Here's the Entertainment Weekly article:

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...and YES, I regard people within the industry as better judges than uninformed journalists.

You can privilege any set of opinions you choose over any other - as can anyone else - but they remain opinions rather than fact.

 

[Tom Servo]

Anyone know when this issue comes out? I think someone mentioned Friday (Oct 17), but I was not sure.

 

[Vic Sixx]

I love the cover
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_en_mo/film_star_trek

 

[Bad Bishop]

If you're really looking forward to this movie, the article will feed your enthusiasm. The article also has enough to keep the haters in hate mode. Personally, I would have liked to hear something from Karl Urban (McCoy). And did we really need to know that Zachary Quinto worships Barack Obama? It's funny that Quinto thinks this film offers hope for unity. Doesn't Quinto visit any message boards?

 

[OneBuckFilms]

It is interesting to note that they are breaking some fundamental Canon. I think it's safe to say that on the surface, this looks very much like a reboot.

If they can find a way to explain these breaks within STORY canon, then I'm fine on that score.

Visual canon was effectively thrown out, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Abrams' quotes about making optimism cool again is what gives me hope that this will remain true to the spirit of Trek, Obama politics not withstanding.

I'm actually pretty stoked at this.

 

[RAMA]

...and YES, I regard people within the industry as better judges than uninformed journalists.

You can privilege any set of opinions you choose over any other - as can anyone else - but they remain opinions rather than fact.

But again, basing their opinion in an absence of all the available information from Trek makes their opinion highly suspect, therefore my opinion is more valid.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But again, basing their opinion in an absence of all the available information from Trek makes their opinion highly suspect...

No. That supposed "lack of information" is an assumption on your part.

I think I have access to as much of the "available information" as you do, and I don't find the writer's opinion objectionable. I don't entirely share it.

 

[Augustus]

Hey maybe I am behind on the times, but I just was looking at the pictures from the article again and it says that the movie's opening sequence is an attack on the Kelvin BEFORE Kirk was even born. I knew this was a time traveling story and I know that the Kelvin was an older ship, but I thought it would be with the Enterprise. But I guess not?
Does that explain why Kirk's Father is 1st officer? They are trying to kill Kirk's Dad?

Did everyone but me already know this?

 

[Kryton]

I think it's safe to say that on the surface, this looks very much like a reboot.

Umm...the EW article clearly says as much:

''Every studio in town is searching for these kinds of franchises, so it was important for us to reboot,'' says Brad Weston, Paramount's president of production. ''But we needed a clean, fresh take on this thing.''

 

[Haytil]

rabid fandom (they're called Trekkers, please, not Trekkies)

Ummmm....no....it's Trekkies. We're fans of a TV show, not hill-climbing adventurers (not mutually exclusive).

Haha, you're totally missing the point, and yet proving it at the same time. The point is not that it MATTERS what you're called (Trekkie or Trekker), it's that you actually CARE about one versus the other - and that is the perfect example of the rabid fandom and fanaticism.

 

[Koinek]

rabid fandom (they're called Trekkers, please, not Trekkies)

Ummmm....no....it's Trekkies. We're fans of a TV show, not hill-climbing adventurers (not mutually exclusive).

Haha, you're totally missing the point, and yet proving it at the same time. The point is not that it MATTERS what you're called (Trekkie or Trekker), it's that you actually CARE about one versus the other - and that is the perfect example of the rabid fandom and fanaticism.

I think you're reading into things a bit far...

 

[T'Cal]

I liked this line from the article:
No longer are their signature Trek weapons boxy plastic toys, but sleek silver gizmos with spring-triggered barrels that revolve and glow in the transition from ''stun'' to ''kill.''
I want to see the weapons!!!

 

[MattJC]

Spoiler: article

The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ''Heresy!'' But revisionism anxiety is the point. ''The movie,'' Lindelof says, ''is about the act of changing what you know.''

That wasn't so hard, now was it?

 

[ST-One]

Spoiler: article

The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ''Heresy!'' But revisionism anxiety is the point. ''The movie,'' Lindelof says, ''is about the act of changing what you know.''

That wasn't so hard, now was it?

So, with that out of the way (and you not willing to watch the movie), you can go now.

 

[God Magnus]

Spoiler: article

The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ''Heresy!'' But revisionism anxiety is the point. ''The movie,'' Lindelof says, ''is about the act of changing what you know.''

This is a really strong statement. I'm really curious if this has anything to do with time travel or will it simply be some odd canon violation that will have hardcore fans screaming. I guess so long as the Klingons don't run around talking about how logical everything is and the Vulcans aren't spouting lines about honor and a "good day to die" I'll be ok.

 

[Koinek]

^Guys, that stuff was in a part of the article tagged as spoilers. Could you please mark it with spoiler tags?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

''I'm six-foot, I weigh about a buck sixty-five, went to private school, and grew up in the [San Fernando] Valley,'' Pine says. ''I wouldn't follow me into battle.''

I don't know anything about the guy, but I like him already.

And I think I'm getting used to the bright blue color scheme for the sets. I've always thought that it would be difficult to re-create the vivid sense of fun from the TOS look without having it scream THE SIXTIES, but I think they've found a good way to pull it off. And I do like the fact that it's so different from the usual "this-is-what-the-future-looks-like" approach, the whole dark-goth Batman/Blade Runner/Matrix routine. Star Trek is forging its own visual identity that isn't a break with the past, conceptually. Only the overly literal-minded can complain.

I'm really curious if this has anything to do with time travel or will it simply be some odd canon violation that will have hardcore fans screaming.

My bet is that (young!) Spock sees a Romulan's face, because it's an open question whether that constitutes a canon violation. Does he get the connection between the Romulan (Nero?) and Vulcans? Does he get conked over the head later and develop amnesia? Are we actually left wondering whether his future comments in "Balance of Terror" are lies, self-deception, repressed memory or simple honesty? Does this all tie into the suspiciously swift way that Spock in "Balance of Terror" figured out the connection, and therefore is support to canon rather than a violation thereof? Was he thinking, "yeah I thought that guy had pointed ears!" And it's not like Vulcans are the only pointy eared people in the galaxy (says the Vorta ), so Spock can be forgiven for simply pushing a very inconvenient suspicion to the back of his mind.

And how is this a spoiler? It's way too vague to qualify, that they will do something that will piss off the fandementalists (that's not a spoiler so much as an inevitability). My comment is pure specualtion btw, I have no actual idea and I'm usually wrong about these things. Anyway, my hunch is that whatever that canon violation is, it will be in the eye of the beholder, along the lines I've described. You can take it as a canon violation or not.

Here's the bit that matters from that piece:

Abrams says he was also drawn to the project because he believed in — and wanted to evangelize — Trek's unabashed idealism. ''I think a movie that shows people of various races working together and surviving hundreds of years from now is not a bad message to put out right now,'' says Abrams, whose infectiously upbeat energy and disdain for cynicism are among his most marked attributes. (Not for nothing did Abrams give Randy Pausch, the now-late author of The Last Lecture and avowed Trekker, a cameo in the film.) That ethos may seem cornball to an America darkened by a decade's worth of catastrophe, but after an election season that has seen both presidential nominees run on ''hope'' and ''change,'' Star Trek just may find itself on the leading wave of a zeitgeist shift — away from bleak, brooding blockbusters and toward the light. ''In a world where a movie as incredibly produced as The Dark Knight is raking in gazillions of dollars, Star Trek stands in stark contrast,'' Abrams says. ''It was important to me that optimism be cool again.''

Another way in which Star Trek is forging its own identity (and with amazingly good timing, too). Star Trek has spent far too long trailing the zeigeist, time to reassert its leadership position!

 

[Tom]

''It was important to me that optimism be cool again.'' - J.J. Abrams

I'm using that as a signature line, great comment that reflects the times.

 

[M'Sharak]

^Guys, that stuff was in a part of the article tagged as spoilers. Could you please mark it with spoiler tags?

I honestly don't see anything in that quote which is terribly spoilerish, but I've fixed it anyway.

You gearing up for a Mod comeback, Koinek?

 

[Qonos]

Hey maybe I am behind on the times, but I just was looking at the pictures from the article again and it says that the movie's opening sequence is an attack on the Kelvin BEFORE Kirk was even born. I knew this was a time traveling story and I know that the Kelvin was an older ship, but I thought it would be with the Enterprise. But I guess not?
Does that explain why Kirk's Father is 1st officer? They are trying to kill Kirk's Dad?

Did everyone but me already know this?

Spoiler: click me

Robert Orci over in his Thread at donmurphy.net said that the plot was the bad guys were trying to kill Kirk before he became a legendary captain, because he was key to the way things turned out in the future.

I don't know how to tag this right so I'll repost once I find the tag commands.