Peter Weller Defends J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek

fb share tweet share

Admiral Alexander Marcus

Star Trek Into Darkness has arrived, and J.J. Abrams’ take on Trek continues to be just as divisive as you would expect, with many long-time fans still left fuming, while others ignore the film’s problems thanks to thrilling direction, visuals, and action. No one can seem to agree whether or not Star Trek Into Darkness is a good entry in the Star Trek film series, or if it’s merely a good summer blockbuster.


One of Into Darkness stars Peter Weller, who played Starfleet Admiral Alexander Marcus, recently got dragged into the debate about whether Abrams’ Treks are good or bad things during a discussion with one of his professors. Weller is currently a Ph.D. student in Italian Renaissance Art History and Ancient Roman History at UCLA, and one of his professors in Roman art voiced her disdain for J.J. Abrams‘ Star Trek reboot. Weller tells Vulture:

One of my professors, Kathryn McDonnell, a very gifted teacher on Roman art, she said, ‘How could J.J. do this? Vulcan can’t be destroyed.’ She went on this whole diatribe. She said, ‘Listen, I’m a Star Trek fan from the get-go, and you can’t make alternate universes when you’ve already been established for 35 years …’ So I was debating her over coffee. I said, ‘Well, I think it’s more fascinating that J.J. and his writers created a parallel universe.’ J.J.’s conception and the writers’ conception of the 2009 film were fantastic. They do it with sophistication. I find it very touching: That in one universe, this happened; in another universe, this happened. There’s an actual dialogue between the two universes, so it’s not just a gimmick.

Peter Weller also has much praise for one particular aspect of Quinto’s performance in Into Darkness. Weller says:

That whole dialogue between Zach Quinto and Leonard Nimoy [who played Spock in the original Star Trek] in this film is just one of its best parts. Especially Zach, with his particular sensitivity and how vulnerable this particular Spock is, despite the fact that he doesn’t want to be. I get weepy watching that scene of him trying to explain how not to feel. He pulls off a new Spock who is bewildered at the fact that he’s living in a different time and a different universe.

You can read GFR’s review of Star Trek Into Darkness right here.


  • http://www.facebook.com/barron.klima Barron Klima

    Not even about not being able to create and alternate universe what about episode 103 Deep Space 9 Trials And Tribble-Ations The Temporal Distortion Agency created in the future to monitor the time line to prevent things like Vulcan being destroyed and alternate timelines such as The Traitor Abrams Star Trek movies

    I would like to also add there’s no way they warped to Kronos undetected much less traveled threw the neutral zone undetected!

    • laughingKhan

      Of course you are correct….but when its only about visuals and action, any hope for a good story gets screwed….and its that stories that always propelled Star Trek. JJ’s crap is Star Trek for the “non star trek fan”….life long trek fans know this “re-boot” will fail in the long term because “non star trek fans” who bought into the first film lose interest in follow ups really quick and that equals a dead franchise. Paramount chose to screw the poach when they could have bagged the home coming queen. This alternate reality non sense was a mistake. COuld have done a great re-boot ala the Bond series….too bad.

      • Yellow Polo

        Actually, JJ has stated his movies are for both type of fans.

      • Chad

        Last time I checked there was a distinct difference between the number of hardcore trek nerds and everyone else. Nobody ever got anywhere by trying to please just one demographic, especially not one like Trek fans who wouldn’t even be pleased if indeed they did get catered to. Nothing is ever good enough.

      • nevilleross

        Keep in mind that fans like you are in the minority, and life will get better for you mentally and emotionally. Nobody has to please you and fans like you who want the franchise to be stuck in the past.

    • Andrew Reese

      The Klingons did lose 43 (47?) ships against Nero, so it’s possible they might not have had the resources available even if the Enterprise was detected. Still…..it seems you can warp across the galaxy in a matter of hours. As a Trek fan that sort of mis-step sort of takes me out of the movie as there’s no way the Vengeance gets from here to Qo’noS in such a short time. Also I wasn’t too fond of the idea you can apparently climb into the warpcore where matter/anti-matter reactions take place. So it’s really the little things that bother me, but I still like the movies overall.

      Still I enjoyed the movie for what it was. A quick adventure and decent overall story themes.

      A militarized Starfleet isn’t that far fetched, nor are Marcus’s actions. After the Xindi attacked Florida, Starfleet was happy to start arming ships. After the Borg attack Starfleet developed the Defiant as a warship. I thought the Section 31 tie-in was nice fanservice. The NX-01 and Phoenix were on Marcus’s desk which was cool.

    • John Taylor

      Well, that’s been my contention all along. The new movies are a set-up for a time travel movie in which they go back and put things on the right track.

  • Stan

    Also,let’s not forget ,where Abrams goes, Lindelof is soon to follow

  • merwanor

    I am a big Star Trek fan, watched all the series and movies, and I loved this movie. I had no problems with the first one, as parallel universes is common in this series. Lots of episodes takes place in a paralell universe where lots of the cast are evil or at least very different. In this new series of films, Spock travels into a new universe yet again but also back in time in this new universe…. The fact that Vulcan was destroyed was pretty shocking, but also a very interesting turn of events that makes this universe very different, but also recognizable.

    I think it is the best way to reboot the franchise without destroying the previous canon, in some ways this follows a different path, but it is still connected to the universe we know and love, and the proof is Spock. Everyone should read the comic book that is a prequel to the 2009 movie, it truly explains a lot of what is going on.

    What I loved about this movie was actually all the references to WoK, I loved how they payed homage to the classic film but also making it different from it. And it is true that Quinto truly is a great Spock, in some ways he is the same, but in many ways he is very different, because how the destruction of Vulcan has changed him.

    I so wish they made a series of this, but I doubt that will be done as it would probably cost way to much to get all those actors and such on board. But think about a series with this setting, they could have had episodes where the universes cross again,and maybe bring Picard over, as he is the ambasador to Vulcan in the timeline from the previous canon.

    • MemphisAlizay

      Three words: Waited 23 years.

  • VoudeauxChild

    Of course the actors who worked for Jar Jar Abrams will defend this abortion on film. But the facts are, JJ Trek is not Star Trek. It’s a good yarn by any other name, but much like the American Godzilla starring Matthew Broderick, it just isn’t the genuine article. Star Trek isn’t just some random sci-fi space franchise. There are rules to Star Trek and the first and foremost is SOCIAL COMMENTARY. Star Trek has a message and it uses it’s films and television shows to convey that message, chiefmost of which are Hope for the Future, the Brotherhood of Humanity and the continued Evolution of Mankind. Star Trek has never been about mindless action and glittery special effects. That’s what fans of Abramstrek just don’t seem to get.

    • Solgazer

      Very true. They were awesome morality tails imbued with philosophical humanism. They always felt like an attempt to visualise humanity at its best – the potential of what we could be.
      Now not only have they completely wrecked that but they have decimated nearly 50 years of spectacular continuity in an awful ‘homage’ to previous films – apparently oblivious to how badly that contradicts what they did with the 2009 film!

    • Chad

      I would argue with you but you have obviously invested an obscene amount of time on this series and any nay-saying would be useless. I will say this though. If you or anyone else could do a better job with Trek, then you probably would have by now, all Trek fans are good for is complaining and keeping snack food companies open.

      • MemphisAlizay

        Really now? Sylvester Stallone was homeless, lost his dog too poverty, and had nothing but a script and a dream. Even then, it was all blind luck that someone took a risk on a stroke victim as an action movie star. So no, you are wrong that “If you or anyone else could do a better job with Trek, then you probably would have by now” Look at Paulie Shore films that kept getting budgets. Look at Michael Bay movies that keep getting green lit. Citizen Kane as an Action Movie anyone?

        • nevilleross

          Since when has there been any Pauly Shore movies made in recent years? And what he said was right.

      • nevilleross

        If you or anyone else could do a better job with Trek, then you probably would have by now, all Trek fans are good for is complaining and keeping snack food companies open.

        THIS. Good comeback.

    • Rev

      Of all the complaints, this makes the most sense. However, I think I can explain why continuing the franchise in this tradition was impossible. TOS movies were able to thematically represent social commentary because the TV series did so. This reboot is not starting with a series; trying to make new movies in that old tradition would therefore essentially make a “reboot” pointless. Otherwise, why not just continue where they left off in the gap between VII and Generations instead if you are going to make this a continuation of theme? Because then having new actors and actresses play the old roles would be too jarring to the audience. Given the above, they had to reboot the series when they rebooted the cast, meaning they then had to retcon it and change it thematically, otherwise everyone would be saying “Why did they bother re-making a classic show/movie series just to re-enact the same plot with a new cast, how boring”…and there would be no more new Star Trek to watch and discuss at all…

      • MemphisAlizay

        Or, hear me out now… JJ Abrams could have taken that Demo Reel for Star Wars (Seriously, watch a comparison of shots, it is hilarious), and made his OWN Sci-Fi series with just a few alterations, and pissed off no one. I don’t even really like Star Trek, but this movie, outside of effects, was attrocious in writing. Motivations were twisted, plotholes gaped… All in all, it seemed too be trying too sell a whole new product on someone else’s name.

  • Solgazer

    He is right about the first film. That’s what made it great. The destruction of Vulcan also brilliantly added a kind of sadness to watching old Star Trek as you know when watching them that in the future Vulcan is going to be destroyed.
    Lindelof and J.J. apparently made their first film brilliant completely by accident! There is no other way to explain how comprehensively they wrecked all that good work with the second film! Kahn was born before the timeline was changed. That makes the first one a genius continuation of the series and the second one a ridiculous, pointless reboot that contradicts what came before, while simultaneously spitting in the face of Star Trek canon and I think creates an unrecoverable break in the continuation of the franchise. Time will not be kind to this film. It is truly as bad if not worse than the Lucas prequels once you put any thought into the long term consequeneces of what they have done.
    The two questions that keep cropping up for me are how could Paramount have let this happen when they’ve been so good at keeping the Star Trek franchise at the very least coherent and secondly, what does this mean for the Star Wars franchise?

    • MemphisAlizay

      Fun Fact: JJ Abrhams barely has any true writing credits. Even Cloverfield he just tossed money around and had everyone make the movie FOR HIM.

  • Ix

    I’ve been a fan of Star Trek since the late
    70s — I’m just old enough that I’ve actually seen ST3 in the theater during
    it’s original release. And my opinion is that some of the fans STILL take
    this stuff far too seriously. I think the nerd culture surrounding ST needs a few more decades of public ridicule; if it helps just a few more people get their heads out of their butts, it’d be worth it.

    I agree that the heavy-handed moral commentary is largely absent from the new Trek movies, and I’d like to see a bit more of it brought back in. But all of the nit-picking about what or what not is possible within ST canon – are you kidding me? Have you not seen the number of times the Enterprise gets blown up, the number of parallel and alternate universes that pop up, etc. Maybe you guys haven’t been
    watching the same things I’ve seen. In the end, it’s all FICTION, and writers will always invent some sort of explanation for the events that happen. It’s all smoke and mirrors and bullshit anyway, so getting hung up on canon versus non-canon, possible versus merely improbable, is just silly.

    And pointing out other inconsistencies in the movie is fine if they’re that glaring, but if you’re spending 10 bucks on a movie just to nitpick it to death, I have to ask, why even bother spending the money to see it in the first place? Do the tiny details really detract that much from the enjoyment of a film? I don’t really care whether it’s believable or not that the Enterprise can get to the Klingon homeworld undetected; it’s not relevant and not important to the story being told. In this context, I’m not interested in, say, a tactical dissertation on the defensive readiness of the Klingon empire.

    The thing I enjoy most about the new movies are the opportunity to see new interpretations of familiar characters. The characters are rough around the edges,
    and the differences in how events unfold shape the characters in different ways,
    so it’s interesting to see how the characters unfold. I’m not a fan of the too-casual, too-familiar attitudes between the characters – it’s not a portrayal consistent with the level of discipline we see in Starfleet officers in other Trek incarnations –
    but it’s not enough of an issue to make me hate the films.

    • Chad

      THANK YOU. I’m so tired of people dissecting every minute detail, why can’t you just enjoy a movie for what it is? Nobody owes Trek fans anything.

      • MemphisAlizay

        Here, have this 20012 Chevy Pickup. I know it is in every way a a 2008 Prius, but trust me, it is a pickup, so stop nitpicking and pay me already.

    • Gabriel Castellanos

      Yes!!! Thank you, perfect response.

  • Earych

    Hated the first movie. JJ flushed 40 plus years of continuity to cater to the teenyboppers? And now he’s about to lay his grubby hands on Star Wars? It feels as if he’s making a pair of festering bookends.

  • Gabriel Castellanos

    I dont understand why fans (of anything not just ST) have to ALWAYS take such extremist attitudes. Yes, JJ Abrams took some liberties with the franchise but this is HIS take on ST (remember Frank Miller’s legendary take on Batman? VERY different from any other incarnation). Can anyone here honestly say JJ ST is “complete garbage” “crap” or “an abortion”???

    Most of the rants on this article claim JJ Abrams fucked up ST when reviewers and the general audience have proved the contrary.

    I will have you dissatisfied hardcore fans in my thoughts as I happily go to my local theater and repay to watch Into Darkness again :)

    • MGC

      I’m not a massive Trek fan. I have fond memories of the early films, but the latter series’ smacked of “social workers in space” rather than exploration. What I did love about Shatner era Trek movies is the chemistry between the characters, the nuances in their relationships and the quirks in their personalities that, beyond being written, had I guess just built up naturally over the preceding 20 or so. I enjoyed the first JJ Trek well enough. It was an ok intro to a new take on the series that I’d hoped they’d build on with subsequent movies. I found Into Darkness so hamfisted, one note and crucially unimaginative that I nearly walked out of the cinema. It wasn’t just the fact that the characters were so poorly written it was as if someone who didn’t particularly like Star Trek was trying to describe the principal protagonists to a person who’d never seen the show before (oh you know, there’s the grumpy doctor who keeps saying “I’m a doctor Jim”, there’s the guy who can’t show emotions, the pretty black girl with the thing in her ear, she doesn’t do a lot, and the Russian dude who can’t say his V’s). The film was just poorly written in general. Why did everyone keep yelling their motivations at the camera rather than acting on them? Why were they having personal, relationship arguments in the middle of combat situations, these are supposed to be professional people under deadly threat! Finally, and worst for me, the worlds of Sci Fi are boundless. Why rehash a bunch of old ideas from a 30 year old sequel and make an inferior film without even an iota of the heart, just so you can put a lame switcheroo on a beloved scene? It was an egotistical, shoddy mess by a bunch of people playing with a franchise rather than putting their heart and soul into it.

    • nevilleross

      I hope to see it myself, soon.

    • MemphisAlizay

      “Yes, JJ Abrams took some liberties with the franchise but this is HIS take on ST (remember Frank Miller’s legendary take on Batman? VERY different from any other incarnation).”

      1. Destroyed Vulcan, turned earth into a corrupt government, made earth warlike, made the Vulcans bully others when kids, made spock rage every 10 seconds, ignored story that literally made that time travel subplot impossible.. yeah, nit picking.

      2. So if I build a Custom car for you, and made a Prius, and say it is a Chevy Pickup, that means you would automatically agree with me, pay me what we agreed upon, and be happy?

      Fact is the writing self contradicts itself (Government was established before the first movie’s events, Khan was established before the first movie’s events) and the setting is barely recognizeable, it is obvious that this movie was Themed Star Trek because they wanted too sell more tickets instead of making something new.

      3. Batman has MANY Spinoffs. Future settings, medieval settings, crossover settings, etc. Each of these is an established spinoff, and in no way tries too undo someone’s writing. Now, if I wrote a continuation too Frank Miller’s game changer for Batman, and made a plot where earth got destroyed, and Martian Manhunter is now Batman because he saw a bat in a cave that scared him when he visited earth in 2014 (When I wrote that it was destroyed in 2013) then yes, I expect too get reamed HARD for destroying the honorary chance I was given too continue someone else’s story.

  • Roger Mihalko

    talking to spock,invalidates the whole alternate timeline. do we just ask spock about everything and do it that way????…..Crap. Khan was not Khan… Khan is Middle eastern/indian mix…. why would Khan, a man from 300 years in the past, have a big black ship thats shaped like the enterprise, has weapons that are way better than the enterprise, and can do so much more advances things than the enterrprise, it makes no sense.

    The space scenes are claustrophoic, cramped… Warp drive is abrupt, unelegant, and juvinile.

    Quinto is terrible as spock, he kiss’s and has feelings for the skinny co-ed who is horrily portraying ohura (cant stand her, terrible actress). Spock remember PanFar???????

    Vulcan is destroyed, Romulas is Destroyed., you cant have a neutral zone yet if they haven’t if you haven’t had diplomatic contact yet! Klingons wouldn’t allow a neutral zone with a border right next to Kronos, the prime of the empire. (did anyone else notice the outboard side of the main moon of kronos was blown apart??? this couldnt have happened yet?????

    The Klingon should have put a dagger in ohura’s forhead. The most insulting and annoying scene was the reverse role of kirk in the radiated engine chamber and spock outside it, that was a smack in the face to nimoy and shattner, and just bad form all together. I have no idea what abrahms was thinking.

    THis movie was annoying from begining to end.

    • Rev

      Um, I realize that I’m not addressing all your points, but…it wasn’t his ship, it was Admiral Marcus’ ship. They did have diplomatic contact with the Klingons, which is why Marcus believed a war was inevitable…he had met the Klingons. In fact, the whole reason why they went and found Khan’s ship earlier in this timeline (as opposed to the Enterprise accidentally finding his ship in TOS) was because Marcus felt he needed that “superior intellect” in terms of an edge in the coming war with the Klingons.
      Did you actually see the movie or are you just forming opinion around spoilers?

    • nevilleross

      Did it ever occur to you that the reason Khan looked so different was because he’s a wanted war criminal from the past, and that somebody could have recognized him from historical records? That’s why he was (most likely) given plastic surgery.

      • MemphisAlizay

        That wasn’t established in the movie. This is a case of “Fan Excusing” the same thing people blame upon older generation fans.

        • nevilleross

          It`s pretty obvious without it having to be spelled out that he was given plastic surgery to make sure that he was not recognized by any historian from any TV screen, or by law enforcement. Not everybody is as dense as you and the other bashers of the film seem to be.

  • boogers5000

    OBVIOUSLY all you hardcore trekkies know better and can write/produce/direct/cast/act a better movie. PLEASE DO IT I’M WAAAAITING

    • nevilleross


    • MemphisAlizay

      Sure, hand me 130 million please :D

  • james

    jj abrams abysmal star trek remakes have turned me off from star trek, no longer a fan of star trek because of his remakes. JJ being associatted with star wars has turned me off to star wars too. No longer a star wars fan anymore!

    • http://www.facebook.com/preston.butler.545 Preston Butler

      You don’t sound like you were ever a fan of either. Old Star Trek and old Star Wars still exist, and no amount of JJ Abrams or Jar Jar Binks can undo that. It’s nerds like you, yes a nerd, not a fan, that make us all look like the comic book guy from the Simpsons.

      • MemphisAlizay

        Really? Despite Lucas shoehorning constant new things into the old movies, and refusing too rerelease the originals? (Disco scene added too Jabba’s, Han shooting second…)

  • http://www.mediacritiquer.com/ MediaCritiquer.com

    JJ’s Trek is generic (but well made/slick) action beats dressed in Trek lore. Like the latest Die Hard films – generic action with McClane dropped in the middle.

  • Alan

    My constant counter argument to all the “oldschool” Trek fans who are turned off by the new Treks…Seriously, how else was Paramount going to revive the Trek franchise. The old style was just not working anymore, i mean look at the box office numbers for Nemesis…it flopped! I still couldn’t believe the poor numbers $ that film brought in from a franchise with such a large following. The original formula seemed to be build a following on the tv series, then make movies of the same cast a la TOS and TNG…but Voyager and Enterprise didn’t have the popularity to carry on the mantle. So the bigwigs needed to do something drastic, hence the reboot/alternate deal. It was either this, or no more Trek films at all…

    • nevilleross

      Not just ‘no more Trek movies’ but most likely ‘no more Star Trek’ at all.

    • mouse

      My argument is always that they aren’t paying attention. I’m an old school Trek Fan and I’ve yet to see a major argument along the lines of “this is stupid because of continuity” that doesn’t just fall apart when someone who ACTUALLY knows Trek continuity starts to poke at it.

      Not enjoying some of the stylistic choices I get. Just not being keen on the reboot in an alternate reality idea I get.

      But saying it’s bad because of continuity… well most of the major points made on that jib turn out to not hold much water. And what few do are usually so minor it’s no wonder a writer considered it OK to tweak (much like TNG tweaked some stuff from TOS and all other incarnations of Trek have done since, with varying degrees of quality).

      • MemphisAlizay

        Really? Because reading through here, many have brought up the self made plotholes, poor writing, and subpar character writing. You just blinked during those?

  • yo yo

    I liked the new take on star trek, look forward to seeing more in the future.

    some people just don’t like change and would rather a great thing die off before it can come to light for a newer time/generation.

    I am a big fan of tos and their movies, but I really like these nutrek films too.

    all these haters nickpicking on every little thing gives trek fans a bad reputation. It is make believe, it is fiction. Get over it. (mirror verse happened in tos, so why couldn’t there be other alternate universes? Why can’t the captain have blue eyes? Oh and I guess he’s too tall as well. What next? People hate on the new villian because he isn’t of the “right” race or whatever, but the original chekov wasn’t really russian right? Besides, I don’t remember his race ever being brought up in the show. I think they wanted him to look a little different from that other character he played in trek earlier…the native man right, now what was his name? You kow where kirk is thought to be a god or something…)

    Now off to watch star trek awesome again

  • democratnomore

    Considering how boring the next gen crew was in their politically correct universe where no one would even consider calling a vulcan a green blooded hobgoblin I embrace this attempt to bring back the original characters they’re the only crew that had any character. Yes they’re condensing the timeline to get the crew together and kirk in the captains seat and creating a new timeline. This gives them the freedom to take the original characters in slightly different directions such as spock having a girlfriend and embracing his human side more. As a long time star trek fan who grow up running around the backyard with a phaser and communicator in hand, climbing into a cardboard box enterprise I truly enjoyed into darkness I like how they introduced a familiar villain and turned key events around. Treks fans should be excited the original movies came after the 5 year mission when the crew were ready for retirement, this time the movies are leading into it with modern special effects and without budget restrictions everything roddenberry wanted to do with the enterprise but couldn’t is now doable with a clear slate. Don’t deny yourself the fun and enjoyment by being bogged down in rule books that don’t really exists to begin with.

  • Alan Beattie

    Through a Mirror Darkly. That is all.

  • Emile

    This most recent film – Into Darkness – very, very nicely done. Great casting, and well played! That said, it’s hard to tell what to call the latest iteration of Trek Movies. “JJ Trek ” or calling the ship the “JJ Prise” is just inappropriate, and frankly,not cool. I want to side with an earlier poster who called it Star Trek Ultimate. or Ultimate Trek. He made great points ( about the Marvel Ultimate universe) and it seems to fit. Other more cumbersome possibilities; Star Trek -A or Star Trek Alpha, or Alpha universe ( ok, ok, I’ll stop! ) :/ I’m always open to suggestions,though..

    • MemphisAlizay

      You know, I would have been less offended if he lost the time travel all together, thus removing all the plotholes he made for himself, and named the movie “Star Trek: A New Beginning”.

      Marvel does that all the time, and (despite me hating most of Marvel’s writing) Fans appreciate it, instead of writers trashing other writers work.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lee-Mc-Donald/1205872108 Lee Mc Donald

    Spin it any way you want, J.J. is a dweeb. He trashed too much to just say “it’s an alternate time line”. Too many things changed that couldn’t be changed by Nero killing George Kirk 30+ years before his time. All he’s doing is creating eye candy, which is just fine for the brainless mobs that live to watch Jerry Springer or the Kardashian’s. They can’t even follow simple stories like “Jack & Jill”.

  • frisian

    New fresh approach. Trying to remake TOS would have been a constant frustration of why things were or were not done. The new timeline allows for changes to happen without having to be compared or justified.
    I do think they need to be a bit more careful of some of the details. But all in all I like the new cast, and the way the films are made. Good work.

  • MemphisAlizay

    Spend last time in a wormhole, go further back in time.

    Then wait 25 years too exact revenge on spock, instead of going “Hey, we can warm ALL OUR PEOPLE AHEAD OF FUCKING TIME”

    • nevilleross

      Nero didn’t wait 25 years to exact revenge on Spock, he and his crew were imprisoned on the planet Rura Penthe for 25 years by the Klingons, as shown in the deleted scenes on the DVD. Nero broke out of imprisonment, got his crew together, and then took the Narada out to meet Spock when he came to the ‘past’ in the Jellyfish. That’s what happened.

  • JTk

    Different people like star trek for different reasons. I found the later shows and movies a bit boring( though I respected the themes) for my taste, but loved the old show immensely! I really feel the new movies capture the fun and personality those shows. And its kind of refreshing that it doesn’t take its self as seriously as next gen or the others. That’s what the franchise needed. and as it goes on it can mature naturally and delve into those deeper themes and social commentaries.

  • Troy Carrington

    simple truth, there is always going to be this debate about new vs old, same when STNG first came out. You have to look at it from a fresh perspective, just like a new form of art.
    I am genuinely entertained by anything from the star trek universe. Whether it is the perfect world of STNG, the darkness of DS-9 (still thinking it was the best written show on a consistent basis), the brave new world view of Voyager or the baby steps to the federation in Enterprise (although that that theme song did irritate me) JJ’s version is just the evolution of the canon. Just like food, some people like fried chicken, some people like pizza and then some people like sushi. But sometimes, in order to date the hot chick, you might not like sushi, but she does, so we have suffer and eat the California roll or find something on the menu we like.
    People, get over it. It’s damn good entertainment, worth the money and no amount of moaning about it is going to change how they do the story line.
    As for Quo’nos, i’m thinking more along the lines that Vengeance was not new but being refitted…

  • Earych

    Does my heart good to read some of the comments here. I have enjoyed Star Trek all my life, going back forty years. Loved the movies, shows and the entire universe they created.
    What Abrams did was so absolutely wrong. Four decades of continuity was crushed just to appeal to the teenyboppers.
    Its heartbreaking to talk to the young people today calling themselves Trekkers when all they have seen are these movies. Ask them about Wrath of Khan or Trouble With Tribbles and they just stare at you blankly.