The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

[ST-One]

4: The entire escape-the-black-hole sequence at the end did not feel justified, specifically because the only reason there was a close call to begin with was because Kirk decided to volley a few rounds at Nero's already doomed ship. This was a sloppy moment in the screenplay.

I saw this one more as a nice play with the Trek-typical reset-button.

 

[loaloa55]

I thought it was great.

Only odd bit was the Star Trek theme at the end. Felt really jarring in compared with the rest of the soundtrack for some reason.

No, no, the Star Trek theme at the end is perfectly logical: Kirk is now the Enterprise Captain, and that's where the ST saga begin (as we knew it in the first TV series ). It's a genius idea to introduce the ST theme at the end.

 

[kmiller1610]

The characters were pretty on point outside of a few key differences. Kirk was a rebel not the pretty disciplined well polished officer that only bent rules when he knew it was right to. This was a rebel Kirk.

You have to consider the impact of the opening scene. He lost his father before he ever knew him. Many classic time travel tales spoke of the huge impact you could make on history if you did the smallest thing. In this case, we have a futuristic space ship from a long forgotten race (connected to Spock) who kills the father of a future hero of the federation. In the first few days of this timeline, Spock loses his mother and his home.

I think you could explain a more rebellious Kirk and a more emotional Spock based on these events.

 

[loaloa55]

Did no one found difficult to believe the two Spock in the same scene at the end? I mean, don't we break the time paradox rules, there? Or did i missed a logic explanation in the movie?

 

[Sky]

I didn't really mind the two Spocks.. when you accept time travel, you accept all kinds of wackiness. Of course it was a bit weird but whatever.

 

[Captain Robert April]

This board makes for a fascinating sociological study of the fanbase.

Many of us still demand that Star Trek at least try and maintain a certain level of intelligence in the storytelling.

Others are willing to forgive even the most egregious boners so long as the result is an exciting movie.

Then we have still others who could be treated to a two-hour presentation of Leonard Nimoy's last colonoscopy and shout from the rooftops that it was the greatest Star Trek ever.

This last group is in full-throated ecstasy in this thread, and quite frankly, they scare me, because they're gonna take an arguably moribund franchise and take it right off the cliff Thelma & Louise style in their exuberance over this loud, flashy, and lobotomized Star Trek doppleganger.

So, I say again, Kool-Aid drinkers, enjoy the ride, 'cause it ain't gonna last. Your version doesn't have the integrity to hold up over time.

 

[TGTheodore]

Gee, whiz ... you mean all we sheep got taken again? Wow! How do they keep doing that? Darn. I thought I had a great time, but it turns out I was deceived. Thanks so much for setting all of us straight.

Sheesh.

Who's minding the underside of the bridge, by the way? The Three Billy Goats Gruff are headed its way.

--Ted

 

[ST-One]

This board makes for a fascinating sociological study of the fanbase.

Many of us still demand that Star Trek at least try and maintain a certain level of intelligence in the storytelling.

You can see an example of that at your local cinema; just buy a ticket for Star Trek and enjoy a great two hours of movie-magic.

Others are willing to forgive even the most egregious boners so long as the result is an exciting movie.

'... but where is the heavy handed massage.'
'Honestly, if I wanted to see sexy people doing exiting stuff I'd watch sports.'

Then we have still others who could be treated to a two-hour presentation of Leonard Nimoy's last colonoscopy and shout from the rooftops that it was the greatest Star Trek ever.

This last group is in full-throated ecstasy in this thread, and quite frankly, they scare me, because they're gonna take an arguably moribund franchise and take it right off the cliff Thelma & Louise style in their exuberance over this loud, flashy, and lobotomized Star Trek doppleganger.

So, I say again, Kool-Aid drinkers, enjoy the ride, 'cause it ain't gonna last. Your version doesn't have the integrity to hold up over time.

 

[Samurai8472]

So... with Vulcan now destroyed, who will stop the "supernovava" in the future?

presumably Vulcan 2.0 will already be established and the cycle will start all over.

 

[igor137]

it was such a great movie it makes me want to see it again

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Gee, whiz ... you mean all we sheep got taken again? Wow! How do they keep doing that?

Having higher standards in entertainment makes us sheep. Ba-a-a-ah!

 

[Borgminister]

This board makes for a fascinating sociological study of the fanbase.

Yes. Yes it does.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Gee, whiz ... you mean all we sheep got taken again? Wow! How do they keep doing that? Darn. I thought I had a great time, but it turns out I was deceived. Thanks so much for setting all of us straight.

I mean there are too many lining up to be sheep.

For the love of God, if Roddenberry wanted nothing else, he wanted us all to THINK!! This movie is the antithesis of everything he tried to do with Star Trek, and (sorry, Majel) not only would he not have approved of this stripmining of his brainchild, he would've done everything in his power to keep this thing from seeing the light of day (or, barring that, he'd have done like he did many times before, leak the script to undercut the thing).

 

[Tom Servo]

Gee, whiz ... you mean all we sheep got taken again? Wow! How do they keep doing that? Darn. I thought I had a great time, but it turns out I was deceived. Thanks so much for setting all of us straight.

I mean there are too many lining up to be sheep.

For the love of God, if Roddenberry wanted nothing else, he wanted us all to THINK!! This movie is the antithesis of everything he tried to do with Star Trek, and (sorry, Majel) not only would he not have approved of this stripmining of his brainchild, he would've done everything in his power to keep this thing from seeing the light of day (or, barring that, he'd have done like he did many times before, leak the script to undercut the thing).

Naw, only his son said that he would have loved it. But hey, why listen to him when we can listen to you?! Cause we all know you and Gene were all buddy buddy.

All hail CRA!

 

[Zeppster]

Gee, whiz ... you mean all we sheep got taken again? Wow! How do they keep doing that? Darn. I thought I had a great time, but it turns out I was deceived. Thanks so much for setting all of us straight.

I mean there are too many lining up to be sheep.

For the love of God, if Roddenberry wanted nothing else, he wanted us all to THINK!! This movie is the antithesis of everything he tried to do with Star Trek, and (sorry, Majel) not only would he not have approved of this stripmining of his brainchild, he would've done everything in his power to keep this thing from seeing the light of day (or, barring that, he'd have done like he did many times before, leak the script to undercut the thing).

No he wanted to make a western in space. He did want some key ideals in the future, such as racial equality. I wouldn't say sexist equality because most of the women were really used as idols for Kirk or another to take advantage of. I'm sorry but he allowed TOS, TAS, TNG, and all the other movies to see the light of day and many of them don't really allow us to think.

 

[ST-One]

Gee, whiz ... you mean all we sheep got taken again? Wow! How do they keep doing that? Darn. I thought I had a great time, but it turns out I was deceived. Thanks so much for setting all of us straight.

I mean there are too many lining up to be sheep.

For the love of God, if Roddenberry wanted nothing else, he wanted us all to THINK!! This movie is the antithesis of everything he tried to do with Star Trek, and (sorry, Majel) not only would he not have approved of this stripmining of his brainchild, he would've done everything in his power to keep this thing from seeing the light of day (or, barring that, he'd have done like he did many times before, leak the script to undercut the thing).

Have you seen TOS?

 

[Borgminister]

Brain and brain, what is brain!

 

[lawman]

I certainly agree there was some questionable logic in this thing, but not EVERY Star Trek story has to have an airtight plot you know.

Well, yeah, actually it does. The episodes that don't are the ones we tend to refer to as "bad ones."

I mean, to me nitpicking this movie to death is like watching, say, "A Piece of the Action" and getting so completely hung up on the ridiculousness of the Mob Planet itself that you fail to enjoy all the great humor and character moments and twists and turns in the actual STORY.

I honestly don't think I've been nitpicking it to death. It's a question of balance. "APOTA" is somewhat implausible, yes, but if you swallow the initial conceit then on the whole the rest is internally consistent. This movie, OTOH, kept bombarding me with one thing after another that just obviously didn't make sense, even by the story's own internal terms. I can suspend my disbelief enough to swallow a little of that, but eventually it reaches a point of critical mass. I'm not sure quite when that was for me... it may have been when Spock expelled Kirk onto an ice planet rather than just locking him up, it may have been when Scotty beamed them back onto a ship in warp... but the impression was definitely overwhelming by the time we saw that Earth was totally undefended against attack.

But that doesn't mean we can't overlook those problems and still enjoy the movie.

Yeah, it really does. I can overlook small stuff like "hey, isn't Delta Vega somewhere else?", but to overlook the big stuff I'd have to turn my brain off entirely. (I had much the same problem with STV: TFF.)

...my main feeling as I walked out was that it simply didn’t feel like Star Trek, and that worried my greatly. I’ve been a fan for over 30 years, since early childhood, and to not have the feeling for the first time ever was very disappointing.

I know exaclty what you mean. I wouldn't say "the first time ever"—there were moments when VOY and ENT gave me that same sour feeling, enough so that I eventually gave up on both—but at least they weren't asking me to accept them as the conceptual template for all of Trek.

THE GOOD
- The special effects were stunning, particularly the opening battle. There can be no question about that.

- I warmed quite quickly to the exterior of the new Enterprise – at least when shown at a distance anyhow.

I can agree with this. Visually, it was an impressive movie.

I wasna't even bothered by the recasting as much as you were. Like I've said, it's not that the film completely lacks redeeming qualities. It's just that they're dwarfed by its shortcomings.

- The set designs. The Kelvin was ok and I could believe it was pre-TOS. However, I despised other sets, most significantly the Enterprise interiors. ...we are talking about how society will look over 200 years from now. In that respect I cannot accept that the Enterprise needs manual handles to go to warp and an absurd looking engine room that looks like the lower decks of a World War II submarine.

I agree 100%. Filming Engineering in a brewery is not a good idea if when you see it on screen you can't avoid thinking, "hey, that looks like a brewery!"

- Plot explanations. I thanked god I had read Countdown because without that the plot of the movie seemed very silly. A Romulan comes after Spock because his homeworld was blown up and he somehow blames Spock for not sorting it out in time, all of which we find out in a couple minutes. Great. That’s it? So basically we are to empathise with Nero and understand his plight? Do me a favour. I couldn’t feel for him after such a small and thrown away explanation and saw the character as nothing more than Bana playing a crazy.

Absolutely. People seem to forget that a big part of what made Khan work in STII (when having a megalomaniacal villain attacking was not yet a stock element of Trek films) was that he had history with Kirk... and just as importantly, we were given screen time to see how that history had affected him and his people emotionally. Here, Nero was just a thug with a crew of thugs, and a big ship.

- Kids in charge of the Enterprise. Talked about many times so I won’t go into detail, but from cadet to Captain? And for that matter the whole crew (sans Spock & Scotty) from cadets to senior officers? Utterly, utterly stupid.

Yeah. Doing a "setup" story is one thing; doing it in a way that takes obviously implausible shortcuts is just creatively lazy.

Abrams and his cohorts, including Nimoy himself, tell us Star Trek is about the characters. A lot of fans have bought into this when seeing the new movie and think that if there is a good arc for Kirk & Spock then that’s all that’s need. I respectfully disagree with this on every level. Star Trek was never about the characters, it was about the human experience, as told through the characters. This is the fundamental mistake with movie.

Interesting point. I'm not sure I'd phrase it quite like that, but I see what you're getting at.

I was never a fan of Star Trek because I liked to see ship battles or fancy devices. It was about, for me, the social issues it made me think about. It was the thing about Star Trek that set it apart from things like Star Wars. It had greater depth, more intelligence and more morality than the other things out there.

Hear, hear! Absolutely!

And I agree with you that while this new approach may be a recipe for a couple of big money-making films, it is not a recipe for long-term success.

The plot was hackneyed, illogical and really just a retread (to varying degrees) of the last three TNG movies. Yet there was an audacity (they destroyed Vulcan!) and verve to the writing that has been missing from Trek since the days of DS9....

Characterisations were understandably broad and flimsy, but their portrayals were warmer and much more relatable than Trek characters have been for a very long time....

You know, I actually agree with you about these points. It did have "verve," and the characters were "warmer." Again, though: slight consolation for all that was wrong with it.

Ultimately though, perhaps the best thing about this movie and what saves it from its failings is that it reminded me again of the potential of Trek. Once more, the possibilities are endless, I just hope the filmmakers boldly seek out and explore them.

See, that's a sense I don't get out of this.

Upon second viewing the deficiencies in the plot are even more glaring. It is truly dire, and the labourious exposition and radical leaps of logic required to navigate its convoluted inanities dampens an otherwise superlative film.

Absolutely agree. Except for the word "superlative."

The movie is another example of American exceptionalism through capitalism. Only here in American do you have the visionaries, resources and freedom to bring a film like this for the worlds enjoyment.

God Bless America and death to all her enemies.

...2. Spock leaving the Enterprise to rescue the council and his parents...no way would Spock have left his duty on the ship.

You could practically see how the writers broke down the story in those scenes. "If we're going to destroy Vulcan, we have to do something to convey its impact on a personal level. But Spock is the only Vulcan really in the story, so he has to be involved. Let's get him on the surface by saying he has to rescue his family. Sure, we'll have to technobabble a reason why, and he'll have to leave the bridge in a crisis to do it, but it'll have a big emotional impact. Especially if we kill his mother!" (Of course, they then skipped straight from that emotional impact to the next big action sequence anyway.)

a. When exactly did [the destruction of Romulus] take place in the old Trekiverse?

b. How did Nero going back and stopping Spock save his planet and wife? It was going to go supernova and Spock failed to stop it so stopping Spock didn't really change that did it?

a) 2387.

b) It didn't.

 

[Amaris]

I saw this one more as a nice play with the Trek-typical reset-button.

That's how I saw it. When I first saw what was going on I thought "oh please don't hit the reset button", and they didn't. That was a new feeling!

This board makes for a fascinating sociological study of the fanbase.

Many of us still demand that Star Trek at least try and maintain a certain level of intelligence in the storytelling.

Others are willing to forgive even the most egregious boners so long as the result is an exciting movie.

Then we have still others who could be treated to a two-hour presentation of Leonard Nimoy's last colonoscopy and shout from the rooftops that it was the greatest Star Trek ever.

This last group is in full-throated ecstasy in this thread, and quite frankly, they scare me, because they're gonna take an arguably moribund franchise and take it right off the cliff Thelma & Louise style in their exuberance over this loud, flashy, and lobotomized Star Trek doppleganger.

So, I say again, Kool-Aid drinkers, enjoy the ride, 'cause it ain't gonna last. Your version doesn't have the integrity to hold up over time.

I am a hardcore Star Trek fan, have been since I was four years old, and I've always loved the original series the most (as well as some serious love for DS9). I went into this movie with an open mind and a willingness to see what J.J. had done. I knew better than to expect the exact same treatment Trek movies have been receiving the past 30 odd years. The result? I had a very enjoyable experience, and gladly say that this movie was a lot of fun, stayed very reverent and respectful to Star Trek as a whole, and is deserving of it's current standing. I am positive that good things will come of this new leap forward.

You show fear and bitter angst. You show uncertainty, hatred of what you don't understand, rage against a Star Trek you don't know, and more importantly, don't want to know. Your sense of boldness, of spirit, is limited to what you know, which makes it all the more sad. If you didn't like the movie on it's merits, that is one thing, but you don't like the movie simply because it exists, and that is truly a terrible thing, because you've let it control and shape your life these past 3 years. You must have it to hate, and you must have it to be in control, and that is very sad. You are a sad, embittered man who can't let go of the fact that things change, that people and culture move forward, that everything grows and develops.

Good luck in clinging to your past. It's all you have left, and you revile those who see there may be something more ahead.

How sad for you.

J.

 

[Captain Robert April]

You show fear and bitter angst. You show uncertainty, hatred of what you don't understand, rage against a Star Trek you don't know, and more importantly, don't want to know.

WRONG!

I know and understand this attempted Star Trek perfectly. It's Paramount's final slaughtering of the golden goose, dumbed down to lowest common denominator to get the biggest bang and finally suck in that elusive mass audience that doesn't want to actually think about what they just saw, just go for a roller coaster ride and enjoy the buzz from the adrenaline rush, which was precisely what Roddenberry most feared would happen once he was gone.

So how in the hell people can claim that he would approve of his worst nightmare is beyond me.