What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?

[drychlick]

the new movie was goog not great! but good i HATE the new time line shound have stay with the oid timeline! and go for there! i hate how people even think the new movie so cool! even the tos people are cool with it! 43 year of history is gone and it ok as long as we have a new trek Never forget your history! is shond not wight you down! i was bron in 1965 1 year before trek i grow up with st. now it all gone!i never read a book or see a movie with the oid timeline now becase the moive did so good! my child hood not been rape it been forgoten! i hope jj fall down on the money he made! i hope you can sleep at night jj! but i know you can that what hunts so much! by 2016 the 50 brithday no 1 will remeber the tos and think trek only start this year bye

 

[Forbin]

Damn Phoenix school system....

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'll probably see it a fourth time this weekend.

 

[Praetor]

I still haven't managed a second. I want to see it in IMAX, but being unemployed sucks.

 

[Ronald Held]

Twice is plenty for now.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I watched it a third time because the first two times I was with other people and I wanted to see what I thought w/o any contagious enthusiasm. Also, I had just left a party where Carl Sagan's and Woody Harrelson's favorite party favor had been liberally shared and I didn't want to waste the residual buzz alone in my apartment.

 

[RAMA]

As fans of the series which the new movie is based on, you will all be happy to know that ST 09 is now the highest grossing TV adaptation ever in absolute box office.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=basedontv.htm

RAMA

 

[starbuck]

I liked it being ,a tos fan i was abit worried that new actors would play my fav crew.But nowthink they have a great cast, to play the crew i love the best,even thou its a different point of view from my tos.I will enjoy seeing kirk and crew in action again , in tos style uniforms that are so much better then anything that came after it .

 

[starbuck]

the new movie was goog not great! but good i HATE the new time line shound have stay with the oid timeline! and go for there! i hate how people even think the new movie so cool! even the tos people are cool with it! 43 year of history is gone and it ok as long as we have a new trek Never forget your history! is shond not wight you down! i was bron in 1965 1 year before trek i grow up with st. now it all gone!i never read a book or see a movie with the oid timeline now becase the moive did so good! my child hood not been rape it been forgoten! i hope jj fall down on the money he made! i hope you can sleep at night jj! but i know you can that what hunts so much! by 2016 the 50 brithday no 1 will remeber the tos and think trek only start this year bye

you could not do the old time line as we grew up with it and watched it change ,what would you do go back and do it all over again same stories ,this just has a freash approach new stories to be seen its not like bsg who cares what came before type reboot.We get to see kirk and crew do things alittle different with out changeing what we already know .

 

[stoneagepunk]

I'm a Star Trek purist through and through.

Now many purists are upset about the different timeline. I'm not. This is Trek for a new generation that will take it in a different direction. It is wholly seperate from TOS. That timeline to me remains unchanged. I guess I'm just able to seperate the two. I call it TOS Lite.

I too liked the film lots, although at first I was not sure I would.

i was confused by the different timeline, because the things that happened didn't make sense to me. But somehow I was not annoyed by it.
I liked the cast, i think they were well chosen.
All in all it was very enjoyable.

 

[Kagan]

I liked the action-adventure movie, but IMHO it wasn't TOS.

A gave Abrams-Trek a chance, but my gut clenched about 10 times in the first 30 minutes...acid reflux was killing me. Then, I took a deep breath and told myself, "It's only an action-adventure movie; sit back and enjoy it." So, I did.

May go back to see it tomorrow at a matinee price...but I'm really planning to see UP...so a second trip to the action-adventure may not be happening.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The things you miss in a month....

 

[Amaris]

I should be seeing it my fourth time this weekend.


J.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I liked the action-adventure movie, but IMHO it wasn't TOS.

A gave Abrams-Trek a chance, but my gut clenched about 10 times in the first 30 minutes...acid reflux was killing me. Then, I took a deep breath and told myself, "It's only an action-adventure movie; sit back and enjoy it." So, I did.

May go back to see it tomorrow at a matinee price...but I'm really planning to see UP...so a second trip to the action-adventure may not be happening.

TOS was no stranger to action-adventure. An action-adventure based story is just as TOS as a more "intellectual" story. TOS wasn't even above doing comedy, farce and parody. The idea that TOS was a buch of folks sitting around philosophically discussing heady important matters isn't based in reality.

 

[Captain Robert April]

By the same token, though, the "talky" stuff that JJ disdains so much is just as vital a part of Star Trek as locking phasers on target.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I should be seeing it my fourth time this weekend.


J.

I've seen it four times, which I think is enough for now.

 

[ScatmanRescueMe]

Fan since the 70s---loved it!!!

What you wanted a speech?

 

[SheliakBob]

It is an Abomination.
I hate it with a passion that's normally reserved for politics in the Middle East. My very electrons resonate with horror and disgust at its existence.

in short...

"No sir. I don't like it!"

 

[Nerys Myk]

By the same token, though, the "talky" stuff that JJ disdains so much is just as vital a part of Star Trek as locking phasers on target.

Does he "distain" it or was it just not right for this particular story and film?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

By the same token, though, the "talky" stuff that JJ disdains so much is just as vital a part of Star Trek as locking phasers on target.

Does he "distain" it or was it just not right for this particular story and film?

In this interview, J.J. Abrams is talking about how as a kid he found Trek too talky and too intellectual:

Goodykoontz: Anything else to say about how you grew up a bigger fan of "Star Wars?"


Abrams: When I was a kid when I saw "Star Wars" it was incredibly impactful. I just thought it was like nothing I'd ever seen. Like for most people my generation, it was just this incredibly thrilling, exciting, fun, energetic, fast-paced adventure. "Star Trek" always felt talky. There was definitely a melodrama to it. But it was also mostly because of the resources, obviously, I think they didn't have, it was often a lot of discussion of adventure and less frequently the delivering that adventure. The pace was clearly, for that time, appropriate. But by the time I was old enough to appreciate movies it just felt slow to me, and maybe because of all the debate it felt to me a little too intellectual, which I know for fans of "Trek" is probably a horrible thing to hear, the director of the new movie thought the original show was too intellectual. But as a kid that's how I felt.


Goodykoontz: But you came around?


Abrams: As an adult now, I appreciate it. Now it makes sense, why so many of my smart friends like "Star Trek" and I didn't get it as much as they did. But for me, the visceral experience, the feeling, the emotional experience, is always more critical than the intellectual one. And that is, again, my shortcoming - one of my many shortcomings - but it's true.


Source: http://www.clarionledger.com/articl...J.+Abrams+says+movie+had+to+feel+real++matter

However, whenever Abrams has mentioned Trek being talky, I've never taken at as disdain but rather as personal preference to a more, as he says, visceral and emotional experience. And, honestly, even Trekkies like us have talked about how Trek can pontificate a little too much.