World Premiere/Advance screening discussions [SPOILERS GUARANTEED]

Damn, I missed them.

I've been thinking the whole day and I still cannot remember hearing the computer's voice. What scene was that?

 

Unfortunately, I've been running into any number of fans who somehow have been led (or mis-led!) into believing that everything will go back to "normal" by the end of the movie. Vulcan will be there, Amanda will be alive, and everything that allowed the original episodes to happen will be in place.

 

Wha--? Well that's certainly... different.

 

Oh, you're no fun.

 

There is no way I believe that destroying Vulcan, or doing the gimmick of an alternate timeline/universe was the only way to do a new TREK film, the best way to do a new TREK film, or the necessary way to do a new TREK film. There is nothing one can do now because, like it or not--and I don't--this is the path chosen.

For several months now, as revelations of this alternative universe have surfaced and now been confirmed, my excitement level of seeing the new movie has decreased substantially. Will see it for sure, but now more than likely, I'll see it as a DVD rental at my local Red Box rental machine for a $1.00.

 

These people have probably done the most faithful reworking of Star Trek we could have gotten out of Paramount's determination to rebuild their dying franchise - if you've read about the research they did on Trek's international reputation and performance, for example, before getting into this you'll have a pretty clear idea of where the studio's priorities are. It's really hard to believe that they would have greenlit anything more traditional than this, and you're just lucky Abrams didn't pass on it - Paramount's having good luck with Michael Bay, these days.

 

That's gonna make me squirm in my seat. Too bad McCoy didn't yell, "Get a room!" I hope Nurse Chapel didn't see it.

 

My initial reaction to this post (since the mods don't like me posting these things inline, apparently...)
I disagree, but then these are just our opinions, man.

My opinion:

• This isn't particularly faithful to the original show or the franchise as a whole
• Star Trek is now just another bad action-packed VFX dependent remake akin to Lost in Space
• We are not in any way "lucky" Abrams and friends chose to reboot Star Trek badly
• Ironically, had they not bothered with time travel, set this slightly in the "future" of what had been established, on a different ship with a different crew, but kept pretty much the same story, it might, might have made a decent Star Trek movie that was actually taking some risks by destroying two major Trek universe planets

 

This is one of those things where I'm going to just have to relax and take it as it comes to me. I'm going to just let go of the Spock I grew up with and follow this new guy around and see how his journey progresses and hopefully be drawn fully into it. The biggest thing I have to learn to do is forget everything I knew or thought I knew... The potential for S/U was always there. Seeing it realized will be... fascinating.

 

About as much potential as Kirk/Spock. Which is to say none.

 

Just curious, what happened to all of the Temporal agents that were screwing around with Enterprise and Voyager? Also, Spock has the knowledge of time travel, why didn't he go back in time to stop Nero before he destroyed the Kelvin or even back into the future to stop Nero or save Romulus?

Also, maybe the next generation universe is this altered universe. The "First Contact" Enterprise-E went back in time to stop the Borg and caused Capt. Archer's NX-01 to be called Enterprise possibly even copying Enterprise-E's shape and design. This alters the design and construction date of the NCC-1701 in Abram's movie and every ship after it. Nero alters Kirk's, Vulcan's, and the entire galaxy's timeline with his attacks.

 

You're wrong. Watch The Man Trap and Charlie X again. The flirtation between the two was there.

 

No, i don't see it, actually.

 

As Captain X said, I think that this argument is, with all due respect to both yourself and all others who have made it, completely absurd.

Now, it may be that you are correct about Paramount's internal requirements to greenlight another Star Trek film. In this case, it is Paramount's thinking that is absurd.

The reason for this is that, when you look at all of the excitement, hype, and interest that this film is generating, not a lick of it has anything whatsoever to do with any of these changes. The film is drawing such interest because of A) the director, B) flashy marketing, C) a depiction of the film to the general public as something new and different from previous Star Treks. If that is not a believable argument, then let me put it this way:

Does anyone here really think that this film is so highly anticipated by the media and the general public because it's done away with canon? Really? So basically, up until now, Star Trek was considered geeky because Kirk served on the Farragut, Vulcan existed, and everything took place in the old time line, but now that Paramount's done away with those terribly nerdy things, it's approachable to the general public. Right.

The big problem here is that the vast, vast majority of those media members and everyday joes who are contributing to this excitement have no idea about any of that. They don't know about point X, Y, and Z of "canon." They don't know that the film involves an alternate timeline which does away with previous material. They don't know very much of anything other than that the film looks cool, has lots of explosions and ice monsters and Uhura in her bra and Kirk on top of a woman, and that JJ Abrams directed it.

I'm not, in any of this, saying that any of those things are bad (or that they're good). That's not the point. The point is that this is what the general public has seen. The fact is that if the everyday joes who considered Star Trek too nerdy actually knew that it involved alternate timelines and whatnot, that would probably, if anything, turn them off.

Ultimately, precisely the same excitement, hype, and interest could have been generated with a film taking place in the original timeline and all that. Heck, you could even have had that and seen almost unaltered the very tv spots, theatrical trailers, and other aspects of marketing that have been put out for public consumption, because none of them indicate anything other than that the film is about the Star Trek characters having a cool looking adventure in outer space with nice SFX. Take all that and make a "canon" consistent story, and you' have the same anticipation for the film.

It's just an idea completely unbased on reality that to make a successful Trek film, they had to do what they've done.

 

Ah yes, the TrekBBS equivalent of squeezing your eyes shut, plugging your ears and chanting: "lalalalala I can't hear you, lalalalalalala!" The Man Trap and Charlie X are still out there proving you wrong. Maybe you need a BIGGER JPeg to block the facts out with.

 

that's okay. I didn't see T'Pol/Tucker either. but that's another story

 

thank you for having an open mind.

 

I said this in another thread, but I'll repeat myself here. At a San Diego convention, Nichelle spoke about how she always felt that Uhura had a deep respect and attraction to Spock.

 

OK, I am being facetious, and I thought you were too, but whatever.

 

Which means you disagree with it, nothing more.

Frankly, I think it was close to absurd for them to decide to spend another buck on Star Trek instead of just collecting what money they can get from licenses and DVDs of old stuff - and if this film doesn't satisfy their requirements, that's what they'll do.

I'm certainly glad they gave this a shot, though, with the full backing and resources of the studio.

If it doesn't work out - well, they can take future money they might have wasted on Star Trek and invest it in more co-ventures like Iron Man and Transformers instead.