<p>Saw it last night and loved it, even though I’m not a big Star Trek fan.</p>
<p>The kicker for me was the Spock/Uhura angle. I LOVE that the science nerd gets the girl instead of the flashy jock. I identified with this Uhura because I always make the same choice. To me, the really sexy guy is never the cocky singer/guitar player. It’s that hyper-smart, lanky, stoic guy playing bass who is not working so hard to impress me. The smart guy just does his thing, because he already knows who he is and what he’s about. Throw in a tall drink of water like Zach Quinto, and I’m all over that Spock train. (Note that the movie reflects, accurately, the fact that this kind of guy would never kiss and tell.)</p>
<p>I haven’t seen this movie yet, but Anthony Lane in The New Yorker completely ripped it to shreds. (He also admitted that he is not a Trekkie.)</p>
<p>My favorite Captain was Kate Mulgrew, followed by Picard. We watched both series, mostly in reruns, as a family when my S was in elementary school, and discussed the ethical dilemmas that so often were central to the plot. I credit that for S’s interest in philosophy. :)</p>
<p>I don’t like the Uhura/Spock relationship. There is no basis for it from, and not constant with, the original series.</p>
<p>I also think the technology is too advanced. I think they could have done a great movie with the same level of special effects, but lower level of technology.</p>
<p>Other than that, I think it is a great start to a new series.</p>
<p>I read the book a couple of years ago. Shatner is the named author with bylines to Judith Reeves-Stevens, and Garfield Reeves-Stevens (Hardcover - Oct 16, 2007). A fair-good read and sets up the relationship between Kirk and Spock. Yet to see the movie.</p>
<p>Consolation, I can’t stand the New Yorker’s movie reviews. It seems like the reviewers aren’t people who enjoy movies! They rip most movies to shreds.</p>
<p>Ah, see thats one of the things I loved about it. It didn’t try to be exactly the old series. If the movie is set 200 years in the future, it should look like it, not like it is trying to copy what we thought 2236 or whatever looked like (or had the budget for) in the 1960’s :D</p>
<p>One of the interesting analyses I’ve heard of the car crash scene is that he’s driving a 1966 Corvette (same year the original Star Trek aired), his step-dad is saying “You’d better not get a scratch on that car” (i.e. don’t mess up the canon), and then Kirk (i.e. JJ Abrams) says “screw that” and throws the car over a cliff lol. </p>
<p>Really drives home the idea that “this isn’t your father’s Star Trek”. We’re keeping what was good about Star Trek (optimism, character development and interaction, philosophical messages, etc.) and bringing in new stuff (awesome CGI, new timeline with surprises so you don’t actually know whats going to happen next, etc.) but we’re getting rid of what didn’t work and what weighed the franchise down (40+ years of “canon”, treknobabble that no one cared about, spoon feeding people the message of the day, etc.)</p>
<p>I too thought that the ‘alternate timeline’ angle was effectively employed by J.J. Abrams. That way he could discard or “update” some of the canon that had waned or was uninteresting to non-fans or ocassional fans. This is the same idea that has successfully worked recently for the comic book industry, with Superman being the most promient example. And if I remember correctly, a couple of movie producers have been paid big bucks by Time Warner to take over the writing for Superman comics this year.</p>
<p>Loved it. Loved. It. Plus DS#1 was quite proud walking out: “Mom–I think you and I were the only ones who got every single reference to the original.”</p>
<p>Loved the movie! And I loved the Spock/Uhura connection. I know that those of the Orthodox Trek persuasion might be appalled, but one of the attractions that the Spock character has are his suppressed emotions and sexuality---------- there’s more going on in his Vulcan mind than we know.</p>
<p>So the movie fits before the TV show. Because of the changed timeline, does that mean that any fact in the TV show does not necessarily need to sync up? For example, I’m sure that in the TV show, we saw Spock’s mother, who [SPOILER ALERT] dies in the movie. Should the TV show be seen as being on the “original” time line?</p>
<p><strong><em>SPOILER ALERT</em></strong>
Not only is there a different time-line, due to the black hole it’s an “alternate universe”. In the original Trek, Spock’s mom and planet were alive, in the new “alternate universe” they are gone. This has afforded Spock a very good pickup line. “Mom and planet are dead and Im feeling a little depressed, howsabout a date this Saturday?”</p>
<p>“alternate Universe”…different time line…I’m feeling quite a bit “LOST” out here on the “FRINGE”…so JJ Abrams…loved the movie, and, yes, loved all the references…</p>
<p>I’m not sure what to make about the alternate universe in Fringe. What little we’ve seen makes it look more dark and desperate than our own universe. And what was Mr. Jones trying to accomplish? Is he a good guy or a bad guy?</p>
<p>Correct. Everything can be different going forward. It will be interesting when they encounter an enemy from the TV series, and how they handle it the second time.</p>
<p>As for the ‘hotness’ factor…‘Bones’ McCoy…whew. That’s Karl Urban playing the good doctor…whom you may remember as Eomer aka ‘that horse-guy*’ from LOTR and the completely buff hero of a little-seen movie called Pathfinder. </p>
<p>*My dh has trouble remembering character’s names.</p>
<p>Karl Urban was excellent as Bones, but so was DeForest Kelley. And Zach Quinto was also excellent as Spock, but so was Leonard Nimoy. The X factor in this version is Chris Pine, whom I think is a better Kirk than William Shatner and Zoe Saldana, who is awesome as Uhura.</p>
<p>They better get a new alternate timeline, either that or baldness cures must be much better 200 years from now, because the actor now playing the young Scotty already has a more receded hairline than the old Scotty on the TV show.</p>
</p>