I haven’t read the novelization of Star Trek (2009) but I have read most, if not all, of Foster’s Star Trek Logs which novelized the animated series (which I haven’t seen). I enjoyed those an awful lot at the time. But I’m not excited about this new novel set in the “alternative” universe of Star Trek (2009).

As much as I liked the movie (I saw it twice) for some reason I haven’t felt the need to buy anything connected to it. Not IDW’s comic books, not the novelization, not even the soundtrack — and I really loved the music. Perhaps I’m trying to compartmentalize and keep the movie universe on the big screen and away from the rest of Star Trek.

Plus, IDW Publishing has a pair of comic miniseries planned that will continue the story of the movie. Are you interested?

Recall that IDW has already published one four-issue miniseries, Star Trek: Countdown, a prequel to Star Trek (2009) that was also connected to the universe of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Starting in July, the company will release Spock: Reflections, another four-issue miniseries that will follow up on Countdown and detail Spock’s life after the events in the two-part Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “Unification.” TrekMovie has a preview online.

In August, IDW begins another miniseries, Star Trek: Nero, which is set during Star Trek (2009) and will explain what Nero was up to during the gaps in the movie. A subplot involving Nero being captured by Klingons was cut (it will be available on DVD/Blu-ray). TrekMovie reports in a preview that the miniseries will be based on the shooting script but will also expand on what was shown in those deleted scenes.

When Countdown was announced I planned on reading it but didn’t pick up the first issue. I then planned on buying the trade paperback collection before going to see Star Trek (2009). I still haven’t read the miniseries. And I don’t plan on reading either of the new IDW miniseries. I do hope to eventually see the deleted scenes from the movie but I don’t have interest in Star Trek: Nero. And I certainly don’t see any need to learn about what Spock was doing before he went back in time.

Hit the comments with your thoughts on these upcoming comics. Do you plan on running out and buying each issue as it is released?

Up, which opened on May 29th, has made an estimated $241,123,000 as of Friday, June 26th and stands a good chance of toppling Star Trek (2009). But another summer blockbuster, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, will likely soon easily beat both. It has made an incredible $125,946,000 in just three days.

While its a little sad for this Star Trek fan to see the movie dethroned as the highest-grossing movie of 2009, when that finally happens it won’t diminish at all the incredible accomplishment that was Star Trek (2009). Love it or hate it, there’s no denying it made an awful lot of money and thus, in a financial sense, was a staggering success.

In other news, FX has purchased the exclusive cable rights for Star Trek (2009) in the United States beginning in 30 months. Variety suggests that the cable channel may end up paying $24 million for a four-year window.

Those who’ve been reading my columns or are familiar with my long-term tenure at the Observation Lounge message board would probably find it easy to call me a Star Trek liberal and thus dismiss me when I say that ‘Star Trek’ is now the high watermark of the franchise. I’m the guy who liked the past four films, wrote two columns defending the first and fifth, and hey, liked the last two TV series. Most of that is sheer heresy for franchise conservatives. For one reason or another, these entries represent what drove away most of the massive support the franchise once enjoyed, if not as a widely popular phenomenon then at least a well-respected one, surely regarded as a touchstone of culture from the past forty years that at the very least inspired generations to cross racial and technological barriers that had previously seemed impassable. When J.J. Abrams said he wasn’t doing “your father’s Star Trek,” it turns out that he meant it. But not in the way people might have assumed.

Brilliant in execution as a transition from old continuity to new, the new film breaks the mold every incarnation of the franchise has followed since the beginning. For all the old arguments that I would have once dismissed out of hand that Star Trek seemed bent on maintaining a TV mentality, ‘Star Trek’ finally allows us to see how it’s truly possible. It’s not that there was a problem with the approach that was so often repeated or even all that impossible to penetrate for new viewers, but that, time and again, the characters in each new story seemed destined only to exist in those stories. What Abrams and his terrific cast of collaborators accomplish is truly making the Star Trek world lived-in, perhaps moreso than even the famous model of Star Wars. When we first meet Karl Urban’s justly-praised new interpretation of Leonard “Bones” McCoy, he seems like he’s cast more from the mold of Han Solo than the late DeForrest Kelly. His first reaction to Zachary Quinto’s Spock is even one of admiration! Eventually, however, as the characters tend to in the story, he falls more or less into the traditional patterns. This isn’t McCoy helping Kirk deal with aging in ‘Star Trek II,’ a shade of nuance audiences will accept, but rather real prowess. Better still, Simon Pegg’s Montgomery Scott comes out of nowhere, nearly steals the show, and gives the venerable engineer an even more authentic air than the accomplished character actor Jimmy Doohan did over the course of thirty years work. No bloody A, B, C, or D necessary. Well, we can keep that first letter.

The real star, of course, must be Kirk, James Tiberius Kirk, made an icon by William Shatner, but finally brought to vital life by Chris Pine, Hollywood’s best kept secret, finally exposed here for all to see. It doesn’t hurt that, like Spock, we don’t meet Kirk fully formed as Pine, but rather get to know him, his background (however altered by the timeline-violating Nero) and motivations. But it really doesn’t hurt when you have someone as brash as Pine portraying one of the most famous cads created for popular entertainment, tempered and capable, but willing to play fast and loose as the situation requires. In fact, the film’s one stroke of genius is to recast Uhura to actual purpose, the one female in the bunch from the star, as someone capable in her own right, but attractive enough to drive two disparate but kindred spirits alike wild, both Kirk and Spock. In fact, what the film does best is to ably illustrate the old sci-fi gag that a starship crew is always made up of the most brilliant minds. But here, for the first time, we can see how that actually works. Zoë Saldana’s Uhura is not just a communications officer, but someone who can help solve more technical crises, just as the neophyte Chekov (Anton Yelchin, Pine’s fast-approaching rival on film) and Sulu (John Cho, finally realizing the role George Takei always wished he had) do in their own right.

Eric Bana’s Nero has been consistently cited as, if there is one, the weak spot of the film, and if anything, his vengeful Romulan exposes ‘Star Trek’ to at heart be exactly the same film Picard and a previous (or, I guess, later) generation dealt with for the previous four films: crew meets villain, crew eventually blows villain up, thus foiling evil plans. But beyond fleshing so much more actual story and atmosphere out than any previous Star Trek, the new film almost seems to relish how cavalier, like Kirk himself, a plot can be. Having read the superb IDW prequel comic, I knew Nero’s story already, so by the time he explains it himself in the film, I had already invested more than most viewers had. Maybe it’s cheating, maybe it’s just accepting that a hero needs a foe to shine, but not necessarily a real threat. Bana isn’t bad, as it might as well have been suggested, but to the point, as a Romulan should, as any of the Vulcans are within the story, even the stately Leonard Nimoy as the elder Spock. We receive just about as much development in that arc, but there hasn’t been any complaints there. I suggest it’s the same argument that would say the film is heresy just for mucking around with which reality, exactly, we’re going to be following from now on.

Some of the details are endearing all on their own: Abrams and his Big Red Ball (and really, that’s all I need to know about that); Archer and thus ‘Enterprise’ itself being acknowledged; Tyler Perry playing a male character, and carrying his real weight for a change; the Kobyoshi Maru scenario remaining fresh and relevant; elder’s Spock’s awesome ship (the Jellyfish, for the record); Nero’s mining ship, yet another nod for those needing it to the other universally praised Star Trek film, a parallel to the Genesis Device; Kirk taking on the classic hero-dangling-from-the-edge just to help identify him as an unmistakable Hero (though this never seemed to work for Obi-Wan); aliens who look really alien, but still like Star Trek aliens as we’ve come to know them (including Scotty’s little buddy, who might have come right out of some of those aforementioned last few big screen adventures); Michael Giacchino’s score, the soundtrack of which I’d listened to several times but didn’t really connect with until I heard it with the film itself; the humor that my sister couldn’t stop saying was the best she’d ever seen in Star Trek (hey, everyone forgets Behr’s Ferengi, but in all fairness, she was referring to the films); and hey, the fact that I really do need to see it again to try and catch everything, like actually seeing Greg Grunberg in something other than the credits (knowing what his role is and registering his appearance are two completely separate things).

Star Trek could do worse than remain a movie franchise for the time being, especially if this team can duplicate this kind of success (and I don’t doubt that for a minute). If anything, after something like this, a new TV series would once again be a near-instant failure, unless the old rules there were thrown out as well. Saying that I love this film, however, doesn’t change the way I feel about the previous movies, but rather rates as an acknowledgement that it doesn’t take for granted for one moment its name. And that isn’t to say that the older films did, but they played it safe far more often than they didn’t. Worf managing to pop back into Picard’s crew three times without being a large plot point is something this film would never have considered. But then, we don’t know what the sequel will do now that our crew is assembled.

I could probably elaborate much further about the new film’s merits, but like Urban’s McCoy, sometimes I know when to leave them on their own. This isn’t just an action movie or a Star Trek movie, but an addition to the recent canon of franchise revivals that considers the value and implications of what came before, amplifies them, and leaves you begging for more. I could be self-serving, and say I told you so, that Star Trek still has life and vitality in it, but where would the fun be in that? The fun’s in the picture, folks.

In many ways, ‘Star Trek’ is exactly the film someone would create to lure a new audience, but that doesn’t mean it can’t satisfy the old ones, too.

There were some plot holes and I have some complaints but I was pleasantly surprised by the movie and I enjoyed every minute of it. And I don’t think it ruins or negates or impacts at all any of the other movies or television shows. It just adds to the franchise in its own way.

I did a masterful job keeping myself spoiler free during the long run up to the release of Star Trek (2009). I watched the trailers and looked at the promotional photographs but that was it. I didn’t even read the official summary of the movie or any interviews with the cast and crew. Although I knew there was going to be some sort of time travel involved I had no idea how it would work; at least, not until a few days before it was released when I read an article in TIME magazine that mentioned a black hole.

Still, for all intents and purposes I knew nothing about how the story would unfold. I also tried very hard to keep my expectations tempered. Not low, per se, but more neutral. By not following news of the movie closely or reading the prequel comic book miniseries or anything like that I was hoping to be able to walk into the theater with as open a mind as possible. And I’d like to think I did. I was excited, yes, but no more than for any other movie.

Probably the first reaction I had upon the conclusion of the movie was that it was really funny. There were some genuinely laugh out loud moments and one-liners. Karl Urban’s McCoy’s dry wit and Simon Pegg’s Scotty were the standouts, but Chris Pine’s Kirk and Anton Yelchin’s Chekov also added their own laughs. Humor has always been a part of the Star Trek franchise, particularly in Star Trek and a few of the movies featuring that show’s cast. But Star Trek (2009) took things to a whole new level. And you know what? I think I’m okay with that.

The special effects were, as expected, amazing. The battle scenes were exhilarating, the destruction of Vulcan disturbing, and the many star- and spaceships very nice to look out. I do maintain that the U.S.S. Kelvin, with its single nacelle, looked really dorky. Spock Prime’s little ship was unique; I don’t recall any other Vulcan ships looking like it. And Nero’s ship? Wow. For a mining vessel it was huge. And powerful. I assume Nero made some modifications but when it first emerged from the black hole it he presumably hadn’t had the opportunity to do so.

As I mentioned earlier, Karl Urban’s Dr. McCoy was one of the best parts of the movie. There was no reason to expect or want this new cast to simply mimic the iconic actors and actresses who created these iconic roles. But similarities were inevitable. Spock’s raised eyebrow, Chekov’s accent, Kirk’s bravado and McCoy’s abrasive personality. That personality was emulated wonderfully by Urban. From the moment we first saw him on the shuttle with Kirk he was McCoy. More than anyone else in the movie, Urban made the role his own.

Really, the only member of the cast I felt wasn’t up to the job was Zoe Saldana. However, I’m pretty sure much of the blame for her performance rests with the role of her character in the film. She really doesn’t add anything to the story aside from flirting with Kirk and having a relationship with Spock. That’s about it. In a sense, given the role Uhura played in Star Trek, it’s actually fitting that she doesn’t have much to do in Star Trek (2009).

And that brings us to the plot. The short version: in the present/future a star goes supernova, threatening to destroy Romulus, Spock Prime comes up with a plan to create a black hole in the middle of the start to consume it but before he can Romulus is destroyed. Nero becomes enraged at the destruction of his home world and dedicates his life to revenge.

Both Nero and Spock Prime are sent back in time through the black hole, creating an alternate time line where Kirk’s father is killed and, later, Vulcan destroyed. It is very clearly stated that the events in the movie take place in an alternate time line. This was no doubt intended to satisfy longtime fans of the franchise who would balk at a complete reboot. The movie opens with Nero’s attack on the U.S.S. Kelvin and thus everything that follows has been changed.

How exactly the destruction of the Kelvin changes so much is never explained. Obviously, the death of his father changes Kirk’s life. He doesn’t have a father figure to push him towards Starfleet. So he rebels. But all of the characters coming together as cadets and junior officers rather than meeting aboard the Enterprise (as seen in Star Trek) doesn’t follow quite as clearly. In Star Trek, Spock served with Pike on the Enterprise and, years later when Kick took over as captain, the two met. Not in this movie.

To be honest I wasn’t really bothered by any of this. I can accept the alternate time line explanation easily enough. What I don’t like is the fact that Spock Prime — our Spock, the Spock we’ve all grown up with — is now trapped in an alternate past. That’s depressing. After all that time and effort he put into unifying Vulcan and Romulus he winds up in an alternate universe where Vulcan has been destroyed. That’s depressing. And he blames himself for the destruction of Romulus in his time line. That’s depressing.

There were also some hefty holes in the storyline. This “red matter” that Spock Prime and Nero use to create black holes is incredibly powerful and totally unidentified. It’s just red matter. It creates black holes. That’s what it does and it does it well. It’s also a MacGuffin, thrown into the plot to make it work without any rhyme or reason. That bugged me. Where did it come from? Who discovered it? Why does Spock Prime have such a huge ball of it when only a tiny, tiny bit is needed? Why is it red?

There’s also the issue of how Spock Prime managed to be in just the right place at just the right time to save Kirk on that icy planet whose name I can’t remember. He had been marooned there by Nero so he could watch the destruction of Vulcan. He’s aware of the existence of Starfleet outpost but doesn’t go there, instead staying in a cave, the very same cave that Kirk runs into to escape the giant killer icy monster. Spock Prime waves fire at the monster and saves Kirk.

And how about the romance between Spock and Uhura. What’s that about? It felt totally out of place in the movie and one hundred percent unnecessary. Was it included simply to allow for the scene on the transporter pad where Kirk watches Spock and Uhura kiss after flirting with her on and off during the past three years? Or was their relationship included because the movie needed a romance? Either way, it didn’t work. At all.

As I mentioned at the start of this review, Star Trek (2009) is a perfect summer blockbuster. It’s funny, it’s fun, it’s everything a summer blockbuster needs to be enjoyable. The question for avid fans of Star Trek is whether the franchise fits the summer blockbuster mold. That’s not a question I can answer. After watching the trailers I was worried that the movie would be too much of an action-packed summer blockbuster. And it was. But I no longer think that’s a bad thing.

Movies are supposed to be fun. Star Trek (2009) is a fun movie. To those fans of Star Trek who don’t like the idea of new actors playing Kirk and Spock and McCoy I suppose the best thing to do is stay away from this movie. If you don’t like summer blockbusters you probably shouldn’t see it or any high-profile movie released during the next four months. But if you want to watch a fun movie, see Star Trek (2009). The fact that it exists doesn’t mean you have to consider it “canon” or worry about how it fits into the continuity of the franchise.

All of the television episodes and the other movies will still exist if you watch Star Trek (2009). And maybe, just maybe, you’ll wind up enjoying it.

Expectations are high for Star Trek (2009). Can it revive a forty-year-old franchise that hasn’t had a movie in theaters since 2003 (Nemesis) or a television show on the air since 2005 (Star Trek: Enterprise)? With its youthful cast of primarily unknown actors and actresses how will hardcore fans of Star Trek react?

Judging from this thread at the Observation Lounge there will be a lot of fans seeing the movie tonight and good word of mouth could help power the movie through the weekend. Once you’ve seen Star Trek (2009) please visit the Observation Lounge and/or hit the comments below to post your thoughts and reactions.

Read forst’s review
Read Waterloo’s review

Coming shortly before the movie opens (on Thursday, May 7ths), the comments from J.J. Abrams may seem a bit disturbing. But reviews of Star Trek (2009) have been overwhelmingly positive (with the notable exception of Armond White).

I do, however, completely understand the comments posted at Rotten Tomatoes in response to the review. And they disgust me.

As I write this there are 150 comments, all of them denouncing and denigrating White and his review. If they simply disagreed with his assessment of the movie that would be one thing and I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But these comments go far beyond the review. They attack White personally. One of the first replies includes the line “You are a complete idiot, troll, who should be banned from Rotten Tomatoes. ***** you Armond, you ignorant piece of *****.” Another begins with the following: “You moronic fool! How can you give negative reviews to movies like these? Have you no heart, or are you boosting your already-inflated ego?”

One person even writes “I hope his entire family dies.”

There’s no reason to believe that everyone responding to the review is an avid fan of the Star Trek franchise so I’m not going to trot out Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations (although the saying works just as well outside the Star Trek universe and its fandom). No one should be subjected to this sort of abuse simply for not agreeing with (the presumed) majority. It is sickening. If you don’t agree with White’s review just ignore it. The fact that it exists won’t lessen your enjoyment of Star Trek (2009). Trust me.

And frankly, I’m not sure what to think.

What bothers me more than the thought that Star Trek (2009) might not be a great movie is the reaction simply alluding to the fact that I haven’t liked the trailers has evoked. It’s akin to saying Serenity was utterly brilliant or SCI FI’s Battlestar Galactica hasn’t changed television forever. I loved Serenity, so I’m good on that count, but the same can’t be said for Battlestar Galactica (for the record, I thought the first two seasons were great, the third disappointing and the fourth a disaster; don’t get me started on the finale).

But if I hated Serenity and thought Battlestar Galactica was the worst television series of all time, that wouldn’t be a problem. Would it? Would it really bother anyone how I felt? I don’t see why it should but for some reason, among certain circles and regarding certain movies or television shows, suggesting that said movies or television shows aren’t beloved by all is seen as somehow offensive. It’s just a difference of opinion.

Anyway, the main problem I have with the trailers for Star Trek (2009) is that they appear to be promoting a purely action-driven movie, with explosions and fight scenes and even motorcycles. I don’t have anything against action-driven movies, or explosions and fight scenes or even motorcycles. I’d just like to know a little more about the story, that’s all. To make sure I’m not picking on Star Trek (2009), I went and watched trailers for the previous four Star Trek movies: Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis.

Aside from Nemesis, the trailers for all the movies were less flashy than those for Star Trek (2009) and did a much better job indicating what the movies were about. The trailer for Nemesis was unclear but then again so was the movie as a whole. Perhaps trailers these days are put together differently. Perhaps study groups have proven that quick cuts and explosions are the way to hook audiences. All I know is that based solely on the trailers Star Trek (2009) isn’t a movie I’m particularly interested in seeing.

Does that mean the movie will be a bad one? No. I’m well aware that trailers don’t always tell the real story. Case in point: Hart’s War, released in 2002. The trailers I saw on television made it look like a war movie with battles and explosions. The movie, though, was more of a legal drama. That was a disappointment. I’m going to try sitting down to watch Star Trek (2009) with an open mind. I hope it isn’t going to be a disappointment.