The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

[Ransak]

Long time lurker first time poster. ST11 made me finally register. As an FYI, I avoided all trailers/spoilers/reviews of ST11 aside from hearing ZQ speak at the LV convention last August (in which he didn't reveal much at all).

My rating: 2/5. Superb special effects, fantastic acting, and an extremely vapid storyline.

If you disagree with me ask yourself this: in twenty years do you think this movie will be a classic? Unless it's followed by some much stronger films the answer is no. I do not believe this movie could stand the test of time on its own merits.

For me ST was all about the writing and good writing makes you think. ST11 did not make me think. No moral dilemmas, no cunning nick of time rescue plans, no alternative viewpoints, just bang-kapow-woosh. The entire movie felt like it was just an opening to say 'Look! It's the re-original Star Trek cast!'.

I'm going to the LV convention again this year and I plan on thanking whoever is there from ST11 (I know at least ZQ will be again) for introducing ST to a new generation. That being said, ST11 feels like to me a movie you would use as a prequel to introduce a child to the universe of ST to grab their attention before taking them deeper into something more cerebral and challenging to their preconceptions about the world. Perhaps that is what JJ means to do, I can only hope.

 

[Skywalker]

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"?

Not if the Federation President is anything like the U.S. President. Technically, it's incorrect to refer to a former U.S. president as "Mr. President" or "President Such-and-such." They should instead be referred to by their highest title before the presidency, so George W. Bush should be called "Governor Bush" now.

I tried to explain this to the people on Memory Alpha, but I don't think they agreed.

 

[Australis]

Thought for today:

If JJ had tried to make a prequel rather than a semi-reboot (that's what I think, bite me), stop and imagine for a moment all the dots he would have had to have joined to make it fit canon/continuity. It would have been a steep, uphill battle that 90% of viewers, and nearly every single NEW fan, wouldn't have appreciated. And the chances are it would have been fairly stodgy and slow as they dotted all the Ts and crossed all the Is. It simply wasn't worth anyone's time.

Prime U exists, nuU exists. If you don't like it, then think of it as Trek having stopped in 2003, and you can't see nuU, it's a universe too far away.

 

[Trekker4747]

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

It's worth pointing out that Kirk gets that drink while in 1987 and further he makes an odd grimmace at it after drinking it.

Also: On the Admiral Archer and his dog thing.

There's no way it was *the* Archer and Porthos we know from Enterprise.

This movie takes place nearly 100 years after the events of "Enterprise." On the very edge of human-life, and that's being generous even given the expanded life expectancies in the 23c, and well beyond the edge of beagle life.

 

[elwappo]

I really think that the actors captured the essence of the characters that Gene R. created so many years ago. In my book the film gets an A for making me feel like Star Trek is new again with the characters I loved so much so many years ago. Cannon and the like to me aren't important. To me Star Trek has always been, at the core, the story of friendship between Mccoy, Kirk, and Spock. And this really hit a home run for me in that book.

Special effects are pretty. But they could have been paper cut out's and I would still have loved it as the actors and writers brought these characters out so vividly.

 

[LizK]

Re: "Pike in the wheelchair at the end...no medical breakthrough for this??"

There is only so much any medical miracle can do when the brain stem is messed up. That the man is coherent and in a wheelchair says plenty.

My biggest complaint is with the whole back in time thing. Nero, if he'd been in any sort of right mind-even if he was seething with hate and fury and desiring revenge-should have realized that once he's back in time, he can correct the screwup by the Vulcan and Romulan councils of science. But what does he do? He destroys everyone and everything that could keep Romulus around in the future!!!!!

 

[Jim Steele]

Nero's motivations were rather ill conceived and shallow, imho. They might as well have given him a moustache to twirl.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, I thought the schtick was a little silly when they did it with Montalban.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Nero's motivations were rather ill conceived and shallow, imho. They might as well have given him a moustache to twirl.

Moustache, no hair, tattoos, good look.

 

[Agent Richard07]

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"?

Not if the Federation President is anything like the U.S. President. Technically, it's incorrect to refer to a former U.S. president as "Mr. President" or "President Such-and-such." They should instead be referred to by their highest title before the presidency, so George W. Bush should be called "Governor Bush" now.

I tried to explain this to the people on Memory Alpha, but I don't think they agreed.

I've heard former presidents like Carter and Clinton being referred to as simply "President Carter" and "President Clinton" respectively. I've never heard Clinton, for example, being referred to as "Governor Clinton". I did a quick search and a number of sources agree with you though. Others say that a former president can be addressed as "Former President Such & Such". I guess "Admiral Archer" can work in this case.

Also: On the Admiral Archer and his dog thing.

There's no way it was *the* Archer and Porthos we know from Enterprise.

This movie takes place nearly 100 years after the events of "Enterprise." On the very edge of human-life, and that's being generous even given the expanded life expectancies in the 23c, and well beyond the edge of beagle life.

I also thought that maybe it wasn't Archer. I think it's supposed to be though. Archer supposedly lived until 2245, 14 years before the events in this movie. If this or something close to it was the case, Archer would have been around long enough for Scotty to do whatever it is he did. I can't see it being Porthos though, who is never mentioned by name. That's unless he had the dog's life prolonged.

 

[Jim Steele]

Nero's motivations were rather ill conceived and shallow, imho. They might as well have given him a moustache to twirl.

Moustache, no hair, tattoos, good look.

And with Shinzon playing Charles Bronson in another movie... quite fitting.

That's obviously what you were going for. I just felt like being captain obvious.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Nero's motivations were rather ill conceived and shallow, imho. They might as well have given him a moustache to twirl.

Moustache, no hair, tattoos, good look.

And with Shinzon playing Charles Bronson in another movie... quite fitting.

That's obviously what you were going for. I just felt like being captain obvious.

I'm still rather pissed off I never got to see that movie. The local cineworld is being shit about showing British movies lately. No Bronson, no Shifty, no FAQ about Time Travel, no In The Loop. It's getting right on my tits.

 

[Ovation]

Re: "Pike in the wheelchair at the end...no medical breakthrough for this??"

There is only so much any medical miracle can do when the brain stem is messed up. That the man is coherent and in a wheelchair says plenty.

My biggest complaint is with the whole back in time thing. Nero, if he'd been in any sort of right mind-even if he was seething with hate and fury and desiring revenge-should have realized that once he's back in time, he can correct the screwup by the Vulcan and Romulan councils of science. But what does he do? He destroys everyone and everything that could keep Romulus around in the future!!!!!

His accidental presence in the past immediately creates a divergent timeline. He is not equipped to travel through time deliberately and, even if he did, he would not be saving "his" Romulus by going forward along the new path his presence created. He has no immediate way of determining this, of course, but his inability to deliberately time travel renders it moot. At best, he can only attempt to warn the Romulans of this new timeline that, a century or so from now, there could well be a serious problem if no one does anything about it.

 

[T'Bonz]

I don't think he ever realized that he was on an alternate timeline. He DID know he had gone back in time. In his mind, by wiping out ALL of the Federation planets (he said he would do this,) he would then have plenty of time (129 years in fact,) to get to Romulus and save them.

So in his mind, he would save his wife and unborn child and his planet, AND make Romulus a great power by knocking out their enemies.

The tragedy for him was that he was on an alternate timeline and he might not even have the wife/unborn child in this reality. Things changed the minute he came through that black hole. All of his revenge might have been for naught. I can't think that just saving Romulus would have been sufficient for him.

 

[fleetcaptain]

Saw it again on sunday evening. Went to a late showing and there wasn't that many people in there. I have to ask through, since I didn't stay til the end of the credits, but there isn't any addition scenes right? I noticed that twice now that a lot of people stayed during the credits. Just wanna be sure I didn't miss something.

 

[thumbtack]

no cunning nick of time rescue plans.

Apart from the entire movie itself being one big, long, nick of time rescue plan.

 

[indranee]

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

It's worth pointing out that Kirk gets that drink while in 1987 and further he makes an odd grimmace at it after drinking it.

Also: On the Admiral Archer and his dog thing.

There's no way it was *the* Archer and Porthos we know from Enterprise.

This movie takes place nearly 100 years after the events of "Enterprise." On the very edge of human-life, and that's being generous even given the expanded life expectancies in the 23c, and well beyond the edge of beagle life.

it had to be the Archer we know. no point putting it in the movie otherwise. so I happen to think it was a serious continuity error. not major in terms of the movie, but an error nonetheless.

 

[indranee]

Nero's motivations were rather ill conceived and shallow, imho. They might as well have given him a moustache to twirl.

shallow? shallow?!?!

try losing your wife and child and your whole goddamned planet and let me know if you feel like your feelings about that loss are shallow.

OTOH...

 

[jamestyler]

Nero's motivations were rather ill conceived and shallow, imho. They might as well have given him a moustache to twirl.

shallow? shallow?!?!

try losing your wife and child and your whole goddamned planet and let me know if you feel like your feelings about that loss are shallow.

OTOH...

I feel the same - I went a little nuts when I started having custody issues with my daughter. If anything happened to her I would probably go a little Jokerish.

But my existence is ill conceived and shallow in itself..

 

[indranee]

Saw it again on sunday evening. Went to a late showing and there wasn't that many people in there. I have to ask through, since I didn't stay til the end of the credits, but there isn't any addition scenes right? I noticed that twice now that a lot of people stayed during the credits. Just wanna be sure I didn't miss something.

no, just that the music during the credits is awesome (plus, those ARE the credits; there weren't any earlier). also, the movie is dedicated to Gene and Majel -- right at the end of the credit scrawl.