262 replies to this topic

[FHC]

I don't mean to offend anyone but I do think that it's amusing that the people that didn't care for this movie make the longest posts to explain why they didn't care for it. The fact is that not one single Trek movie ever made totally holds water. I could, if I had the time, start with TMP and cut them apart. It boils down to, did you like it. Yes I liked it and it seems that others liked it to the tune of 72 some million dollars that first weekend.

[TheHSBR]

I dont know why so many people have such a problem with the crew meeting in the way that was explained in the film. We totally accept it for every "real time" movie but for flashback films we throw up red flags. For instance I remember a film where the main character was a space farmer, and it just so happens that two robots fall to his planet carrying with them plans for a space station that were just delivered by his sister. It also so happens that a famous general from a war lives on the same planet with this space farmer...fast forward, the droids, general, farmer and sister all meet up together on a ship that just happened to be in a local space dock. Is that any more fantastic that what occured here? Every movie has chance meetings that ultimately end up evolving into something else. This is no different.

[DavAnthony]

I can easily enjoy a rip-roaring action adventure film replete with all variety of explosions and battles. However, I prefer the plot to hold together. When I first watched the film so much is going on that while I saw some problems I really didn't see the deficiencies in the film to the degree I did later because everything is moving so fast, maybe too fast. But once you see the film again or you sit back and try to make sense of all the stuff in the film and actually analyze the story the film really starts to have problems. Maybe the writers thought that with the whirlwind of events that occur in the film that you wouldn't catch on but I like to examine the story especially when it comes to these films or tv series that go out of their way to cover a lot of ground as it tends to be the preferred style these days.

I did love the exciting visual effects sequences--the Narada vs the Kelvin, Spock's ramming of the Narada with the ship from the future--, the epic visuals--Vulcan's destruction-- and inventive stunts like the atmospheric jump to the drill. I loved the updates on the TOS uniform. The colors were vibrant and rich and looked good on everyone. I didn't mind the cosmetic license the designers took with the Enterprise from either the interior or from the outside. I loved the clean white look and have ever since seeing it on the Prometheus from Voyager's "Message in a Bottle" and the Engineering set paid homage to the original and looked like I envisioned if it had a bigger budget. The Enterprise was a beauty to behold as was the Narada.

All the actors were well cast. I thought Chekov, McCoy, Kirk, Spock and Amanda did an excellent job capturing the mannerisms and essence of their original counterparts. Uhura felt a little different. On TOS, she was more of a gentle wilting flower or damsel-in-distress. Here she had a bit of spunk and sass which wasn't a bad thing. Scotty was a little over-the-top for my tastes. Doohan's Scotty was light-hearted and fun but Pegg needed to pull it back. From what little we saw this crew had chemistry and I liked all of them. In fact, I liked them so much I would have liked them to have had more focus. If there was one thing that I felt was missing was the emotion. Trek is at its best when mixing its humanity with the action. Even weaker Trek films like Generations or Insurrection had those moments of reflection that were pretty much absent here. This was mostly jumping from one action piece to the next with little time to absorb what happened.

I started to come to this conclusion when I realized I had intellectually recognized that the writers did something pretty bold and destroyed Vulcan yet it didn't emotionally register. It wasn't carry the kind of shock and impact it really should have viscerally. This is afterall a founding member of the Federation and a world that has been part of Trek since the beginning yet its destruction carried about as much resonance as a nameless planet of the week or destroying a planet in a video game. It wasn't a grim sequence a la ENT's "Twilight". It seemed the writers wanted to do something big and decided to destroy Vulcan but they didn't do enough to do the idea the justice it deserved. Heck, DS9 manged to generate more reaction from me with just hearing that Betazed was occupied by the Dominion on DS9. As I was trying to figure out why it donned on me that there was so much else going on around it got lost in the mix--it was just one of a thousand plot points. I think they crammed too much material into these two hours. By trying to do so many things none of them really receive the kind of development they deserved.

Yes, they tried to capture the loss with Spock in his scenes with Uhura and with Sarek but they didn't succeed for me. Not enough had been done to give those scenes the kind of richness demanded of them. And for a long time fan such as myself feeling this way I can only imagine the lack of resonance by the uninitiated who are just introduced to this race and its world. Same with Amanda's death, you really have to earn those emotional payoffs and just destroying a planet or killing off Spock's mother, which was a little iffy in its execution, doesn't automatically guarantee those expected responses especially since Amanda had sum total of about a minute of screentime and comes off no better than a redshirt. We had no reason to invest in it.

I also thought Nero was more of a plot device than a flesh and blood adversary. I would have liked more interesting/intriguing definition to his motivations. And while I didn't mind the time travel aspect to the story but could it have been any more basic. It preserves TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT and allows from here on out for Abrams to play around and bring in races that in the original timeline couldn't appear and do shocking things like destroy Vulcan which I was surprised by but I would have liked a more interesting scenario than simply Romulus being destroyed by a super nova. It felt like a big chunk of relevant information was missing in order to be able to understand why Nero was doing what he was doing. It was wafer thin. And it turns out there was something missing. What is up with shows or films providing supplemental and critical information regarding the storyline in extraneous sources like webisodes, podcasts, comic books, interviews. If it is important don't relegate it to someplace other than the actual film. Apparently that is what happened here. It was too bad we didn't get to see more of the late 24th century than the very brief glimpses via Spock's mind meld. It looks like there is some peace between the two worlds so to some extend Spock's efforts worked just how far we'll probaby never know.

Obviously, the writers didn't want to drag too much backstory from the Trek canon into the film but would it have been that confusing with a bit of exposition imparted to Kirk to catch up the new comers. I don't think so.

As far as Nimoy's Spock's inclusion it might have been handled better. When I heard he was going to be in the film and that we would see the origins of the TOS crew it seemed an interesting way to merge these is to have Spock on his deathbed remembering these individuals and reflecting on his life maybe via a mindmeld with someone. I think that might have been more interesting and certainly more poignant. Given that this in all liklihood will be the last time we ever see Old Spock I would have liked a more satisfying use of him other than as a plot device and a more satisfying sense of closure akin to Sarek's sendoff in "Unification". Here they left it open. I can understand why he wouldn't have attempted to open another hole given he had no idea where it would end up and I understand why the writers didn't bring up the slingshot from Star Trek IV. But if this is ever the last time we see Old Spock it's disappointing that he didn't receive a better curtain call. And I found it a tad too convenient Kirk runs into Old Spock and then Scotty the way they did but I like Scotty's little alien buddy.

The nods to ENT I could have taken it or left. I guess the writers didn't feel the need to honor Balance of Terror since everyone knew Romulans and Vulcans related and looked identical. I liked the idea of the Narada being a mining vessel--ties into Remus being a mining world. Nice tip of the hat to Pike being wheelchair bound. I didn't really like the updated transporter effect. At first I thought the teaser took place in the 24th century because the uniform reminded me of those worn in the "All Good Things" future. And what good is looking like a Romulan do if Spock is wearing a Starfleet uniform when he beamed over to the Narada. I guess Abrams decided to go back to Romulans looking like Vulcans without the forehead ridges. That's fine.

The Spock/Uhura romance I don't know what to make of it. It didn't get in the way but I'm not that into the idea but then we didn't get a lot of insight into and I thought the Orion looked awful.

I guess my one complaint is it lacked substance and despite all these issues I had fun and enjoyed myself but it wasn't all it might have been. It was too simple and bare bones without a lot of meat. As an action film it works as a Trek film it has its issues so I'm torn. I'd probably give it 2.5 stars out of 4.

I personally think Trek works better as a tv series. Most of the time after seeing a Trek film I leave not completely satisfied. The last one that really worked was Star Trek 6. This film is okay. It's not the best Trek film ever. It has issues that prevented me from being completely engrossed in the film as it unfolded. It's entertaining on a superficial level but it has its issues.

Great and well thought out post. Nice to see one of those here. Thanks for posting it!

[knightone]

While I agree that it had its flaws, I was able to enjoy the film immensely. I think it is hard for some fans to let go of wanting to see what they used to see in Trek. However, I went in expecting to see what Abrams usually delivers and was able to enjoy it. Abrams and his team are good at delivering a fun rollercoaster ride, but they are lacking in the depth that the old Treks always tried to deliver (sometimes successfully, sometimes not). When I heard Abrams was helming the movie, I knew how it was going to be and it gave me the what I expected to see: lots of fun, action, and adventure. And it delivered in spades. When Paramount appoints someone like Abrams to do the movie and tells everyone that they are revamping the franchise to bring in a wider, general audience, you pretty much have to expect exactly what we saw. So I can't see how or why anyone was surprised or disappointed in any aspect of the movie.

In any case, this is a movie, so there is only so much time and room to use and not bore the majority of the audience. Bryan Fuller has commented that he is interested in doing a new Trek series. His work on DS9, Wonderfalls, Dead Like Me, and Pushing Daisies has shown he is adept at creating rich, complex, and full worlds, stories, and characters. I would like him to take the Abramsverse and see what he can do to develop it further. If anyone can take this new universe and create a tapestry as rich as the original Trek universe, it is Fuller. So, hopefully, he gets the chance.

[stardust]

I don't mean to offend anyone

None taken.

but I do think that it's amusing that the people that didn't care for this movie make the longest posts to explain why they didn't care for it.

As I said in my post I enjoyed it to a certain extent. As for why such a long post--I like to articulate in depth what I liked and didn't like about films or television episodes so other readers can really get an idea of my point of view. I rarely find a response that is simply a letter grade or score and one or two sentences all that helpful in getting an idea of how they arrived at that. I also didn't want anyone to perceive me as a critic of the film who was mindlessly bashing it for some irrational reason.

The fact is that not one single Trek movie ever made totally holds water. I could, if I had the time, start with TMP and cut them apart. It boils down to, did you like it. Yes I liked it and it seems that others liked it to the tune of 72 some million dollars that first weekend.

Well I respect your opinion that you enjoyed it but I would point out that using the box office figures is not any more valid in determining the actual quality of the film than Nielsen ratings would be in judging the merits of a tv series. Look at something like American Idol which gets insane ratings but isn't what I call good.

I also think the box office returns just show that there was a large group of people interested after a four year drought of Trek to check out what JJ Abrams came up. Just my two cents.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

I'm sure that Abrams and the writers know that Trek fans do expect thought provoking and philosophical themes in Trek stories, and that they will load up on it in the next movie. This movie was to re-establish the characters and the universe that they play in.

As for the plot holes, it turns out that many of them would have been explained if the scenes were actualy filmed, and/or not edited out, according to the writers. You can read what was said here at this person's blog:

http://darthmojo.wor...ssed/#more-1201

[DavAnthony]

Interesting article at the link above. I found Abrams reasoning below to be quite comical

"LENS FLARES: THE MOVIE

Why on Earth did JJ Abrams turn Star Trek into a two-hour commercial for lens flare plugins? I have to admit, upon my second viewing of the film I found this visual motif to be highly distracting and irritating. Flares, reflections and luminous ghosts simply appear everywhere, even without any obvious sources. The reason? JJ wanted a visual metaphor that stated

[JonWes]

I loved the lens flares and shaky cam. I've seen the film three times and I think it adds a ton of interest to the scenes and it actually did tie the movie together really well. I can't say I found it distracting at all.

[TheHSBR]

I loved the lens flares and shaky cam. I've seen the film three times and I think it adds a ton of interest to the scenes and it actually did tie the movie together really well. I can't say I found it distracting at all.

I found them to be quite distracting at least the second time around. I liked their use but he went way overboard with it. Almost every frame had at least one towrads the end for no apparent reason. The shaky cam didnt bother me at all and I thought it added some realism to the scenes.

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

Look who's back. And she didn't change a bit.

You can tell that Berns has missed me!!!

[Thomas E. Johnson]

To be honest, I never noticed any lens flares.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

You can tell that Berns has missed me!!!

We all missed you!

[Wildcard]

ER..no. Shinzon was an incredibly complex villain with diverse motives. A lot of people didn't get Shinzon but he was the most Shakespearean character who ever appeared in Trek.

Oh I don't disagree with you Jules, I was just saying that Nero didn't feel very fresh to me. He needed some more drawing out. I'm sure the novelization does this however, even though I haven't read it yet.

Wildcard, all of those ranks have been used in either TOS or the TOS movies. For example Kirk in TMP was a Vice Adm.

True, but keep in mind as the franchise went forward, ranks like Comodore, etc. seemed to disappear (as did Ensign J.G.), etc. And there was always Major West from TUC...so all I'm saying is that Star Fleet might have it's own variation that doesn't fit directly in line w/ current military rankings AND/OR rules/regulations for promotional order.

Isn't the standard contract usually a 3 movie deal? So hopefully we'll see them together for at least 3...

Actually it depends on the contract. And usually, even if it is a 3 movie deal, it's not always for sequels, but rather for other film projects from that studio (i.e. you do one major blockbuster action movie for us, you also need to do one drama love story)

I have a quick spoiler question and I have not been able to find this anywhere. Over on the toy forum there is talk about what figure we would like to see and mine and a few other people's is Gaila (Uhura's Orion roommate). This got me to thinking:

Did Gaila get assigned to the Enterprise thus remaining alive or did she get put on another ship and is now dead?

Was this dealt with in the novel? Because I tried listening for this during my second viewing of the movie and it wasn't clear to me. So I'm not sure where she was assigned. I HOPE she's still alive...I'd like to see her character again (I know that she was important in the novel since I read a spoiler thread somewhere that she was also: {highlight for spoiler} somehow knowledgeable about Spocks command codes for the Kobiyashi Maru's simulation.{stop highlighting}


OH!! And in the scene where Kirk wakes up with swollen fingers? McCoy calls for Nurse Chapel as he's walking out of frame! I missed that the first viewing!

[Wildcard]

OH! And my friend Dave knew went to grad school w/ the actor who played the Cadet that Kirk called "Cupcake".

[neoworx]

I saw it for the second time on Wednesday. I hoped I would like it better the second time. I didn't.

That's not to say that I didn't like it, because I did. What's odd is that the stuff I thought I'd have the most trouble with -- new actors playing my old favorite characters as well as the "timeline reset"

[Thomas E. Johnson]

I saw it for the second time on Wednesday. I hoped I would like it better the second time. I didn't.

That's not to say that I didn't like it, because I did. What's odd is that the stuff I thought I'd have the most trouble with -- new actors playing my old favorite characters as well as the "timeline reset"

• Back to top

[TheHSBR]

I dont know about the beaming equation. It looks like Scotty had the light bulb go off in his head and that he understood it so Im thinking we will see it again.

[neoworx]

Deleted sequence. After getting rammed by the Kelvin, the Narada was crippled, and the crew were captured by the Klingons. They spent 25 years on Rua-Penthie, before escaping, and taking back their ship.

A deleted sequence means it is not in the movie. If it's not in the movie, it's a hole in the plot.

Interference from the Narada jammed their long range sensors.

Then they need to say that. One short line of dialog.

Special case, Spock providing Scotty with knowledge about future transporter developments, and only providing the calculations for this one time.

And wiped Scotty's memory? He looked at the equation and had an epiphany. He understood it. He now has that knowledge since he used it to beam them from Titan to Earth orbit.

The black hole technology that was used was for highly localized use, and Nero and his crew probably didn't know how to use it properly.

To repeat: it's a BLACK HOLE. If you know the Red Matter makes a Black Hole, that's enough.

Dramatic&emotional effect, and to blow open future geopolitical story lines.

With the overall "lightness" of the story-line, I have no reason to think they did it for any deeper reason beyond needing a dramatic plot point.

The movie plays on an equation within Quantum Mechanics that states that in similar parallel universes, events that happen in one, have a high probability of happening in others. Basically, there is probability driven fate at work here. It's Kirk and crews destiny to be brought together on the Enterprise, no matter how many wrenches are thrown into the works. This comes from the writers, and they gave the science articles to look up to prove their point.

I didn't say anything about how the characters are thrown together. I said I thought Kirk going from cadet to Captain was silly. It was not necessary to do it, or to do it specifically the way they did.

Most of the plot holes have explanations. The writers said that they wanted there to also be a sense of mystery at work in the story. They are very forth coming over on Trekmovie.com now that the film is out, about explaining how the whole story works, and after reading their comments, the movie does make sense.

And therein lies the problem. I shouldn't have to read the writer's explanations

[FHC]

Seems I read this review somewhere else! LOL It's just these younger members here like it a lot better!

Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones said way back in the late 1960's said "yeah it's the same 3 chords everyone else is playing, but our fans seem to like them". You enjoy what you enjoy. .

[TheHSBR]

I thought red matter itself needed to be explained more. Even now Im not (even with the comic) sure what it is exactly. I would disagree with many of the points being made by a number of members. I can deduce being a Trek fan what is happening. For the rest of the public, it doesnt seem to matter much to them anyway. If a movie is only missing minor details like the narada is jamming communications, I can assume that since it happened in another part of the film that they would use the same tech even if unspoken. The problem with going into too many specifics is that it takes away from other areas. This CANT be a LOTR film in length. To add in all the details would have made it just that. Im assuming the writers/director had to cut out things nonessential to the overall storyarch in order to keep in short because it was already much longer than most summer blockbusters!