Dead dolphin found near Bon Jovi's house

Apr 19, 12:01 AM (ET)

By WAYNE PARRY

MIDDLETOWN, N.J. (AP) - Since winter closed in on a family of dolphins that had been living in two New Jersey rivers, many observers felt the animals were living on a prayer.

On Saturday, the body of another dead dolphin was spotted in the Navesink River just outside the Middletown home of rocker Jon Bon Jovi.

First impressions of a 'Star Trek' virgin
by Caroline McCarthy

Please note: Friendly seas ahead! This is a spoiler-free review.

NEW YORK--When I walked into a theater at Viacom's midtown headquarters for an advance screening of the new J.J. Abrams-directed "Star Trek" prequel on Wednesday night, I felt like that kid who hadn't done her homework--for an entire semester.

And yet that was crucial to my assignment: to see if it was possible for someone completely new to the "Star Trek" universe to understand, process, and more importantly enjoy this new film.

Here's my background. I had never seen any of the prior "Star Trek" films or television series. I knew little more than the fact that it's all about a bunch of people flying a spaceship called the Enterprise, that Leonard Nimoy played an extraterrestrial named Spock who had funny ears and liked to say "Live long and prosper," and that the Klingon language has such a rabid following that the Bible has been translated into it.

Technically, the closest I'd come to seeing anything related to "Star Trek" was the 1998 parody "Galaxy Quest," in which the actors from a washed-up Trek-like TV show are enlisted by benevolent aliens who think they're the real thing (Little-known fact: That was the first movie role for Justin "I'm a Mac" Long). But I'm also a huge fan of Abrams' hit series "Lost," so I suppose I had a leg up there.

So here is my verdict: This movie is awesome.

The new "Star Trek" film is less an homage to a legendary science fiction franchise than to storytelling in general, back through decades of cinema and television and beyond. A deep respect for literature, pop culture, and epic storytelling is something that Abrams has proven time and again to fans, from the litany of film-rooted "Sawyer nicknames" on "Lost" to the tradition of Japanese monster movies that powered last year's "Cloverfield." This is a movie that will probably be well-regarded by anyone with an appreciation for epic adventure and drama, not to mention fast-paced and often witty dialogue.

And that's what the "Star Trek" prequel needed, considering the hand-wringing that surrounded it from even before it was officially greenlit.

Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman was on hand before the screening to greet the audience and explain a bit about the film's origins: that Paramount, the Viacom-owned studio that is releasing the new film, was well aware of the complications and potential pratfalls of adapting "Star Trek, especially in a prequel form, and especially with the goal of reaching out to both "Trekkies" (or "Trekkers," as I hear there is a difference?) and potential new fans. He said that cinema luminaries, including Steven Spielberg, had warned Abrams that undertaking a project with such a history and legacy of loyal fans could be risky.

But the director went ahead, a second Abrams-helmed "Star Trek" picture was greenlit almost immediately, and his contract with Paramount was extended another five years. Obviously, this is a franchise in which the studio has some real faith.

Pretty early on, you can tell that this isn't the "Star Trek" of the '60s, even though I admittedly don't really know what that is. The first 20 minutes contain not only ear-splitting action sequences, but brand-drops of both Nokia and Budweiser (as well as 'Slusho,' a fictional brand from "Cloverfield"), one very Abrams-esque "gotcha" character reveal that will take most newbies like me by surprise, and the oddly effective use of the Beastie Boys' 1994 song "Sabotage."

There is a pivotal bar fight, which I first took as a nod to "Star Wars," but on second thought, the cinematic barroom confrontation really goes back much further than the Mos Eisley Cantina. (I need to brush up on my knowledge of Westerns.) Again, this is a movie deeply rooted in generations of storytelling both onscreen and off.

I can see why some hardcore "Star Trek" fans may have been nervous about the casting decisions: the Internet Movie Database informs me that Chris Pine, the young actor cast as Captain Kirk, was starring opposite Lindsay Lohan in some tepid romantic comedy a few years ago, and Sulu is played by John Cho, best known for playing Harold in the spliffed-up "Harold and Kumar" movies. I must say that Cho wields a retractable sword just as well as he does a joint, and Pine's Kirk keeps the frat-boy attitude to a relative minimum.

But more importantly, "Star Trek" is just plain fun. And I came to appreciate the fact that I was sitting in that theater without prejudice. I was concerned less about whether the cast would live up to the actors who originated their roles, and more about holy whoa, that spaceship just blew up!. There is, however, a flip side to the universality of the new "Star Trek" that Paramount might not love: The fact that it stands so well on its own might mean that it doesn't mint a new generation of Trekkies.

Like me, for one. As much as I enjoyed the prequel, I can't see myself Netflixing all the DVDs of the past "Star Trek" TV series and movies. I've already got "Lost" to deal with, and one fictional universe and canon is enough for me, thank you very much. Seriously--what does lie in the shadow of the statue? Losties, can you help me out here?

Mentions of product placement as a positive?

Mention of licensed music as a positive?

Ear splitting action sequences are a positive?

Being completely ignorant of the original source material and canon is not a positive.

Are you kidding? That review basically reinforces my impression that the movie will be terrible. Mentions of product placement as a positive? Mention of licensed music as a positive? Ear splitting action sequences are a positive? Being completely ignorant of the original source material and canon is not a positive.

Matt, as a Trekkie myself I can say you'll enjoy it, unless you're one of THOSE kinds of Trekkies.

Are you kidding? That review basically reinforces my impression that the movie will be terrible. Mentions of product placement as a positive? Mention of licensed music as a positive? Ear splitting action sequences are a positive? Being completely ignorant of the original source material and canon is not a positive.

I see ignoring the original source material and canon as a positive.

No. Just don't do a prequel. Or do it as a non-canon mirror universe thing or an homage or whatever. Honestly, I get the perceived need for a reboot, but why make it about the Enterprise and the same old group of characters in that case? Why not just start from relative scratch ala Enterprise?

To put it in your backyard Trunks, what would you think if Lucas' estate made a remake of Star Wars: Ep IV with an entirely new cast twenty years from now?

No. Just don't do a prequel. Or do it as a non-canon mirror universe thing or an homage or whatever. Honestly, I get the perceived need for a reboot, but why make it about the Enterprise and the same old group of characters in that case? Why not just start from relative scratch ala Enterprise?

No. Just don't do a prequel. Or do it as a non-canon mirror universe thing or an homage or whatever. Honestly, I get the perceived need for a reboot, but why make it about the Enterprise and the same old group of characters in that case? Why not just start from relative scratch ala Enterprise?

#70 by G-Man

Star Trek isn't worth saving, Episode IV is.

To put it in your backyard Trunks, what would you think if Lucas' estate made a remake of Star Wars: Ep IV with an entirely new cast twenty years from now?

I never thought this day would come. I'm a born-again Trekkie, through and through. Last night I finally got to see J.J. Abrams' Star Trek, and to put it simply, it blew me away. Although I had set some incredibly high expectations - being a long-standing sci-fi addict and a hardcore fan of at least "The Next Generation" as well as J.J. Abrams - it was everything I had hoped for and more. I know I say that quite a bit on here and I do get caught up in the hype, but this time I will insist that it kicks ass and it won't soon be forgotten (like Star Trek: Nemesis was). No, this is a Star Trek that has rejuvenated the franchise in a truly epic way.

It might have helped get me in the mood that I was surrounded by hardcore Trekkies who were quizing each other with trivia right up until the lights went down. In all honesty, that only made me feel more a part of the universe that J.J. Abrams' re-introduces us to in 126 minutes. While a total of 79 episodes of "The Original Series" have established one of the most detailed and distinct sci-fi universes ever imagined, it only took Abrams one movie to successfully re-inject all of those characters we love and everything that made that series so classic and entertaining into an exciting and refreshing restart of a beloved franchise.

At its foundation, Star Trek would not have been as exceptional as it was without a great script, and Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci deserve an immense amount of praise for their work. Not only did they put together a fantastic story worthy of Gene Roddenberry's blessing, but it's packed full of all the great Trek nuggets that geeks like myself want, and need, to see in a great Star Trek movie. And best of all, their characters are absolutely flawless, and provided the perfect infrastructure for the actors build upon.

Speaking of the actors, Chris Pine pulls off the impossible, and not only stands up against more experienced actors like Bruce Greenwood and Eric Bana, but stands out as one of the best damn leads I've seen in a sci-fi movie in a while. In addition to Pine, it's really the entire cast that shines, from Zachary Quinto as Spock, to Karl Urban as Bones, to John Cho as Sulu, to Zoe Saldana as Uhura, to even Eric Bana as Nero. I wouldn't even say there was anyone that underperformed, because at the most important moments, every last actor shined their brightest. Although I will say the best performance of all - Leonard Nimoy.

What I just loved about this Star Trek movie was, simply, seeing all of the introductions to all of the characters. Yes, we get to see Kirk cheat on the Kobayashi Maru test; yes, we get to see how Bones gets his nickname; yes, we get to see how Uhura becomes the Communications Officer because she's so talented; yes, we get to see how Scotty ends up aboard the Enterprise; yes, we get to see how and why Spock decides to join the Federation. Every time one of the classic characters would get their introduction, or say any of the lines that they're so well known for, the audience would cheer, and I would get chills down my spine.

It wasn't just that, though. Having someone as extraordinarily talent as J.J. Abrams pull together all the great performances, the vibrant cinematography, the unbelievably epic action sequences in space, inside, and on the ground, the wonderful score from Michael Giacchino, and everything else, is what made it so phenomenal overall. Abrams has reminded me why I love movies so damn much and why I love science fiction so damn much. Only the very best filmmakers can do that, and J.J. Abrams is certainly one of them. And without a doubt, his version of Star Trek is one movie that I instantly fell in love with at first sight.

Lastly, I need to say that I think Abrams has spoiled us, because I'm just dying to see this series continue on exactly as it now exists with the crew we now know and love. But I don't want to have to wait two years for every new 126-minute "episode." I was so incredibly excited by the ending (and during the final scene), that I didn't want to leave the theater, I wanted to just sit there, watching it over and over again until the next movie was ready to debut. Luckily, I'm probably I'm not the only one who is going to feel this way.

Alex's Rating: 9.5 out of 10

Even about the NFL draft?