[Beetlescott]

Originally Posted by jpfeiffer001

i think that its going to be like a trilogy. but i also feel that posible trailogy will be like yesterdays enterprise if anyone has seen that episode from tng. i think if there is a third one they will know that the timeline that is going is not the way that it is suposed to happen and they will have to find some way of getting back to the normal timeline. what does everyone else think?

I have said all along that I felt there would have to be a way for that to happen!!!!

[OneBuckFilms]

Originally Posted by Beetlescott

I have said all along that I felt there would have to be a way for that to happen!!!!

Not likely to happen.

You don't completely build a franchise from the ground up, at the cost of $150 Million, to do a 3 movie bait-and-switch.

[Magnum]

Originally Posted by ThePhaige

So TOS is called TOS, and The Next generation Could be the Roddenbermanprise, and DS9 could be Pillermoorebermanprise, or TWOK could be the Meyersprise....Really this term Abramsprise just gets me...heres a novel idea, how bout we just call it New Trek...lol

No the term Abramsprise or Abramstrek is very fitting. Abrams has destroyed Star Trek. Thank God for the Fans who will still make films based on the Correct Star Trek. I do not like universes based on Fluff or who pretend to be Star Wars. As I said the Ship except for the Star Trek 6 Primary hull, resembles Star Wars ships. and In Star Wars they showed the ancester to the Star Destroyer being built on the ground.

Abramsverse Abramsprise will never be Star Trek.

[OneBuckFilms]

Originally Posted by Magnum

No the term Abramsprise or Abramstrek is very fitting. Abrams has destroyed Star Trek. Thank God for the Fans who will still make films based on the Correct Star Trek. I do not like universes based on Fluff or who pretend to be Star Wars. As I said the Ship except for the Star Trek 6 Primary hull, resembles Star Wars ships. and In Star Wars they showed the ancester to the Star Destroyer being built on the ground.

Abramsverse Abramsprise will never be Star Trek.

Have you seen the movie? How do you know he's destroyed anything?

From the reviews of both fans and non-fans alike, he may well have saved and rejuvinated Star Trek.

[Samuel]

Originally Posted by Magnum

No the term Abramsprise or Abramstrek is very fitting. Abrams has destroyed Star Trek. Thank God for the Fans who will still make films based on the Correct Star Trek. I do not like universes based on Fluff or who pretend to be Star Wars. As I said the Ship except for the Star Trek 6 Primary hull, resembles Star Wars ships. and In Star Wars they showed the ancester to the Star Destroyer being built on the ground.

Abramsverse Abramsprise will never be Star Trek.

Just.... wow.

[mego_mcCoy]

Originally Posted by Magnum

No the term Abramsprise or Abramstrek is very fitting. Abrams has destroyed Star Trek. Thank God for the Fans who will still make films based on the Correct Star Trek. I do not like universes based on Fluff or who pretend to be Star Wars. As I said the Ship except for the Star Trek 6 Primary hull, resembles Star Wars ships. and In Star Wars they showed the ancester to the Star Destroyer being built on the ground.

Abramsverse Abramsprise will never be Star Trek.

lets see...no he didn't destroy star trek. he improved it, made it better, more excitinng. infact while i am a virgin of trek and gotten to watch some of the original series and the next generation. he just exspands the universe. and so long as i am a new fan i will support the new star trek.

its people like you who ruin the fun of STAR TREK.

[I-Am-Zim]

Originally Posted by mego_mcCoy

lets see...no he didn't destroy star trek. he improved it, made it better, more excitinng. infact while i am a virgin of trek and gotten to watch some of the original series and the next generation. he just exspands the universe. and so long as i am a new fan i will support the new star trek.

its people like you who ruin the fun of STAR TREK.

Some may beg to differ on that point. He may very well have destroyed TOS as we know it. He is creating a new TOS that is completely different, at least in appearance and sequence of events, from the Star Trek that we have known for the past 43 years. However, the NuTrek created by Abrams may well be more exciting and action packed than TOS or TNG. But action and explosions don't necessarily make it Star Trek. Don't get me wrong, I like action and explosions. But that's not the core of Star Trek. Brilliant strategies and character interaction and development as well as good, compelling storylines are what have made Trek so enduring. How many other TV series do you know of that have lasted for 43 years, 5 spinoff series, and 10 movies??? None that I am aware of.

I am very interested to see how close to the real Star Trek this movie will be. So I am looking forward to seeing it despite my misgivings about the direction that Abrams is taking the Trek that I grew up with.

[RedShirtsRuS]

Magnum is the only person I know who has seen the movie and doesn't like it.

And that "fluff" word is starting to get old. Go into detail dammit!

[Biggest Capt. Kirk Fan]

can we please discuss this topic after the movie is RELEASED.

[JSnyder4]

Originally Posted by RedShirtsRuS

And that "fluff" word is starting to get old. Go into detail dammit!

Gamers use the word "fluff" to indicate "story"; and "crunch" to indicate "numbers" (rules).

In that context, ST09 has too much story/characterization and not enough number crunching/scientific sounding technobabble to be Star Trek.