Star Trek

JJ Abrams is a hack that is trying to destroy Star Trek on purpose.

I saw the extended trailer for Star Trek into Darkness attached to The Hobbit and it was pure crap. I find it quite ironic that Spock was worried about Kirk violating the Prime Directive when he was doing it by trying to stop the natural progression/evolution of a planet by stopping a volcano from erupting. Not to mention the Uhura/Spock love affair...FRACKING YUCK! JJ Abrams is a hack that is destroying Star Trek on purpose. The ONLY thing acceptable about the new Star Trek is the way Karl Urban plays McCoy and Simon Peg plays Scotty. They are not as good as the originals but they are pretty close. Chris Pine as Kirk will never work and Leonard Nimoy's toe jam could play Spock better than Quinto.

Star Trek is a series and will work best if it returns to the small screen. With the new timeline the Star Trek universe has never been riper for a reboot.

P.S. The new Enterprise is ugly too. 

Whatever we / you / I / they happen to think about the new Star Trek, the more fans it draws in, the more likely it is that studios will bring Star Trek back onto the telly.

Abrams admitted that he himself was a bigger  Star Wars fan then a Star Trek fan *me being sick*

Oh come on. I prefer regular Trek as well, but if you think about it, the franchise needed this. Look at the last major Trek productions that came out: Nemesis and Enterprise, both of which are now considered to be the worst Trek film and series of them all. (I don't agree with those assessments, but it seems many do.)

The franchise was sinking. There's really no denying that, at least as far as I can tell. Abrams Trek might be different, but at least it reignited the franchise. And I have a funny feeling we'll be seeing another Prime Trek production in the near future.

I'm sure he's a bigger Star Trek fan if that only counts his dumb movies. lol

The franchise needed a reboot, in my humble opinion.  And I am tired of watching reruns.  I enjoyed the 2009 Trek Movie, and am looking forward to the next one.  Quinto was spot on portraying Spock, btw.

I agree we needed a reboot and to be honest I think 2009 Trek got a lot of things right including the tone.

It is the visuals that I did not like the real world locations that were used instead of proper sets.

Yeah I gotta agree with everyone here, and don't get me wrong, it's painful for me to say it, but the reboot did save Trek. I mean after Enterprise, alot of people thought Trek was gone for good.

Now the reboots will always be my least favorites in Trek, as I was always perfectly happy with the original Trek franchise as it was. I never thought there was anything wrong with it. But the sad truth is, hardcore Star Trek, which tends to be scientific and intellectual, just doesn't bring in ratings. I mean TNG is pretty much the only series that didn't have problems with ratings. TOS was canceled, ENT was canceled, DS9 was nearly canceled, and Voyager was nearly canceled. I know DS9 and Voyager were nearly canceled both in their 3rd seasons, which is why they were both revamped in their 4th seasons, and Enterprise tried to do the same thing with the Xindi, which I thought was freakin awesome personally, and Season 4 was fantastic, but the ratings just weren't there.

And the films always made decent money, but I think, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I think the only films that made REALLY good money, was the Motion Picture, Wrath of Kahn and First Contact. I know Insurrection and especially Nemesis were both considered box office flops.

Sadly, Star Trek 2009 made more money than any other Star Trek movie ever has. But there's several reasons for that, and you have to take that into consideration.

First off, Star Trek is hard for new people to get into without help, due to how large it is.

Many people are very overwhelmed and just think it's too much trouble to get into.

2nd, Star Trek has a reputation of being "dorky" and "nerdy" and boring and many people who don't know any better expect the acting to be terrible.

Star Wars has always been considered cooler by the vast majority, even though when you really take a real look at both, Star Trek is superior in every imaginable way.

The casual viewer doesn't care about the prime directive, they don't care about orders from starfleet, they don't care that starfleet is a career and a job, they don't care about exploration, they don't care about morality stories.

They want to see space battles and ships exploding and want as much action as they can get.

This is why Star Wars is generally considered better even though it's not better.

Star Wars 90% action 10% plot, and people are okay with that. It drives me crazy personally. Star Trek is the opposite, 90% plot 10% action. Now we the Star Trek fans, we love that. Because this is a universe for us to escape into on our off days, and when we get home from work. Starfleet is the job we all really want but can't have.

All the decisions made in Star Trek matter to us, and having little to no action is okay for us. And yes we are all extremely passionate, and also quite nit picky, and we love everything or nearly everything Star Trek does, but we are the few, and the proud, hardcore fans.

Most people are going to be casual fans, and casual viewers, and they just aren't going to see it in the same way that we do.

Now that being said,

that is why Star Trek 2009 was good because it gave those people a place to jump into. Some people who watched 2009 loved it so much they went back and watched all the previous stuff. Some will only watch the new stuff.

But the bottom line is, because of the popularity of 2009 it gave us a TON of new merchandise, both New Trek and Old Trek. There are so many great things we have today because of 2009 that we wouldn't have without it.

So whether 2009 is your favorite or not, we still have to appreciate it for being those casual fans back into the circle. Because without the casual fans, we don't have a series.

^ welcome aboard. 

What Sora posted is 100% TRUTH. Don't hate the messenger.

Second post - signed up to comment on the Robert Picardo article. :-)

I agree with the opinion that it "needed to be done". I loved Enterprise and Bakula was a great captain, who wouldn't love the Andorians either! But regrettably it was barrel scraping time for the franchise.

At least now we have new legions of fans of the movie who are all thinking "wow, if they spent this much producing this great film, the TV series must have been really good to merit the investment". Reboots of film franchises don't just happen every day based on the continuing popularity of a TV show, and the hardcore nature of Trekkie and Trekker fandom is still legendary.

In a decade where we're going to be surrounded by comic book franchise 'reimaginings', I'm glad that Star Trek at least gets to flesh out the canon backstory without having to be completely revisionist just to make it convincing. The first film had a good balance and I enjoyed it - and I'm a fairly critically minded fan. Look forward to the second instalment.

\\//,

Kirk should have let who die?

I agree that they're doing some weird things with the franchise with the 2009 movie and Into Darkness, and there definately is more room in the Next Generation timeline than in the Original Series timeline.

I love Voyager and its characters and whatnot, but given that the premise of the whole series was completed at the end of the series, how can any more be done with Voyager?