Diarmid O'Connor did you watch the films? They’ve been best friends since the first about 20 mins of the first one

Everyone here pretty much agrees with you on that one lol

Diarmid O'Connor It is possible to have more than one best friend. In this case Kirk has two.

Ya even I like bones ,he has good dialogues and is funny

but, he has been mostly dead all day!

Mlp

+Adrian Pares my little pony? wtf

Friendship is magic

Adrian Pares oh, one part: cringe one part: LOL

Adam S actually I think he addresses him as “Jim” first when they r near Spock Prime’s Blackhole device preparing to beam aboard the Narada

Terrible that he went the way he did at such a young age. RIP

@@jkvs4448 he was such a great actor

Don't worry, everyone. I'm pretty sure Deforest Kelley and Leonard Nimoy are taking good care of him up there.

The one and only Tardis i agree

@@kels-chan5660 you know they are.

take my 600 like

He reminds me of Deforest Kelly

I had no idea that something had even happened, until there was talk about how it would be handled in the film. Went and looked it up and it's horrible.

"Captain on the bridge" his last ever line in the new Star Trek

+Useless Information isnt he in beyond?

Not a car accident. A malfunctioning - misplaced shift selector on a Chrysler.

+AcuraT Thank you for telling me about my misinterpretation

with how awful this movie was, I don't blame her

She was in a Star Trek mobile game ad

She could have and likely transferred off.

MadameDeForklift What do you mean this movie was great

She was probably pregnant with David and that's why she left.

“More than usual”

A scientist talking about fantasy figures makes you wonder if he has become space crazy.

Christian Buenaobra that’s funny I laugh every time

Christian Buenaobra I’m a Doctor not a torpedo engineer 😂

@@OriginalPuro stop being a butthurt athiest. Many scientists believe in a higher form of life or God, who cares.

@@OriginalPuro shut the fuck up you ignorant shit

Count me in too.

i like all the kelvin timeline too

Nah. I'm with ya.

The soundtrack is so good

@@rhiannonjane5969 It's so damn good. Enterprising Young Men is gorgeous sounding

Mine too! Karl Urban is spot-on as Bones!

Honestly sign me up

Shades of the USA after 9/11.

Amen

I could not agree with you more, nor could have said it better myself. :)

This AND Beyond where the message was essentially how we're stronger together and that it's better to die saving lives than to live taking them. And I know some of those "fans" who are like "It'S nOtHiNg BuT lEnSe FlArEs AnD dUmB aCtIoN!" Gosh, they remind me of V'Ger's probe. "Kelvin timeline is not true Star Trek! Only the original and other similar shows are true!"

I liked the intro part of the speech

+Benjámin Kurilla (bbenjoe) I wish he would have given him a hug :D

”Please sir, not in front of the Klingons..."

And yet, they also still have something to say. The first one a little less so, but Kirk's speech here is pretty much the main driving force behind the movie. And Beyond is similar and comes down to a single line from Kirk: "Better to die saving lives than live with taking them."

Still, what I liked about Next Generation, Deep Space 9 and Voyager was that they had new characters, or even new settings, instead of just recycling old stuff. In fact, these shows are basically about "Starfleet" -- and they should have more than just one space station and one ship, right? So there's really no need to recycle the old characters and locations over and over and over and over again... There was no need for these movies to be on the Enterprise under Captain Kirk. They could just as well have happened on the USS-Whateva under Captain Alex Barbossa.

@@Syndur yes that's why I thoroughly enjoyed lower decks and their stories they were so good.

I loved this movie in spite of a couple of issues, but hearing Kirk saying those famous words, it just speaks of the promise of the unknown. it's sad that the entire message of the film is summed up in Kirk's speech, but everyone would rather complain about it being a "rip off" of TWOK(which it isn't) or the transwarp beaming device(obviously a stolen Section 31 prototype) or Khan's "super blood"(which only worked on Kirk because he was barely dead).

@Tom Kennedy Ive never been a Star Trek fan but after watching the 3 movies with Chris Pine etc, i love them. Dumb question but was the original Star Trek a series only? Was there a movie?

I teared up as well! Great memories of that show. 🖖

@@msrobyn82 both

​@@msrobyn82 I'm sorry no one had replied to your question in two years The original Star Trek was a series that ran from 1966 to 1969 (3 seasons) and was cancelled by NBC for "low ratings" before they started looking at now all-important demographics (Star Trek absolutely spiked in the 18-35 demo) Its popularity grew by leaps and bounds when they re-ran episodes in syndication through the 70's, and conventions exploded with ever-growing attendance Paramount (acquiring the Star Trek IP from Gulf & Western) wanted to make a new TV series called "Star Trek Phase II", but during initial pre-production, a little thing called "Star Wars" happened. They then changed their plans toward a big-budget blockbuster motion picture This became "Star Trek the Motion Picture" in 1979 It is a visual feast, for sure. But its slow plodding pace, and apparent desperation to be 2001 meets Close Encounters of the Third Kind has caused it to become derided as "The Motionless Picture" Despite not making enough money (as in an acceptable percentage above its inflated budget) it made enough to show that there was value in the franchise Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan in 1982 had a far more economical budget, and a plot more acceptable to Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Moviegoer. Much of the fanbase sees this as the greatest Star Trek movie of all time, and you will see a lot of influence 2009 got from it. Despite people claiming "Into Darkness is just a ripoff of Wrath of Khan", the fact Khan was in it and a single repurposed scene were all they really had in common. 2009 was far more similar, and yet I still don't call it a ripoff. four more movies followed in 1984, 1986, 1989, and 1991 until the original cast was retired. In the middle of that however, in 1987, a brand new TV series was produced - Star Trek the Next Generation, with an entirely new cast and premise (set 100 years after the adventures of Kirk, Spock and McCoy). While divisive with older fans initially, TNG became the gold standard of Star Trek. And after seven seasons of steady high ratings (in fact, the only Trek series who's ratings actually CLIMBED during its long run), it ended so the cast could graduate up to feature films, like their Original Series counterparts. Kirk of TOS and Picard of TNG would meet in the 1994 film "Star Trek Generations" and the TNG cast would get three more films of their own afterward. Three more TV series would also follow. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993-1999), Star Trek Voyager (1995-2001) and Star Trek Enterprise (2001-2005) Unfortuantely, this is where the dark period of Star Trek had began. Despite Deep Space Nine being wonderfully written (and in my opinion, some of the best Star Trek ever), ratings floundered. It tried to be more serialized, rather than episodic, so the casual viewer would be somewhat lost. Voyager went back to being episodic,... but it became TOO episodic (where a battered and nearly destroyed Voyager in one episode would be perfectly pristine the next) and full of too much technobabble. Enterprise tried too hard to be Voyager-Lite for its first seasons, but found its footing in season 3 and 4... but by then it was too late. Fans abandoned the franchise, and Enterprise became the first Star Trek series to be outright cancelled since the original. The abysmal performance of the final TNG film "Star Trek Nemesis" in 2002 certainly didn't help From 2005, onward, the future of Star Trek was in doubt. The franchise had lost all its steam, merchandise sales were practically non-existent, convention attendance dwindled, and Paramount showed no interest at all in trying again. That is... until Viacom (who owned Paramount) separated from CBS (who retained Star Trek television rights), and Paramount risked losing their Star Trek license unless they did something with it. This is where 2009 comes in. And while initially it was just a way for Paramount to hold onto their franchise rights, JJ Abrams felt it was a way to both return Star Trek to its roots and introduce the franchise to a new generation... and that is EXACTLY what it did (whether the older fans like it or not). Now, Star Trek has found new life. Since then, CBS had grown confidence in the franchise and not only commissioned a new TV series, but an unprecedented FIVE series are in current production - Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Picard, Star Trek: Lower Decks, Star Trek: Prodigy, and soon Star Trek: Strange New Worlds It is a good time to be a fan... so long as one is not hung up on the past and whines about things looking different. I am not one of them

Rendersen22 I know this comment is 4 years old, but you skipped over Keenser! Lol

i accepted it when he took the role.

yeah I'll accept a guy was made captain of a ship without ever having graduated star fleet nor spending anytime on a ship prior to that. Yeah, that guy's got experience!

From what I have been understanding of Chris Pine, he seems to be married to his work, his career. And described like the way Gary Mitchel described Kirk at the Academy. A stack of books with legs. So he was pretty much already like James Kirk when he was cast.

Isn’t it ‘no man’ not ‘no-one’? Not that I really care. Just noticed it.

@@vykeschofield725 It was changed to 'no one' in TNG, but I think it went back to 'no man' in Enterprise. Guessing they stuck with 'no one' for the reboot movies.

The third movie also has an awesome nod to Mr. Takei. :)

"But, Sir, She'll fly apart!"..."Fly Her apart, then!!"

I think Star Trek 13 might help make some hardcore fans happy again.

Doing a "alternate universe" is just a pure excuse for him to make a very simplistic Trek movie, mainly focused on action, sfx, silly humor, and absolutely NO real science fiction in it. Also remember not everyone that doesnt like these new Star Treks, are disliking it purely because they're Trekkie fans only favoring the originals, thats not what it is about. Many people dislike these new Star Treks purely because they dont really have much "science fiction" in them, but just really over-stylized, fast paced, and very simplistic plots catered purely at the mainstream and non-fans in general, which itself is extremely very cynical. Its that the writers havnt really came up with anything new or different but are just rehashing little tid-bits they either remember and/or are fond of, or just think are most memorable to fans in general (Khan, tribble e.g.). As much as you and others may now luv this new take on Star Trek, and feel there is absolutely nothing wrong with this new alt version, at sametime there is nothing wrong with people who dislike these movies. Not everyones gonna like it and they have the right to say so.

Raiken Xion At least the reboot films got some non-fans or mainstream fans into the franchise. I heard that the next movie will be similar to TOS. I guess in terms of characters saying quotes and actually exploring new life and new civilizations. I like all the movies in their own unique way. I just focus on the tones and themes for each film. Like Star Trek VI when they talk about..... Change. I can see some trek fans don't like the new alternate universe is going. But I think it's to get new people into it so that they can learn to like it more.

MythicMage Gaming "But I think it's to get new people into it so that they can learn to like it more." Now, I understand your reasoning but this is completely missing the point. Its really as simple as this, if you want to get into "Star Trek" accept it for what it is, I.e. with all its "sci fi techno-babble". Just like Kirk once said to the Star Fleet admiral in classic ST3, "you dont have to believe, but if theres any chance that Spock has a eternal soul, then its my responsibility". lol, didnt mean to quote the whole thing, but Im just trying to refer to you that very scene, the way Kirk says that, "you dont have to believe". I am in-turn just trying to say to you and others you dont have to believe the whole thing, as in when the characters talk all that sci-fi talk about converting power to the warp engines, etc. Its whats at the heart of the story. Now where Abrams has gone seriously wrong is that he has made his Trek movies purely focused on action, with very thin plots, and seriously fast paced, to which they are just aimed purely at the mainsteam.

MythicMage Gaming Maybe the truth is that we have just got to do as Shatner and even Nimoy have done now and just let it all go, leave it to that "other generation". Its just these are some of my favorite sci-fi, I like sci fi that is fun and has action, but actually makes me think abit about what could possibly be out there, thats always been the essence of Star Trek to me.

gotta love classic KZfaq where comments weren't chained to reply to one another XD

Yes. I've been wracking my feeble brain for a better response.

the fans would've hated it. "they're just ripping off a better movie," etc.

The fans will hate anything different than the original.

I wouldn't have fit. It's not the same message, the same tone. Their mission was supposed to be ending, not beginning. Kirks statement is meant to imply that they aren't ready to "grow up" yet. That they wish to continue their mission, their exploration.

That's exactly what I thought.

Karin Pierce exactly

Matthew Geer probably in the upcoming "Beyond" movie.

Matthew Geer That line only makes sense when said by an old Kirk though, It symbolizes his desire to never "grow up" beyond his intate desire to traverse the stars.

+Matt Boesch well probably not in Beyond considering it looks like they conpletely fuck up the ship this time.......starfleet needs to stop letting Kirk get away with damaging their flagship like that

Rexford L heading sir? out there. *waves hand in a gesturing forward motion* that way

I agree

In the original Carol Marcus was Kirk's ex wife

She had no buisness being in this movie.

@@jamesedwardelmore that's interesting. Never thought of it that way.

​@@Eurasian_Australianwel she was supposed to bd in star trek brek d but th coudent fibdvresonnto put her in so th just left her out aprtnly if she was n mkv th dhd migh Ben hsvprgant with Kirk's son dsvid

Not Song.....Singh. Sorry. Dang fingers.

dtrix10kc Thank you for your post, sir. I wasn't there for the Original Series like you were, but I do remember when it was the only game in town, so to speak. I'm as tired of people bagging on classic vs. new as you are. There are people who think all the spinoffs are insults to the original, and at this point the spinoffs are older than TOS was when it was all there was. It's one thing to have an opinion, but it's another to bash people over the head repeatedly with it. People hate the spinoffs and the "JJVerse". Fine. Understood. Message received. Don't like it, don't watch it. Simple.

Alex Palmer One thing that particularly took my breath was Kirk's and Stock's hands on the glass. In ST 2, Kirk laid his hand on the glass, but did match Spock's. In ST Into Darkness, Kirk actually mirrored the T'al. It was beautiful watching his fingers move to exactly match Spock's.

They should have made an original Khan story instead of piggybacking the events of Star Trek 2

+David Curry Piggy Backing? It was the exact same film except in reverse...and the actor who played spock is Gay...and the love interest for Spock is Uhura. It was lame. Best part was the guy playing Khan. If you are going to go with a pasty White guy...Cumberbatch was a good call. "Oh you are smart, Mr. Spock." Great. Neither Kirk nor Spock was a physical match for Khan in this one. That was new. Without Uhura, Spock was fucked! Maybe there will be some black men in the next film that are not background actors. Dr. Dastrom? Or is he already dead in this universe?

Yeah. Well he didn't choose it anyway.

You forgot the Oh My!

Wasn't that Peter Pan?

Isaac Cowler Yeah, that's why I love the line! (It was from the very end of Star Trek VI.)

Agreed. That is a cool ending line but I like Kirk's last line from Star Trek: The Motion Picture better after the helmsman asks him what heading and Kirk replies: "Out There....That-a-way!" :) I was expecting Chris (Kirk) to say that. LOVE the new crew though!

Isaac Cowler Originally, yes. It connected to the idea of the crew never truly growing old...

She’s SO GODDAMN HOT SHES LITERALLY A GODDESS

@@shreyaskumar1034 YES SHE WAS!😍😂

Mmmmmm... I want to go between her thighs and lick, lick, lick... 😈👅

Damn right brother

+LeagueOfGaming1000 That's the point she's the eye candy for the movie.

Jason987262 I'm not even talking about the movie, just in general

+LeagueOfGaming1000 i could never stand up to busy going down on her

That's what I thought!

At least Search For Spock gave us a rare look into the spirituality of Vulcans with 'katra' and 'fal tor pan' and the unexpected side effects of the Genesis device and stuck with it as a theme of live and birth to coincide with WOK's themes of death and sacrifice. The writers for these Star Trek films are so desperate to leech off nostalgia that they've overstepped their boundaries in the end and panicked and need to bail out as quickly as possible. "Uh-oh, I killed a character that can't be revived by Vulcan mental powers!! I don't know what do!! Might have to pull something out of my ass! ....Yeah, magic blood that will work! That's so brilliant I'm going to use that again for The Amazing Spider-Man 2!!" In the other the writers are so inept in cohesively telling a story that they have to scribble "Get Out Of Jail Free" cards every other scene.

Millions of people at least die.