new Star Trek movie (Possible Spoilers)

i got invited with a few trek fans of mine to go see with them opening night. it looks good too.

I'm psyched! I was a latent Star Trek fan in the 90's until Star Wars resurfaced with the prequels so yeah, this is a big thing and I'll definitely catch that when it comes out.

When is that by the way?

Edit: what the hell! the French release is for May 6th >.<

Yeah I would want to see Star Wars made as a purely sci-fi movie... that would be like a dream come true.

It looks pretty exciting. I am amazed at how Star Trek has dropped from my mind over the years. I was an avid fan in 1990s. Is this a movie for the "Enterprise" series or some other? I be glad to see that when it comes out.

It does look pretty sweet, compared to the tv show. I'm gonna see it. What I'm looking forward to more is Wolverine and Terminator 4!!!

I honestly had no intention whatsoever of going to see this movie.  I used to watch Next Generation, and some Deep Space 9 with my Mom *her side of the family is where all the Trekie fans in my family are,* but the idea of re-hashing Kirk and Spock AGAIN turned my stomach.  Yet more proof to my theorie that Hollywood is so totally out of fresh ideas that they're getting desperate.

However...

Went to see Monsters vs. Aliens with some school friends a couple weeks ago, and watched maybe THE MOST Amazing trailer EVER.  I had no idea what it was until I saw Enterprise, and even then I almost refused to believe what I was watching until the name came up at the end.  At that point I was left pretty well speachless.

All that being said, I still have the nagging feeling in the back of my mind that it'll suck on some level, but I now think it's worth a try.

From all the previews and movie clips they've been showing it looks like it'll be a pretty good movie.  The special effects are really well done.  The guy that plays Doctor McCoy seems to have that character down pat. 

Now, for the negatives.  I'm a old die hard Trekker.  I like JJ Abrams and alot of the stuff he's produced (I was addicted to Alias, and now I have to watch Fringe every week).  But I have a few major beefs with the new movie.  My main question is what the hell was he thinking when he decided to redesign an icon like the USS Enterprise?  I don't care what you say, THAT IS NOT THE USS ENTERPRISE!!!  What kind of crack pipe was he smoking when he came up with that idea?  It looks like someone tried to kit-bash a model of the original Enterprise, the movie version Enterprise, and the USS Excelsior.  Bad call on that one, Abrams.  That kind of ties in with the new bridge design.  Again, what the heck was he smoking?  It looks like a Macintosh store.  Why would he spit on Gene Roddenberry's grave like that and disrespect all the die-hard fans by doing this?  My third biggest beef, is why, why, why are they trying to explain this movie off as part of the regular continuity by saying that this Romulan called Nero, goes back in time to change events, and that's why the big differences in the movie continuity.  If you need more info, read the new comics by IDW Publishing and it explains things.  It picks up about 30 years or so after events in Star Trek: Nemesis.  There is finally a permanent Federation Ambassador on Romulus, who happens to be Spock (all the Next Gen fans will understand about this), which is a little more friendly to the Federation than they used to be at this point.  Nero is a nice guy who befriends Spock, but after some kind of cataclysmic event that kills his family and disfigures him and threatens to destroy most of the Romulan Empire, he decides to go back in time to change things.  Hence, now, Kirk isn't the youngest Captain in Starfleet, because he never joined Starfleet.  Heck, Chekov even outranks him.  And that's where the movie picks up, after the comic book mini-series.  I guess the comics go more into depth about why things are the way they are in the new movie timeline that the movie doesn't really explain.

I know they're trying to re-start the franchise again, but this isn't like some old Sci-Fi series, like Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon  (that's had two or three incarnations--Captain Proton, anyone?), or even Battlestar Galactica, where they can just change things up, because it wasn't that big of a tv series.  I mean, this thing is part of Americana.  It spawned 4 spin-off tv series, and 9 movies (not counting the new one), and the last tv series didn't even end but a few years ago.  It would be like someone, five years from now, coming out with a new Star Wars movie series, with everything kind of similar, but completely different.  Instead of Stormtroopers beign in all white armor, we're going to make them look more like regular soldiers, with only helmets and visors.  Some minor body armor and some knee pads, and that should do.  And, we'll make all the helmets gray, instead of white.  As for Boba Fett, well, we'll just make him look a little more like an average mercenary, with a Kevlar vest and helmet with some night vision goggles and maybe a ski mask.  Instead of a bounty hunter, he can be saboteur that works freelance for the Empire.  Can you imagine the lynch mob that would form up to ring these guys necks for doing that to Star Wars?

I know Abrams wanted to tell a story set in the original series timeline, and since all the actors are either dead or in their 70s now, that he would have to use new actors.  But come on, doing it so completely different like this?  When I first heard about it, I kept thinking, why the heck would he do something to a franchise that would completely alienate the core audience that would actually go to see this movie in the first place?  If he's going to do original series with new actors, that's fine, but why change all the continuity?  If it's a special effects thing, heck, they've even updated the special effects to the original series, and I have to say it looks way better now.  Kind of like the same thing Lucas with the Special Editions for the original trilogy.  But to completely change up the history makes no sense to me.

Wtih all that said, as I said before, I'm sure it'll still be a good movie.  From the clips I've seen online so far, the actors are really good for the characters that they're playing.  I really like the job that Karl Urban has done with McCoy's character, and Zachary Quinto is like a clone of Leonard Nimoy.  The special effects look awesome, of course.  It's nice to see alot more of the planets surfaces and the whole overall architecture of the different places.  But, I just know, no matter how good the movie is, the change to the overall look and feel of the ship, and the nuances that made the Enterprise what she was, will be the biggest detractor for the hard core fan base that grew up with Star Trek.

Sadriel, I share some of your sentiment. But also like therealmccoy said, easy on the spoilers. I just realized it was added to the title but it should have been in your post. I had to skip a paragraph mid sentence when i realized you were explaining the plot.

About the ship, yes, i think its retarded to redesign it completely when the ship is already set in stone. Me and my dad had a discussion about the ship in particular. I think its the same ship and that they made it look different in the movie, he thinks that its a different ship entirely, and thats why its different. In the trailer you see it under really heavy fire and falling apart, so my dad is assuming that the Enterprise gets destroyed (no surprise there. always gets destroyed in the movies for some reason) and then when the tv series starts its a new ship, hence the difference.

Im still unaware if its the same ship and your right that theyre changing it or that its a precursor to the Enterprise A and thats why its different. The answer may lie in the paragraph i skipped in your post. Also you mentioned continuity problems i dont understand either, the answer may lie there as well.