You are at netAirspace : Forum : The Combustion Chamber - Off-Topics : General Off-Topics

Its been said that the new director, J.J. Abrams was not a Star Trek fan.

I am not a cult fan or Trekkie, but have enjoyed the multiple series as well as most of the movies.

But the new Star Trek begins with the words....

“My name is James Siberius Kirk.”



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30521500/

I have the intention to go see this thing this weekend once I get back to ANC . . . .

The more I hear/read about it, the more I think I'll skip it, wait for the DVD.

You simply cannot rewrite Trek. Period.

Yeah! New Trek! Because the universe is forever changing...

It didn't say "James Tiberius Kirk"?????

I am boycotting this new Trek. You mess with the original, you loose.
I have cleaned up my language as I would say some things that may not be appreciated by all.

In last month's issue of Maxim, Abrams was quoted as saying

"I wasn't in to Star Trek; I was a Star Wars kid."

I just watched a trailer. It says "My name is James Tiberius Kirk", not "Siberius".

Either way, I'm seeing it when it comes out.

The article states that in the advances screening they had it as Siberius. Whether its been changed or what-have-you, I don't know.

I guess I don't give enough of a crap about the "history" to care whether it's "factually accurate". The trailer looks bloody good, and it may well be one of the few films worth tolerating moviegoers for...

(I love movies. I just hate people. )

I'm going to see the film this Thursday. I have high expectations.

Well in less than 24 hours I will have seen the film (3pm BST here in London), and I'll post a report on Friday morning.

With or without spoilers?

Without methinks, unless you want them of course!

Without. Some us want to go through popcorn at the screen.

Well I'll just tell you whether it's decent or not. As a hard core ST fan I'm dubious, but having said that I was so bloody wrong about BSG.

"There are always possibilities" said a certain fella. Let's see.

Falcon84 wrote:I just watched a trailer. It says "My name is James Tiberius Kirk", not "Siberius".

Either way, I'm seeing it when it comes out.

It sounds like Siberius on this one:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/startrek_trailer2_small.html

Well apparently its getting kick ass reviews from critics.

Rottentomatoes has a rating of 95 out of 100 which is pretty good.

Link for many of the reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

I will definitely see it now.

Fumanchewd wrote:Well apparently its getting kick ass reviews from critics.

Rottentomatoes has a rating of 95 out of 100 which is pretty good.

Link for many of the reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

I will definitely see it now.

Well, it's probably a kick ass movie . . . . shoot 'em ups, sex, death, destruction, space ships, et al.

It's NOT however, Trek.

Newsweek had a big article on it this week*. Said most avowed trekkers will despise it. I already do and haven't even seen it.

* Wouldn't normally buy that left wing rag, but the USS Enterprise WAS on the cover. I read only that article and the OpEd piece by the editor and threw it immediately into the trash . . . . if I hadn't been inside the airport, I'd likely have set fire to the damn thing.

ANCFlyer wrote:

Fumanchewd wrote:Well apparently its getting kick ass reviews from critics.

Rottentomatoes has a rating of 95 out of 100 which is pretty good.

Link for many of the reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

I will definitely see it now.

Well, it's probably a kick ass movie . . . . shoot 'em ups, sex, death, destruction, space ships, et al.

It's NOT however, Trek.

Newsweek had a big article on it this week*. Said most avowed trekkers will despise it. I already do and haven't even seen it.

* Wouldn't normally buy that left wing rag, but the USS Enterprise WAS on the cover. I read only that article and the OpEd piece by the editor and threw it immediately into the trash . . . . if I hadn't been inside the airport, I'd likely have set fire to the damn thing.

Yeah, thats kind of what the gist of the reviews stated. Ebert actually gave it a bad review stating that they ignore the scientific side of Star Trek infavor of entertainment.

SHowed it at 7 pm here..just got back from it...A good action Movie, a former villian...didn't feel like trek. Entertaining.

3/5 stars.


Mike

I' d give it 4 stars as I really enjoyed the film.

OK, I don't think there was a need for the old Spock to be in it but seeing the Enterprise on the big screen again was a real treat and she did look fantastic.

Some of the in-jokes were good aswell IMO.

Certainly not Trek canon, but an enjoyable flick nonetheless.

The Onion had a great spoof review of the movie focusing on dissatisfied Star Trek fans:

Took the whole family to see it tonight, and I thought it was fantastaic. I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it, but it certainly can open up a whole new dynamic for the Star Trek franchise.

Falcon84 wrote:Took the whole family to see it tonight, and I thought it was fantastaic. I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it, but it certainly can open up a whole new dynamic for the Star Trek franchise.

It

IS

NOT

TREK.


I have tix for a 10:156am show tomorrow.

My review will wait.

I will take my Enclyclopedia with me. I can guess where this review will go.

IT

IS

NOT

TREK

Simple as that. It's a cool shoot-em-up space flick with some familiar names and come cool ships and a bad guy with a cool ship and maybe some hot women, and a sex scene or three, but, once again . . . from all account . . .


IT

IS

NOT

TREK!!!

It was a really good action movie. A few good jokes. Within the framework of the prescribed Star Trek world quite a few far fetched things happened. The whole black hole-time travel thing was pretty silly.

I enjoyed it and it was worth the money, but if I was a serious Trekkie I would be upset.