First image from Star Trek XI revealed at Comicon

[Vaderbait1 1]

Yes I know there are two generations and the last movie was supposed to be Patrick Stewart and gang's last.

Actually, there are more than two. There's the Original Series, the Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager, and Enterprise. So far the movies have only covered the first two.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I see. So whats this new logo everyone's gushing about in shock?

[Hitch 58]

So we get a new Trek poster. I, for one, was hoping to see a big screen reunion of the Voyager crew. But...I'm just one voice.

Come forth, brothers and let's stage a protest outside Gate 1 of Paramount Studios and let William Shatner take the helm as uber-director to the young minions that will portray Kirk and Spock in their prime. Couldn't they do a Patrick Stewart / Sir Ian McKellan in their younger years ala X-MEN III????

[BLUMENKOHL 1,070]

I, for one, was hoping to see a big screen reunion of the Voyager crew. But...I'm just one voice.

I just lost so much respect for your tastes.

[Hitch 58]

Your taste buds died years ago from eating too much cauliflower...with cheese sauce.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,070]

Your taste buds died years ago from eating too much cauliflower...

Are you implying are partake in such vicious acts as canibalism?!

[Hitch 58]

Well I did eat my young!!!

[Goldsmithfan 6]

Star Trek should go into the future, not into the past.

True story! This is just the Trek team pulling out all the stops in order to try to save their asses. They've got nothing left and they know it. Morons. You don't save a franchise by making a prequel. You save it by gettting the best story, composer, acting and directing you possibly can.

Wait . . . They took their time with Nemesis and hardly anyone seemed to like it.

Okay, the prequel is a bad idea, but I loved Nemesis. Star Trek fans are just getting dumbed down like the rest of the people being subjected to the crap Hollywood is churning out right now. It doesn't matter how good it is (which this one won't be), people will crap all over it because it's Star Trek. How the one with the Wars ever got the upper hand in the mainstream culture, I'll never know . . .

[fommes 154]

Are you implying are partake in such vicious acts as canibalism?!

May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit, but all new ratings are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find any toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they're to tell me immediately so that I can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up.

[Ollie 1,069]

Star Trek should go into the future, not into the past.

True story! This is just the Trek team pulling out all the stops in order to try to save their asses. They've got nothing left and they know it. Morons. You don't save a franchise by making a prequel. You save it by gettting the best story, composer, acting and directing you possibly can.

Wait . . . They took their time with Nemesis and hardly anyone seemed to like it.

Okay, the prequel is a bad idea, but I loved Nemesis. Star Trek fans are just getting dumbed down like the rest of the people being subjected to the crap Hollywood is churning out right now. It doesn't matter how good it is (which this one won't be), people will crap all over it because it's Star Trek. How the one with the Wars ever got the upper hand in the mainstream culture, I'll never know . . .

Nemesis was the Wrath Of Khan with TNG. It wasn't fresh, the story was dumb. For a TV series the same formula may work week after week but for a major movie people want something special.

Star Wars succeeded because Lucas managed to put something on screen that was entertaining and different. With heroes and villians, a princess and a galaxy of planets and aliens never seen before.

Star Trek gets their chance on the big screen after years of planning and TMP ends up being a 2-1/2 hour mind numbing journey thru a cloud.

Wow.

[Goldsmithfan 6]

Star Trek should go into the future, not into the past.

True story! This is just the Trek team pulling out all the stops in order to try to save their asses. They've got nothing left and they know it. Morons. You don't save a franchise by making a prequel. You save it by gettting the best story, composer, acting and directing you possibly can.

Wait . . . They took their time with Nemesis and hardly anyone seemed to like it.

Okay, the prequel is a bad idea, but I loved Nemesis. Star Trek fans are just getting dumbed down like the rest of the people being subjected to the crap Hollywood is churning out right now. It doesn't matter how good it is (which this one won't be), people will crap all over it because it's Star Trek. How the one with the Wars ever got the upper hand in the mainstream culture, I'll never know . . .

Nemesis was the Wrath Of Khan with TNG. It wasn't fresh, the story was dumb. For a TV series the same formula may work week after week but for a major movie people want something special.

Star Wars succeeded because Lucas managed to put something on screen that was entertaining and different. With heroes and villians, a princess and a galaxy of planets and aliens never seen before.

Star Trek gets their chance on the big screen after years of planning and TMP ends up being a 2-1/2 hour mind numbing journey thru a cloud.

Wow.

I'm so tired of people saying that Nemesis was The Wrath of Khan redone that I'm not even going to touch it with a ten meter cattleprod.

Basically, Star Wars is an action cereal. It gives the audience big explosions and laserbeams being deflected by energy swords (The deuce you say!) but it never delves that deep into the psyche of the viewer or the emotional context of the characters. I used to love those films so don't try to tell me I don't get it. With plot holes that clearly demonstrate Lucas' lack of forethought (the Leia and Luke arc) I believe that Star Wars is definitely the more flawed (and childish) of the two.

Your comments about Star Trek - The Motion Picture clearly demonstrate what I've just said. Star Wars gives mindless action and Star TREK gives true stories of exploration. Most people don't want to actually think when they go to the cinema so Star Wars is the film series for the mainstream fans of films whereas Star Trek will never get the respect it deserves because it's not two and a half hours of people shooting at each other. I say this being a fan of only five of the ten Star Trek films . . . That's better than zero out of six though.

I guess it's a matter of taste though. A slow-paced cerebral film versus a series that's basically a new take/'homage' to Flash Gordon and other adventure cereals of the thirties, right down to the scrolling text at the beginning. Not to say that THEY were the first to do it, but I guess when you look a little closer Star Wars isn't as fresh as some people like to believe. They all followed the same basic plot devices and themes. At least the Star Trek franchise had a large variance in tone and content, even if it wasn't a success every time.

[tpigeon 3]

Because a film may offer more ideas, that does not make it a superior film. Star Wars is a great film, not because of its ideas, which I agree are rather childish, but that is part of the joy of it. Movies are not always about great ideas, or startling plot originality, but also about movement, viscera, and emotion. Sometimes films can explore all of these possibilities, while others may stick to particular areas. But the beauty of cinema is that its possibilities are not limited. One can truly make a great, profound film from any subject matter. Too often people dismiss movies like Star Wars as mere kiddie fare, which is a shame, since they are robbing themselves of a great film.

"In the glory days of science fiction, critics wrote about the 'sense of wonder.' That's what 'The Empire Strikes Back' creates in us. Like a lot of traditional science fiction, it isn't psychologically complex or even very interested in personalities (aside from some obvious character traits). That's because the characters are not themselves--they are us. We are looking out through their eyes, instead of into them, as we would in more serious drama. We are on a quest, on a journey, on a mythological expedition. The story elements in the 'Star Wars' trilogy are as deep and universal as storytelling itself. Watching these movies, we're in a receptive state like that of a child--our eyes and ears are open, we're paying attention, and we are amazed." - Roger Ebert

Ted

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

But what is so great about Star Wars is that it took all these classic elements, and used them, worked with them, and presented them in a fresh way.

The Empire Strikes Back is wonderful, because it doesn't repeat the last film (only Bigger and better), but does new things and expands upon it. In fact, while this film productionally has a grander scope, these characters go through a more intimate story than they did in Star Wars.

It's from Return of the Jedi onward that it turns to crap. Jedi feeds on the greatness of its predecessors, and it is only because it is a trinity of films (I'm not going to say trilogy, because that would suggest Jedi was a logical conclusion), that it is appreciated as much as it is.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture has a few interesting ideas, but they're spread so thin among the long, drawn-out sequences. The film bores me. It is only because of Jerry Goldsmith's superb score that I have any reason to possibly watch this film a third time.

I haven't seen Star Trek: Nemesis, so I won't comment on that.

Star Trek has some excellent films, but also some mediocre ones. Star Wars (1977) is a milestone in every single way in film history. That's one reason why Star Wars generally seems to score better than Star Trek.

I've also always found Star Trek inaccessible because of its vastness. There's not only 10 movies, but also, what, 40 years of television to this franchise. I didn't know who Khan was. So when he was dramatically revealed in Trek II, it probably didn't have the impact it had on me as it must have had on someone who had seen the series (although this may be a bad example - the movie is called The Wrath of Khan after all - it also stands for history behind Klingons and Borg). I couldn't help but feel I was missing information when watching Star Trek movies.

[Ollie 1,069]

Oh please don't give me that "Audience doesn't want to think" crap.

I love a slow paced cerebral film that tells a story and doesn't waste an hours worth of film just showing V'Ger and the crew staring at it.

Maybe if ST had started out with the Wrath Of Khan things might have been different.

[tpigeon 3]

When I say great films, I was indeed only referring to Star Wars and the Empire Strikes Back, as much as I mostly enjoy the others.

Ted

[Ollie 1,069]

Those 2 are the best.

[Lurker 5]

...Star Wars is an action cereal.

Neil

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I almost posted about that.

But then I didn't.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Star Trek should go into the future, not into the past.

True story! This is just the Trek team pulling out all the stops in order to try to save their asses. They've got nothing left and they know it. Morons. You don't save a franchise by making a prequel. You save it by gettting the best story, composer, acting and directing you possibly can.

Wait . . . They took their time with Nemesis and hardly anyone seemed to like it.

Okay, the prequel is a bad idea, but I loved Nemesis. Star Trek fans are just getting dumbed down like the rest of the people being subjected to the crap Hollywood is churning out right now. It doesn't matter how good it is (which this one won't be), people will crap all over it because it's Star Trek. How the one with the Wars ever got the upper hand in the mainstream culture, I'll never know . . .

Nemesis was the Wrath Of Khan with TNG. It wasn't fresh, the story was dumb. For a TV series the same formula may work week after week but for a major movie people want something special.

Star Wars succeeded because Lucas managed to put something on screen that was entertaining and different. With heroes and villians, a princess and a galaxy of planets and aliens never seen before.

Star Trek gets their chance on the big screen after years of planning and TMP ends up being a 2-1/2 hour mind numbing journey thru a cloud.

Wow.

I'm so tired of people saying that Nemesis was The Wrath of Khan redone that I'm not even going to touch it with a ten meter cattleprod.

Basically, Star Wars is an action cereal. It gives the audience big explosions and laserbeams being deflected by energy swords (The deuce you say!) but it never delves that deep into the psyche of the viewer or the emotional context of the characters. I used to love those films so don't try to tell me I don't get it. With plot holes that clearly demonstrate Lucas' lack of forethought (the Leia and Luke arc) I believe that Star Wars is definitely the more flawed (and childish) of the two.

Your comments about Star Trek - The Motion Picture clearly demonstrate what I've just said. Star Wars gives mindless action and Star TREK gives true stories of exploration. Most people don't want to actually think when they go to the cinema so Star Wars is the film series for the mainstream fans of films whereas Star Trek will never get the respect it deserves because it's not two and a half hours of people shooting at each other. I say this being a fan of only five of the ten Star Trek films . . . That's better than zero out of six though.

I guess it's a matter of taste though. A slow-paced cerebral film versus a series that's basically a new take/'homage' to Flash Gordon and other adventure cereals of the thirties, right down to the scrolling text at the beginning. Not to say that THEY were the first to do it, but I guess when you look a little closer Star Wars isn't as fresh as some people like to believe. They all followed the same basic plot devices and themes. At least the Star Trek franchise had a large variance in tone and content, even if it wasn't a success every time.

sorry to make you not want to touch it again with a 10 foot pole, but you need to get over your attitudes, and realize that Nemesis is indeed a rip off of Wrath of Kahn, which wouldn't be a bad thing if done well(see X-2), but it lacked everything that made Wrath of Kahn great. And as a movie I think Nemesis is among the worst Star Trek films, but it plays so much better on DVd, as its a small tale, that works well on TV, so much better than on the big screen.

the director of Nemesis, Baird was the wrong choice, his vision was flawed, his storytelling ability as a director was small. Sad that Star Trek ended so poorly.

[Goldsmithfan 6]

Star Trek should go into the future, not into the past.

True story! This is just the Trek team pulling out all the stops in order to try to save their asses. They've got nothing left and they know it. Morons. You don't save a franchise by making a prequel. You save it by gettting the best story, composer, acting and directing you possibly can.

Wait . . . They took their time with Nemesis and hardly anyone seemed to like it.

Okay, the prequel is a bad idea, but I loved Nemesis. Star Trek fans are just getting dumbed down like the rest of the people being subjected to the crap Hollywood is churning out right now. It doesn't matter how good it is (which this one won't be), people will crap all over it because it's Star Trek. How the one with the Wars ever got the upper hand in the mainstream culture, I'll never know . . .

Nemesis was the Wrath Of Khan with TNG. It wasn't fresh, the story was dumb. For a TV series the same formula may work week after week but for a major movie people want something special.

Star Wars succeeded because Lucas managed to put something on screen that was entertaining and different. With heroes and villians, a princess and a galaxy of planets and aliens never seen before.

Star Trek gets their chance on the big screen after years of planning and TMP ends up being a 2-1/2 hour mind numbing journey thru a cloud.

Wow.

I'm so tired of people saying that Nemesis was The Wrath of Khan redone that I'm not even going to touch it with a ten meter cattleprod.

Basically, Star Wars is an action cereal. It gives the audience big explosions and laserbeams being deflected by energy swords (The deuce you say!) but it never delves that deep into the psyche of the viewer or the emotional context of the characters. I used to love those films so don't try to tell me I don't get it. With plot holes that clearly demonstrate Lucas' lack of forethought (the Leia and Luke arc) I believe that Star Wars is definitely the more flawed (and childish) of the two.

Your comments about Star Trek - The Motion Picture clearly demonstrate what I've just said. Star Wars gives mindless action and Star TREK gives true stories of exploration. Most people don't want to actually think when they go to the cinema so Star Wars is the film series for the mainstream fans of films whereas Star Trek will never get the respect it deserves because it's not two and a half hours of people shooting at each other. I say this being a fan of only five of the ten Star Trek films . . . That's better than zero out of six though.

I guess it's a matter of taste though. A slow-paced cerebral film versus a series that's basically a new take/'homage' to Flash Gordon and other adventure cereals of the thirties, right down to the scrolling text at the beginning. Not to say that THEY were the first to do it, but I guess when you look a little closer Star Wars isn't as fresh as some people like to believe. They all followed the same basic plot devices and themes. At least the Star Trek franchise had a large variance in tone and content, even if it wasn't a success every time.

sorry to make you not want to touch it again with a 10 foot pole, but you need to get over your attitudes, and realize that Nemesis is indeed a rip off of Wrath of Kahn, which wouldn't be a bad thing if done well(see X-2), but it lacked everything that made Wrath of Kahn great. And as a movie I think Nemesis is among the worst Star Trek films, but it plays so much better on DVd, as its a small tale, that works well on TV, so much better than on the big screen.

the director of Nemesis, Baird was the wrong choice, his vision was flawed, his storytelling ability as a director was small. Sad that Star Trek ended so poorly.

I can now see the flawed thinking that went into my attempt at trying to make an argument for Star Trek on a board that's completely biased in the other direction. People seem to be so completely obsessed with Star Trek II and the like to even realize how terrible the acting was. It was an all right concept but it was very poorly executed. If Nemesis was a remake of The Wrath of Khan then they really missed most of the bases. Khan was a simple villain. "I'm angry because you put me on that rock and never checked on my party to make sure we were doing fine . . . Now I'm gonna blow you up!" Shinzon wasn't very much like Khan. He wold have been more like, "I'm a clone of you but I was raised by Remans so I AM Reman. I'm going to rescue my people from their current state of slavery any way possible . . . By the way, I need your blood."

But, I'm not gonna argue anymore since people here are just as stubborn as I am and, in the end, they're just movies. (And, as stated above, nearly 40 years of TV.)

[Ollie 1,069]

Star Trek cereals......hmmmm

"Tangy Tribbles"

"V'Ger Grahams"

"Khan Puffs"

"Cocoa Kirks"

"Ferrangi Flakes"

"Klingonberrie"

I know, lame.....

[Lurker 5]

"Ceti Alphabits"

Neil

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I can now see the flawed thinking that went into my attempt at trying to make an argument for Star Trek on a board that's completely biased in the other direction. People seem to be so completely obsessed with Star Trek II and the like to even realize how terrible the acting was. It was an all right concept but it was very poorly executed. If Nemesis was a remake of The Wrath of Khan then they really missed most of the bases. Khan was a simple villain. "I'm angry because you put me on that rock and never checked on my party to make sure we were doing fine . . . Now I'm gonna blow you up!" Shinzon wasn't very much like Khan. He wold have been more like, "I'm a clone of you but I was raised by Remans so I AM Reman. I'm going to rescue my people from their current state of slavery any way possible . . . By the way, I need your blood."

But, I'm not gonna argue anymore since people here are just as stubborn as I am and, in the end, they're just movies. (And, as stated above, nearly 40 years of TV.)

First you can't win the argument because too many of us are right, you just don't want to see it.

You can whine and say its bad acting, but its great acting, thats why he's such a good villian, Khan was not a simple villian,

as for the uber stupid argument they're just movies, shame on you for such an ignorant idiotic remark. Why visit a board about film music, and movies if they are just movies.

Movies represent the entertainment of the ages. They are snapshots of society, their likes, dislikes, their quirks. If you believe movies are not much at all then your being here is an enigma.