BTW, I’m one who thought that Batman Begins wasn’t exactly a bad movie, but liked the Tim Burton ones better.

And yeah, they did try to breath some air into Enterprise in its last season, but that show had already several flaws; I thought that the characters just weren’t that interesting/charismatic, for example. I also didn’t like the timeline of the series – they should have gone further into the future, as Marina Sirtis said in an interview, not back in time. They should have ended Enterprise, let Manny Coto create a new series and keep Rick Berman and Brannon Braga out of it.

For me, Kirk will always be Shatner, Spock will always be Nimoy and so on. I can’t care less for what they’re trying to feed me now with “the new Spock”, “the new Kirk” etc. This isn’t the adaptation of a book or a graphic novel. Why not let JJ Abrams do a Star Trek movie set somewhere in Picard’s future, when things have changed, the Federation has regressed/evolved, the alien races have also changed etc? He would basically have complete freedom to do whatever he liked. Why is this stupid reinvention necessary? Just so you would have completely new characters with familiar names while pissing all over known history? Don’t get me wrong, I love Lost and Alias, I’m sure that Abrams will probably make a good movie, I just hate that it will be a reinvention. And I’ll probably end up not seeing it, just as I did with MI3 – I thought it was unnecessary, I don’t like Tom Cruise that much, I just lacked the motivation to go see it.

As a counter-argument to what I’ve just said, there’s Galactica, a successful reinvention which I actually like. However, I think they could have created something similar without necessary having to reinvent something from the past. Also – old Galactica fans forgive me – there was a lot to improve in the old Galactica and that series had basically no updated sequels, like Star Trek had, and hasn’t grew up to the size of the Star Trek universe. If there was only the original Star Trek series I would have probably had no problem with a remake/reinvention. But it’s more than that; the oringinal series has already been updated/improved in its sequels and movies. It also has connections in a lot of stuff that came after; you can’t reinvent it without reinventing an entire universe. And it’s not necessary. Just leave it alone.

Or at least let JJ Abrams to a Galactica/Star Trek-like series not related to anything else.

Also, one final thing concerning those who are “sick to death of the moral 100% purity of everyone on a damn starship”, want more flawed characters and more action: at least in The New Generation, Star Trek was supposed to be about a future where humans EVOLVED. Where they are more RATIONAL, where they have a MORAL code, where they LEARNED something from the past history, past wars and past mistakes, where they used DIPLOMACY instead of kicking alien butt. Yeah, it was sometimes a bit boring and the characters were a little stiff, but IT MADE SENSE. Asking “have the captain nailing the first officers wife, have an engineer with a drug problem, have a security chief who hates his job, have a helmsman who dislikes the captain and struggles with depression” means that YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT.

The problem is that people in our times are deeply flawed, they like to see reflections of themselves and ideal/perfect characters seem boring. However, you can have anything you want and still use the Star Trek universe – just find a place with some characters which are not as perfect as the others. Or set it in a future where a war or some other event caused people to change/regress a bit. It’s just not necessary to reinvent anything.

(the quotes in my post are from previous Campea posts, courtesy of Google and my infailible memory :P )

Then, as I sadly feared, you immediately went back off the rails and went back to Trek-bashing. Embrace your inner-Trekkie John. Stop digesting crap like BSG, you can handle the hard stuff. Stop living a lie. Come back to the light!

I don’t like J.J. Abrams that much I found MI3 to be better suited as a Tv show. It seemed very similar to Alias which bothered me a lot I don’t see anything unique about Abrams as a film director but then again that was his first film so I guess I need to give him more of a chance. I just hope he doesn’t cast Keri Russle or any other actors from his Tv Shows into the Star Trek movies.

As for Kirk appearing in the new movie, I think it’s fair to say that he’ll probably have some sort of small walk on role, maybe even a few lines. Personally, I think that’s for the best.

Opening scenes show visions of the federation we have come to know and loathe, with ‘Q’ looking on in contemplation. Q mutters something about things being boring, gets an idea, and suddenly travels back in time to a key point in the formation of starfleet, giving it a little ‘push’ in a new direction.

bbbbuuuttttt i am sorry I know you think no actor is irreplaceable but in this case SHATNER IS KIRK. plain and simple……if they think people will accept just anyone as kirk they are sorely mistaken…..

whoever they get the guy won’t be able to play it like shatner or it will become a joke and if he is going to play it differently why not rename him completely and start fresh…..

they think people are so dumb that if they just slap a name we know and love onto it then we will flock back to the franchise. fuck them……reboot this shit…but don’t just call some guy kirk and act like because he has the same name we won’t notice..

shatner is kirk…fuck damon or whoever the fuck……

Star Trek: TNG had a morality and philosophy in nearly each episode,
it was a realistic vision for the future.
yes, it wasn’t for everybody but many more than loved it.
(so called trekkies :))

Star Trek: Enterprise was a step backwards and i’m afraid Trek XI will do it equaly.

there are so many “popcorn movies” without depth…
don’t abuse Star Trek!

The whole idea is to get away from the old Kirk. Trying to be like Shatners kirk is what will get this new movie laughed at. Re-do Kirk.