I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

[3D Master]

Essentially, what Paramount has done is break up with their long term wife to chase after a young hot girl. And for now, they are thrilled because the young hot girl love love LOVES them. But the wife was extremely loyal and stuck with them through a lot of crap. The young hot girl is fickle and not likely to do the same. If they screw up the sequel, the young hot girl will not hesitate to dump them for the next big thing, and they will likely be left with neither.

A more accurate analogy:

The hot young girl (Trek) stayed with the guy (Trekkies) after he got fat, stopped caring and took her for granted. He's a jealous control freak who nitpicks every little detail about her and never let's her do anything new or different. He never let's her be vibrant and alive. When she looks at another guy, he always grabs her and says "Mine, mine, MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE!!!!!!"
She finally got sick of his shit, dumped him, and went to look for someone new who would let her be vibrant and alive and try new things. And she's better off for it.

More like the other way around, and oh yeah, she was abusive too. And now she came back brandishing a gun intending to blow your brains out.

 

[shakov]

This movie blew away all of Voyager, Enterprise, most of TNG, as well as all the tng films>

 

[TheGodBen]

I realize some Star Trek Fans want these wide arching deeper themes to be developed upon. Some message they can point to when they talk about the movie with like minded individuals. That's all well and good, but I think you have to balance that with setting up the new universe and telling the journey of the story.

Why? When has Star Trek intentially dropped the ball like that before? Just look at The Cage, it managed to tell a story with an overarching theme even while it built the Star Trek universe around it, and the same can be said of WNMHGB. All of the Trek pilots laid the groundwork for the new series while still developing themes, from the bad (Encounter at Farpoint) to the brilliant (Emissary). Even the pilot of Enterprise had an overarching theme about Archer's prejudice towards Vulcans, so if Brannon Braga can balance the necessity of setting-up the universe while still trying to tell a story then Orci and Kurtzman have no excuse.

 

[T'Bonz]

The hot young girl (Trek) stayed with the guy (Trekkies) after he got fat, stopped caring and took her for granted. He's a jealous control freak who nitpicks every little detail about her and never let's her do anything new or different. He never let's her be vibrant and alive. When she looks at another guy, he always grabs her and says "Mine, mine, MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE!!!!!!"
She finally got sick of his shit, dumped him, and went to look for someone new who would let her be vibrant and alive and try new things. And she's better off for it.

Neither that, nor the other example are accurate to this woman.

Although the aim was to gain a wider (and new audience,) it appears to me that the creators of Star Trek went out of their way to include lots of goodies for the fans. There were so many nods and "in-things" that we could enjoy, yet n00bs wouldn't notice (or care) about them if they were not established fans.

I may not like some of the events of the movie, I may nitpick it to death and of course, some of it, I loved (The Kelvin bit especially), but I can't say that Abrams and the writers turned their backs on the traditional fans. Not at all.

So from this long-term fan, thanks. I hate what you did to my two favorite races, but I loved all the little things, from Tribbles to typical phrases from the characters. It made it all lots more fun.

 

[startrekwatcher]

So from this long-term fan, thanks. I hate what you did to my two favorite races, but I loved all the little things, from Tribbles to typical phrases from the characters. It made it all lots more fun.

I prefer writers to use a previously established Trek element as more than just namedropping which is all that the few easter eggs were. I like it much better and get more excited when they can devise a way to use that element to serve the story in an interesting and appropriate manner than just hearing for the sake of it things like Delta Vega, a brief cameo by a tribble, Admiral Archer. One needs only look to the Reeves Stevenses' brilliant ENT episode "The Forge".

 

[donners22]

So from this long-term fan, thanks. I hate what you did to my two favorite races, but I loved all the little things, from Tribbles to typical phrases from the characters. It made it all lots more fun.

I prefer writers to use a previously established Trek element as more than just namedropping which is all that the few easter eggs were. I like it much better and get more excited when they can devise a way to use that element to serve the story in an interesting and appropriate manner than just hearing for the sake of it things like Delta Vega, a brief cameo by a tribble, Admiral Archer. One needs only look to the Reeves Stevenses' brilliant ENT episode "The Forge".

I suppose those who read most of the novels will be quite familiar with "continuity porn" or "fanwank", which involves throwing around references to other shows wherever possible. The authors normally have them make a bit more sense and relevence than a couple of the examples you mentioned, but the principle is the same.

 

[Borgminister]

So from this long-term fan, thanks. I hate what you did to my two favorite races, but I loved all the little things, from Tribbles to typical phrases from the characters. It made it all lots more fun.

Preach it..!

Scotty, hands up after the powerful Kirk-Spock fight, "I like this ship!"

You should've heard the laughter from the 95% capacity filled IMAX in S.F. today at the 1.30 p.m. showing on a cloudless, sunny, 75-80 degree day.

For what it had to accomplish, this film should be movie of the year...

 

[Jolantru]

This movie blew away all of Voyager, Enterprise, most of TNG, as well as all the tng films>

100% agree with you.

 

[Jolantru]

So from this long-term fan, thanks. I hate what you did to my two favorite races, but I loved all the little things, from Tribbles to typical phrases from the characters. It made it all lots more fun.

I prefer writers to use a previously established Trek element as more than just namedropping which is all that the few easter eggs were. I like it much better and get more excited when they can devise a way to use that element to serve the story in an interesting and appropriate manner than just hearing for the sake of it things like Delta Vega, a brief cameo by a tribble, Admiral Archer. One needs only look to the Reeves Stevenses' brilliant ENT episode "The Forge".

The movie has to succeed or fail as a movie. You just said the keyword, "episode". The worst of the Star Trek move plots, probably would have made good episodes, and there in lies the problem.

You cannot expect a movie going crowd to know all of trek lore, so a reference to material that the average knows nothing about, does the film no good.

 

[Ryan S]

I think aside from the lack of a strong underlying theme, STXI is the missing intensity of previous ST films and other high caliber Sci-Fi. The potential is all there but they decided to gloss over the deeper issues.

I have a problem with the style of this movie as much as anything else. Thinking back I can't recall a bit of dialouge longer than 60 seconds that wasn't interrupted by ridculous humor, shaky cam/lens flares, over wrought drama, contrived and needless action sequences, etc.

Is this what audiences really want? (It's a rhetorical question so save the smart answers)

 

[startrekwatcher]

So from this long-term fan, thanks. I hate what you did to my two favorite races, but I loved all the little things, from Tribbles to typical phrases from the characters. It made it all lots more fun.

I prefer writers to use a previously established Trek element as more than just namedropping which is all that the few easter eggs were. I like it much better and get more excited when they can devise a way to use that element to serve the story in an interesting and appropriate manner than just hearing for the sake of it things like Delta Vega, a brief cameo by a tribble, Admiral Archer. One needs only look to the Reeves Stevenses' brilliant ENT episode "The Forge".

The movie has to succeed or fail as a movie.

And that is what I judged it as--a movie. I don't adjust my standards because it is or isn't a Trek film. All my criticisms were centered on fundamentals of good film-making not the Trek stuff.

I only made mention of the namedropping because I found it pretty pointless and it did nothing for me.

You cannot expect a movie going crowd to know all of trek lore, so a reference to material that the average knows nothing about, does the film no good.

No, but I expect them to know when a villian is one-note and when one is compelling. I expect them to want a solid storyline. I would hope they like a little heart with the big bangs.

I just don't see how people can look at XI and see an excellent film or declare it the best Trek film ever etc.

 

[Butters]

Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

I just don't see how people can look at XI and see an excellent film or declare it the best Trek film ever etc.

I haven't read a single post that would claim it is either of those things, it just doesn't deserve the scorn it has received from some quarters over trivial things.

Product placement does not make for a bad movie, and starships built on the ground does not violate "canon" nor does it make for bad trek.

Every complaint made againt this film can be found elsewhere in trek, so why the hatred? Nobody is being forced to like it, so if its that bad, why can't it just be welcomed in to the fold of mediocre trek? Why can't its failings be discussed in the context of trek?

It has "canon" violations, just like the rest.
It has action sequences and humour.
It has name dropping
It has ridiculous science to advance the story
It is star trek.

 

[Tentacle]

This guy's review pretty much nails it in the head, (if you can get pass his rantings about kirk's rise in rank).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIL7v73Isjg

Especially the part about what star trek meant to people.

Maybe it is expecting too much from a 2 hour movie for it to capture the heart and soul of trek.....

 

[3D Master]

I just don't see how people can look at XI and see an excellent film or declare it the best Trek film ever etc.

I haven't read a single post that would claim it is either of those things, it just doesn't deserve the scorn it has received from some quarters over trivial things.

Product placement does not make for a bad movie, and starships built on the ground does not violate "canon" nor does it make for bad trek.

Wrong, it does make for bad trek.

Every complaint made againt this film can be found elsewhere in trek, so why the hatred?

And there is no example anywhere in Trek of fleetyards one the ground. Try and name one, you won't find it. Oh, do notice that a testing facility is not a fleet yard.

Further, there are plenty, plenty, massive and massive failings of this movie that can be found nowhere in Trek. Not in the least of which is saying, "Eh, 40 years of Trek? Forget about all of it... oh, except the biggest of crap made except this movie, that we'll keep."

Finally, all the problems that were in Trek before that were now again in XI, are problems we grew TIRED OF two series and two movies ago, and have spent our time catapulting them into the ground for it the exact same way.

That's the most horrible part of it. They took everything that was good in Trek and tossed it out the window, and took everything that was bad in Trek and not only kept it, but made it worse!

Nobody is being forced to like it, so if its that bad, why can't it just be welcomed in to the fold of mediocre trek?

Uh... because if it's that bad, and it is, it is NOT mediocre Trek, but BAD Trek. Horribly bad Trek. Hell, it's so bad, having everything that made Trek Trek (and good) removed from it, I can't even call it Trek.

Further, we're TIRED of mediocre Trek if it had even gotten to that point. There's only so much mediocre and bad Trek a person can take before they walk away in disgust. For most people, that occurred years ago.

Why can't its failings be discussed in the context of trek?

We are. We find it wanted. We find it horrible, so we're done with it.

 

[Butters]

Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

I just don't see how people can look at XI and see an excellent film or declare it the best Trek film ever etc.

I haven't read a single post that would claim it is either of those things, it just doesn't deserve the scorn it has received from some quarters over trivial things.

Product placement does not make for a bad movie, and starships built on the ground does not violate "canon" nor does it make for bad trek.

Wrong, it does make for bad trek.



And there is no example anywhere in Trek of fleetyards one the ground. Try and name one, you won't find it. Oh, do notice that a testing facility is not a fleet yard.

Further, there are plenty, plenty, massive and massive failings of this movie that can be found nowhere in Trek. Not in the least of which is saying, "Eh, 40 years of Trek? Forget about all of it... oh, except the biggest of crap made except this movie, that we'll keep."

Finally, all the problems that were in Trek before that were now again in XI, are problems we grew TIRED OF two series and two movies ago, and have spent our time catapulting them into the ground for it the exact same way.

That's the most horrible part of it. They took everything that was good in Trek and tossed it out the window, and took everything that was bad in Trek and not only kept it, but made it worse!

Nobody is being forced to like it, so if its that bad, why can't it just be welcomed in to the fold of mediocre trek?

Uh... because if it's that bad, and it is, it is NOT mediocre Trek, but BAD Trek. Horribly bad Trek. Hell, it's so bad, having everything that made Trek Trek (and good) removed from it, I can't even call it Trek.

Further, we're TIRED of mediocre Trek if it had even gotten to that point. There's only so much mediocre and bad Trek a person can take before they walk away in disgust. For most people, that occurred years ago.

Why can't its failings be discussed in the context of trek?

We are. We find it wanted. We find it horrible, so we're done with it.

Its impossible to argue with this without an accusation of baiting but I'll try anyway by asking if theres any precedent for 3D Master changing an opinion?

As one who promotes the deep meaningfulness of trek and the lessons therin, I am puzzled by your approach to these discussions. Perhaps there are a few episodes that I missed, the ones where Kirk defeated an enemy by angrily repeating the same unique opinion, ignoring all arguments against, until everyone else went to the pub.

 

[TheGodBen]

It has "canon" violations, just like the rest.
It has action sequences and humour.
It has name dropping
It has ridiculous science to advance the story
It is star trek.

And that's all Star Trek is? Canon violations, action, humour, name-dropping and bad science? It is impossible to ignore the fact that all of these things have played a role in some Star Trek productions, but so too have good stories, compelling villains, interesting themes, and much much more. These are things which were missing from this movie, and they are as much a part of the fabric of Star Trek as the things that you have listed.

I'm not saying this movie isn't a part of Star Trek, it has the title and that's all it needs to qualify, but that doesn't stop it from being a bad movie.

 

[Silent_Bob]

As one who promotes the deep meaningfulness of trek and the lessons therin, I am puzzled by your approach to these discussions. Perhaps there are a few episodes that I missed, the ones where Kirk defeated an enemy by angrily repeating the same unique opinion, ignoring all arguments against, until everyone else went to the pub.

I can understand his heated tone Butters. It is incredibly frustrating to be constantly told anyone who dislikes the new film is wrong because the rest of Star Trek has the same problems. I fail to see how this should be an excuse for the new film. If they had to do a reboot then is it too much to ask for a good one?

I dont care about canon. There i've said it. To me the story comes first, and if the canon stops you telling a good story, drop it. The problem with the new Trek film is that it doesnt tell a good story. It has every flaw that Nemesis had.

And i left feeling the exact same way as i did after seeing Nemesis - that with a different director and editor we could have had something great. The only reason that i will watch a sequel is because the potential for great Star Trek was present in the new film, it really was, they just didnt make the most of it.

 

[urbandk]

As one who promotes the deep meaningfulness of trek and the lessons therin, I am puzzled by your approach to these discussions. Perhaps there are a few episodes that I missed, the ones where Kirk defeated an enemy by angrily repeating the same unique opinion, ignoring all arguments against, until everyone else went to the pub.

I can understand his heated tone Butters. It is incredibly frustrating to be constantly told anyone who dislikes the new film is wrong because the rest of Star Trek has the same problems. I fail to see how this should be an excuse for the new film. If they had to do a reboot then is it too much to ask for a good one?

I dont care about canon. There i've said it. To me the story comes first, and if the canon stops you telling a good story, drop it. The problem with the new Trek film is that it doesnt tell a good story. It has every flaw that Nemesis had.

And i left feeling the exact same way as i did after seeing Nemesis - that with a different director and editor we could have had something great. The only reason that i will watch a sequel is because the potential for great Star Trek was present in the new film, it really was, they just didnt make the most of it.

Hmmm... I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess I disagree across the board. I thought it was a great story, well acted, well directed. I thought they ran the board with this one. Along with TMP and TWOK, this is far and away my favorite Star Trek film.

 

[Feofilakt]

As one who promotes the deep meaningfulness of trek and the lessons therin, I am puzzled by your approach to these discussions. Perhaps there are a few episodes that I missed, the ones where Kirk defeated an enemy by angrily repeating the same unique opinion, ignoring all arguments against, until everyone else went to the pub.

I can understand his heated tone Butters. It is incredibly frustrating to be constantly told anyone who dislikes the new film is wrong because the rest of Star Trek has the same problems. I fail to see how this should be an excuse for the new film. If they had to do a reboot then is it too much to ask for a good one?

I dont care about canon. There i've said it. To me the story comes first, and if the canon stops you telling a good story, drop it. The problem with the new Trek film is that it doesnt tell a good story. It has every flaw that Nemesis had.

And i left feeling the exact same way as i did after seeing Nemesis - that with a different director and editor we could have had something great. The only reason that i will watch a sequel is because the potential for great Star Trek was present in the new film, it really was, they just didnt make the most of it.

Hmmm... I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess I disagree across the board. I thought it was a great story, well acted, well directed. I thought they ran the board with this one. Along with TMP and TWOK, this is far and away my favorite Star Trek film.

You are not really a high cinema kind of guy, are you?

 

[urbandk]

I can understand his heated tone Butters. It is incredibly frustrating to be constantly told anyone who dislikes the new film is wrong because the rest of Star Trek has the same problems. I fail to see how this should be an excuse for the new film. If they had to do a reboot then is it too much to ask for a good one?

I dont care about canon. There i've said it. To me the story comes first, and if the canon stops you telling a good story, drop it. The problem with the new Trek film is that it doesnt tell a good story. It has every flaw that Nemesis had.

And i left feeling the exact same way as i did after seeing Nemesis - that with a different director and editor we could have had something great. The only reason that i will watch a sequel is because the potential for great Star Trek was present in the new film, it really was, they just didnt make the most of it.

Hmmm... I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess I disagree across the board. I thought it was a great story, well acted, well directed. I thought they ran the board with this one. Along with TMP and TWOK, this is far and away my favorite Star Trek film.

You are not really a high cinema kind of guy, are you?

I can enjoy Kieslowski, Nick Zedd, and Guy Debord just as much as I can Steven Spielberg. So to answer your question, no.