What movie was he watching?

Kirk was perfect. Where else would Kirk have come from but a slightly troubled, rebellious childhood? He certainly was not a Jerk and I defy your so-called reviewer to cite a single instance of truly offensive behaviour. He was cocky, even a little arrogant but unless you never ever watched a single appearance of James T. Kirk in any medium that is what you would expect. Kirk, as it should be, did what had to be done. To paraphrase Captian Pike, Starfleet needs men of action, those who will boldy go where no one has gone before.

But beyond your reviewers obsession with one Character the movie was, as they say, a thrill-ride with relentless action and lots of humour and nods to long-time fans. Sure there were some minor issues but having grown up with this show (I was born during the original run) I can honestly say that this was the best Star Trek Movie ever. It makes the best of the old movies, Wrath of Khan, looky cheesy and badly dated. It has more action than the Borg-filled First Contact.

And as for the comments regarding BSG and gritty reality, get real. Star Trek was always about a positive future. I would rather envision a future on the "iPod bridge" of the new Enterprise. BSG was about mistakes of the past and human failings. A great series but not an ode to the possibilities of the future. You won't find many astronauts and scientists crediting any version of BSG for inspiring their careers.

Trek Respct

I am so excited to see this tonight. Going to see it here in NYC. The cast looks amazing and though I'm not a big Trek fan, I am sure I can catch on quick with this one. I also saw this amazing interview online where the guys really just seem to get along so well, plus they look really hot, lol. Enjoy the Trek eye candy!

http://tinyurl.com/startrekint

Also check out this gallery too of the entire cast, past and present and more!! So good….

http://tinyurl.com/startrekpictures

Ronald Moore, the

Ronald Moore, the writer-producer who reconceived Battlestar Galactica, was also extensively involved in the Star Trek series The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and (for a short time in the 6th season) Voyager. Moore's Wikipedia entry provides a brief summary of the history there. So in some ways Star Trek and BSG are two sides of the same coin. One thing that's clear from Moore's commentary about working on both BSG and Star Trek is that BSG was a self-conscious effort to move away from the Star Trek paradigm. You can see this not just in the filming style, set design, character development, etc. but also in the very different take on the whole human-technology interface reflected in each series.

Star Trek is fundamentally optimistic and heroic - BSG is tragedy. Their respective treatment of the theme of technology follows suit. This is why the loudest howls of outrage from sci-fi fan base following the final BSG episode came from the hard core who objected to the pessimistic and ominous take on technology (which in my view was totally consistent with the entire arc of the series. Go figure.). Not coincidentally, this seemed to be the same segment that could not abide the spiritual themes contained in the series (Roslin’s visions, the prophesies, the deistic characters, the disappearing Starbuck, etc.). The BSG series ended on a warning note that contradicted the glossy future of the United Federation of Planets with its fully automated luxury liners, eerily functional multi-culti asexual society, and quirky Pinocchio robots.

Just saw ST

I thought the new ST was a great film, and the best of the bunch. And I would strongly agree with the previous comments comparing Star Trek with BSG. Star Trek is an optimistic battle of man and his technology against the evils of the universe. The characters are great and I look forward to future films that build on the developing relationships between them. This film will be a blockbuster, there will be sequels, and I'll pay good money to see them.

On the other end of the sci-fi spectrum, BSG was just a sad commentary from a even sadder producer who insisted on belittling human technological accomplishments all the while promoting such stupidity as heavy drinking, smoking and cigars. (something that cost the show wider syndication) And I hated the ending as it made absolutely no sense at all, and I hate sci-fi shows with bad endings. Anyone telling me to give up technology under such circumstances would get his knuckle dragging, cigaret smoking, room temperature IQ head removed from his torso, Admirals included. And I suspect most people would feel that way. No blockbuster BSG films coming our way anytime soon.

I think sci-fi (and sci-fi

I think sci-fi (and sci-fi fans) have a bit of an addiction to the heroic model. I don't see the need to exclusively offer up reassuring moral parables in this genre. The fact that sci-fi (SF, speculative fiction, whatever) is finally departing from that is one reason why it seems to be undergoing a renaissance. People are tuning in, who never would have otherwise.

Tragedy is potent, and often makes for a better, more nuanced, and more profound story. It's also harder to write properly, and is often misunderstood by critics and today's viewing-reading public (for example, look at some reviews of Tolkien's "Children of Hurin", a paradigmatic literary tragedy, and possible the only one ever produced in that genre....Actually, if I recall correctly, The Tyee's review was one of those that missed the point...Crawford Killian?).

So this Star Trek movie (which I saw last night) has staked out the franchise's traditional place on the heroic end of the SF spectrum. This is good, but now at least there *is* a spectrum. SF now has a discourse going, which can only be a good thing for the genre. I think it's important for SF fans of all stripes to try to see the merits of all sides of the equation.

Search for Spark

Haven't seen it yet. The tendency I've noticed in all media, is for characters to seem/feel withdrawn. Nothing/nobody's open. Abrams is one of those directors of SF who, like Singer, still feels something of an instinct to feature actors who can act/respond with some unguardedness, who can seem truly joyous, open to life. Thus we get Keri Russell, who can be closed, sure, but who can also light up in a way which pushes all her despondent castmates way way further into the background, play Felicity in "Felciity" Still, he, also like Singer, perhaps feels most comfortable (safer?) when there is something absent, deadened, in his characters, as well--thus Jennifer Garner for Alias.

That's what I'm most curious about: do we get the deadened crew that ensured I would have no interest in this version of Battlestar? Or is there some of the relaxed commraderie, openness, joyousness, easy playfulness you experience in the first Trek?

Bad Battlestar

The new Battlestar was horrible. Way to gloomy and depressing. Boring as well. All it served to do is sell more Prozac.

The "Speckled Trout's of Beteulgeuse 7" episode

NERD ALERT!

Star Trek - The Original Series (TOS)

I bought the book "Inside StarTrek: The Real Story" by Herb Solow and Bob Justman [Pocket Books 1996] a few years ago, but only read it a few months ago.

Read the book and you will be surprised at the struggles, shrinking budgets and personality conflicts that dogged the original series. It's amazing it lasted three years.

I enjoyed the new Star Trek movie. It's a well-done action movie with good craft, script, acting and pacing. It does not take itself too seriously, and neither should its audience. Just enjoy it, it's not some profound statement about the human condition or screed about environmental destruction (i.e. the dreadful remake of 'The DAy the Earth Stood Still').

To my mind, without spoiling anything, the main story element is remarkable similar to a script from ST-Voyager.

Who on earth is "Uhuru", Burgess?

It's UHURA. Turn in your trekkie card at the door on the way out.

I found the movie a bit too reliant on coincidence. Kirk grew up next to a starship-construction field? Kirk was marooned on the one planet in the universe where Scotty and Spock waited to tell him what's going on? A Starfleet captain would make a stowaway recruit with anger issues his first officer during a battle?

But who cares? This movie was shiny, loud, fast, and Rick Berman didn't direct it. I hope to see more of this Trek over the next decade. Not a bad first effort for Abrams.

I wonder what Star Trek IV: The One With Whales would have looked like with J.J. directing it.

Star Trek II: The Search for Uhuru

I better get a screenwriting credit for that sure-fire sequel. Or maybe I thought the final "u" was just Abrams blowing up the whole paradigm.

Certainly the general reaction to the movie has been overwhelmingly positive--I guess this was what fans wanted. And I'll grant you that Trek fans didn't want a complex Battlestar-style rethink. But I agree with you Gabe--the screenplay is lazy. I think the TV roots really show here as they always have with Trek films. I had hoped that this version would be a cut above in every respect. To my mind, it really isn't. Plus, I keep coming back to the cast and in particular the Cap. I simply did not enjoy watching the smirking antics of Chris Pine, which were annoying without hinting at much more. I think the original series benefited from its gradual escalation into the top ranks of pop culture--most of us were introduced to Shatner's Kirk after the fact, as part of the whole 60's-era package. By contrast Pine's version of Kirk has to be a home run right off the bat. It isn't. Plus there's a scene near the end where he really does what amounts to a Shatner impression. It draws comparisons, and that does not serve him well here.