Video: The obligatory “Star Trek” trailer
posted at 1:19 pm on November 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Via Ace, who laments the Bay-ification of Roddenberry’s dream. I’ve never been a Trek fan but I know enough to appreciate that (a) it’s not about the FX and (b) campiness is central to the charm. That’s all gone here. In that sense, it is to the original Trek what the modern Batman movies are to the Adam West series from the ’60s, with a notable difference being that the Batman movies are stylistically distinct. They’re a true reinvention (or, rather, a return to form of the darker Batman comics that predated the West version) whereas this looks like everything else on the sci fi market except with a young Kirk and Spock glaring at each other. That feels generic, too: If I want to watch a “young rivals butt heads before learning to respect each other and becoming partners” story arc, I’ll rent Top Gun or any cop buddy picture ever made.
One other thing. Has Trek ever fundamentally been about the sort of personality conflict seen here? One of the pleasures of the series (both original and TNG) is that so many unfold as mysteries and team problem-solving. Distracting soap opera shenanigans are mercifully minimized and usually relegated to subplot. This, by contrast, looks like it could be a two-hour exercise in brooding tools practicing their best emo faces in between scenes of bedding down space starlets. Whatever; you know you’ll see it anyway.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
You are correct. I hate remakes. But this isn’t nearly as bad as Spielberg/Lucas sequels/remakes. South Park does a good job explaining why such treasures as Star Wars, E.T., and Indiana Jones are best left alone.
The Batman thing is different. The new Batman movies actually have substance rather than all those campy Batman films before.
Achilles on November 17, 2008 at 1:22 PM
No, this doesn’t look good. A ‘Dawson’s Creek’ take on Star Trek? No thanks…
changer1701 on November 17, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Anything that makes it less than totally dorky (and, therefore, watchable) is fine by me.
It's Vintage, Duh on November 17, 2008 at 1:23 PM
This doesn’t look that bad, and I have some faith in JJ.
However, I have absolutely NO interest in going back in the ST timeline. I could care less about TOS. I would much rather the movies take a big leap into the future of the tv series and movies, or at least a small one.
Darksean on November 17, 2008 at 1:25 PM
SYLAR as spock? God help us. I’ll spend the whole movie waiting for spock to want to see how that works and crack someone’s skull open with telekinesis.
Darth Executor on November 17, 2008 at 1:25 PM
I hope this has a scene of Sulu hitting on Kirk. That would be priceless.
coloradoranchhand on November 17, 2008 at 1:26 PM
ROFL! That’s greatness AP :)
and… oh so true :)
j_ehman on November 17, 2008 at 1:26 PM
A young hot Kirk. I am so there.
KelliD on November 17, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Nah. That tool from Heroes gets on my last nerve. Nice to see he’s apparently playing the same character here.
Shame, really.
Tanya on November 17, 2008 at 1:27 PM
I saw it last night in front of the new Bond movie. Ick.
Yes, I’ll see it. I might even like it if I keep telling myself it isn’t “Star Trek”.
(Regarding Quantum of Solace… anyone for a discussion on the anti-green message in it?)
Skywise on November 17, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Goddammit. GodDAMMIT! This doesn’t look at all like a Star Trek movie. It looks like an exercise in “Gen-Ying” a cherished franchise with 90% of the budget in special effects and 10% the time needed to find actors who actually ACT like Kirk, Spock, and the rest.
Scotty will be the only redeeming feature of the film, but not enough.
MadisonConservative on November 17, 2008 at 1:28 PM
If this was the first ever Star Trek show/movie would it have the long run and go on to have the cult following that it became?
albill on November 17, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Looks like ‘The Adventures of the Young Star Trek Boys’. No thanks; hundreds of Dr Who adventures on Netflix sounds better.
Vashta.Nerada on November 17, 2008 at 1:29 PM
The original Trek was dumb. Every crappy spin-off of Trek was equally as dumb. The movies?
90 minutes of dumb.
I forgot to add…hokey.
robblefarian on November 17, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Any man (boy) who sends a ‘67 vett over a cliff doesn’t have the brains to be a starship commander.
Limerick on November 17, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I don’t know if it was an anti-green message. It was just that the main villain was claiming to be an environmentalist when actually he was just another James Bond Villain. The real message was that recycling the hack directing style of Paul Greengrass makes for a seriously disappointing film. Not nearly as good as Casino Royale.
ErikTheRed on November 17, 2008 at 1:32 PM
I thought the same thing, but he’s probably a pretty good pick for Spock, I guess.
forest on November 17, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Now that’s a review.
Somewhere, John Simon is envious (he is dead, I think?).
SteveMG on November 17, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Oooh… I’m going to be branded for heresy – this is the first Trek movie that I thought actually looked interesting.
ErikTheRed on November 17, 2008 at 1:33 PM
As long as they’re the old ones.
MadisonConservative on November 17, 2008 at 1:34 PM
After many years and multiply series of Star Trek preaching the joys and wonders of the much anticipated future utopia envisioned by liberals, it was inevitable that it would finally succumb to this.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on November 17, 2008 at 1:34 PM
I bet they pull a Bruce Willis/Cybil Shepard deal and slap each other silly and end up making out…
D2Boston on November 17, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Saytr’s in Space – The Prequel
Dude!
Bruno Strozek on November 17, 2008 at 1:35 PM
It’s a pity that J.J. Abrams has turned out to suck so much. Perhaps it is a good thing that he isn’t around to screw up Lost. As for Indiana Jones and Star Wars, George Lucas’ picture is in the dictionary right next to the definion of greed.
As for the Batman films, I think that they really have more to do with major changes in the comic book movie drama toward graphic novels.
Illinidiva on November 17, 2008 at 1:35 PM
It was interesting. Not quite as good as Casino Royale but still a good movie. I don’t really know if it was anti-green or what because, apparently, the villain based his character on Tony Blair and Nicolas Sarkozy. I have no idea what THAT means. But, then of course, European leaders are significantly different from American ones.
Achilles on November 17, 2008 at 1:35 PM
As changer1701 said, a Dawson’s Creek take on Star Trek? Wow……no thanks.
amerpundit on November 17, 2008 at 1:35 PM
The opening pointless car-racing-towards-canyon scene was teh suck.
Think about it: would you trust the command of a battleship (starship) to that adrenaline junkie?
I’m all for amping up Trek with awesome special effects and massive space battles. But please — the best episodes of the TV shows were the ones that treated the characters like competent adults. I hope this thing isn’t the teenagers-in-space epic the trailer portrays.
Having just recently rented Cloverfield, I am less than optimistic about the new Trek.
But yes; I’ll probably go see it for old time’s sake.
Anton on November 17, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Looks like a teenage soap opera. I am a Trek fan of the original series, and I knew this movie was going to be crap.
J.J. Abrams can not make movies. Mission Impossible 3 anyone?
The only thing I ever liked from Abrams is LOST.
jencab on November 17, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Scratch that: Simon’s still alive.
Yes, Olberman’s “Worst Person in the World” was stolen from Bob and Ray’s routine of the same name which was based on John Simon’s acerbic (I’ll say) review of one of their performances.
SteveMG on November 17, 2008 at 1:37 PM
I’ve never thought of Star Trek as campy. It has humor, but for the most part (with admittedly notable exceptions like “Spock’s Brain” or the hippies episode, both from the original series’s awful third season) it’s generally resisted silliness.
Kensington on November 17, 2008 at 1:37 PM
I have a different version of the new Trek here if you want..
Alternative would be a better word than different actually.
DaveC on November 17, 2008 at 1:38 PM
The only reason to watch Star Trek in any of its incarnations on television or the movie screen was DeForrest Kelley. He was a mountain of excellence in a valley of horse dung.
Percy_Peabody on November 17, 2008 at 1:39 PM
This is a metaphor for Democratic rule.
lodge on November 17, 2008 at 1:40 PM
I grew up with TNG and DS9.. even though I still enjoy TOS from time to time..
I’ll go check this out..
DaveC on November 17, 2008 at 1:40 PM
I hear Barack Obama’s ego makes a cameo as V’ger.
saint kansas on November 17, 2008 at 1:41 PM
For those of us who are life long Start Trek fans from grade school and beyond, it does not matter. I will see it even if I don’t like it in the end. I am almost through the 3rd season of Enterprise – 2 more seasons to go and I will have seen every episode/feature film of every thing Star Trek including the cartoons from 1973. We are talking over 250 DVD’s. Given that, the writers and the producers should all be fired from about 1999 forward. Enterprise does not appear to have reached the level of excellence of DS9 (surprisingly my favorite along with ST 2 -4 of the movies).
Sweetness0726 on November 17, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Yes, I agree. I think Lucas has deemed himself a bit of a filmaking god because of his success with the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones. I also agree that Batman is more about the shift in the comics than anything else.
Achilles on November 17, 2008 at 1:41 PM
You know that they are reworking the FX to put an USS Obama in the background somewhere.
The only trek that’s gone from VHS to DVD for me, is seven seasons of DS9, the last two of Enterprise, and STII and STVI. I doubt that this will find my dvd shelf, unless it matches the $3 that I paid a couple of months ago for the double disc edition of Free Enterprise.
rw on November 17, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Looks disappointing. Hopefully better then it seems here.
Spirit of 1776 on November 17, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Yeah probably. If the creators have any sense they craft an overarching storyline that could spawn several films. Sorta like “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace”.
The Star Trek genre (TOS and TNG) cannibalized itself into absurdity. No need to make the same mistake a third time.
Mike Honcho on November 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM
I don’t think I’ll be able to grock this.
shick on November 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Looked pretty good to me. Though I’ll never spend $10 to see this or any movie in a theater. I got 3 kids, so that’s $50 for my family to spend 2 hours not talking to each other. Plus expensive snacks. Just can’t do it.
I can ignore my family at home for free, and microwave popcorn is only about 30 cents per bag.
connertown on November 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Thanks be to Allah… after the election I have been on my high horse around the house… now that my Trekki husband has seen this, my children have nowhere to run!
beththebaker on November 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Part of what makes the Star Trek franchise interesting is the new technology. So it is very disappointing that there will not be innovations in bra technology.
pedestrian on November 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Sylar? Like Sylar on Hero’s?
I can’t see the video.. so :(
upinak on November 17, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Is it odd or even?
TexasDan on November 17, 2008 at 1:46 PM
I have been listening to a friend of mind lament about this – he’s a Kirk fan from way, way back.
When the robot asks the kid his name, the answer should have been “Kirk, James T.”
I’m not a fan, but dang, I know the characters. (I did my Leadership thesis on Kirk for my degree.)
Probably will pass on this – sadly, I will have to listen to my friend who won’t be able to resist. It’s futile you know…
kybowexar on November 17, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Just didn’t see Spock in that character. Didn’t seem void of emotion, but then again most of the trailer was half-second clips randomly flashed on screen whose only possible goal is to induce seizures in its viewers. Couldn’t really tell what the hell was going on.
ST is not flash. It is not brooding teenagers ala Dawson’s Creek. It is character-driven puzzle plots that are solved with techno-babble. That is what we want.
thomashton on November 17, 2008 at 1:47 PM
beththebaker on November 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM
That’s hilarious! My sympathies to your kids. (laugh)
kybowexar on November 17, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Sounds cool to watch. I am a Star Trek Woman! Batman rules too! :) I pretty much will give a movie a chance. There are some I won’t, because of the Liberal’s that are in them. Looks interesting. A young Spock! :) 0_0
sheebe on November 17, 2008 at 1:47 PM
As someone who only sorta paid any attention to Star Trek, I’ll probably see this movie. Sure, the hardcore Trekkies will argue about it, but they argue about it already.
Good movies are few and far between, so a FX remake is fine by me.
Lehosh on November 17, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Gotta tell ya, I’m likin’ it!
creatocon on November 17, 2008 at 1:48 PM
On another note, it seems JJ is channeling ST:5’s opening scene with adreneline junkie Kirk is mountain climbing without ropes or gear.
Does he really want to emulate what is by far the most ridiculed Trek movie of them all?
thomashton on November 17, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Nonsense. The franchise will just disclose that the Prime Directive was the brainchild of a mysterious entity only known as “The One”- the first multi-racial/multi-planetary humanoid to command Star Fleet.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 1:49 PM
connertown on November 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM
And Redbox costs $1. I don’t know how old your kids are but I would keep my kids away from it because of the removing-clothing scenes.
I’ll instead watch TOS Season 1 boxset.
shick on November 17, 2008 at 1:49 PM
The difference between Star Trek and Batman is that the original Star Trek television show IS the original source material for the Trek universe, whereas the Batman television series and movies are “re-imagined” versions of the comic books.
I’m not saying derivative material isn’t superior (I prefer TNG to the original Trek), but it’s really not appropriate to compare a re-imagined version of an original source to re-imagining of something that is re-imagined already.
vermillionsky on November 17, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Another hopeless Star Trek moment – I have been watching the old episodes of “Ryan’s Hope” on the SoapNet channel. I begin to count off the actors that went on to appear on the various Star Trek sequels/movies. It’s like that 6 degrees to Kevin Bacon game.
Sweetness0726 on November 17, 2008 at 1:50 PM
As one who thought that DS9 was by far the best of the series, I’m willing to give this move a try. I hope it doesn’t contradict too much of the backstory we’ve already been given; it probably will.
njcommuter on November 17, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Kirk would have never said his middle name! /trekkie
But seriously don’t screw with the spirit of what you’re remaking.
They should have given it to Peter Jackson :)
- The Cat
MirCat on November 17, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Yup.
Darth Executor on November 17, 2008 at 1:53 PM
I’m still hoping someone gets the rights to Star Trek and we see a sequel that depicts the Federation in shambles after decades of their utopian socialism (Next Generation variety).
The film would open with the current captain of the Enterprise encountering a hostile force, but while he tries to understand his enemy’s feelings, the Enterprise is promptly destroyed.
The next scene shows Earth, which has become a giant welfare state of billions of worthless zombies led by a the massive, corrupt, incompetent UN like government. Progress has all but ceased and Assimilition Police roam the planet, roudnig up any “trouble-makers”.
No one can make a simple decision or even muster up the will to defend themselves against an impending invasion, so a group of ragtag free-thinkers stage a coup to replace the Federation, re-install good old capitalism, revoke the prime directive and save the universe.
I’m thinking Bruce Willis as some distant relative of Kirk, the wise-cracking rebel who leads the rebellion… :)
reaganaut on November 17, 2008 at 1:54 PM
NNNNNNOOOOOOOOO………
Please don’t ruin another great movie series. Don’t go back and set it up again with a new beginning. Let the series grow expand the universe.
However I admit I will go see it and hope….
Bogeyfre on November 17, 2008 at 1:54 PM
I can’t plausibly say that I won’t stand in a line three blocks long to see this movie. But I can say that I probably will not enjoy it.
What’s with all this psychodrama? Isn’t enough to boldly go, kill the Romulans, and nail the green chick? Do they have to add all this backstory?
gridlock2 on November 17, 2008 at 1:56 PM
reaganaut on November 17, 2008 at 1:54 PM
My friend who is the Kirk fan – whenever I want to have about four hours of Trek lore – I say something like “That Picard was quite a captain!”
I enjoyed NG, but the TOS truly was a character-driven show with some truly great moments.
I always have to concede – Kirk was definitely one kick-butt leader.
You are probably right, Bruce Willis’s characters are probably distantly related.
kybowexar on November 17, 2008 at 1:58 PM
I’ll wait for it to come out on tor . . .umm DVD
- The Cat
MirCat on November 17, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Ha ha! I’ll be searching the scenes at the movies for it!
BTW-I don’t think it looks too bad. But then, I am not a Trekkie or a purist about it. Star Trek became boring just like the later Star Wars movies became boring.
If I had to pick a Start Trek generation to like, It was the Next Generation. They were good in the beginning.
Crap. But I’ll watch it anyway. I do like special effects, even if the movie is bad.
Badger40 on November 17, 2008 at 1:59 PM
..and the bad dude from the second Bourne movie is McCoy?
This ain’t lookin’ good.
Bring back Jolene Blalock!!
Fogpig on November 17, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Ironically, one of the best Star Treks was DS9 — the only Trek to actually be a “space soap.” I term DS9 the “Republican Star Trek” since it shows people making realistic decisions and not being so damn preachy. Star Trek TNG was also excellent.
But I agree here. This is going to be a bunch of emo goofballs standing on a very realistic bridge of a space ship shouting “Worf! Be a manly Klingon and PUSH THE BIG RED BUTTON!”
Outlander on November 17, 2008 at 2:02 PM
There is so much to make a ST movie about – so much material from several generations of TV shows. Such an extensive universe to work with…
and we go to a “prequel” type movie. Same hackneyed Holliwood formula.
And as someone said earlier in the thread, if you want a successful movie like this – give us space battles, cool weaponry and so forth – like that from Wrath of Khan.
If someone is going to see a sci-fi show at the movies, they want something they won’t get from a TV show. That’s why all the ST movies (other than Khan), including TNG ones kinda sucked. Especially the one about the whales – what a pantload that one was, huh?! If I want two hours of chick drama, I’ll see a chick flick with my wife thank you very much!
When it comes to sci-fi – the more battles, torpedos, phasers, lasers, blasters, aliens, cool ships, a conveninetly placed nebula, etc. the better!
Oh, and don’t forget the green chicks.
catmman on November 17, 2008 at 2:03 PM
One thing for sure is that the Trek franchise needed a breath of life. Enterprise started off sucky, then got better in the later seasons, but by then most people had abandoned the show.
As for characters, Spock & McCoy had a serious rivalry in the old show that came to a head in that awful Empath episode (thank you, digitally remastered shows, for reminding me of the good as well as the bad).
Nethicus on November 17, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Roddenberry’s original ‘Star Trek’ was never big on special effects. This film seems saurated in them. Like Allah, if I want to see a male-bonding flick, I’ll see ‘To Live And Die In L.A.’ or ‘Extreme Prejudice’.
The darker Batman did not pre-date the Adam West camp-fests.
Frank Miller ‘gave Batman his balls back’ with his Dark Knight series that Tim Burton only touched on and Christian Bale has made his own!
Jack.
Jack Deth on November 17, 2008 at 2:04 PM
It has explosions.
I won’t be able to help myself.
Count to 10 on November 17, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I never really got into the Next Generation, I always enjoyed the original Star Trek (well the 1st 2 years), which is why I was a fan. It was just fun. Good campy fun. The dialogue between Kirk, McCoy and Spock was great most of the time.
In fairness I just decided to start renting The Next Generation from Netflix, and I can see why I never got into it. Even though I was 19 when TNG came out, I was just put off by the “Where no one has gone before…”
I hear it doesn’t really pick up until season 3, I hope so…
reaganaut on November 17, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Look what they did to the Battlestar Galactica franchise. It went from an entertaining, campy, star wars-style 1 hr drama to a dark, brooding morality play about the Bush administration. Liberals think they are clever when they take what works, a simple sci-fi series, then totally undo it, render it unrecognizable, inject their own political narrative, add some dark undercurrents, and then spit it out using the same title. Rather than remake an entertaining series for your kids to watch, as you watched it as a kid, they have to turn it into some sick sci-fi version of the Sopranos. It’s blasphemy. Liberalism is a mental illness that permeates their entire existence.
keep the change on November 17, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Did Frakes direct it?
null on November 17, 2008 at 2:06 PM
I am told by some true fans that DS9 was essentially a rip off of Babylon 5, or at least became that.
Now, if you want Republican Sci-Fi, Babylon 5 is your show.
Count to 10 on November 17, 2008 at 2:09 PM
KHAAANNNN!
Ahem.
No, Spock, don’t eat Kirk’s brain!
Sorry.
Save the Enterprise; save the world?
Mrs. Happy Housewife on November 17, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Babylon-5 was an awesome show.
They have made some “films” (direct to DVD type stuff) which wasn’t very good, but the TV show was great!
catmman on November 17, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Actually, considering the plot, I think it’s “Save the Kirk; save the world!”
Mrs. Happy Housewife on November 17, 2008 at 2:14 PM
I agree. It was just enjoyable to hear the banter between the three of them – with the others chiming in from time to time.
Plus, while Shatner is a decent actor – he did a great job with Kirk. He played the man as he should be played. The camaraderie of Kelley, Nimoy, and he was just truly great at times.
kybowexar on November 17, 2008 at 2:16 PM
JJ Abrams of ‘Lost’ and Mission: Impossable III fame directed.
DS9 Rocked.
DaveC on November 17, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Not with characters from the original series. TNG characters? I’m there.
Grafted on November 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM
I’ve never seen Heros, so I’m a blank slate on the Spock actor. Kirk seems like he would be a hard character to get down. Kirk really is Shatner’s creation–their personalities seem identical. I enjoyed the early rumors that Damon was being tapped for the part. Oh well. However, Eomir better not screw up Bones!
.
A thesis based on Kirk is something I would not mind reading myself. :)
.
In the meantime…
**please don’t suck, please don’t suck…**
artlover on November 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM
DS9 is really the only “dark” Star Trek. I’d also say its the most conservative besides TOS.
Speedwagon82 on November 17, 2008 at 2:21 PM
HAHAHAHA. I died reading this. Too true.
thomashton on November 17, 2008 at 2:21 PM
AKA Star Trek: Li’l Rascals!
fivefeetoffury on November 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Also, I don’t know about B5, but DS9 is BY FAR the best Trek out there. It is not preachy as hell like TNG (which I also own), and once you get into all the characters, every season just keeps getting better and better. I don’t think there was a better season of TV made than DS9 Season 6. Absolutely outstanding.
And yes, like another poster, I have way too many Trek DVDs–7 seasons each of TNG, DS9 and VOY as well as all the 2 disc version of all 10 movies. It’s pushing 200 discs!
thomashton on November 17, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Still looks better than the GI Joe movie that’s coming out.
DaveC on November 17, 2008 at 2:24 PM
The reason the dialog of the Original was great was because it had to be for the show to be semi-successful. Roddenberry & co. knew their effects would be cheesy, so they had conpensate. In my opinion, that’s why movies of the past are superior to today’s–a concentration on story & characters vs. action & FX. Or the superiority of a Bogart movie over almost anything today.
artlover on November 17, 2008 at 2:26 PM
artlover on November 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM
(It is amusing reading – if you truly would like to read it – send me an email – lhfjobs2003@yahoo.com)
My Kirk-fan friend told me I should post it at a fan site, but never got around to it. I chose Kirk because I thought it would be a different take on leadership style and I could not get “into” anyone else at the time. Thought about Kirk, laughed, and got to typing.
kybowexar on November 17, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Your analysis I think is spot on. The dialog had to make the show – it did not have anything else to go on. Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley were actual actors who truly did know how to make a performance. Yes, it was campy, but it was enjoyable campy.
kybowexar on November 17, 2008 at 2:29 PM
The ST11 plot has been blessed by Leonard Nimoy who appears in the movie as “old” Spock. Apparently the story revolves around Spock and contrary to the action packed trailer they have gone back to the character driven story as in TOS.
crazywater on November 17, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Still waiting for the movie version of “My Mother the Car.”
J.J. Sefton on November 17, 2008 at 2:32 PM
From a different site:
Oy. Now that’s encouraging.
Tanya on November 17, 2008 at 2:32 PM
The Original Series was ALL ABOUT personality conflict between Kirk and McCoy and Spock. Especially between McCoy and Spock.
crazywater on November 17, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I remember Tim Burton saying that his version of “Planet of the Apes” wasn’t a remake, but a retelling.
What an ass.
J.J. Sefton on November 17, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Hmm, I guess I will skip it.
Too many movies now are 90 minute music videos or essenitally video games with pr0n-worthy acting and stories.
reaganaut on November 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Gawd, I’m getting old. Apparently I’m the only person here who knows who John Simon is/was.
Brilliant movie/literary critic but very, very demanding.
Okay, I’m just better read than everyone here. That’s my ego saving excuse.
SteveMG on November 17, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Dang it, Allah. You know me so well. Of course I am going to see it on opening night. Maybe the producers will get it right. Or perhaps we will literally see the beginning of the end of the franchise know as Star Trek.
Assuming, of course, that the late UPN series “Enterprise” didn’t already do the job a couple of years ago.
itzWicks on November 17, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Okay, I’m just better read than everyone here. That’s my ego
saving excuse.SteveMG on November 17, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Fixed that for you! (laugh)
kybowexar on November 17, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »