Reporter seeking feedback

[echama]

I wrote this article for the New York Daily News, but now looking at it with fresh eyes, I'm wondering if I covered all the major issues with the new movie. I could use some feedback from some hardcore Trekkers.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2009/05/06/2009-05-06_jj_abrams_new_star_trek.html

 

[BriGuy]

Before I look, any spoilers in that piece?

P.S. I'm a reporter myself. Welcome!

 

[indranee]

your article looks fine to me. maybe ask us a few specific questions?

 

[gastrof]

I've described myself as being of the "Change NOTHING!!!" clan.

For me, putting new actors in the roles was understandable, but not seriously changing the visual aspect of things. Keep the uniforms, the ship, the handheld props, etc., THE SAME. (See the online film series STAR TREK: NEW VOYAGES.)

Understand, I could have handled "minor" things. (For example, making the uniform collars crew neck, rather than having an arrow effect pointing down, or updating the type of controls on the bridge, so long as they were all in the same place and the panels were the same colors as the originals, etc. For that, see the old KFC Star Trek commercial on YouTube.)

So long as things looked pretty much the same, I'd have been comfortable.

Then, the movie guys said "This isn't a reboot, it's just a story taking place in the existing timeline."

GREAT!!!!

Then we found out that wasn't really true. Not a reboot, but not exactly NOT a reboot either. (I'll leave out spoilers, so no examples will be given.)

Then we saw the Enterprise. Then we saw the bridge.

At least the uniforms were along the lines I'd hoped for, but so much else, including a big HUNK of 40 years worth of continuity won't make it out alive...

I'm grieving a little over that.

At least it's being EXPLAINED IN-STORY (more or less) why this is happening, tho'.

With at least that much of a nod to both the history of Trek and the fans who've kept it alive, I'm on board.

I'd have preferred it to have been done differently, but I'm chomping at the bit to see the film, and despite having plans to go with friends this weekend, I may sneak out and go Thursday night at a midnight showing.

STAR TREK lives.

 

[urbandk]

I don't know if I'm in the minority or majority of Trekkies, but I'm thrilled by the way Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman chose to handle continuity issues. The time travel story is an old, worn out horse, but it was necessary to tie everything together. The film seems respectful of the past, and for me, the bottom line is it's an avenue to more Trek movies, TV shows, and pulp fiction. I think most Trekkies would agree that's a good thing.

I would just hope that for your article you cover both sides of this contentious issue.

Thanks!