The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

This film gets an A.

Excellent it is, but also superior for achieving success in the face of what otherwise seemed to be the certain demise of the franchise we love. I grew too accustomed to expecting the worst from the most recent offerings of B&B. This iteration, though, is the best present for a fan whose heart has been broken and hopes dashed far too often. This vision of loveliness is the Trek resurrected, a breath of new life.

TOS rocks the hardest. I love these characters, and would follow them to the mirror universe, an alternate timeline, a sequel or new series, wherev. Vulcan and nuAmanda will be dearly missed, like I miss MISS Jane Wyatt.

nUhura might now have a chance at escaping Nomad erase her mind, or discovering a different answer to "what do you need?" Purple what? nuScotty is totally hilarious without even downing any scotch or playing up bagpipes. nuChekov, what a doll! The meteoric ascent of The Kirk Unit shows he remains one man in a million in any timeline.

Favorites come and go for me. For now, my fave is Star Trek 11. Sometimes, it has been Star Trek 3. I see in another thread it continues to be the favorite of a few. T'Bonz, I love you for that. Spock was reborn then. All of the Trek is reborn now, and this time we get two Spocks. Lucked out there!

Despite the claims to the contrary, nuTrek imparts lessons, continuing the tradition. For instance, this film reminds us how to cope with murderous lunatics. All Nero did was totally nuts. Troubled was an understatement. He was DANGEROUSLY INSANE, just like Larry Marvick, Dr. Lester, or even Caesar Nero.

What else can I say? The scenes were vivid, the soundtrack a mellifluous masterwork, and the new ship BOSS. Courage's theme was with us for Trek's birth. We're finally treated to it again at its rebirth.

Where was it I learned that history is replete with turning points? I have faith that the Trekiverse will unfold as it should. Those few who pretend they hate this film must seriously hate the Trek and / or themselves. Dikkheads all.

From the Delta Quadrant with Love,
Seska

 

Which is a dumb way to get a nickname. Furthered by the fact that for decades the explanation was that it was derived from the military nick name for a doctor - Sawbones.

 

My nickname is "Chase", and it was given to me by my friends in high school. You know why? I chased tornadoes during the summer months. There are many derivations for the name "Chase", mine is for one. There can be others. The same applies to "Bones".


J.

 

Oh come on, nicknames are inherently dumb, that is the nature of things.
Nicknames are usually rediculous names given by friends, rarely are they thought out.

 

I had a nickname as a kid, that I don't even know where it came from, I don't know what it means, and I was not called it for years, but still people occasionally, just out of no where, call me it. So calling someone Bones, because he says all he has left are his bones makes a lot more sense than a lot of nicknames.

 

And now the image of you chasing a wee tornado around a tree in the manner of Homer Simpson chasing a squirrel (complete with high pitched laugh) will be forever burned into my mind.

 

And apparently mine as well now.

J.

 

Damn you both to hell. Now I just have a J. Allen running around in my head going "Tee hee, tee hee hee hee"

 

My work here is done.

 

Re: My review of Star Trek 2009 (fan speaking to casual ppl)

Are those supposed to be Klingons? They kind of look like a half-breed between TOS Klingons and TNG Klingons.

 

I think they're wearing helmets.

 

Re: My review of Star Trek 2009 (fan speaking to casual ppl)

What is there to be fair about? I hate it when shows or films provide critical information everywhere else but in the actual film. I shouldn' have to read an interview where the producer explains stuff or watch a webisode or read an online comic. That said, even if what you describe was to be included it still isn't that interesting either.

This isn't very good either.

I could care less about accurate science in entertainment.

No, at best the film is decent certainly not great or excellent and part of the reason why is because some of those issues do contribute negatively to the film.

I don't mind that this film was mindless action fun but even mindless action fun should have good writing and some essential elements like providing exposition on certain key elements like the villian's motivation. This film had a villian as a plot device with vague, unsatisfying motives. It had a great cast but didn't give them enough focus. I don't mind the fact that there was a lot of stuff going on but I think there was too much going on. The writers crammed too much into the film and in the process failed to really do a lot of those elements justice. It wouldn't have brought the film to a screeching halt if they made some scenes and moments last a little longer in order to give them depth and resonance. It would certainly have allowed for a nice break from all the unremitting action. Instead, the film was like a rapid firing of a list of bullet points that resulted in gutting the emotion of two of the film's biggest moments--the destruction of Vulcan and the death of Amanda and its impact on Spock. They didn't gloss over them or omit acknowledgment of those events but the way they chose to address them was too fast and shallow and not that much more satisfying than if they had ignored them.

We hardly saw Amanda or saw much of the Spock/Amanda relationship. Had they chosen to focus a little more time on the life of Spock including his relationship with his mother, this would have been worthwhile setup for her death later in the film.

I know Braga and Moore felt Generations had too many demands placed on it with the studio providing a laundry list of required elements they wanted included in the film and I have to say this was an issue with this film. There was like a dozen different ideas in the story, any one of which, could have been sufficiently developed into an interesting story instead of throwing all of them at you in a half-realized lacking manner.

I appreciate these touches but they don't get a lot of points from me to overcome other issues with the film.

 

Crucifixion, unlike other posters, I'm not going to criticize you for posting a long review. I am, however, going to take issue with a few points.

Your review seems to be based on the premise that the audience pool can be divided into "hardcore fans," who unless they like the film are "losers [who] refuse to accept change," and "the masses," who apparently can't handle complex stories, long movies, or exposition. It seems a bit insulting all around.

You point out several aspects of the story that, as you note, simply didn't make sense. In contrast, most of the things you describe liking amount to mere easter eggs, moments designed to evoke classic Trek. I honestly can't see how that outweighs a bad story. To me, all it suggests is that a movie that was more like classic Trek would have been more enjoyable. (At least to you. Certainly to me.)

In the end, the conclusion seems to be that the movie redeems itself simply by getting Trek out there again in the popular consciousness, and never mind whether it's any good. I just don't understand that attitude. Unless the story's good, why should I care whether it's out there, much less whether it's popular?

 

I rate ST11 "average". It was visually stunning, great special effects, lots of humour - but it was lacking in character-buildup and... quite plainly, in a plot. I mean there's no slow investigating what Nero really wants or how he can be defeated - Spock Prime tells us everything we need to know in about 2 minutes. That's it. And it's also not a point in the movie's favour that Nero came across awfully like Shinzon. Two movies with Romulans, and both times the writers aren't able to actually present a decent Romulan villain...

I definitely hoped for more "slow" scenes - instead there was one action-sequence after another, with a bit of humour mixed inbetween. Again, not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's not what I hoped for, either. Characterwise things seemed sometimes a bit rushed - Spock leaves the bridge, practically hating Kirk's guts, after a little heart-to-heart with his father he returns and that's the beginning of the great friendship?!? I mean, Kirk had the advantage of the mindmeld, so he knew Spock - but Spock, what's the reason for this 180° turn?

And as stated in another thread: Why display Spock and Uhura's relationship in quite this way? I don't mind this relationship (even if I was quite taken aback by it because in TOS I just didn't see *any* kind of chemistry between those two characters) - but why have them kissing, especially in the transporterroom? Doesn't that contradict everything Spock ever tried to portray?

Well, enough about negative criticism. On to the positive:

- the whole cast... I didn't find any actor/character that didn't fit in (unfortunately not many of them really had the opportunity to shine)
- the humour: Granted, Chekov was over the top, OTOH... well, he wasn't if you recently watched the first episodes he appeared in. And Kirk's womanizing, the whole Kobayashi Maru-test... well, it has been quite some time since I've last laughed so hard in a movie
- of course, seeing Leonard Nimoy again, hearing some of his most famous phrases again... my ST-fan heart beat a bit faster in those moments
- the new possibilities this movie opens up - the aftermath for the remaining Vulcans, but also for the Federation in general.... well, there's a whole new universe to explore now.

I'm definitely looking forward to a possible next movie - although I hope that one won't rely quite as much on action as this one. I do hope for some moral dilemma that won't be quite as straight-forwardly solved.

 

Writing implausible scenarios is not the same thing as lazy writing, which was the whole point of my post long ago.

 

I know!


That would never happen in a Star Trek movie, would it.

 

I rate the film 'excellent' if only because it's restored my love of Star Trek.

It's been agony for me the last decade because I got fed up with Voyager, hated Enterprise, and don't even get me started on the last two TNG movies. Star Trek -TOS/TNG/DS9, these shows (and the first 8 or so movies) were some of the first media I can ever remember being exposed to. TNG is the first show I can ever remember watching, DS9 was the first show I ever watched that really made me think (and when I say think, I mean beyond "wow is Character A going to make it?", I'm talking "hmm...so when is it alright to fabricate evidence and convince your former enemy to join your side against what should be a common enemy?"), and TOS was probably the first show that I can remember where I truly cared about the characters and not just the plots or the 'message' or whatever.

TOS had some crazy and kooky stuff going on. Planets modeled after Nazis, the Chicago mob, the Roman empire, etc and so on. The effects were crap, plots often made no sense, and there was barely any suspense in it for me (this show spawned 6 movies that I adored, so I knew Kirk and the gang were never in danger). BUT for the last few years now TOS has been my favorite Star Trek show. You could say my first love was TNG, but my soulmate (to be all corny about this) was TOS. It was first and foremost about the characters.

Every Trek show had good and bad plots, engaging or boring story lines, obvious or subtle 'moral messages', and certainly each show had it's fair share of great and horrific actors -and while yes, each show had developed and unique characters, there was, and still is, just something I find magical about the crew of TOS.

I went into this movie expecting the worst. I was deeply offended they were recasting what I considered to be the best line up of iconic characters any incarnation of Trek had to offer, and that to top it off that the guy heading this project was frakin' JJ Abrams (creator of shows like Felicity, Alias, and Lost that all annoy me to no end). When this was first announced a few years ago -I knew it was doomed from the word 'go'.

I debated with myself for months (I'd say years, but it only got heated lately ;P) about whether or not I was even going to see this, let alone see it on opening day. But against my better judgement (and the judgement of my best friend who is a hardcore TOS fan) I went Friday afternoon anyways (and with said best friend).

I went in feeling anxious, still a little angry, and very much convinced that if nothing else, I'd have a fun time mocking what I felt would be a horrible movie (commercials and trailers only worsened my opinion as May 8 approached -I literally cringed watching the trailer in Watchmen, that's how dead set against this whole thing I was). I came out feeling happy, elated, euphoric, and amazed like I was a little kid again discovering Star Trek for the first time.

Was this movie perfect? Hell no. Nero's revenge plot makes absolutely no sense to me (yeah ok so Spock didn't get to Romulus on time, chill out, it wasn't on purpose, don't you have better things to worry about in Klingon prison for 25 years?!). Even though I choose to see this as an alternate timeline, the time travel stuff makes little sense to me. Oh and how convenient is it that Kirk just happens to run into the right cave and meet up with Prime Spock?! (Not to mention the planet reminded me of Hoth from Star Wars which was not what I wanted to be thinking about during a Trek film).

But despite its many flaws, this movie won me over. Chris Pine was Kirk, but without having to parrot Bill Shatner. Same for Quinto as Spock, Urban as McCoy, and the rest of the main cast. And not only were they able to somehow make the characters their own, without resorting to crap imitations, but the cast had fantastic chemistry with each other. Which is what TOS was at its core for me.

It was about how great the characters were and how much I loved the actors playing them. The plots and special effects (which I enjoyed in this film for being decent, but not 'in your face' like the recent Star Wars prequels) didn't mean much to me in the end -it was all about Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the rest of the gang and how they were going to work together and get out of whatever trouble they found themselves in. This movie, for me at least, captured that brilliantly.

 

I noticed that there was a reference to "Admiral Archer". If Scotty was referring to the Jonathan Archer we know, shouldn't he have been referred to as "President Archer"?

 

10 points, sir.