The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

[Trekker4747]

Can you guys please tell me what about this movie made you think, because I just can't find it.

What about "The Trouble With Tribbles" made you think?

Can't Trek at times just be, well, fun?

 

[Amaris]

I wouldn't mind a different take on Star Trek I just wished it was as intelligent and well written as the original. Can you guys please tell me what about this movie made you think, because I just can't find it.

For me, and I can only answer for myself:

* The interpersonal conflict between Kirk & Spock, whether it would become what we know as their close friendship in the original universe.

* How events, big and small, in our lives change the direction for the better or even for the worse, and the experiences we have along the way.

* It is possible to win in a no win scenario, and cheating isn't a required part of it.

* What we know, and what we think we know, are two completely separate entities. We as knowledgeable creatures find every day that we are once again schooled by the universe in the level of ignorance we display toward it.

* How lives can be so intertwined, it opens up the idea of fate or destiny, that what happens is meant to be.

Just a couple of thoughts I've had in regard to the movie. There are plenty more.

It gave me a lot to think about, in the same sense that TWOK game me something to think about. It was NOT two hours of eye candy, it was an experience. Transformers, while a fun film, that was eye candy. This was so much more though. The scenes when Kirk is born and his father only gets to hear his cries for a few seconds was very very moving, the same with the scene of Spock and his father reflecting on his mother at the transporter pad. "I married your mother because I loved her", to me was one of the best lines of the film.

To me, while intelligent Trek is good trek, emotional Trek is GREAT Trek. Honestly, was "The Inner Light" known because it's such an intelligent episode? No, it's because it's so emotional. There were so many scenes in this film FILLED with emotion, and if they had used lesser actors in this film, they would have come of as goofy. But with the high quality acting in this film, you felt sadness and fear for them.

Ill say it again, but one of the saddest scenes in the film for me is seeing the fleet destroyed at Vulcan. I mean only a few minutes before you saw all these cadets all excited to go. The scene where Uhura is assigned to the Farragut and her room mate is assigned to another ship is touching because her room mate looks so excited to go and so excited to finally go out there. But now, they are all dead.

Honestly, I can't fathom how someone could not like this film. It just had it all.

Spot on. Though there was much for me to think about, the emotional impact of this movie is staggering. I loved it, and like you, it was an experience I'll never forget. Yes, when Sarek told Spock that he loved his mother, when George Kirk tells Winona right before the Kelvin hits the Narada, that he loves her, when Spock's mother dies and Spock reaches out to grab her and when he materializes he is holding empty space, when Vulcan was destroyed the entire theater was absolutely silent, there was this collective awe from the audience, myself included. This movie was just magnificent and I want to experience it again and again.

J.

 

[TheArsenal]

I wouldn't mind a different take on Star Trek I just wished it was as intelligent and well written as the original. Can you guys please tell me what about this movie made you think, because I just can't find it.

In fairness, this was more of an "entertaining" take than a "thinking man's" take. But that is not to say it was devoid of intelligence. It was not. But it did choose to put the emphasis elsewhere.

That said: a dead franchise which produces no movies will not be able to make either intelligent or entertaining Star Trek.

A movie which is entertaining and popular enough to allow Trek to live on, moving forward now has the chance to do both.

Simple math, really.

 

[Blue_Trek]

I pulled this quote from another forum that had only a single thread on Star Trek.

I just saw the movie today, and I thought it was pretty good. I've never watched Star Trek ever in my life before, so this is my first time to the Star Trek fantasy.

One of the reasons I wanted to watch this film though was because J.J. Abrams directed it. I liked what he did with Cloverfield.

I'll probably see Star Trek a second time.

This is why we have a winner, people that have never seen Star Trek in there lives, wanting to see it multiple times.

EPIC WIN

 

[mysticgeek]

I agree with mysticpain saying "It is an average typical Hollywood flick at best".

Why would you want to change the formula? So it appeals to the masses? One of the greatest attributes of Trek is its current community and die hard fans. Rope in new fans? I doubt it ... I don't want some guy in the office telling me how great the movie is knowing that I am a trekkie ... then want a quick lesson in the 40+ years of it all.

I am rambling but I see nothing gained by a bunch of "normies" liking this movie and then not understanding anything else. Who benefits? oh yeah Hollywood ... so what.

 

[jazzstick]

So I figure I will write a quick review of the film. I saw it again today, and from the moment the Paramount stars enter the screen to the dedication at the end, this film was pure joy to me. The best thing to see was how energetic the cast and production crew of this film was. You could tell they had fun making this film. A few points:

-Some thought Ben Cross was wooden as Sarek, I thought he was excellent. The scene were he tells Spock that the reason he married his mother was because he loved her was very touching.

- The opening sequence was just incredible to watch, from the acting (kudos to Chris Helmsworth and Jennifer Morrison) to the direction of the battle sequences and the music played over the whole thing.

- I LOVE LOVE LOVE the sound design in this whole movie. The weapons feel and sound like destructive devices, and the way that they just tear through the ships are astounding. You feel the power of these devices as they go off.

- The sequence when the ship warps into Vulcan space and flies into the remains of the battle group is probably my favorite sequence of the film. The sheer chaos of it all is astounding. The voices overlapping each other yelling orders and the sound of the engines trying to slow down and maneuver around the debris is just incredible. And it was actually quite sad because only moments before, these ships were filled with the classmates of the Enterprise crew who was just at the academy. I really haven't been that saddened by a scene in Trek for a long time, because just minutes before you saw all these bright eyed kids ready to go explore the galaxy, and now they had met their fate in the worst way possible, in the coldness of space.

-The whole cast was just terrific, and the casting was just spot on. I loved Spock especially though, because through the whole thing, even though he was emotionless you could just tell he had a little smile underneath it all until the events at Vulcan.

- The Kobyashi Maru scene was PRICELESS. The swagger Kirk has as he orders everyone around, and how the rest of the crew, and the testers, are like WTF is he doing. I especially loved when they torpedoed the Klingons, Kirk making the gun with his finger and going PEW PEW PEW! That and the apple he was eating was a nice tough to TWOK.

I guess I will write more later, but I just can't get over how great that movie was. The only bad thing was that it went by so fast, and now we have to wait another two years for the sequel.

You know I really liked the Kobyashi Maru too! I think its the only part of the movie I like, but didn't you notice the lack of anything meaningful or intelligent about this movie? It really just seemed like 2 hours of eye candy and no soul! It did'nt give you anything substancal to really think about!

It gave me a lot to think about, in the same sense that TWOK game me something to think about. It was NOT two hours of eye candy, it was an experience. Transformers, while a fun film, that was eye candy. This was so much more though. The scenes when Kirk is born and his father only gets to hear his cries for a few seconds was very very moving, the same with the scene of Spock and his father reflecting on his mother at the transporter pad. "I married your mother because I loved her", to me was one of the best lines of the film.

To me, while intelligent Trek is good trek, emotional Trek is GREAT Trek. Honestly, was "The Inner Light" known because it's such an intelligent episode? No, it's because it's so emotional. There were so many scenes in this film FILLED with emotion, and if they had used lesser actors in this film, they would have come of as goofy. But with the high quality acting in this film, you felt sadness and fear for them.

Ill say it again, but one of the saddest scenes in the film for me is seeing the fleet destroyed at Vulcan. I mean only a few minutes before you saw all these cadets all excited to go. The scene where Uhura is assigned to the Farragut and her room mate is assigned to another ship is touching because her room mate looks so excited to go and so excited to finally go out there. But now, they are all dead.

Honestly, I can't fathom how someone could not like this film. It just had it all.

Hmmmm I think you have a point with the Inner Light but its not all emotion, it also showed how somebody can live a lifetime (in a concepual sense) in a short time, and how people are only really dead if you forget them. Yes I also think your right that the movie wa semotional in the ways you pointed out but this was manipulaton with every cheap trick in the book and I personally thought that the acting was sub-par. Really what part did Winona Ryder really have to boot?

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

I just got back from seeing it.

Excellent. It was really good. Chris Pine was fantastic, Quinto did a good job, though a little different than the Spock I remembered. All the bit players were great, with McCoy being a standout.

Actually I thought the weakest part of the movie was the stuff used to "preserve canon", stuff like old Spock, and time travel and all this hoop-jumping to come up with an instory reason for the changes. That's the sort of shit I expect from incomprehensible Marvel comics not a movie that's supposed to 'reboot' the property. It didn't help that there was only the barest exposition about all that gobbledygook with no real depth given.

It's funny that we've actually seen a ton of stories like this in Trek, but this is one of the few, if only, times we see the story from the POV of the people in that time period.

Everything else was pretty awesome. The new Enterprise grew on me. I particularly like Scotty and Pike. Vulcan biting the dust was pretty awe inspiring. Very funny, and the pacing was just rip roaring.

It was just well done, and I'm so glad to be rid of the "keep everything as generic as possible, we can't damage the brand!!!" style of the Rick Berman years. Why is it that the later series or later movies can't bring a director's visual style, or have a cool different looking bridge or creative directorial touches? Seriously stuff like Insurrection and Enterprise and Voyager just feels like amateur hour compared to the energy and spirit of this movie.

Thumbs up. Way up. I can't wait to see it again.

 

[Borgminister]

Yes, when Sarek told Spock that he loved his mother, when George Kirk tells Winona right before the Kelvin hits the Narada, that he loves her, when Spock's mother dies and Spock reaches out to grab her and when he materializes he is holding empty space, when Vulcan was destroyed the entire theater was absolutely silent, there was this collective awe from the audience, myself included. This movie was just magnificent and I want to experience it again and again.

J.

Dude, this is the marketing that should be done to the Mom contingent for her special day. The chick flick aspect of the movie. Bring the kleenex.

 

[lawman]

No way am I going to peruse this whole thread. I'm just glad I've found a place where I can voice my five nitpicks with this otherwise very good movie.

1: The dialogue after Kirk's bar room brawl. Abrams used a highly disorienting earthquake camera technique (a-la the Bourne movies). Not subtle. Just about gave me a headache. Mercifully, I did not see this approach repeated with such severity.

2: Kirk's countless moments when he is inebriated, incapacitated, etc. Seriously, next time you watch the movie, count them. The problem with this is that the movie is pretty much always trying to use the scenario to comedic effect. Just how funny can it be for the star to be in a near perpetual daze?

3: Nero. "Hello. I'm Nero." I don't know what's worse: That this line of dialogue was uttered by the movie's villain (who is meant to be taken seriously, or so I gathered), or that the audience laughed at it. I mean.. this throwaway badguy destroyed Vulcan. Something like that demands - DEMANDS - more gravitas, with regard to the perpetrator, than this movie gave it. It really hurt that Nero felt and looked like a disgruntled college dropout.

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.

5: Was it ever explained why nobody on Vulcan or Earth possessed any means of attacking the drill? (While Spock was able to shoot it down quickly and easily with a small ambassador's ship.) For that matter, I think I also missed the exact reasoning behind drilling at all; it seems to me that a singularity would be adequately devestating to a planet, regardless of its point of initiation.

Excellent observations. Honestly I can't say your first point bothered me (in terms of camera work, the super-close-ups were more distracting, IMHO), but the other four points are spot-on. Number four, in particular—you might think when handing out promotions that Starfleet would have noticed that its new flagship wouldn't have had to jettison its warp cores(?) if the "acting captain" hadn't stuck around to shoot fish in the proverbial barrel.

4: The entire escape-the-black-hole sequence at the end did not feel justified...

No the ship wasn't already doomed. I got the feeling that it would travel through time again if they let it slip through the black hole so they had to fire on it to make sure it was destroyed. That's the impression I got from that scene.

5: Was it ever explained why nobody on Vulcan or Earth possessed any means of attacking the drill?...

The drill and Spock's ship were from the future so Spock's ship could be the only thing with the power to destroy the drill.

For that matter, I think I also missed the exact reasoning behind drilling at all...

For whatever reason the red matter had to go in to the planet's core to form the black hole, so that's why they needed the drill.

Riiight. You do realize that an "I got the feeling," a "could be," and a "for whatever reason" aren't exactly rock-solid defenses of holes in the storytelling?

...my main complaint I suppose, is that to me, so very rarely in the film did anyone look like any kind of actual organised crew on a ship. Most of the time it seemed like a bunch of people just hanging out in a high tech coffe house.

I do distinctly recall wondering what that long room full of red-shirted crewmen (including Uhura) was that Kirk ran through to get to the bridge—it looked almost like an old-style telephone exchange, but with big tanks of some kind behind the workstations. Really, did the designers put any kind of logical thought to how this ship's form and function related to one another? (And if so, why didn't they communicate any of it to the viewers?)

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.

...this [is a] 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 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...

I'm inclined to agree. As I've been saying for many pages, it gives some fascinating insight into the apparently very different things different segments of the audience want and expect from Star Trek. Obviously different people do have different tastes, but it does perplex and sometimes disappoint me when people like something I like (in this case, Trek), yet obviously don't value the things I value in it.

You make something for the broadest possible mass audience, and it's no surprise that a lot of people will like it. But no, I don't think this lowest-common-denominator version of Trek has what it takes to stay relevant as part of popular culture for another 40 years, or even another 20.

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

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 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... 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.

You know, you can disagree with CRA without trying to psychoanalyze him. I'm aware he's been a bit overzealous on these boards from time to time, but his critique and subsequent remarks in this thread have actually been quite reasonable. (At least, until folks like "Tom Servo" and "James Bond" started ganging up on him in ways that were far more insulting even than your post here. I once got a a warning around here just for having consecutive posts... yet the mods allow those kinds of direct personal insults?)

And "change" is a neutral term. Sometimes change is positive and constructive (this country's new political direction, for instance), sometimes change is negative and destructive. Saying someone "hates change" is just an end-run around addressing the specific criticisms he may have of the actual change under discussion. I don't have to agree with everything CRA says (I know I differ with him on politics, for instance) to respect his right to express an independent opinion.

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

By what right do you demand anything from the people who run the Star Trek franchise? It can't be based on your financial right. Without even knowing you I can guarantee that the total amount of money you've spent on Star Trek in your entire life essentially adds up to nothing in terms of Trek revenue. It can't be based on your creative right since you're not a contributing writer or artist. Nor do you have an owner's right since Trek is clearly owned by somebody else. So what is it then? Who exactly are you to demand anything?

This is a downright bizarre response. Nobody's talking about ownership or financial transactions. Take a step out of that "business" mindframe. This is about the implicit contract betwen storytellers and their audience, something that applies to any entertainment property, including Trek. "You want me to enjoy your work? I want you to give me something both emotionally authentic and intellectually challenging. You want my continued attention and loyalty? Here's what you have to do to achieve that." Such expectations are always there. Otherwise, by what right would any critic ever review anything?

And, seriously, do you have a problem with someone expecting Star Trek to "maintain a certain level of intelligence in the storytelling"?

 

[Penhall99]

Saw it and thought it was great. Have some nitpicks, but overall I'm very happy with it.

The cast did a great job, but I will not simply dismiss the original actors (as some have done) now that a new group has taken over.

By the way, did anyone wish Spock had said "Where no MAN has gone before..." at the end instead of "Where no ONE..."

I dunno, I just was hoping they had kept the Original Trek version of it...

 

[Trekker4747]

Saw it and thought it was great. Have some nitpicks, but overall I'm very happy with it.

The cast did a great job, but I will not simply dismiss the original actors (as some have done) now that a new group has taken over.

By the way, did anyone wish Spock had said "Where no MAN has gone before..." at the end instead of "Where no ONE..."

I dunno, I just was hoping they had kept the Original Trek version of it...

Just trying to be PC, I guess.

(As if I'm the only one who knows "man" doesn't mean male, but huMAN.)

 

[Borgminister]

The cast did a great job, but I will not simply dismiss the original actors (as some have done) now that a new group has taken over.

Neither will I.

By the way, did anyone wish Spock had said "Where no MAN has gone before..." at the end instead of "Where no ONE..."

Yeah, I did. Would've made the retro credits complete.

 

[Borgminister]

Saw it and thought it was great. Have some nitpicks, but overall I'm very happy with it.

The cast did a great job, but I will not simply dismiss the original actors (as some have done) now that a new group has taken over.

By the way, did anyone wish Spock had said "Where no MAN has gone before..." at the end instead of "Where no ONE..."

I dunno, I just was hoping they had kept the Original Trek version of it...

Just trying to be PC, I guess.

(As if I'm the only one who knows "man" doesn't mean male, but huMAN.)

Don't you know there are men and womyn?

 

[Amaris]

Yes, when Sarek told Spock that he loved his mother, when George Kirk tells Winona right before the Kelvin hits the Narada, that he loves her, when Spock's mother dies and Spock reaches out to grab her and when he materializes he is holding empty space, when Vulcan was destroyed the entire theater was absolutely silent, there was this collective awe from the audience, myself included. This movie was just magnificent and I want to experience it again and again.

J.

Dude, this is the marketing that should be done to the Mom contingent for her special day. The chick flick aspect of the movie. Bring the kleenex.

Actually, that was my mom's Mother's Day gift. I took her on opening night. She LOVED the movie, and she likes the Uhura/Spock pairing. She also thinks Chris Pine's a cutie and "that Eric Bana is a sexy man."

J.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

By the way, did anyone wish Spock had said "Where no MAN has gone before..." at the end instead of "Where no ONE..."

Not so much, but I would have preferred "new life" to "new life-forms."

 

[BurnedPike]

Just awesome.

Saw in iMax 3D, going again tongiht in DLP. Then in 35mm

 

[Borgminister]

Just awesome.

Saw in iMax 3D, going again tongiht in DLP. Then in 35mm

IMAX 3D?!? No WAY. Really?

 

[Tom Servo]

No way am I going to peruse this whole thread. I'm just glad I've found a place where I can voice my five nitpicks with this otherwise very good movie.

1: The dialogue after Kirk's bar room brawl. Abrams used a highly disorienting earthquake camera technique (a-la the Bourne movies). Not subtle. Just about gave me a headache. Mercifully, I did not see this approach repeated with such severity.

2: Kirk's countless moments when he is inebriated, incapacitated, etc. Seriously, next time you watch the movie, count them. The problem with this is that the movie is pretty much always trying to use the scenario to comedic effect. Just how funny can it be for the star to be in a near perpetual daze?

3: Nero. "Hello. I'm Nero." I don't know what's worse: That this line of dialogue was uttered by the movie's villain (who is meant to be taken seriously, or so I gathered), or that the audience laughed at it. I mean.. this throwaway badguy destroyed Vulcan. Something like that demands - DEMANDS - more gravitas, with regard to the perpetrator, than this movie gave it. It really hurt that Nero felt and looked like a disgruntled college dropout.

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.

5: Was it ever explained why nobody on Vulcan or Earth possessed any means of attacking the drill? (While Spock was able to shoot it down quickly and easily with a small ambassador's ship.) For that matter, I think I also missed the exact reasoning behind drilling at all; it seems to me that a singularity would be adequately devestating to a planet, regardless of its point of initiation.

Excellent observations. Honestly I can't say your first point bothered me (in terms of camera work, the super-close-ups were more distracting, IMHO), but the other four points are spot-on. Number four, in particular—you might think when handing out promotions that Starfleet would have noticed that its new flagship wouldn't have had to jettison its warp cores(?) if the "acting captain" hadn't stuck around to shoot fish in the proverbial barrel.

No the ship wasn't already doomed. I got the feeling that it would travel through time again if they let it slip through the black hole so they had to fire on it to make sure it was destroyed. That's the impression I got from that scene.


The drill and Spock's ship were from the future so Spock's ship could be the only thing with the power to destroy the drill.


For whatever reason the red matter had to go in to the planet's core to form the black hole, so that's why they needed the drill.

Riiight. You do realize that an "I got the feeling," a "could be," and a "for whatever reason" aren't exactly rock-solid defenses of holes in the storytelling?


I do distinctly recall wondering what that long room full of red-shirted crewmen (including Uhura) was that Kirk ran through to get to the bridge—it looked almost like an old-style telephone exchange, but with big tanks of some kind behind the workstations. Really, did the designers put any kind of logical thought to how this ship's form and function related to one another? (And if so, why didn't they communicate any of it to the viewers?)



I'm inclined to agree. As I've been saying for many pages, it gives some fascinating insight into the apparently very different things different segments of the audience want and expect from Star Trek. Obviously different people do have different tastes, but it does perplex and sometimes disappoint me when people like something I like (in this case, Trek), yet obviously don't value the things I value in it.

You make something for the broadest possible mass audience, and it's no surprise that a lot of people will like it. But no, I don't think this lowest-common-denominator version of Trek has what it takes to stay relevant as part of popular culture for another 40 years, or even another 20.


You know, you can disagree with CRA without trying to psychoanalyze him. I'm aware he's been a bit overzealous on these boards from time to time, but his critique and subsequent remarks in this thread have actually been quite reasonable. (At least, until folks like "Tom Servo" and "James Bond" started ganging up on him in ways that were far more insulting even than your post here. I once got a a warning around here just for having consecutive posts... yet the mods allow those kinds of direct personal insults?)

And "change" is a neutral term. Sometimes change is positive and constructive (this country's new political direction, for instance), sometimes change is negative and destructive. Saying someone "hates change" is just an end-run around addressing the specific criticisms he may have of the actual change under discussion. I don't have to agree with everything CRA says (I know I differ with him on politics, for instance) to respect his right to express an independent opinion.

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

By what right do you demand anything from the people who run the Star Trek franchise? It can't be based on your financial right. Without even knowing you I can guarantee that the total amount of money you've spent on Star Trek in your entire life essentially adds up to nothing in terms of Trek revenue. It can't be based on your creative right since you're not a contributing writer or artist. Nor do you have an owner's right since Trek is clearly owned by somebody else. So what is it then? Who exactly are you to demand anything?

This is a downright bizarre response. Nobody's talking about ownership or financial transactions. Take a step out of that "business" mindframe. This is about the implicit contract betwen storytellers and their audience, something that applies to any entertainment property, including Trek. "You want me to enjoy your work? I want you to give me something both emotionally authentic and intellectually challenging. You want my continued attention and loyalty? Here's what you have to do to achieve that." Such expectations are always there. Otherwise, by what right would any critic ever review anything?

And, seriously, do you have a problem with someone expecting Star Trek to "maintain a certain level of intelligence in the storytelling"?

No, but it's a problem when someone thinks that if someone enjoyed a film for other reasons, or that that maybe the point of the film was not to be intelligent trek, but a fun ass movie, that they are somehow inferior and "drinking the koolade". I respond to April with venom because he presents his views with a condescending tone, and bitches just to bitch. It's not like he is just the poor innocent guy trying to defend his viewpoint. Anytime someone mentions something about this film he has to come in and put it down because is its not HIS version of Trek.

I love this though. The fact that people are destroying this film because it was not intelligent enough for them. What was so intelligent about TWOK? Or TVH? Or FC? Those three films are the most successful of the bunch, but they are also the most fun, just like this film.

 

[Penhall99]

I've been trying to browse this (monstrous) thread a bit, and I'm surprised to see that some had problems with them having Nimoy in the movie and attempting to preserve canon.

They could have just made a complete remake/start-over of the franchise, and I'm glad they did not. I'd rather see an altered timeline version of Trek than have them completely wipe the slate clean and dismiss 40 plus years of Trek.

They started over, but did so in a way that preserves everything that came before.

Works for me...

 

[worldmaker]

Galaxy Quest, oops, I mean Star Trek 11

Just saw the movie yesterday here in the UK.

Here's my little review if anyone's interested....

[9/may/2009] Score: 7/10
Contains Spoilers.
One of the things I dreaded about this before watching was that the producers would do a "Star Trek High" style of movie, bringing all the characters together as teenagers to save the universe. They, just, about, thankfully avoided that temptation, but it's a very close miss, and I'm still not quite sure why the Federation would give a crew of semi-experienced teenagers and young adults control of a flagship of their fleet, but I guess there was less time in the final script to develop the characters through a few more years of maturity, bringing them together more realistically.
There are two reasons why I downgraded Star Trek from what is a good thrill-ride, and both owe their origins to "Galaxy Quest", so if you know that wonderful satire of the whole SF cult community you'll have a clue to what I mean.
The first of these is the "big mysterious alien super-technology device" which appears here as "Red Matter" a weird material with special properties; and the second is the "why the hell to they have THIS on the ship!?" scene in which we see the intrepid crew of Galaxy Quest, oops, I mean the Enterprise, have to confront an apparently useless but challenging part of the ship to make their escape, in this case the plumbing system.
From a writer's point of view they are both useless and unimaginative devices, which appear to say the screenwriters of Star Trek lack originality and/or are paying an over-enthusiastic humorous tribute to Galaxy Quest, and all that came before it. And that made me sad to think about what was otherwise a good piece of entertainment.
Star Trek will also surprise the viewer in introducing the whole genre anew. In the same way Casino Royale rewrote and restarted the James Bond movies, so Star Treks starts afresh, proposing a new parallel universe with a new history to-come, when they use time travel to unravel everything we've come to know about the characters and their universe, for example the origins of James T. Kirk, the fate of Vulcan, and so on.
This, in a way, is the good part, as it will offer future writers the opportunity, if they can restrain themselves, of developing a new plot for the whole, new Star Trek universe, but will upset the expectations of many existing fans.
Verdict: Go, carefully.