Of course I'm going to see the film. Did I mention anywhere in my post that I wasn't? Or that those who plan on seeing it are fools? Did I draw a line in the sand defining who is or is not a fan?

I simply expressed my opinion. In doing that, how am I impeding your ability to form your own?

If you don't like or agree with what i say, then object to it. Debate it.. line by line, thought by thought.. If all you can muster is name calling because you've misread or don't understand my post then I rest my case.

Gobshites, indeed.

JJ and friends can do whatever the hell they want. At least when Bernstein, Sondheim & Laurents "rebooted" Romeo & Juliet they had the decency to call it West Side Story.

Of course I'm going to see the film. Did I mention anywhere in my post that I wasn't? Or that those who plan on seeing it are fools? Did I draw a line in the sand defining who is or is not a fan?

I simply expressed my opinion. In doing that, how am I impeding your ability to form your own?

If you don't like or agree with what i say, then object to it. Debate it.. line by line, thought by thought.. If all you can muster is name calling because you've misread or don't understand my post then I rest my case.

Gobshites, indeed.

JJ and friends can do whatever the hell they want. At least when Bernstein, Sondheim & Laurents "rebooted" Romeo & Juliet they had the decency to call it West Side Story.

When I walked in and saw those two portraits….I almost had a heart attack because of the realization that I was in the place where they probably wrote the damn movie! :)

When I walked in and saw those two portraits….I almost had a heart attack because of the realization that I was in the place where they probably wrote the damn movie! :)

once and true trekkers. If we are then being fairIt's difficult not to approach this reboot with all the hope and

wishfulness that resides in the hearts and minds of once and true trekkers. If we are then being fair, we(trekkers)

must also allow that Abrams' task was even more difficult than just to attend to our needs (through script, FX,

location work, etc.). To find success, he had to satisfy the general movie and genre-specific science fiction fans

as well. Obviously, the only thing that truly counts to the studio big shots is the financial bottom line. We can

only make our voices heard now one of two ways: at the theater or the dvd counter. Everything else is just personal agenda: yours or mine, theirs or ours.

Now, personally, I grew up in the sixties and was raised on TOS reruns, came to TNG and after an up and down

first two seasons, came to love it, although 7th season was slightly uneven. DS9 was obviously next and, after

TOS, took least amount of time to get up to speed. I loved it. Admittedly, it had one ingredient to the show that

no other had with any great consistency: Political intrigue. Here is where I diverge from most trekkers in that

while it was definitely uneven, I still liked most all of VOY. For the most part, the good movies included:

2,4,8,6,3,7,9,5,1 and Nemesis. In that order. These last Five could all change slots as I finally sit down to watch

dvds. Finally, came Enterprise. The first two seasons, with some nice bright spots, were definitively

disappointing. Most everyone who was a fan had long ago given up. And that's when it finally woke up as a

trek show. However, in this current tv age, that was not soon enough by half. Just for those who didn't take

note: It was Manny Cotto brought in, first as a writer and then to oversee the writer's room those final two

seasons. The show was damn good those last two seasons but it was just too little, too late.

Anytime you have a possible remake or rebooting of an older program, there are an incredible number of pitfalls

the writer's and /or director must navigate. First, the decision must be made whether to take a lighter (parody or

even straighter comedic) approach or a heavier (more dramatic or even darker) view for the new project.

Second, Narrow that focus to an exact tone.

Here's where my two examples come in. J.J. Abrams has failed in this arena (IMHO) at least once before. With

Mission Impossible, He had killed of the entire IM forces w/ the exception of Tom Cruise, within the first ten

minutes of the movie. He lost me the second he did that. Considering that Cruises' character's name was

Phelps, and that the old show had meant so much to me, my mind simply could not allow that. You want to

make that movie, go ahead. But that's not Mission Impossible, and it never will be Example number two is the

remake of Starskey and Hutch. A series I loved in the seventies, the writer and director decided to take a lighter,

comedic approach. Nothing too dark, obviously, but also not a parody. Hitting all the right notes to satisfy the

fans like me who would notice the nuances, little in-jokes and spot-on performances that would harken back to

the series but would in no way detract from the enjoyment of the movie for people who had not seen the tv

series.

Mr. Root, With all this said and if you're even still listening, we are all coming to this movie with our own agendas

and it would appear that while some of us seem to have arrived early to the party with some seriously soaked

blankets to throw (without naming any names) should anyone start a fire, most of us only got to the gathering

with our hope to get us here. In other words, if you think the movie's going to be full of shit, DON'T GO SEE It.

Otherwise leave the rest of us to determine things for ourselves. F@$% you very much.

once and true trekkers. If we are then being fairIt's difficult not to approach this reboot with all the hope and

wishfulness that resides in the hearts and minds of once and true trekkers. If we are then being fair, we(trekkers)

must also allow that Abrams' task was even more difficult than just to attend to our needs (through script, FX,

location work, etc.). To find success, he had to satisfy the general movie and genre-specific science fiction fans

as well. Obviously, the only thing that truly counts to the studio big shots is the financial bottom line. We can

only make our voices heard now one of two ways: at the theater or the dvd counter. Everything else is just personal agenda: yours or mine, theirs or ours.

Now, personally, I grew up in the sixties and was raised on TOS reruns, came to TNG and after an up and down

first two seasons, came to love it, although 7th season was slightly uneven. DS9 was obviously next and, after

TOS, took least amount of time to get up to speed. I loved it. Admittedly, it had one ingredient to the show that

no other had with any great consistency: Political intrigue. Here is where I diverge from most trekkers in that

while it was definitely uneven, I still liked most all of VOY. For the most part, the good movies included:

2,4,8,6,3,7,9,5,1 and Nemesis. In that order. These last Five could all change slots as I finally sit down to watch

dvds. Finally, came Enterprise. The first two seasons, with some nice bright spots, were definitively

disappointing. Most everyone who was a fan had long ago given up. And that's when it finally woke up as a

trek show. However, in this current tv age, that was not soon enough by half. Just for those who didn't take

note: It was Manny Cotto brought in, first as a writer and then to oversee the writer's room those final two

seasons. The show was damn good those last two seasons but it was just too little, too late.

Anytime you have a possible remake or rebooting of an older program, there are an incredible number of pitfalls

the writer's and /or director must navigate. First, the decision must be made whether to take a lighter (parody or

even straighter comedic) approach or a heavier (more dramatic or even darker) view for the new project.

Second, Narrow that focus to an exact tone.

Here's where my two examples come in. J.J. Abrams has failed in this arena (IMHO) at least once before. With

Mission Impossible, He had killed of the entire IM forces w/ the exception of Tom Cruise, within the first ten

minutes of the movie. He lost me the second he did that. Considering that Cruises' character's name was

Phelps, and that the old show had meant so much to me, my mind simply could not allow that. You want to

make that movie, go ahead. But that's not Mission Impossible, and it never will be Example number two is the

remake of Starskey and Hutch. A series I loved in the seventies, the writer and director decided to take a lighter,

comedic approach. Nothing too dark, obviously, but also not a parody. Hitting all the right notes to satisfy the

fans like me who would notice the nuances, little in-jokes and spot-on performances that would harken back to

the series but would in no way detract from the enjoyment of the movie for people who had not seen the tv

series.

Mr. Root, With all this said and if you're even still listening, we are all coming to this movie with our own agendas

and it would appear that while some of us seem to have arrived early to the party with some seriously soaked

blankets to throw (without naming any names) should anyone start a fire, most of us only got to the gathering

with our hope to get us here. In other words, if you think the movie's going to be full of shit, DON'T GO SEE It.

Otherwise leave the rest of us to determine things for ourselves. F@$% you very much.

And c’mon guys… Captain Kirk drinks Budweiser? Are they wearing Rolex watches, Nike Space Marine combat boots and Microsoft Zune tricorders? Is there a McDonald’s space station with drive-thru docking port too?

Sorry, but not digging the new Enterprise inside or out. And what’s up with the exposed plexiglass printed circuit board looking things on the bridge? You would never do that with a mission critical system. It’s like putting the motherboard on the outside of your PowerBook, duh. It looks cheesier than the Lost In Space remake. Or Galaxy Quest.

I bet these guys would make the actors work in front of a green screen to do their scenes with CG’d tribbles that, oh by the way, now have a single eye that extends from an ocular pouch that we didn’t know about until now.

It’s also interesting to note how they’ve circled the wagons in an attempt to bolster credibility and appear as nice guys by enlisting Nimoy, James Cawley and the late Dr. Randy Pausch.

Which reminds me of the old Abraham Lincoln story:

Abraham Lincoln posed this question: “How many legs does a dog have?” The reply of course was four.

Lincoln asked, “If we call the tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?” The reply: Five.

“No,” Lincoln said, “Just because you call a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.”

Well guys, just because you call it Star Trek doesn’t make it so.

I wish JJ would open up that damn silly Mystery Box he’s always spewing about. Perhaps he’ll find a clue inside.

Otherwise, the box of really, really dead Sea Monkeys in there deserve a proper burial.

And c’mon guys… Captain Kirk drinks Budweiser? Are they wearing Rolex watches, Nike Space Marine combat boots and Microsoft Zune tricorders? Is there a McDonald’s space station with drive-thru docking port too?

Sorry, but not digging the new Enterprise inside or out. And what’s up with the exposed plexiglass printed circuit board looking things on the bridge? You would never do that with a mission critical system. It’s like putting the motherboard on the outside of your PowerBook, duh. It looks cheesier than the Lost In Space remake. Or Galaxy Quest.

I bet these guys would make the actors work in front of a green screen to do their scenes with CG’d tribbles that, oh by the way, now have a single eye that extends from an ocular pouch that we didn’t know about until now.

It’s also interesting to note how they’ve circled the wagons in an attempt to bolster credibility and appear as nice guys by enlisting Nimoy, James Cawley and the late Dr. Randy Pausch.

Which reminds me of the old Abraham Lincoln story:

Abraham Lincoln posed this question: “How many legs does a dog have?” The reply of course was four.

Lincoln asked, “If we call the tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?” The reply: Five.

“No,” Lincoln said, “Just because you call a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.”

Well guys, just because you call it Star Trek doesn’t make it so.

I wish JJ would open up that damn silly Mystery Box he’s always spewing about. Perhaps he’ll find a clue inside.

Otherwise, the box of really, really dead Sea Monkeys in there deserve a proper burial.

Just a little history.

To say that I can't be a Trekker if I'm looking forward to a reboot is like saying I can't be a Batman fan or a Bond fan and look forward to a reboot. And I'm both a Batman and a Bond fan, and BATMAN BEGINS and CASINO ROYALE kick ass.

As a side note: MAN I need to get a life.

My question would be, how could anyone be a Trekker and see that last film (Nemesis) and watch Enterprise and NOT be stoked for a reboot? What's the alternative? More shitty Star Trek? As a Trekker, I have suffered plenty of shitty Star Trek. I'm ready for some good Star Trek. If that means rewriting forty years of history, so be it. Because otherwise, let's face, there's no Star Trek left.

In other words, "Trek's dead, Jim."

Just a little history.

To say that I can't be a Trekker if I'm looking forward to a reboot is like saying I can't be a Batman fan or a Bond fan and look forward to a reboot. And I'm both a Batman and a Bond fan, and BATMAN BEGINS and CASINO ROYALE kick ass.

As a side note: MAN I need to get a life.

My question would be, how could anyone be a Trekker and see that last film (Nemesis) and watch Enterprise and NOT be stoked for a reboot? What's the alternative? More shitty Star Trek? As a Trekker, I have suffered plenty of shitty Star Trek. I'm ready for some good Star Trek. If that means rewriting forty years of history, so be it. Because otherwise, let's face, there's no Star Trek left.

In other words, "Trek's dead, Jim."

How can you call yourself a trekker and be excited for a movie that rewrites FORTY years of Star Trek Canon?

That is a contradiction if I ever heard one.

How can you call yourself a trekker and be excited for a movie that rewrites FORTY years of Star Trek Canon?

That is a contradiction if I ever heard one.