Here's the Entertainment Weekly article:

[Aragorn]

At the end of the movie, a paralyzed, mute, scarred Pike is put into his blinking button wheelchair confinement:

KIRK: You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. I can do those things because I'm not a hero, like Pike... I put him in that wheelchair. That's what I can be.

SPOCK: No, you can't. You're not.

KIRK: I'm whatever Starfleet needs me to be.

 

[JacksonArcher]

At the end of the movie, a paralyzed, mute, scarred Pike is put into his blinking button wheelchair confinement:

KIRK: You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. I can do those things because I'm not a hero, like Pike... I put him in that wheelchair. That's what I can be.

SPOCK: No, you can't. You're not.

KIRK: I'm whatever Starfleet needs me to be.

Brilliance.

 

[EyalM]

This article already told me more then I wanted to know...

Anyway, I believe that the "Heresy" cries will be because

Spoiler: Part spoiler, part speculation

pre-BoT humans will see Romulans (Nero and group), but since Nero is time traviling, and everyone onboard the "Kelvin" will problably get blown up, then it's ok.

But this raises a much more interesting question:

Spoiler: Spoilers and temporal mechanics

Nero apparantly makes Kirk an orphan, but was Kirk always an orphan (in TOS), or is this new Kirk's whole live changed?

 

[Augustus]

By the way, I have showed some of the photos, especially the bridge shot, to some of my friends who don't know a thing about Star Trek, and they were all impressed with the images and said it was real different than what they had come to expect from Trek...

I have also been reading comments from non fans across the web...this could maybe, possibly, be a blockbuster...

anyway, thought I'd share.

 

[Amaris]

This movie is making me feel the way I did when I saw the promo commercials for TNG back in 1986. I was six years old and a massive Star Trek fan thanks to my mom, who got me into the show when she'd watch TOS every night at 7 PM on channel 19. I was enthralled by the beautiful colors, the heroics, the friendship and the great space battles. I loved watching the black/white alien fight the white/black alien and Kirk getting in between them to tell them how foolish they were to fight over such things.

So enter 1986, when TNG promos started showing on television. I still remember the first one I saw. I was in my pajamas, playing with some legos when I heard the music start playing and heard an announcer start talking about a new show called Star Trek: The Next Generation. I got excited, stood up and started jumping up and down, yelling into the hallway, "Mom, Mom! There's a new Star Trek! There's a new Star Trek!" I was tickled that I would get to see more space stories and heroics, and friendships in space.

This movie gives me that same feeling.
Except I'm not wearing pajamas, and I'm not six years old, but my God it makes me feel like a kid again.

So if for nothing else, thanks J.J., for letting me taste that anticipation once more.


J.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

No...no, you never did.

I didn't watch Voyager or Enterprise.... So the blame doesn't lay with me...

I quite enjoyed "Enterprise." There's no "blame" to be placed, thanks.

I blame you, Dennis.

 

[Captain Robert April]

So do I.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

...and YES, I regard people within the industry as better judges than uninformed journalists.

You can privilege any set of opinions you choose over any other - as can anyone else - but they remain opinions rather than fact.

Sorry, but I too also agree with Polaris as well; a post-Star Trek:TOS dissing article is crap, and pictures aside, I hope that Abrams will remain true to ALL incarnations of Star Trek, and not just TOS. This is why I prefer Starlog or Star Trek magazine for coverage of sci-fi/Star Trek matters; they don't say nasty shit, or insult franchises like EW does, or seems to have done so.

 

[Captain Robert April]

EW does have a history of making snarky comments about various fanbases.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I blame you, Dennis.

And I blame you for every sombrero I had to pick up and dispose of on Station K-7.

As embodied by the short-lived late-'60s TV series starring William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, Star Trek inspired rabid fandom (they're called Trekkers, please, not Trekkies), and was once the definition of smart sci-fi. The series subverted America's cynical Cold War culture with its rich vision of a peaceful future and a weird, wonderful universe worthy of joint exploration. But since the box office peak of the original film series in 1986 (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home), the Trek brand has devolved into a near-irrelevant cultural joke...

That's fair comment, and a good deal more observant than a lot of the self-congratulatory nonsense that fan-friendly writers and bloggers post on a daily basis about the Franchise (check out "Soul Of Star Trek" for an example of taking it all Way Too Seriously).

That Trek has become "an irrelevant cultural joke," unimaginative, timid and interesting mainly to the self-styled keepers of its minutiae and Defenders of the Faith...personally I blame folks like Captain Robert April.

 

[Ovation]

EW does have a history of making snarky comments about various fanbases.

It's an "entertainment" magazine--not an academic journal (though snide comments can be found in those as well). And hey, here's a thought--why don't we wait until we see the movie BEFORE deciding it's anywhere from the greatest thing ever projected on a screen in history to worth less than the droppings of an elderly yak with incontinence?

There are what, a dozen and half stills and some half-baked "leaks" out there and we have enough to make an opinion? Christ--makes Galaxy Quest seem like a documentary.

I've liked most of what I've seen from Abrams, the few photos show some interesting hints of the visual aesthetics of the film and I'm a fan of Star Trek in all its incarnations (some more than others, but I've enjoyed each iteration on the big and small screen--it's escapism, not life and death), so I look forward to this film quite a bit. Those that don't look forward to it--fine. Don't go. (Please--don't go to the movie--those of us who plan to enjoy a couple of hours of entertainment don't need a roomful of OCD sufferers who go into paroxyms of agony because the command braids are 2.7 mm wider than in The Cage or some such nonsense).

As for being ribbed a little for being fans--get over yourselves. Every "fanbase" is the subject of some belittling (as it should be).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

As for being ribbed a little for being fans--get over yourselves. Every "fanbase" is the subject of some belittling (as it should be).

Exactly so. Who here thinks Green Bay fans resent not being taken seriously?

As long as they don't call the Enterprise a garbage scow!

 

[Tyberius]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFAiCB7YmmY

... and this classic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JC7fyl7SzI&feature=related

 

[Amaris]

I guess it's not this week.
I was at Kroger and the Oct. 17th EW has nothing to do with Star Trek whatsoever.


J.

 

[M'Sharak]

I think the cover we've seen says the 24th on it.

 

[Amaris]

I think the cover we've seen says the 24th on it.

Ah, okay. At least I know where to find it now, though.


J.

 

[THE CHEBB]

And the lyrics were beyond shitty.

You could say the lyrics boldly sucked in a way no lyrics had sucked before.

Even this travesty is better than what Gene came up with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFAiCB7YmmY

... and this classic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JC7fyl7SzI&feature=related

I just think my ears threw up.

 

[Ryann866]

Read between the lines of the article: Abrams is using Star Trek to make his version of Star Wars. That's all that this is about for him. If anyone has read his Superman script it was the same thing -- that was his version of the Matrix using Kryptonians.

Expect tons of fx action, Die Hard sized stunts, lots of CGI lens flare and "cute" references to past Treks.

It'll probably be a decent big budget sci fi action flick, but I'm not expecting a Trek adventure on par with what we know and love.

 

[theenglish]

Read between the lines of the article: Abrams is using Star Trek to make his version of Star Wars. That's all that this is about for him. If anyone has read his Superman script it was the same thing -- that was his version of the Matrix using Kryptonians.

Expect tons of fx action, Die Hard sized stunts, lots of CGI lens flare and "cute" references to past Treks.

It'll probably be a decent big budget sci fi action flick, but I'm not expecting a Trek adventure on par with what we know and love.

I'm glad someone else thinks this. I thought that I was the only one. Back in the eighties, Trek could have done the reboot or move forward. The decision was made consciously by GR and the other people involved at the time that Kirk, Spock, and McCoy could only be played by the original actors, and thus, TNG was born.

To do this reboot is a complete slap in the face to anyone old enough to have been a fan of the original series before the spin-offs came along. A new movie with completely different characters set in the 23rd century would have be preferable.

But that rant aside, after reading this article, I am getting the distinct impression that this movie is going to end with some sort of "reset" button.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Abrams' "Superman" script was pretty good, if revisionist in certain respects. Certainly there was a great deal more humanity to it than most "Superman" projects.

So far, everything about this movie looks and reads like a "Star Trek" movie rather than a "Star Wars" variant - so I don't think that particular theory can be defended based upon available information.