Triaxiansilk.com

I had to pop in to share these...

A surprisingly respectful view of the tradition from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/movie ... l?_r=1&hpw

And this one from Time was clearly written by a Trekkie with a thing for Ro Laren but I think it's nicely done:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 88,00.html

From the New York Times article:

What remains to be seen is whether the patient, thoughtful and deeply philosophical tradition of “Star Trek” is compatible with a “Star Trek” movie that is variously flashy, frenetic, dirty, slapsticky and sufficiently steeped in popular culture to accommodate both the Beastie Boys song “Sabotage” and a cameo by Tyler Perry.

Yeah, that's sort of what makes me dubious, besides the whole idea of a reboot. But so much depends on the writing.

“Someone will find 50 ways to tell us we’re idiots, and it wouldn’t be ‘Trek’ if they didn’t.”

This is true. We Trekkies are a particular bunch.

Thanks for the articles, Alelou. Kinda luke warm but at least Trek is being talked about, eh?

I guess Shatner's still mad.

Can you say petty? "Oh, woe is me - I mean, woe is the movie - they didn't put my character in. Well, yes, they offered, but come on, it was only a cameo! I deserve more than that - I mean, the movie deserved more than that..."

Bit of an ego problem?

Actually, it kind of makes sense to leave Kirk out, methinks, because if you've got a very elderly Spock then Kirk is dead. Probably both times, but at the very least everyone thinks he's dead and he's in the Nexus. I think fact the events of Generations have likely happened because let's face it, Spock's gonna look even older.