Star Trek (4k Ultra HD + Blu-Ray + Digital HD)

Every time I watch this movie I am reminded how much I enjoy it. Let me say from the start that I grew up on the original series (TOS), and I am a die-hard "Star Trek" fan. However, since TOS is truly unique and unrepeatable, I don't judge the movie by those standards, as I think to do so is a losing proposition. Why not let this movie stand or fall on its own merits? Why not appreciate it for what it is rather than what some people imagine it should have been? For people familiar with TOS, there are definitely moments that are genuinely Star Trek, such as the interactions between Kirk/Spock and Kirk/McCoy. It was funny, for instance, to hear what they suggested as the origins of McCoy's nickname, Bones. McCoy also has some classic moments when, like his TOS counterpart, his emotions get the better of him. And then there is the scene where Chekov attempts to speak his password to the computer, only to be initially rejected because of his thick Russian accent ("Wictor, Wictor" instead of "Victor, Victor"). These are the kinds of moments that made TOS truly memorable, and it was wonderful to see them in the movie. I think Zachary Quinto does exceedingly well as the young Spock. I found young Kirk's character to be a little more reckless than I think is necessary, but Chris Pine did a fine job portraying him. We learned the first names of several major characters. There is plenty of action, excellent special effects, and a good story line. And, just like TOS, there are some very funny one-liners. I actually would give the movie four and a half stars if I could. Despite the high entertainment value of this movie, there were a few things that proved to be just plain silliness for me. Overall they did not ruin the movie, but they were certainly momentary distractions and warranted a minor deduction in my rating: 1. The whole Spock/Uhura romance is utterly foreign to TOS, so I don't know why it was introduced in this movie. It just seemed pointless to me. 2. The idea of the "red matter" was also problematic. TOS was consistent in making the science of its day very believable. Even though the show was science fiction, many of the concepts contained therein were based on real science. How is it, then, that while one drop of the red matter can create a small black hole, it can be touched with a syringe and stored in a container? 3. Arguably the most absurd aspect of the technology in the movie was the decision to use a brewery for the engineering shots. My goodness, it's the 23rd century. Take a look at the Enterprise's bridge. It's brimming with ultra hi-tech equipment, yet the engineering section of the ship consists of lots of pipes, valves, barrels, and very 20th-century looking panels and boxes. Bad, bad choice. Despite these minor distractions, I would definitely recommend this movie. It is highly entertaining, fast-paced, action-filled, and engaging.

How do you revive a classic Sci Fi TV series with a devoted, loyal cult following that will crush you if you screw it up? Clearly you hire JJ Abrams to produce and direct. I consider myself somewhat of a Trekie. I've seen every episode of the original TV series...at least 3 times. I've seen each of the major motion pictures...at least twice. I've seen all of the spin off TV series and their respective motion picture spinoffs at minimum once. So, yeah, I'd say I'm a fan. And there are fans that DO NOT want their stuff messed with no matter what. After seeing Abrams' Star Trek, I can't believe that any loyal fan...even the preservationists...could be unhappy. But there are those that will just be impossible to please, evidenced by the fair amount of strong criticism in the review section of this page alone. I, on the other hand, am firmly in the camp of this-was-a-great-movie! Abrams and his cast pay homage to everything that made the original TV series a classic. The movie takes you back through time to some short segments about Kirk's and Spock's childhood, then quickly moves to and progresses from when the two board the Enterprise for their first times. And they are of course joined by the other primary characters from the original TV series. All of the characters attempt to channel a bit of the persona and dispositions of the original actors, and they do a terrific job combining the natures of the original characters with some modern day personality polish. Abrams version of Star Trek might rewrite some of what was solidly in place with years of Star Trek history, and that might indeed be what has a Tribble in the bonnet of some of the preservationists. But Abrams' version has mostly succeeded in revitalizing a series that was inevitable to be remade by someone. So to the preservationists I say, be very very happy that you got such a great movie that is such a tribute to Gene Roddenberry's vision. Star Trek 2009 has a lot action, a great cast, a fine story...I was thoroughly entertained from start to finish. My only problem with this movie is that it was too short. That's right...I said too SHORT. I'm usually complaining about how unnecessarily long Hollywood makes its movies these days. But if you watch the deleted scenes that are included on Disk 2 of the Blu Ray package, you actually learn stuff that would have enhanced the theatrical version of the movie had it not been cut out. One thing that won't be short is the life of the new franchise that Abrams has created. These are the MAIDEN voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Where no man has gone before. Jump on board this initial voyage of what I'm guessing will be many before Abrams is done.

The 4% who hate this, are emotionally compromised by their own idiocracy. While this is by no means the best thing in the world, with no flaws and perfect everything, it is still a good movie. Opinions aside, the facts remain, this is an okay movie, meant to stimulate the mind, and evoke the emotions. The actors they chose to reprise the roles in this alternate timeline, were no less than almost perfect choices. The more perfect choices were Scotty, Spock, and probably Uhura. The less perfect choices were the rest of the main crew, but still well picked. They fit well enough with the original roles, to make it funny, but stood enough apart to make one realize that this was an entirely different era. As they said in the movie, it's an alternate reality. Whatever might have happened, has now not, because of the events surrounding Nero (or Oren, with a little ^ above the e, in Romulan). So although they share characteristics with their predecessors, events have helped shape them into their own individuals. As Pike pointed out in the beginning, he believed Kirk acted out because he grew up without a father. His stepfather was apparently mean to him and his brother George (there's more details in the book and extended lore than the movie can show in this limited time), so he felt this need to "rebel", and it would account for this Kirk to be a little more brash and "boyish" than the original series Kirk. Which, of course, we see as much older, in the role of Shatner, versus the younger Pine. Spock, who did not lose Vulcan in the original series, and Bones who did not meet with Kirk aboard the shuttle to Starfleet Academy, are, of course, both different as well. The directing was less than perfect. It's only when you're in the pitch dark on a tiny screen with maximum brightness, that you notice the terrible use of lens flaring. Or if you pa attention to those sorts of things, and let it distract you from the storyline. I usually ignore that part. Abrams, while not a bad director, did make a few bad calls, in the over use of basically everything. Less is more. Aside from the light show, the scenery is actually quite pretty. Not exactly what space would probably really look like, but there are also a lot of places that kind of do look like they're from a science fiction movie. Lots of pretty nebulas. As far as storyline goes, while they did force a lot of things, and skipped over others, it's not bad. It's not quite the same "secret but not secret" storyline that the Trek shows did (like referencing ecology, eugenics, feminism, nazis, racism, gays, and all in space!), but it did help to establish a sort of "backstory" for this brand new alternate timeline, and pave the way for future movies. It gave you something that you could reference later on, in order to understand how this timeline works. While not the best in the world, compared to a lot of other trek stories, this isn't one of the worse ones. Definitely one of the better ones, in fact. Compared to, at least, some of the really terrible ones. And I mean terrible. If it was a bad idea, probably written by Roddenberry. The best scripts were usually Fontana's. So, with that all said and done, and in conclusion, if you don't mind science fiction, you've never really gotten into Star Trek, or you're just bored and have nothing else to watch, give this a try. Why you wouldn't have seen it yet, at this point in time (seriously it's been almost 10 years), I don't know, but watch it. You won't regret it. Unless you're one of those 4% who are idiots who either try to hard, expect way too much, are idiotic, or just don't like science fiction in general and really shouldn't be watching this and reviewing it, then. Enjoy. And live long and prosper.

While strict believers in Star Trek canon may have some trouble with the idea of an alternate-storyline Trekiverse adventure, this movie has likely saved the franchise from exiting stage left at the last Starfleet outpost. My father and I are old-time Star Trek fans and we were there on opening-night when this movie came out. At the time we had trouble with certain things. Not the growing romance between Spock and Uhura so much- that was a nice touch actually. What bothered us more than anything was the destruction of Vulcan and the alternate- read bogus- series of events that took place after. Some things are just best left alone we thought. Fast forward to now. I had put off buying this movie for a long time, opting to pout about the changes that I did not exactly like. Finally, at the insistence of my wife I went ahead and bought it on sale here at Amazon for $9.99. It was cheap so why not? So we put it in and watched. I had an epiphany to say the least. I love the classics and some of the Star Trek episodes and movies of the past are just that to me- classics. So I was surprised when re-watching Star Trek 2009 that the changes no longer bothered me. In fact, the gusto which the new cast brought to their roles and the energy that seemed to spring from the new interpretation was very moving. I couldn't take my eyes off it this time around. It is a good movie let me tell you. I do not know what gave way. Maybe it was the changes that have occurred in my life since 2009 that changed my tune. I did get married and move out of state for the first time ever. Or maybe it was the effects of the economic downfall. Whatever it was, I realized that Star Trek in its old incarnation had reached the end of the line and run out of gas. The reboot gave it what it needed to survive- a new purpose and actors who are fresh on the scene to whom the Trekiverse is exciting rather than just a day on the job. As Zen Buddhist philosophy dictates- without change we die. Maybe this was for the best. I will not give away more plot details for those who have not watched the movie already but I will heartily recommend it. It is fun for anyone who likes action-adventures and space westerns for sure. It is even fun for an old Trekkie like me because while different, it feels fresh. Changes are not too radical a departure from the nuts and bolts of old Star Trek lore so sitting down and picking it up is easy. For being available at such a low price in HD, my recommendation is if you have been putting off watching this movie, boldly go where you have not gone before and click ADD TO CART. You will not regret it.

I agree this "Star Trek" is very entertaining eye candy that relies to much on CGI effects. However, it was fun and entertaining. I agree with Matthew T. Weflen "Matthew Weflen" (Chicago, IL) and all his technology praise. (I'm a Trekkie and not a Teckkie and could never have done the great job he did describing its great technological advances.) They are right on. I agree with L P "lilip" (Los Angeles)'s " . . . Star Trek: The Original Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, and Voyager are all rendered invalid, because a couple of writers . . ." This movie has no relation with the Star Trek universe at all but to rip off the name for ticket and DVD sells. But I do have and easy fix for future sequels to this movie to bring it in line. First, J.J. Abrams' needs to sit down and watch all 600+ episodes of the 4 series and all the previous movies to wake-up to the critical importance of Vulcan and that you can't wipe it out of existence and still have a Star Trek storyline. Second, fire his two writers and never use them again. How do you undo the damage Mr. Abrams has done? Easy, Hollywood's done it before! Do a "DALLAS". In the opening scene of the next movie have Kirk come to on the floor of the bar and say, "WOW, what I dream I just had." And try again. This movie is like two earlier ones Hollywood put out I can mention as examples: James Cameron's "Titanic" and Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor". These two movies had nothing to do with either the Titanic or Pearl Harbor. They were just backdrops to love stories. As, I have told other's, "You want to see a great movie about the Titanic, watch "A Night to Remember", want to see a great movie about Pearl Harbor, watch "Tora, Tora, Tora"." But those two by Cameron and Bay are just great love story movies with famous backdrops, and with little accuracy to those backdrops. The same holds true with this movie. If you're a "Trekkie" like me, enjoy the film for the eye candy it is. Just remember, it is just a good bang-bang shoot'em up using the Star Trek universe as a backdrop. Watch the earlier Star Trek movies and series for true Star Trek. Want Hollywood to correct itself. Boycott any future ones by Abrams. Hitting Hollywood in the pocketbook ALWAYS gets their attention! So, enjoy the movie, it has great special effects, great new actors, and great picture quality. But Star Trek, it isn't.

The film explores the back stories of James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto), before they unite aboard the USS Enterprise to combat Nero (Eric Bana), a Romulan from the future who threatens to destroy the United Federation of Planets. Let me start off by saying that I'm not a Trekkie (is that how you spell it?) in any way nor have I seen a single second of the Star Trek universe in my entire life. In fact, I never really wanted to watch the films in the first place because they never interested me. However, since the fantastic J.J. Abrams was on board, I knew I should see this film. To my relief, the film was great. In fact, it's the best movie I've seen this year thus far! If you find yourself almost teary in the first few minutes of this film, you know it'll be good. The film is character driven. There's a lot of action sequences, yes, but the film is really character driven. In fact, the high point of the film was its characters and the casting made it possible. From a glance, Chris Pine doesn't seem like the "right" person to be in the movie. After all, he doesn't have a good track record for the movies he has starred in so far. However, he really does a great job playing the charismatic, smart talk guy. Zachary Quinto does an equally exceptional job as Spock, a name I've heard so many times without knowing who he really was. Eric Bana plays an almost unrecognizable performance as the "villain." Simon Pegg and Karl Urban play the comedic relief characters. And to wrap the diverse ensemble up, Zoe Saldana, Ben Cross, John Cho, and Winona Ryder give us each a unique performance. Apart from the cast, the action sequences were amazing, along with the special effects. The score by the underrated Michael Giacchino is great, especially hearing the theme song for the first time. However, the story is also really great. I didn't realize this was a time movie at first. I found it mentally stimulating. The laid back feel and the slapstick humor adds to the immense satisfaction when the credits roll. The film is really good because there's almost nothing bad to say about it. Yes, maybe you can find one small detail here and there that doesn't make the film perfect, but no movies are perfect. This movie is human, with sharp dialogue, and fantastic characters, a complex story, with action sequences to fill on top. If you haven't seen a summer movie yet, make this your first one. As you can see, the film is very accessible for non-Trekkies. However, I'm sure the die-hard Trekkies will appreciate the new, fresh zest Abrams have brought into the film.

9/8/66. It's a badge that Original Trekkers wear proudly -- the date that the very first Star Trek episode ("The Man Eater") appeared on television. I bear it, and Star Trek hooked me that very Thursday evening, and for the next three years, I sat through all 69 episodes, both the best ("Oh Boy! The Trouble with Tribbles") and the worse ("Oh, no! Not that one!"). When they began to appear in syndication, I watched them over and over until I could repeat the lines with the characters. And, no, I'm not going to tell you who my favorite character was. It's been 43 years since that first episode. I'm still hooked. A lot of my compatriots have said that J.J. Adams' "reboot" of the Star Trek franchise went too far -- they weren't ready for some of the things that happened (and, for the sake of those readers who have not seen the movie, I'm not going to reveal what those things are). They didn't like the changes in the mythos that occurred. OK, fine. Different strokes ... I, however, love this film, and would have gone to see it over and over again if it hadn't been that my darling didn't really want to (and our budget didn't allow it). So what if things changed? It's an alternate universe -- and any Trekker worth her salt will recognize those occur -- Remember "Mirror, Mirror?" A planet blows up, and I admit, given the planet, I'm pretty sad (no, it's not Earth). I'm also sad that Scottie used Admiral Archer's favorite beagle for an experiment, and it hasn't been seen since (Okay, so one slipped out). However, the most powerful ideas and characters remain true to their alternate others: Kirk is strong, handsome, creative in a crisis (and may be a womanizer, although he doesn't get the woman he wants here), even if he's not William Shatner. Spock struggles to keep his emotions in check and his logic foremost (tremendously well-played by Zachary Quinto). "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban, unexpectedly unlike many of his fantasy and SF rolls)is humane, funny, and passionate -- and a lot better looking than the well-beloved, late DeForest Kelley. Bruce Greenwood ("The Core"), Simon Pegg, Ben Cross (superb as Sarak) and Winona Ryder (Amanda! And I am getting to be too old) are all wonderful, and add strength, passion and substance to both their characters and the film. It was, however, sad to see Leonard Nimoy, as "our" Mr./Abassador Spock, late in his life, and know we probably never see him in another Star Trek film. So. Buy it? Damn straight. Get it for your children and yourselves. Star Trek would have never died for me, anyway, because I've dreamed of walking on another planet ever since I saw that first episode. But now, Star Trek will come alive for a fourth generation to learn those same dreams.

Excellent movie and introduction to a reimagined Star Trek universe. It is to the original Star Trek like the Battlestar Galactica reboot was to that original. J. J. Abrams rocked the new version. Here is what I like: + much more fully formed than the original + a darker take with faster pace that is compelling + excellent casting, especially Spock (all 3 - young, adult and alternate universe), Bones and Scotty + I am very happy that Leonard Nimoy appears here and ties this so well to the original + how this universe came to be vs the original is explained (kind of a twist on the original "mirror mirror" episode) + the sets and effects are very well done by today's standards but keeping a sense of the original. + there seems just the right amount of humor to keep the mood from going too dark + J. J. Abrams did a fantastic job balancing his style with the essence of Star Trek Here is what might have been better:(but this is pretty nit-picky) - The Nero and the Romulan crew seem a little "over the top" for this new take - Some things didn't make sense - like old-Spock seeing Vulcan from another star system like he was on a moon I didn't expect to like this reboot of the original star trek much, but I really do. The sequels (into darkness and beyond) do not seem quite as good to me but certainly very enjoyable. With the passing of Anton Yelchin (plays Pavel Chekov) I wonder if there will be any more sequels. I hope so. If you are open to a reboot (I was prepared by the Battlestar Galactical one) that honors the original well you'll probably will enjoy this take on the Star Trek universe. It's younger and more hip (am I giving away how old I am?) than the original and TNG variations and exceeded my expectations. I think it deserves 5 stars for sure. .

Great movie and always good to own a physical copy these days

Zuallererst: Diese Bluray ist exzellent gemacht und gibt die bei SF-Filmen so wichtigen Spezialeffekte wunderbar wieder. Erstklassige Bild- und Tonqualität! Zum Film: Für Trekkies absolute Kaufempfehlung, für alle anderen: eine Überlegung zum Einstieg wert! Im Detail: Star Trek war eigentlich (wieder mal) tot. Nach den letzten eher drögen Filmen um die "Next Generation" war kein Nachfolger in Sicht. Aber inzwischen sind ja Zeitsprünge, alternative Universen und Prequels bestens beim Publikum eingeführt - warum nicht alle drei nutzen und die einzig wahre Enterprise-Crew wiederbeleben? Und so bekommt Star Trek einen neuen Anfang, ein neues Universum für ein neues Jahrtausend, aber rund um die Kernfiguren, die diese Serie von Anfang an prägten. Picard und Janeway mögen es verzeihen, aber Star Trek ist nun mal Kirk und Spock! Befreit vom Alter der Originalschauspieler, befreit sich "Star Trek" gleich noch vom Kanon, indem es einfach eine neue Zeitlinie eröffnet. Anders als bei Star Wars müssen die Ereignisse also nicht in die bekannten Fernseh- und Filmepisoden münden, was die Bahn frei macht für - wenn's sein muß - Jahrzehnte neuen Kinospaß mit Kirk und Co, - das kann ich nur begeistert begrüßen! Designmäßig scheint Star Trek sich einiges von Star Wars abgeguckt zu haben - Schiffe und Interieurs haben runde, fließende Formen, die als Vorgänger des eher geradlinigen Designs der 80er-Jahre-Filme durchgehen. Der Film quillt über von Zitaten, hier nur einige Beispiele, vor Spoilern sei gewarnt: - Das grüne liebestolle Mädchen Gaila ("The Cage") - Der Kobayashi Maru-Test (inklusive apfelessenden Kirk) und die fiesen Ceti-Schnecken kommen direkt aus "Der Zorn des Khan" - Scotty erhält die Transwarp-Gleichung genau so aus der Zukunft, wie er später die Gleichung für transparentes Aluminium ins Jahr 1986 liefern wird ("Zurück in die Gegenwart") - Kirk klettert die Wände des Eislochs empor wie den Berg El Capitan in "Am Rande des Universums" - Wie einst in "Das unentdeckte Land" zitiert Spock Sherlock Holmes ("Wenn alle anderen Möglichkeiten ausscheiden, muss das, was übrig bleibt, und sei es auch noch so unwahrscheinlich, die Wahrheit sein") ohne aber die korrekte Quelle zu nennen. - Starfleet scheint eine miserabel gemanagte Truppe zu sein: Wie in einigen Filmen, darunter I, II, V und VII, kann auch diesmal eine wichtige Mission nur von einer halbfertigen oder nur mit Kadetten besetzen Enterprise angenommen werden, weil sich sonst gerade kein Schiff in Reichweite befindet. Man sollte bei Starfleet mal über die Stationierungen nachdenken! "Star Trek"-fremde Zitate: - Wir sehen, wie Kirk (Luke) auf dem Eisplaneten (Hoth) landet, um dort von einem verdächtig nach Wampa aussehenden Eiswesen angegriffen zu werden ("Das Imperium schlägt zurück"). Der "Wampa" wird allerdings kurz vor dem Zubeissen von einem noch größeren Monster gefressen (ganz wie in "Die Dunkle Bedrohung"). Am Ende der Szene landet Luke, äh Kirk, in einer Höhle bei - nicht Yoda, sondern dem alten Spock. - Ebenfalls aus Star Wars stammt die Szene "Raumschiff verlässt Hyperraum und gerät unversehens in einen Trümmerhagel", und natürlich die Idee der planetenzerstörenden Superwaffe, und der besonderen Folter, jemanden mitansehen zu lassen, wie sein Heimatplanet zerstört wird. - An Star Wars erinnert natürlich auch die weite Einöde von Iowa/Tatooine, auf der sich Kirk/Luke mit schnellen Fahrzeugen die Langeweile vertreibt. Bis er am Ende sein Fahrzeug weggibt, um ins Weltall zu starten, ohne die Absicht je zurückzukehren. Beide haben außerdem einen legendären Vater, der Pilot war und als verstorben gilt. - Ein Dank an "Zurück in die Zukunft" für die Idee der alternativen Zeitlinie ist Spocks Warnung, das Universum könnte durch ein Paradoxon zerstört werden, wenn jemand auf sein späteres Ich trifft - ganz wie Doc Brown. Und genau wie bei Doc Brown erweist sich diese Warnung als gegenstandslos. Pluspunkte: - Die Effekte. Allen voran die Enterprise, die zwar nicht der aus der Fernsehserie gleicht, aber neue, aufregende Formen erhält, dabei aber unmissverständlich die Enterprise bleibt. Toll gelöst! - Der Kunstgriff, Lichtreflexe und sogar Staub auf der Linse auch in rein computergenerierte Aufnahmen einzubauen, so dass selbst die Weltraumszenen ausssehen, als seien sie von einer alten Kamera gedreht. - Immerhin gibt es zwei Szenen, in denen der Regisseur ansatzweise zugibt, dass es im Weltall keinen Schall gibt! - Uhura. In der alten Serie viel zu wenig zum Tragen gekommen, hat Uhura - gespielt von der atemberaubenden Zoe Saldana - hier endlich einmal eine führende Nebenrolle. Bitte bitte mehr davon! - Herzerfrischende Action. Schon Roddenberry verkaufte Star Trek erst im zweiten Anlauf, als er schöne altmodische Faustkämpfe in sein Zukuftsspektakel einbaute. Die Saloonschlägerei macht halt in fast jedem Filmgenre Spaß! - Dass Leonard Nimoy als Spock im Alter von 150 Jahren auftaucht. Minuspunkte: - Die Musik. Düster, einfallslos und sich ständig wiederholend. Besonders das Thema des Bösewichts könnte einfacher kaum gestrickt sein. Kein Vergleich zu der musikalischen Inszenierung etwa von Khan! Auch das Thema der Enterprise lässt den Optimismus vergessen, den Jerry Goldsmith und James Horner in früheren Filmen musikalisch ausdrückten. Schade! Immerhin können wir am Ende das Originalthema der Fernsehserie von Alexander Courage hören. - Der Bösewicht Nero. Sein Schiff, die Nerada, ist riesig und optisch undefiniert - der gleiche Fehler wie bei "Star Trek - Der Film". Aus der Ferne sieht es dann aus wie ein zerfranster Reisigbesen. Nero selbst wird dargestellt als stupider Rachesuchender, der die Möglichkeit, das zu rächende Schicksal zu ändern, nicht zur Kenntnis nehmen will. - Einige Plotholes. Dass ein schwarzes Loch in der Mitte eines Planeten diesen verschluckt, ist korrekt. Dass man mit einem Schiff durch ein schwarzes Loch fliegen kann, ist Unsinn. Außerdem ist der Bohrer überflüssig: Ein auf der Planetenoberfläche erzeugtes schwarzes Loch würde sofort in den Kern stürzen, wie eine Bleikugel durch eine Wolke. Und: Dass man Kirk erlaubt, den aufwendigen Kobayashi-Maru-Test zu wiederholen, ist unwahrscheinlich; ebenso, dass sich dessen wahre Natur nicht längst unter den Studenten herumgesprochen hat. Fazit: Star Trek ist wieder da. Die Blu-ray ist ein Genuss. Kaufen, immer wieder anschauen und sich auf den nächsten Film freuen!

ottimo film pagato pochissimo

面の傷はなく上質です。

Just loved it! I remember watching Star Trek when I was very young and the last line "To boldly go where no man, no one has ever gone before" has always caught my imagination. Even my FB has a line for aliens to invade!! rofl! Noticed they changed it now to be "To boldly go where no one has ever gone before" -- Can't touch the Americans with this type of genre according to me. Chris Pine is good as Captain Kirk and Spock and Kirk are fun ... loved it ... awesum! My fav character I would say is Captain Kirk. Buy it guys -- u can keep watching and watching and always find it fun!