What do you think of the new "old" crew of the Enterprise?

Because time travel is involved, you just never know where things will end up, so I will wait until I see the movie before I put it in my personal non-canon with Enterprise.

As far as I'm concerned it's a reboot, I don't care what JJ says. I am going into this with an open mind and I'll enjoy it if it's a good story. I'm not going to beat the continuity horse to death any more than it has been. As long as the new Trek movies follow the rules they establish I'll be satisfied. This isn't old Trek to me, it's like nuBSG. Reboot.

Don't like the new Scotty and Checkov will take some time getting used to.

Even though I'm using the same approach that Tex uses (going in with an open mind & expecting a reboot) I still don't like the bridge. I think it looks straight out of a parody. Then again, of course, one picture isn't exactly an awful lot to judge it on...

It's comments like this that make me pray for Trek XI to be the blockbuster movie hit of the year.

All I know is, my excitement for this movie was so-so.

Until I saw the pic of that crew. And the bridge. And I was just like, "Oooooo!"

It was, in a word, amazing.

The cast looks good, the bridge... not so much. Looks... excelsior-y. More Mattel than Starfleet.

Still wary over the storyline, trek has a history of doing shit time travel stories, and I really wish they'd done a full and proper reboot. Christ, have Nimoy as Sarek not Spock

I hope I'm proven wrong, but from what I'm hearing, it just sounds crappy

I'm not too worried about the time travel stories.

MOST of the time travel stories pre-VOY were pretty good.

The SOund of Her Voice, The Visitor, Tapestry, Children of Time, Yesterday's Enterprise, Star Trek 4, Star Trek First Contact, etc, etc.

VOY had some shit time travel stories, and so did ENT, but this movie is by completely different people. There've been enough GOOD time travel stories that I am willing to wait and see.

Good or bad, I'm just tired of Trek time travel stories.

Surely there must be other interesting things in the galaxy.

And me, OH and daughter are all agreed: the bridge looks like shit.

^(to Crosis)Most of those were good stories with time travel as a backdrop - lets be honest, the actual time travels bits of TVH and FC were a bit crappy.

I mean the whole groupie thing with Cochrane. Might as well have stuck pigtails on LaForge and have him affect a Valley Girl accent whilst blowing bubblegum. Or even blowing Cochrane, it was gay enough.

And Tapestry and The Visitor weren't traditional someone-goes-back-in-time-to-do-shit stories, the new film is. And that definitely whiffs of fail.

Box office receipts from 'Wrath of Khan.'

I agree, though. It would be interesting to see a more classic SF-type tale, rather than another "this time it's really, really, REALLY personal" battle between the leads and some madman bent on doing something really heinous.

Another reason why 'A Taste of Armageddon' is my favorite TOS episode: Anon 7 is a compelling antagonist who believes very much that HE is on the right side, and it's only circumstance that forces him to do evil things.

Compare...

'Generations' where Soran wants to live in the Nexus and will kill anyone who gets in his way;

'First Contact' where a race of cyborgs want to assimilate the Earth for its technology and will kill anyone who gets in their way;

'Insurrection,' where Ru'afo wants eternal youth and will kill anyone who gets in his way;

'Nemesis,' where Shinzon wants vengeance on Picard and will kill anyone who gets in his way...


Starting to see a pattern? Although villains give us good and exciting drama, they're ultimately unsatisfying because, well, the real world isn't like that: no one belives himself to be the villain.

I think that's the Heart of Gold scene where Scotty turns the entire Romulan fleet into a confused whale and a bowl of petunias, both appearing above the Klingon homeworld, which is the source of later resentment as a Klingon takes having his topiary flattened by meteoric cetaceans pretty damn seriously.

Is the time travel confirmed, or is that just something to throw people off the scent?

As far as how everyone/thing looks--if I'm prepared for a female M and a blonde Bond, I'll allow this.

If it isn't time travel, I dunno how they can pull off Nero the Romulan.

Sounds to Hitchhikerish.

Nah, it's just coincidence. These things tend to happen in the Whole Sort of General Mish-Mash (WSOGMM).

I think I read something about NimoySpock interacting directly with QuintoSpock. Don't know how they'd pull that off without time travel.

And time travel from future to past at that, I say. Why, you ask? Which Spock would know exactly when and where to find the other?

It's got the wrong font.

Yeah, yeah.

Ya'll can just pretend you're tap-dancing on Trek's grave when you're trampling teenage zitfarms to get a good seat on opening night.

My point was, I look forward to this take on Trek. If it represents the end of the bloated, navel gazing manifestation that Trek has become then yes, I will do some dancing.

Depends on who's navel one is gazing at, but you have a point.

Remember, the original Trek was strong on the character interaction between the Big Three. The technology and sfx were supposed to be secondary.

If the nuTrek regulars and writers can make these characters as "human" as Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty were, it should do alright, no matter what the bridge or ship might look like.

I always wait for the DVDs.

Which is not to slight the secondary cast, by any means. But sometimes one can be a little . . . too enthusiastic when filling out a world. (See: my comment earlier about the FX people having to figure out what to put on those screens all the time.)

Most dramas require a protagonist and an antagonist.

However, the antagonist need not be human or even a living intelligence. In "The Perfect Storm", for example, the antagonist was the storm. Is that what you mean?

Sometimes simply exploring, and discovering something new and amazing, can be interesting enough, if written well. If the point is charcater interaction, and if that interaction is interesting, it can still be worthwhile.

The one nagging problem I'm having is this...

It's been mentioned that the black uniform Kirk is wearing is a cadet's uniform. If Kirk is a cadet in the movie, it makes no sense that Chekov is an officer. The only way the chronology can work is if Kirk goes from being a cadet to being captain, and that better not happen because it's nonsensical.

I hope they pull a trick out of their ass like in TVH with Kirk getting demoted for stealing and destroying the Enterprise, but rewarded for saving the Earth with Enterprise-A.

A few plausible explanations occur to me. One, Kirk may be pretending to be a cadet. Two, because of the known time-travel aspect of the plot, the Kirk seen may not be contemporary with the others. I'm sure there are other plausible explanations, but still...I worry.

One thing I hated about STVI:TUC (though I love the movie overall) is that the entire Enterprise crew seemed to be scheduled for simultaneous retirement. Obviously, this was meant to add poignance to it being the last TOS-based film, but that's ridiculous. It makes no sense for an entire crew to retire at one time, especially given that they're all different ages. Sulu went on to other Starfleet service; why wouldn't Kirk, Uhura, Spock, etc.?

The new movie sorta builds on that idea. Clearly, McCoy and Kirk are now supposed to be the same age, which just doesn't sit well with me at all.

I'm not a hatuh; I'm gonna go see it when it comes out in any event. But I hope they haven't mangled the chronology to fit the needs of the plot. And if Kirk goes from cadet to captain, I'm really going to have trouble accepting it.