[mmoore]

Originally Posted by Saquist

If I recall transporters weren't just done for flare...but to avoid lengthy shuttle scenes.
A quick jump to the planet with out all the fuss.

That's definitely a contrivance.

Originally Posted by kevin

That's exactly why it was invented. A way to quicken up the story was all that was behind it.

As I remember it, they didn't have the budget to land the E every week, so Gene came up with the transporter idea. A purely monetary decision that worked out better than anyone could have imagined.

[Saquist]

I don't know if there was an idea to land the Enterprise.

[C76]

Here's another reveiw that cracked me up!!

http://community.livejournal.com/zqfans/236644.html

I figure it's rated at least PG for language, etc. Still, I thought it was hilarious!

[romulanale15]

Hey everyone, I'm an aspiring movie critic and have just written my first review about this film. Any constructive feedback is greatly appreciated and will help my fledgling career to "live long and prosper"

http://www.filmfan15.blogspot.com/20...alaxy-far.html

[That Metal Beastie]

Nice review Romulanale15, fair and sober. The only negatives are minor, minor - a coupla few spelling errors. Nothing spell check or a good copy editor won't fix. I really liked your use of the adjective form of the word asperger, 'aspergian'. Is that formal or did you coin it? In any case two thumbs up on your reveiw. Keep up the good work!

And welcome to the forum.

[DimitryZS]

Originally Posted by Kataan

Thought I would share this link with everyone. Ex-astris-scientia.org has been around since about 1998 I think and here is their review of the new movie for your reading pleasure.

It has some interesting points to say the least !

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/episodes/trekxi.htm

Which can be summarized in 4 words: "Get off my lawn!"

It's amusing to see how he claims that this film is "unwatchable for anyone above 20". I believe The Onion's jab against these "die hard" trekkies is totally justified - they hated this film because it made Star Trek accessible to everyone, instead of a handful of basement dwellers who spend half their day in a skin-tight Star Trek uniform. What a mortal sin it is to make Star Trek fun again, instead of men in rubber-makeup!

I'm 28. I watched every Star Trek episode ever aired (except the Animated Series) and every movie made. I built Federation starship models when I was a kid. And I find this film VERY watchable.

However I do dislike the new hand-phaser design. Yes, they always look like toys, but this time they made it WAY too toy-ish.

[Integritas]

Originally Posted by Kataan

I thought it was quite well written also...here is a quote from the articile that stuck with me!

"People repeatedly ask why I am so much opposed to the idea of the new movie taking place in a new parallel timeline, a concept that has been repeatedly used in Star Trek before. There is, however, a huge difference between the parallel timeline that Abrams has created for "Star Trek XI" and the ones we have gotten used to. Because it is a narrative switch now. In other words, it is not a temporary visit of a fairground such as DS9's Mirror Universe. Abrams' version is the only Star Trek from now, perhaps safe for ongoing novel series that may carry on in the old continuity. TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager may still exist somewhere out there, but it is just a hypothetical possibility that some day the official Star Trek of Paramount/CBS will revisit the old universe. It is nothing more than wishful thinking of some fans that the old Trek continuity may still exist in some fashion. When the redesigned Enterprise warps away into the new universe at the end of "Star Trek XI", it is a point of no return in canon Trek."

Outstanding! I completely agree.

Parallel Universes, while RARELY used in Star Trek, are always used as a storyline for contrast and comparison ONLY. TOS episode "Mirror, Mirror" is an excellent example, and the episode ended with the moralistic realisation of "It is easier for a civilized man to appear barbaric than for a barbarian to appear civilized".

Excuse me for being a rabid capitalist, but the last movie has utterly failed to generate the (highly profitable) fan following that TOS did. It failed to generate any significant post-movie buzz whatsoever. And licensing deals for the movie's new characters have fell through. It's a clear failure of branding.

[Integritas]

Originally Posted by DimitryZS

...they hated this film because it made Star Trek accessible to everyone, instead of a handful of basement dwellers who spend half their day in a skin-tight Star Trek uniform.

That's a tremendously ignorant, and more than a little bigoted.

Grow up. This is not the 1970's. The "basement dwellers", as you like to coldly call them, are now professionals in their 40's and 50's. They are married and own houses with basements of their own and two cars in their garages.

Most importantly, these fans have disposable incomes and can easily afford to satisfy their desires for expen$ive trinkets and $ouvenir$.

As Leonard Nimoy has repeatedly claimed, 53% of the U.S. population are Star Trek fans. That's a tremendou$ market.

[kevin]

Then by that consideration, overall, things are no better or worse for Star Trek than they were pre-Abrams movie.

There was no significant Star Trek interest before, there isn't now. No significant merchandising before, nothing now. No profitability before, nothing now. Star Trek must therefore be as dead a duck as it was, and if one wants to choose to ignore the last two hours of cinema offered, they will find nothing different with the world in doing so.

If one wants to.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Integritas

Outstanding! I completely agree.

Parallel Universes, while RARELY used in Star Trek, are always used as a storyline for contrast and comparison ONLY. TOS episode "Mirror, Mirror" is an excellent example, and the episode ended with the moralistic realisation of "It is easier for a civilized man to appear barbaric than for a barbarian to appear civilized".

Excuse me for being a rabid capitalist, but the last movie has utterly failed to generate the (highly profitable) fan following that TOS did. It failed to generate any significant post-movie buzz whatsoever. And licensing deals for the movie's new characters have fell through. It's a clear failure of branding.

Actually ST09 made quite a lot of money. Perhaps not as much as TMP or TVH if you take inflation into account and perhaps the rate of return was lower than that of other Trek movies, but it surely was not a financial failure.
It does nut hurt to check the facts before you post something.