What Took So Long...why we're only getting a new movie now...

Though toward the end of the Berman/Braga era it was sure starting to feel like a reign...

 

Agreed, it's too late but what are you going to do?
Me, I plan to bitch about it on some message boards. That'll make JJ and Paramount think twice, you betcha.

 

Let me add another NOOO!

 

Umm…no.

 

Mainstream audiences (not necessarily the "Star Trek Fanbase") wants to see movies that look fun and/or entertaining. If THIS movie looks fun and/or entertaining to them come May 17, then they will see it. That mainstream audience is are not necessarily waiting for this film because it is "the next ST film". I don't think momentum from Trek '09 wouldn't really be a big part of their decision to see this film.

The fanbase, on the other hand (who make up probably a smaller portion of the audience for this film) ARE waiting for this film because it is "the next one", but they would be seeing it anyway, whether there is momentum from Trek '09 or not.

 

There was four years between INS and NEM. Obviously the length of time between films has absolutely NOTHING to do with quality.

Abrams is doing a great job and making Paramount truckloads of dough. He's also the hot hand in Hollywood right now. Why would anyone dump that for relatively unknowns who ran a show on UPN that was ultimately cancelled early for lack of viewers?

 

I will add my No to the list. I just love the direction Star Trek is going. If it takes 3-4 years to continue with this quality then I will and can be patient.

 

Oh please. Star Trek (2009) was a love-letter to Trek and the fans. JJ Abrams and his writing team have lavished the kind of care and attention that the Trek property hasn't seen since the days of Nicholas Meyer and Harve Bennett. The difference is, Abrams has managed to turn Trek into a tentpole feature.

So no, Abrams isn't going to lose the Trek property, he'll leave it on his own terms.

 

So, with 27 responses so far there's unanimous disagreement with the OP.

Impressive.

 

This is important.

 

Especially if you're riding a horse.

 

Or maybe they meant: 'hand over reign' ? Language, eh. What a bummer.

And no.

 

More like "Bend over and grab your ankles..."

By turning it into Paramount's version of Star Wars. Trek 09 was enjoyable as a generally noisy, shallow action flick full of run and jump and "pew pew pew". At best it's Trek-lite.

By sexing it up, dumbing it down, and throwing in a ton of fake lens flares.

You're probably right, but it's a shame. Trek could be much more than what it has been turned into. And produced on a faster schedule.

 

Impressive maybe in the sense that it showcases the strength of the Cult of JJ and how fashionable it is to hate everything that came before his "interpretation" of Trek.

 

That's an impressive load of crap.
Under no circumstances does liking Abrams' Star Trek mean hating what came before.

 

This is called the "Everybody's Out Of Step But Johnny" phenomenon.

When it's running unanimously against you it's time to join the Flat Earth Society.

 

Indeed. The seven year gap and astronomical difference in quality between Nemesis and ST09 is proof enough of that. It also shows that people are almost always willing to give a franchise another try if you can offer them a quality film, even after epic boondoggles like Final Frontier and Nemesis.

Agreed, I love all incarnations of Trek, including ST09...


(...except Voyager. )

 

I'm a fan of classic Trek and current Trek. I think the majority here are too. Go figure.

 

I never stopped being a fan of the Originals, I like them all... though some less than others.