io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 10:18 AM
Mon Nov 9
12 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/09/09
08/09/09
Not all the earlier movies were good, but some were really excellent, and some were not great, but not so bad that they should be outright forgotten. A lot of work went into them, and a lot of thought. And now suddenly these new kids come along and call a movie Star Trek 2, as if suddenly the movies that came before them can just be ignored. Continuity-wise, maybe they can, but there already was a Star Trek II, it was Star Trek, it was a damn good film, and it's not right for them to just come along and, well, kind of pretend that their film is the only Second Star Trek Film that matters anymore. With the 2009 film I can understand not including any numbers at all, but if they flat out call the sequel "Star Trek 2" or any variation thereof, I think that'd kind of suck. Erm, guys, you aren't THAT great, okay? You'll be very, very lucky to make a film as good as Star Trek II, and even if you do, there's no reason to blatantly try and ignore what came before. (Not in the sense of continuity, I mean, but in the sense that somehow there's this old, now-irrelevant Star Trek, and their new, cool Star Trek that is the only thing that matters now).
08/10/09
They should called Star trek : ( add sequel title ) example : dark voyage or something . something that`ll seperate it from the originals .
08/09/09
08/09/09
#@!
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
and there was my 10 second rant.ahh now i feel better.
08/09/09
I know Hollywood types like stories about con artists, mountebanks, charlatans, card mechanics, dips and flim-flammery of all varieties because they believe that, simply by working in Hollywood and selling us their "ideas," they're getting over on us "squares," "marks" and "rubes," but, The Sting aside, those movies and television shows have something in common: pluperfect suckitude.
My apologies. Must have touched a nerve.
08/09/09
Though, you know, I don't know if I would mind if they redid "The Naked Time." When TNG did it, it turned out nicely. And, you know, any excuse for people to start pulling/tearing off articles of clothing is just fine with me...
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
"We are real, my lord."
"Oh, I mean real girls."
"We are programmed to function as Human females, lord."
"You are?"
"Yes, my lord."
"Harry Mudd programmed you? "
"Yes, my lord."
"That unprincipled evil-minded lecherous kulak Harry Mudd programmed you?"
"Yes, my lord."
"This place is even better than Leningrad."
- Chekov and the android girls, Star Trek TOS episode 2x12 "I, Mudd"
08/09/09
But really, I wish they wouldn't - it would be one thing if this were a new TV series, and you could have some nice old school shoutouts from time to time, but if you're only going to get a handful of movies out of this reboot, lets focus on new stories. I don't want to go in just to see how they'll approach some existing story or character. I want to go in and see something entirely new.
So yes, it would be cool to see Mudd or Khan and how things are different, but it seems like a waste to have this whole new "reality" to play in just so you can use the same old characters. Use these ideas for comics, for a TV show, whatever, but lets get new stories for these movies.
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
Add a mo' and you're good to go!
08/09/09
08/09/09