Topic: OT: The New Enterprise

[OlBuzzard]

Yeah .. I know ... it's been a while.  I some will no doubt wish that it had remained even longer.

Atheorhaven :

You have a good grasp on the entire matter buddy.  Particularly from the stand point of understanding the old fan based support for Trek. 

Side note: I disagree with the Bond thing about him "looking wrong"  ... that was not relevant ..  but the "restart" being "pre-cold war" ..  ummm welllll ...  that was the only thing I saw as negative.  The rest was great acting .. and a well written script.  It should NOT have been done, however, as a mater of timing just after being promoted to "00" status.  It screws up the entire time line thingy...

As for Trek:  I will watch this one closely ..  to see if it will do justice to the Trek theme and time line.  I don't think it can get any worse than "The Final Frontier".  I DO hope that it will launch the possibilities of new fans and the eventual growth of the series while continuing to provide Paramount the $$$ they want in order to even desire to keep it around.

Cooling down and eventual restart?  Possibly ...  I don't know that I'm the one to make that call.

One thing you did say that is true:  Some of the fans ARE a bit too critical.  Just bring up the "Enterprise NX-1"  and you will see what I'm talking about.  Personally I think the NX-1 is excellent ..   well done as a retro.  And when it gets right down to it ..  it COMPLIMENTS the series including the Akira!  Did anyone stop to think that MAYBE that was what they had in mind?  NOPE ..  first reaction on the behalf of some is to draw blood when it does not match other fan based ideals.

I do agree that we should see the film first.  I personally appreciate the post and it's original ideal for which it was made.  I eagerly await the movie!

[atheorhaven]

Yeah .. I know ... it's been a while.  I some will no doubt wish that it had remained even longer.

Buzz!  Good to see you.    Say "Hi" to Paul for me and get the bum to drop me some email..

Atheorhaven :
You have a good grasp on the entire matter buddy.  Particularly from the stand point of understanding the old fan based support for Trek.

Well, it's my opinion right or wrong.. is that something that ultimately will affect this movie?  Can't think that one persons opinion will, but my opinion has been formed as a long time fan, and chances are that others (new or old) will share my opinion.  I'm totally willing to give it a chance in the same way that I was willing to give "Batman Begins" and "Superman Returns" a chance, and I went and saw both of those in the theater (SR in Imax).  "Golden Compass" I went and saw in the theater despite the controversy as well as the last "Bean" movie.  "Watchmen" I'll do the same with when it comes out, and if I hear good things about Trek XI, I'll do that as well.  But if I hear from my friends that it was pretty bad, I'll either wait until it hits the cheap theaters or else wait until I can rent it on DVD like I did with "Ghost Rider".  I actually am an honest to goodness theater going movie watcher, and my money does count a tiny bit at the box office.  Not everyone sees things in a theater these days, and by the time that a movie trickles over to DVD, usually word of mouth has spread enough to seal its fate there.  *cough*godzilla*cough*

Side note: I disagree with the Bond thing about him "looking wrong"  ... that was not relevant ..  but the "restart" being "pre-cold war" ..  ummm welllll ...  that was the only thing I saw as negative.  The rest was great acting .. and a well written script.  It should NOT have been done, however, as a mater of timing just after being promoted to "00" status.  It screws up the entire time line thingy...

Hey, just my personal opinion.. I was waiting for Brosnan to be Bond before Dalby became Bond.  I don't see Craig as Bond.  Some people don't see anyone other than Connery as Bond.  But Connery and Brosnan I saw in the role, Moore less so, Lazenby less so again, and Craig less so again.  Just my personal opinion, and YMMV, and I've never said otherwise.

As for Trek:  I will watch this one closely ..  to see if it will do justice to the Trek theme and time line.  I don't think it can get any worse than "The Final Frontier".  I DO hope that it will launch the possibilities of new fans and the eventual growth of the series while continuing to provide Paramount the $$$ they want in order to even desire to keep it around.
Cooling down and eventual restart?  Possibly ...  I don't know that I'm the one to make that call.

Sure you are.. your $$$ will make that call along with everyone elses $$$.  If it's a good movie, a good script, a good cast, and there is enough respect for history of the show, the $$$ will tell Paramount that they're onto a good thing and we may see more of the reboot.  If it's not, the $$$ will go elsewhere, this'll be giving Sybok the Happy Vulcan company in Trek Shelf Limbo, and we won't hear about it again for a while.

Don't get me wrong here.  I would like to see the same sort of reboot happen that happened on "Doctor Who".  They rebooted that series and maintained the history of the show (as seen in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Nature_%28Doctor_Who_episode%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Crash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_Reunion_(Doctor_Who)

So I can't see why it can't be done with Trek.

One thing you did say that is true:  Some of the fans ARE a bit too critical.  Just bring up the "Enterprise NX-1"  and you will see what I'm talking about.  Personally I think the NX-1 is excellent ..   well done as a retro.  And when it gets right down to it ..  it COMPLIMENTS the series including the Akira!  Did anyone stop to think that MAYBE that was what they had in mind?  NOPE ..  first reaction on the behalf of some is to draw blood when it does not match other fan based ideals.
I do agree that we should see the film first.  I personally appreciate the post and it's original ideal for which it was made.  I eagerly await the movie!

I want to see the movie done, and I want to see new people and new life come to Trek.  I'd like to see it as well done as Doctor Who was done.  I don't want to see it done like BSG, dumping everything that ever came before.  *That* is the difference here.  Good writers can revitalize a show and make it fresh and new.  Hacks have to pad a show.  I want to see a good script and a revitalize and a future for Trek.  Because if the new movie flops and the fans hate it and Paramount puts Trek back on the shelf, there's no telling when it'll come off again.  They might kill it entirely, they might sell it, they might sit on it like the source code for SFC has been sat on.  Who knows.  All the long time fans want to see is a good movie, done well, that doesn't make them feel like an outsider with implanted memories of things "that never happened".  That's what I get with BSG.  That isn't what I get with Who, and I don't want to see that with Trek.

But as always.. YMMV.  >

[OlBuzzard]

Yeah ..  I agree with what ya said with regard to the "reboot" idea!  IF one was done and it did not take away from the history (etc) of the original series that would be a good thing.  I also agree with ya on the BSG series ... ECCH!  (just my personal opinion publically expressed).  As you said IMO BSG totally destroyed the main charactors and substituted in its place ones that were often defiled and corrupt.  Some of the ships, graphics etc were ok ..  but the rest was so far removed from the content and original story line of the original that frankly I could have  (and STILL) careless about the entire remake.

It should be noted that a similar experiment was tried with "Bonanza" ....  it even made one of the mildest charactors who's life on and OFF the screen was one of the better personalities seemed to be filled with "smut".  The series flopped before it got started.

BTW...  it should be noted that I thought that the Batman Begins movie rocked !  I especially fell in love with the car.  It was so contrasting .. and yet at the core of it's design ..  it actually made it more "plausible" than the original design.  I thought they did an excellent job on getting Bruce Wane into the "Batman".  It actually made sense and gave a certain amount of credibility to his "abilities" (so to speak).  I especially liked how he determined NOT to be a part of the league of shadows ...  instead to fight crime ..  etc.  That made the transition very well.  (again all  of this is just my opinion)

I guess what I'm trying to say ..  is that if it is done right ..  some change can be good.  I guess that is why I liked the NX-1.  It did actually give a certain "credibility" to the newer TOS model  (if that makes sense).  As long as that change, new movie, charactors, personalities introduced as part of the new Trek "cannon"  does not attempt to redefine the old as some sort of "dark side" of the truth ...  or become another BSG twist to Trek ..  then yes...  I agree!

And as you said ..   just my $.02 worth ...

I now return you to the original intent of this thread ..   the posting of screenies ..   

Thanks for the post ..  I do like it !

[Chris Johnson]

Personally, I'm opposed to it to the point where if, with a guarantee it would work, someone invented a device that could take out memories, I'd take out the images of the teaser.

Now, don't get me wrong, it doesn't seem half-bad from a non-fan, objective, and non-me point of view, but as the years go by I seem to be more and more of a person of nostalgia; that I'd like to go back and revisit my younger days, back where I was more youthful, more ignorant, and when Trek was better (in my view, of course).  Even if it was just for a couple years back in time...

I don't know.  It's more of me than anything else why.  I don't think it's necessarily that television/movies and entertainment are taking a turn for the worst.  In some or many ways, they are, but I'm just fighting the urge to see things change.  Look where "rebooting" (and I know it officially wasn't, but it felt that way to me) took Enterprise...  Putting a TNG flair to something supposedly TOS (or pre-TOS), or, as it seems from what I've read, putting a Starship Troopers/Star Wars/other Scifi feel to Star Trek... It may work for a bit and may attract a non-fan that would've otherwise been turned off by gold, mustard, and blue sweatshirts for uniforms (2250s Starfleet attire) would give it a try but I doubt it'd last long.

I had thought that, after 2005 (the remastering of TOS episodes with new graphics aside), Trek would, for the most part, be in the hands of the fans who want to celebrate it and, perhaps in their own way, improve upon it as they see things themselves.  And, while I'm not some huge fan of fan films, it seemed to have worked for the most part.

But, I think it just won't work for me, not because of anything J.J. Abrams or anyone else have done or will do, but mainly because of me.  But who knows?  Maybe the film would be a success and much of the fan base would flock from a few veteran trek actors (and a lot of fans recasting the main Big E crew) making films themselves to a handful of professional actors (also recasting the Big E crew) and a veteran Trek actor making an official BSG-ish Trek film.  Though I have to wonder how stable this new Enterprise would be in flight when welded together like an old WWII battleship...

Since Batman Begins was brought up, I should also note I kind-of felt similarly with that film (and the upcoming one).  I might shrug off my idiocy and see it though, since it seems to be highly praised.

[Pestalence_XC]

One thing that everyone has to remember.. the ship in Star Trek XI is 18 to 20 years before Kirk takes command for TOS.. The ship is still being built.. Robert April still has to take the first command then Christopher Pike gets her..

During the 19 years of service that the ship has before Kirk, even if the Star Trek XI version looks different, there are still refits / retrofits to make her into the TOS Enterprise we all love.

People act as if Kirk is coming out of the academy and on to the Enterprise..

Don't forget that Kirk's early career was on the U.S.S. Republic while he was an ensign... then he was a Lieutenant on the Ferrogut .. the Enterprise launched under command of Rober April in 2245, Kirk takes command in 2264, that is 19 years for refits and retrofits for the Big "E".

[Vipre]

You're assuming they will stick to that version of the Trek timeline. There may not be an April in this movie universe. They could have the Enterprise built in 2260/64 and Kirk commanding it from day one out of the shipyard or Kirk serving on the Enterprise under Pike. Check out the first episode of "ST: Reborn" which has Kirk as a LT under Pike, making XO and then after Pike being wounded in an attack getting the command.

Anything is possible, they could stick true as rain to established information and characters or they could honor the essence of Trek but wipe the slate on the who's who of the Trek universe with the exception of the main cast.

[Pestalence_XC]

The role for Christopher Pike is assigned.. the movie year is set at 2244/2245.. however there has been no mention of Robert April for the Movie.

[Vipre]

Sorry I was in the middle of editing, I meant no April. (See above)

2245 for the entire movie is way too early unless they've already tossed out the character's birth dates. It'd make Kirk 14. Good bet it's 2253 or later, which could see a 20 year old Kirk serving under Pike.

[atheorhaven]

Sorry I was in the middle of editing, I meant no April. (See above)

2245 for the entire movie is way too early unless they've already tossed out the character's birth dates. It'd make Kirk 14. Good bet it's 2253 or later, which could see a 20 year old Kirk serving under Pike.

Or we could be looking at the construction process in 2245 until launch and initial shakedown(under April, being the shipyard captain), skip ahead a few years to see the Academy Days action and Pike, and the rumored thingy involving Nimoy and Quintos and that storyline.  Then see Kirk get assigned to the Enterprise as Captain after Pike's promotion and finally Kirk take the ship out of its latest refit looking like the Enterprise in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" just in time for the end credits.

My guess to how this'll go.. and I'm at least hoping to see a travelpod/spacedock scene then..

[Pestalence_XC]

They are planning to stick to canon with the movie, at least that is what JJ has been saying..

Just referencing StarTrek.com for Enterprise Captains...

Reference TAS (The Animated Series)

Robert T. April
Played by James Doohan (voice)
Episode: ANI 22023 - The Counter-Clock Incident - 2245


A rugged, heroic-looking human male born in the year 2195, Captain Robert April was the first commander of the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 when it was launched in 2245 for its initial five-year mission. He was succeeded by Captain Christopher Pike.
On stardate 6770.3 (2270), April was a senior Starfleet commodore on his way to the Babel planetoid where his formal retirement ceremonies were to be held, per Starfleet regulations mandating that human officers retire at the age of 75. Because of their already advanced ages, Commodore April and his wife Sarah weren't debilitated by the reversed time-flow of the parallel antimatter universe in which the Enterprise became temporarily trapped during the voyage to Babel; instead, they were returned to the prime of their lives. The heroic manner in which the Aprils took command of the starship to get the vessel safely home after all other personnel aboard had grown too young to handle the controls motivated Starfleet to review its mandatory retirement rules, and to keep Commodore April on as the Federation's ambassador-at-large. Because neither Robert nor Sarah April harbored any regrets over how they had spent their lives, they opted to use the Enterprise's transporter to return them to their normal ages following their return from the antimatter universe.


Reference TOS "The Cage", "The Menagerie"

Captain Christopher Pike
Played by Jeffrey Hunter
Episode: TOS 016 - The Menagerie, Part I-II

Best known as commanding officer of the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701, just prior to James Kirk, Pike counted the top-secret first contact with the natives of Talos IV amid his long Starfleet career. Later in life, as a fleet captain aboard the training ship U.S.S. Republic, Pike suffered massive radiation damage after saving several cadets when a baffle plate ruptured in the ship's reactor. Thanks to the unorthodox methods of his former science officer, Spock, in 2266, Pike was returned to Talos IV to live out his life without the debilitating lifestyle he had endured, even with a self-propelled, life-support wheelchair.


Reference TOS the series

James Tiberious Kirk

James T. Kirk
Played by William Shatner
Episode: TOS 002 - Where No Man Has Gone Before


Starfleet Career Summary

2250 — As a first-year Academy student with ensign rank, assigned to U.S.S. Republic NCC-1371

2254 — Upon graduation, promoted to lieutenant and posted to U.S.S. Farragut under Capt. Garrovick

2264 — Promoted to captain, in command of U.S.S. Enterprise for five-year mission

2266 — Exonerated in wrongful death charge of Ben Finney, first captain ever to stand trial

2269 — Returned from five-year mission; promoted to admiral in charge of fleet operations at Earth


OK so we have a long time before the Enterprise from movie XI to TOS to change the way she looks..

she was launched under Captain Robert April in 2245 and then Captain Kirk got her in 2264 That is 19 Years for refits and changes.. that is a long time...  So I won't be surprised if the Movie Enterprise looks different from the TOS Enterprise.

So, if Kirk was assigned to the Republic in his first year of the Academy in 2250 and the movie is showing the Enterprise being built, then the movie is set in 2244 or 2245... approx 5 years before Kirk joins Starfleet Academy.. however Spock should already be in the academy at this time..

Some of the rumors is that Spock from TNG goes back in time and talks to Spock (academy) about Kirk to save Kirks life.. possible from a TNG Romulan assassination attempt on Kirks life pre-academy, thus creating the catalyst to the bond of their friendship.

Since Leonard Nemoy is casted as well.. it is either going to be a flashback story from Spock's point of View, or we have a time travel story again.

[Smiley]

I actually quite happy that they are making another film - I'm happy to see anything Trek related in-progress, it's great that people are still willing to spend money on it.
My personal preference would have been a film post-Nemesis, but that's just me and my nature. As time has passed I have grown to like TOS little-by-little more . . . I have often wondered what Star Trek would be like if Gene Roddenberry were alive right now and Star Trek was invented and created right now - what would the shows look like created in this age of high technology but with Gene Roddenberry at the helm?

[Vipre]

There's no telling on that. The OS Enterprise was influenced so much by the science fiction of that era. The ship is at heart a flying saucer, would a designer today even base the ship around that? Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, they owe everything to TOS for the very look of Trek.

The core of the series under Gene I don't think would change, TOS and TNG shared that similar "betterment of humanity" theme, it wasn't until his death that the franchise began to focus on ratings, one-uping other shows and ooo look at the pretty boom boom instead of good science fiction.

Anyone think there'd have been a Dominion War with him at the helm?

[Czar Mohab]

Anyone think there'd have been a Dominion War with him at the helm?

Yes, but handled much differently, possibly as an episode or two, no more, with a similar ending to any TOS episode involving war/combat .

Czar "I hope the 'reboot' is enough to get the wife hooked" Mohab
[/color]

[TheStressPuppy]

First i want to say i respect everyones opinion here. The last thing i want to do is shove my point of view down anyones throat. I understand the purists fear of change. I was, and still am a purist to a point myself. I am 43 years old. All we had in the 70's was the original series reruns. I marveled at TMP in a movie theater when it was 1st released. Naturally all trek since TMP pretty much stayed TMP style. There was speculation for a long time that TOS was going to get a reboot. The big question was when? I guess the answer is now.

From what i gather from all the rumor control, and articles i have read is that JJ is not out to destroy trek lore (canon). He wants to keep continuity at least as close as possible. I see a passion JJ has for this new trek that we didnt see from berman and braga when they made enterprise. James Cawley from Star trek: New Voyages is in the cast now (what role he is playing i dont know, but it is starfleet). He has been inside, saw the sets, saw the uniforms, the actors in action. etc. etc. He has absolutely nothing but praise for what JJ is doing. Mr Cawley is as purist as a purist can be. Sure there are things he would do different if he was in charge, but this is JJ's vision. JJ's baby.

I have always wondered if TOS was re-filmed today what i would look like. I have wondered that since 2000. Would we use the same ship? How would we enhance it? Would we stay 60's style, or add some TMP elements to it? Would we just scrap the TOS look all together and make a totally new ship? I like how JJ is approaching this question. He seems to be doing the best of both worlds of TOS, and TMP. Some do not agree, and that is ok. How the movie will stand up depends not on its special effects, but on "IF" it has a good story. how well its story is told. How well it is filmed and acted.  After that then the purist can argue canon untill doomsday.

One thing will be certain... I will build this ship when i see the rest of it

[Centurus]

Stress, if I may call you that, or TSP if you prefer, I agree with your entire post, most especially the part of how well the story is written, and how well the actors perform their roles.  In this situation, they have very big shoes to fill. 

As for the ship, it's too soon to really make any judgements on how she'll be.  Granted, we have some drooling teasers to look at, but nothing major.  Personally, it's too soon to tell how much of the ship has been changed.  For all we know the design is the same, but instead of a smooth hull, it might have more TMP looking hull plates.  Again, personally, I say it's too soon to tell.

My only gripe, and I shall say it again, they should have gotten Gary Sinise to play Bones.  He's an exceptional actor in my opinion.  Very talented and skilled.  He also bears a striking resemblence to DeForest Kelley.  But looks aside, I feel he'd be a better choice to play Bones.  I feel he could capture the personality and mentality of the character.

[Centurus]

P.S.

When you make the ship, can you make a really high poly model with very high poly textures?   :-D  PWEASE?!??!?!?!?!?!

Centurus
Your friendly D.net Constitution Class whore.

[Vipre]

I went through a lot of my posts just to confirm what I'd written and while I consider myself a TOS fan, I've said nothing negative about the movie. I'm looking forward to what they do with the ship, what they do with the characters and most of all what they do with the story. It's all about the story, the rest is just eye candy.

My hopes are they do stay "true" to Trek, whatever that means to anyone. If they want to do a full reboot it's fine by me, I'm a big fan of the Reborn series, just make it it's own Trek and not try and claim it as a rewrite of previous series episodes. Rather than retconning "canon" create a whole new canon.

[Beeblebrox]

He was wrong, he doesn't look right, it was a reset, and to each their own.  I've seen every one of the Bond movies, and I rate him behind George Lazenby.  But that's my own opinion, of an older fan, and you have yours.  You're what that new line of movies needs these days.. I'd still rather have seen more movies with Brosnan in them..

Personally I thought that new Bond was the best one they've had in years.  He took 007 back to his roots as an assassin and gave a realistic performance of what someone in that profession might be like.  Anyone remember that 00 status was meant to be a license to kill?  And can anyone really picture Pierce Brosnan (who I did like in Remington Steele) strangling a crazed African guerilla and still making it back to the poker table?

I think this film is going to be fantastic. TOS, if viewed in a detached way, is terrible. The acting is bad, the sets are awful, the effects are bad... which is to be expected. In my view, it was the movies with TOS cast that really established them in our culture, not the TV series

*Completely* disagree here.. without the original series going into syndication, we'd not know that much about Star Trek at all.  It was the original series in syndication, plus the cast and stories that established the franchise.  And effects were better than average for that time period.

This is definitely true.  The effects are even more amazing when you consider that Star Trek was made and 3 years before we made it to the moon. 



 

Ever seen early "Doctor Who"?  That's bad effects and awful sets.. and if you want to see bad acting, watch some of the episodes with William Hartnell (the first Doctor) and watch the companions act.  Or, I should say,"act".  And this is coming from a fan.

These are fighting words.  Please wait for me at September 12th, 1776 in Pennsylvania.  I'm coming to kick ass and reverse the polarity of the neutron flow....and I'm all out of neutrons.

Shatner was the worst actor of the bunch, mainly because he was so over the top.. and noone had really matched that until Avery Brooks hit the screen..

Total rubbish.  Shatner was brilliant and his energy in the role was one of the big factors in making the show believable.  For further proof of his talent just check out his Twilight Zone appearances.  The Shat managed to make an unconvincing monster costume perched outside an equally unconvincing airliner set one of the most terrifying pieces of television I saw as a kid.

But it was the original series influence and the fans of that series that gave us a NASA test shuttle named "Enterprise" (before the first Trek movie), and it was that same fan base for that show being so massive that Paramount wanted to try "Phase 2", which spun into the first Trek movie.

It's just a shame they had to remake The Changeling and suck all of the story and tension out of it.  Oh, and they screwed up the Klingons badly.  When I watched the movie as a kid I couldn't figure out who the guys with the foreheads were and I wanted them to get back to the Klingons that seemed to be promised by the 3 D7 cruisers.  I'm still waiting for them to get back to the Klingons.

I'm willing to give the new movie a chance, but I'll wait until others I trust have seen it first before I spend money on it.

This is pretty much the strategy I follow with every movie.  Oh, and Batman Begins rocked.  Wasn't there an old Batman comic miniseries where he got involved with R'as A Gul and it was revealed that Batman had done some of his early training with R'as?


I've always been leery of this prequel stuff (especially after George Lucas burned us by revealing that Darth Vader was really just a troubled kid who got suckered by a psychological ploy and a series of lies that wouldn't fool a third grader).  I have to agree with some of the posters that it might have been better if they'd just done a movie either with the Enterprise crew or set it after Nemesis.  The idea of seeing some Hollywood pretty boy trying to fill Captain Kirk's boots makes my stomach hurt.

[dragoon]

@atheorhaven

I guess being a different generation does skew ones view of Trek. I'm 25, so I am more of the Next Gen, even though I grew up watching TOS, and remember the launch and media interest in TNG. My brother was always really afraid of the False Image that Fesarius put onto the view screen, and that left so much of a mark in him that until Stargate and the Asgard, my bro would get freaked out by the "greys".. especially the ones in Communion.

For me, and I get the same vibe from many people, it was the Movies, Especially TWoK that really solidified the whole thing. Though personally it was the Undiscovered Country that i always liked the most, Christopher Plummer was Awsome and i wish I could see him perform Shakespere live. I think that Trek during those movies ( well the even numbered ones ) was where it had it's gretest Impact on the memory. Granted, high budgets etc helped, but it was only really Best of Both worlds and The Final few seasons of DS9 that really hit me the same way for the TV incarnations. For much of the 90's, It was Babylon 5 that was my show of choice, but I never missed an episode of DS9. I never felt compelled to stay in for Voyager Or Enterpise, but for the latter, recordable TV was now an option, so it didn't matter too much. Season 4 of Ent really showed how much TOS meant to people. I was amazed at how excited and happy people were when thoughtful links to the TOS were put in, and I think that season really added to our appreciation of what TOS. The ideas that were apprently in the works for Ent season 5 sounded brilliant.

I still find it hard to understand the "die hards" and their opposition, it seems they Want to hate the movie, rather than see what it's going to be like. I truly think that when I walk into that cinema in December I will see not only a great film, but it will be TOS given the respect and financial support it always deserved. And I hope it will lead to more films and perhaps a TV series.

Also, while the Romulans appear to be the bad guys, it may mean that we get the chance to have the Klingons back as a real threat. No technobabble and miracle solutions to defeating them like the Borg. Just good old fasion enemies that you either have to find common ground with, or Destroy in a fleet battle or with a phasor. Like Kirk wanted to do at Organia.

Hopefully as the film nears release and we know more about it, StarTrek fans of all opinions will rally around and support the film.... and in return we get the Trek we've been desperate for, with good effects, Story and acting.

And no Crack whore T'pol.

[TheStressPuppy]

I go by "Major Stress" now in other gaming boards. I just keep the old nick here, and on other trek boards to avoid confusion. Cant change it without making a new account.

By going with the mostly "unknown" actors it saves money for more important production aspects. I just gotta see the "Shawn of the Dead" guy pull off Scotty. Another thing here is some are expecting the new actors to "mimic" the original cast. Right down to their flaws. To be brutally honest if i see Chris Pine overact, or mimic Shatner in any way im walking out.... OK maybe not, but ill be very disappointed. I want to see the new guys take on Kirk Spock, and Mccoy. To add their own unique style to the characters. In "New Voyages" the acting sure wont win any academy awards, but the way they put their own style in is good. Give the new guys a chance.


Nope im only gonna make a 500 poly model of the new Big-E :p  J/K Ill do what it takes to pull it off