I haven't seen the new "Star Trek" film yet so of course I cannot judge it yet. My main worry about it has come from mostly positive reviews regarding (spoilers) the 'alternate timeline' plot. Now, I don't mean to come over all fanboyish, but is this the only explanation as to why everything looks different? Do we even need an explanation? Anyways, here's my expectations about why the 2009 Star Trek film will be...
a) ...Good:
Leonard Nimoy liked the script: And if you've read his autobiography 'I Am Spock' or listened to him read it on tape, you'll know his concerns for story, which I think he's really good at.
Simon Pegg is in it: Then again he was also in "Run, Fatboy, Run" (Meh) and "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" (OK). Since this is Sci-Fi, I think it's safe to assume this is the "Shaun of the Dead"/"Hot Fuzz" Simon Pegg. Even his co-writer Edgar Wright has had a positive view of the film, hinting that it may be even better than the Star Wars prequels.
Kevin Smith gave it a 'Thumbs Up'
Positive Fan Reaction: This comes from the surprise screening and as far as I know, fan reaction to The Phantom Menace was negative, despite the hype.
b)...Bad
Alternate timeline: That is my only concern. Can you really make revive a franchise in its original 'canon', put it in an alternate timeline and still call it "Star Trek"? Isn't that the same as dumping the main cast up in space for 80 minutes while a bunch of kids fly their ships and still call it "Thunderbirds"?
