tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post5610483848783683695..comments2008-11-19T09:09:19.791-07:00JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134taylorjs@colorado.eduBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-48614442047026082812008-11-19T09:09:00.000-07:002008-11-19T09:09:00.000-07:00Marty,<BR/><BR/>building the Enterprise on Earth rather than in spacedock is of course absurd, and I don't know how they'll get around it -- probably they just won't acknowledge it's a problem. But I'll be honest; I don't watch Star Trek for its devotion to the principles of physics. I fully expect there to be some absurdity. I will forgive nearly all of that if the writing is decent.JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-91861652884584633862008-11-18T23:40:00.000-07:002008-11-18T23:40:00.000-07:00Point #2 is the reason why I don't identify myself to other people as someone who could be labeled a "trekker" or even someone remotely interested in Star Trek anymore.<BR/><BR/>One issue I had right away...I don't know why they showed a giant Constitution Class ship in a dry dock rather than a spacedock being built (I mean, I'm no engineer, but doesn't gravity make building heavy things tougher?) but I can check my nitpicky BS for when the film comes out.<BR/><BR/>So, I'll share in your enthusiasm, but it's a guarded enthusiasm.martyhttp://martinandade.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-79534646090044307962008-11-18T19:12:00.000-07:002008-11-18T19:12:00.000-07:00Yes, I'm incredibly excited for Star Trek, and here are the reasons why:<BR/><BR/>1.) It's Star Trek. <BR/><BR/>2.) It couldn't POSSIBLY be worse than Star Trek: Nemesis, which was so utterly horrible it nearly made me downgrade myself from "trekker" to "trekkie" -- note I said "nearly"<BR/><BR/>3.) J.J. Abrams would be on my entertainment Mt. Rushmore. Nearly everything he has done I have not just liked, but loved -- and even stuff like Cloverfield that I didn't groove on still held my interest.<BR/><BR/>4.) The producers seem to understand what elements they need to keep (the picture of the enterprise that's floating around the net looks perfect) and which they can discard (continuity has never been Star Trek's strong point, and William Shatner didn't need to be in this movie, just for two examples).<BR/><BR/>5.) Everything I'm reading from people who have seen the 25-minutes that are being shown leads me to believe this thing has been well put together.<BR/><BR/>So yes -- suffice it to say I'm incredibly excited.JSThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12207754797909843134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-69218412194424517962008-11-18T19:05:00.001-07:002008-11-18T19:05:00.001-07:00Whoops, didn't sign in, above was me.Marty Andradehttp://martinandrade.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29090025.post-71264369778095688742008-11-18T19:05:00.000-07:002008-11-18T19:05:00.000-07:00<I>Off topic flag</I><BR/><I>Geek alert</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1086917/TRAILER-Star-Trek-gets-sexy-makeover-new-film-love-scenes-motorbikes-hunky-stars.html" REL="nofollow">Excited or no?</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com