View Single Post
Old May 21 2009, 03:20 PM   #1965
Rear Admiral
TheMurph's Avatar
Location: TN
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

suarezguy wrote: View Post
Very disappointed. Pike, Spock and Chekov were pretty good, McCoy was OK, but the story was too simple and I didn't like Kirk's insubordination (they have a ready room so that there aren't debates on the bridge).
I think Kirk's insubordination worked with the new Kirk character, the one that has grown up a different life than the one we saw in TOS. Plus the ready room concept was more of a TNG thing, I remember Bones getting down right insubordinate with Spock a number of times in TOS.

Disappointed in Ryder's cameo and Nimoy was hit-and-miss; he should have obviously recognized that Kirk was probably too young to be good friends with him.
To be honest, I liked what I saw of Ryder, but her time on screen was so short I don't know if I could make a solid opinion one way or the other. To me Cross's performance was the weakest of all.

Nero's ship was cool but his motivation was weak given that his world could have been destroyed without Spock accidentally contributing. What was he doing for 25 years? I would have preferred that the Federation actually did become somewhat corrupt and reprehensible, and perhaps that he had regular time travel ability (the ENT forum suggestion that he was Future Guy).
While I agree that the Nero motivation was weak I think it served its purpose of advancing the plot to set up the the new timeline. I sort of wished that they left the scene in where he was captured by the Klingons for 25 years to explain the gap. I'm not really down with the future guy idea, tough it might have worked.

I also wonder if this film wiped out the other timeline; both the alternate-universes and the single-changed-universe theories are possible. I certainly would have preferred it to have been an ordinary prequel in the existing timeline, just having the Enterprise be an established ship rather than on its maiden voyage.
The prime timeline still exists, that's the beauty of this movie. Creating a strict prequel would have caused to many problems and would have unfairly chained the filmmakers hands when it came to what they could do and canon. This way everyone wins.

karatasiospa wrote: View Post
13 days after the release of the movie and being a trek fan from 1980 i'm more dissapointed with the fans than with the movie itself. I don't understand why so many fans liked this movie. Are the impressive visual effects and meaningless action the only things that remained from trek? And nobody noticed the holes in the plot? Where is the famous roddenberry's vision? Now all that we want is a lot of people fighting each other and starships blowing up? abrams made a movie that is more like starship troopers than trek. And the fans like it???!!! I can only hope that this will not be the death of star trek as we knew it allthough i'm afraid that this what will happen.
Sheesh, I think you missed a lot of the movie if you are disappointed in the fans liking it. Can you honestly tell me that no Trek movie up to this point hasn't had plot holes? That they all had Rodenberry's vision? I say no my good sir or madam. Look at DS9 and the Dominion war, tons of ships getting blown up. TNG and the Borg, including FC, kind of bleak right? Fighting and action has always been part of Trek, how could anyone have missed that?

To me this movie captures the spirit of Trek better than all of the TNG movies, and better than most of the TOS movies. The sequel will probably show it better because this movie had to use valuable time setting up the crew and circumstances.
TheMurph is offline   Reply With Quote