jim_8705 said:


This is not Star Trek . Not in any way at all. Now it's just a brand name that means nothing.

The_Star_Treker said:

Sorry Jim and Rostron but I think you are both just being closed-minded about this film. To me this film is pretty much Star Trek but with a new twist to it. You are just way too attached to the old Trek. I'm attached to the old Trek too but I'm pretty much open with any new Trek as well. I was pretty much open with Enterprise and now this Star Trek too. I have been watching Star Trek for over 20 years and I have enjoyed and loved every single of them and never have been disappointed either. Well it is all your lost if you think this new one isn't Star Trek but to me, it is.

Rostron2 said:

But there's another thing. Someone here mentioned that there's a whole backstory to Nero, etc. that explains his actions better.

Rostron2 said:

Thanks.

But there's another thing. Someone here mentioned that there's a whole backstory to Nero, etc. that explains his actions better.

Now I ask you: Why do I need to study up for a movie outing? All that it means is that they can't tell a story without additional 'visual aids.'

The NEW Harry Pothead said:

Rostron2 said:

Thanks.

But there's another thing. Someone here mentioned that there's a whole backstory to Nero, etc. that explains his actions better.

Now I ask you: Why do I need to study up for a movie outing? All that it means is that they can't tell a story without additional 'visual aids.'

While I agree entirely with you about the graphic novel stuff, I have to also say though, that's just J.J. Abrams' style. From Lost to Cloverfield, he's always been about supplemental material. In the end though, it's never mattered in the broad spectrum. So I never bother looking it up.

As for you argument here, I get why you don't like it, but at the same time, you're here arguing with Trekker. I know, ur all about equal treatment, but come on, there's no getting through to that kid at all. The rest of the world gets you, so you should prolly leave it at that.

The NEW Harry Pothead said:

As for you argument here, I get why you don't like it, but at the same time, you're here arguing with Trekker. I know, ur all about equal treatment, but come on, there's no getting through to that kid at all. The rest of the world gets you, so you should prolly leave it at that.

Darth Ravenous said:

I think perhaps you have put Star Trek on too much of a pedestal. May people did the same thing with Star Wars when the prequels came out. I thought the alternate timeline was brillant because everyone SHOULD be happy. Old trekies keep their mythology and timeline and new trekies get a new start. Being a Star Wars fan that occasionally watched a Star Trek here and there I had no attachments to "cannon" and found it an awesome movie. Which I imagine is how viewers of the Star Wars prquels felt with no attachment to the original trilogy. Let it go and enjoy the fact the Star Trek is back and thanks to the the alternate timeline has unlimited potential for new stories that don't have to follow "cannon"!

Lord Sesuken said:

I don't know about you Jim, but I have several friends who have been fans of the show since the 1960s and they don't seem to have any complaints. Perhaps some are just more critical than others?

jim_8705 said:

The reason I dislike this flick is that it's the fact that the movie itself is basically a big dumb action flick on the level of Transformers and Iron Man that's irritating. Not that there's anything wrong with big dumb action flicks. Star Trek has always been at least somewhat intelligent -- trying to tell stories with depth and theme that spoke about real issues while still being a fun adventure. There was no theme in Trek XI. No depth. The storyline actually discourages you from thinking about it. It's dumb, and that's something Star Trek shouldn't be.

Rostron2 said:

Direct hit. I knew Trek was in trouble when I realized how similar the action sequences were from the trailers shown of Terminator, etc. before the film.