm about to.

I need to talk Trek.

I'm a Trekkie. I've been a fan of Star Trek my whole life, it's always been in my world and I've always been fond of it. I won't go into the ways I'm a trekkie, but suffice it to say I'm a third generation trekkie and amongst those in my own family, I'm hands-down the biggest one.

So why am I not looking forward to seeing the new Star Trek movie?

Maybe because it's insulting it's core audience, trekkies, with the tag "it's not your fathers trek"

Maybe because the entire idea of Kirk and the original crew meeting each other at the academy is retarded.

Or maybe it's because of who Paramount decided to hire as a producer (director).

As soon as I heard that J.J. Abrams was involved, my heart filled with dread.

Here's a brief rundown on why:

Reason #1 why JJ is a bad choice to be involved in any way shape or form in a star trek movie; in 1998 there were two movies about Earth threatened by an astronomic body impacting the surface and wiping out all life. One was slightly scientific, decently written, and attempted to be poignient and halfway realistic, the other was...


ARMAGEDDON, which didn't attempt any of the preceeding, instead opting for classic hollywood cliche of the hard working blue-collar guy saving the world, wrapped in a trite and very forced feeling love story.

Mr. Abrams co-wrote this piece of rubbish, which should speak volumes about his writing prowress.

He then wrote the craptastic television series 'Felicity', which I paid no attention to, becuase
A) I have an IQ of over 100, and B) I have far better things to do with my time.

He then created the show 'Alias', which once more paying attention to hollywood rules about roles for women, was about an unveiled threat of a girl who was, of course, extremely attractive and fond of inexplicable costume changes.

Then he wrote another movie; Mission Impossible III. Now none of the mission impossible movies were any good, but this one was quite possibly the stupidest of them all.

What he's most well known for is the series 'Lost', which is touted for being confusing, and this is confused for being deeply encoded with messages. I've watched it; the reason you're confused is that it's badly written, with no actual plot and no characterizations. It's not deep, you'll just have to trust me on that.

Having proved himself just as incapable of a writer as every other producer in hollywood, he's become a producer himself.

He produced most of the aforementioned wastes of writing, then Cloverfield; which was an epic waste of time.

So, it's only natural to bring someone so versatile in his lack of talent and attach him to a new star trek movie right?

If you want a #1 box-office hit, yes. If you want a decent star trek movie? NO.

Star Trek was killed by this fool, and it didn't have to be.

If Paramount was in any way interested in preserving star trek and appealing to it's MASSIVE core audience, they'd have hired a far more talented Jewish writer/producer than JJ Abrams.

They should've have hired Ira Steven Behr, the MAN who made DS9 interesting, and who proved time and time again he can write great characters, and fantastic plots, which are the very things that TREKKIES have always appreciated. Even if DS9 itself went largely unappreciated, Ira clearly knew how to write, and anyone who actually watched DS9 would be hard pressed indeed to disagree with my position that DS9 was the best of the trek shows, and that Ira was THE MAN.

But, Paramount is a hollywood studio. They don't care, they're not supposed to care. They wanted to 'rescue' star trek, and by that they didn't mean to restore it and give it back to it's core audiences. I'd smelled it cooking since Berman and Braga kept talking about 'appealing to a new audience'. Paramount only wanted to turn trek into it's Star Wars; a massive intellectual singularity, a platform to use to sell products and advertising.

In short; the exact opposite of the inherent spirit of star trek.

Roddenberry must be rotating in his orbit in rage!