Seconded. The next movie should've started right then. Well, an intermission for a bathroom break first wouldn't have hurt. Honestly, I can see why Nimoy's wife said she didn't want it to end.
what didn't you like about the movie?
- Thread starter Temis the Vorta
- Start date
Seconded. The next movie should've started right then. Well, an intermission for a bathroom break first wouldn't have hurt. Honestly, I can see why Nimoy's wife said she didn't want it to end.
Of course we're happy it's successful. The OP asked a question and we're giving him or her our honest answer. This is a discussion forum, after all.
I thought the Spock/Uhura thing was out there. That would mean Spock was messing around with a cadet. There's got to be a rule against that somewhere. The fact that she could get her way with her ship assignment is a good reason fraternization is frowned on. No one should get special treatment because of who they're sleeping with.
I wonder what motivated him to put her on the Farragut in the first place. Maybe they had just had a lovers spat?
If I had a third thing I didn't like about this movie, Uhura and Spock being "shippers" was it. Orci and Kurtzman should've realized that part of Spock's sex appeal was that he was more or less unobtainable. It's also harder to see him as standing aloof from the rest of the crew, which was another Spock trait. The isolation he also felt was an important part of the character. That he couldn't open up. Or more to the point, he wouldn't. Having a girlfriend to smooch on negates all that.
It scares me a bit about the direction in which they'll take Spock's character.
Well said!! In the interviews they talk about why the new Spock is different and they say: And Uhura provides a canvas in a way to which Spock would be able to project the emotions that he would not be able to otherwise express.
The problem is that Spock isn't supposed to have a canvas to project emotions upon. He is supposed to be lonely, different, apart, and holding it all in. It is who he is. I cannot imagine TOS Spock coming back to his quarters at the end of the day and opening up to his adoring girlfriend. He was aloof and stanoffish. Basic traits of the TOS character.
Last edited:
Spock was always my favorite because he was so complex and different. The fact that he was nothing like the humans aboard the ship made him so much more interesting. I read a book years ago written by Leonard Nimoy and he talked about why the women liked Spock. He said it was because he was unobtainable. I believe he used the words "safe rape".
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
The whole ice planet sequence and shoehorning Nimoy in. It was just terribly sloppy writing.
It was done to please the canon nazis so they would have a meaningless justification "reality has been changed" - of course its kind of like trying to placate the hard right or hard left in politics. It's never enough. At some point you should just stop trying.
It was done to please the canon nazis so they would have a meaningless justification "reality has been changed" - of course its kind of like trying to placate the hard right or hard left in politics. It's never enough. At some point you should just stop trying.
I had a neighbor ask me about the movie and I told her "It's a good movie, but it's just not Star Trek".
I explained to her as if you are going to a restaurant, all you need to know is one word; Italian, French, Mexican, etc. With that one word, you know what is on the menu, how it will be prepared and how it will be served.
Sci fi is the same way, be it Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Buck Rodgers or Battlestar Galactica. Each has it own flavor and substance that sets it apart from the others.
This movie gets at lot of that wrong.
The Enginering set would work on Battlestar Galactica, but is just not Star Trek. Huge transparant pipes, concrete floors and I still have no idea what that big bladed thing was supposed to be other than a threat to Scotty. All I could think of in these sceens was that MST3K movie with BSG stock footage that was filmed in a factory (with the sun shining thru the windows).
The space combat sceens would have worked on Star Wars, but were too chaotic to Star Trek. Dogfighting in space is what set Star Wars apart for other Sci fi of it's time, but Star Trek has allways been more like Pirates and Corsairs, two big ships broadsiding each other. Also, Phasers have allways been beam weapons, the "Blaster Bolts" here just don't look right and don't let the toy companies design your prop weapons, OK?
The Spock/Uhura pairing doesn't work because Spock's sex appeal is based on the fact that he is unobtainable. It's the Cartman Principle, you want it because you can't have it.
But the biggest problem for me is the destruction of Vulcan. The #1 reason I stopped reading comics was because of this "Re-decorating with a Flamethrower" . Whenever a new creative team takes over a comic, they redecorate the series; New costumes, new members and new curtains in the war room. But some teams can't stop there, they have to destroy everything and rebuild from the ashes. When the X-men books went back to Xavier's being a school, we got all these mutant students as new characters and I loved it. Then came M-Day and most of them lost their powers. But that was not good enought and as their buses went out the gate, they were blew up and all the characters were killed.
And that it the problem here, destroying Vulcan is a step too far. Yes you want to show your bad-ass villain is bad ass, but if you go too far you have to spend too much time expaining what you did or you just hand wave it and introduce "new Vulcan" in the next movie and never mention it again.
I explained to her as if you are going to a restaurant, all you need to know is one word; Italian, French, Mexican, etc. With that one word, you know what is on the menu, how it will be prepared and how it will be served.
Sci fi is the same way, be it Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Buck Rodgers or Battlestar Galactica. Each has it own flavor and substance that sets it apart from the others.
This movie gets at lot of that wrong.
The Enginering set would work on Battlestar Galactica, but is just not Star Trek. Huge transparant pipes, concrete floors and I still have no idea what that big bladed thing was supposed to be other than a threat to Scotty. All I could think of in these sceens was that MST3K movie with BSG stock footage that was filmed in a factory (with the sun shining thru the windows).
The space combat sceens would have worked on Star Wars, but were too chaotic to Star Trek. Dogfighting in space is what set Star Wars apart for other Sci fi of it's time, but Star Trek has allways been more like Pirates and Corsairs, two big ships broadsiding each other. Also, Phasers have allways been beam weapons, the "Blaster Bolts" here just don't look right and don't let the toy companies design your prop weapons, OK?
The Spock/Uhura pairing doesn't work because Spock's sex appeal is based on the fact that he is unobtainable. It's the Cartman Principle, you want it because you can't have it.
But the biggest problem for me is the destruction of Vulcan. The #1 reason I stopped reading comics was because of this "Re-decorating with a Flamethrower" . Whenever a new creative team takes over a comic, they redecorate the series; New costumes, new members and new curtains in the war room. But some teams can't stop there, they have to destroy everything and rebuild from the ashes. When the X-men books went back to Xavier's being a school, we got all these mutant students as new characters and I loved it. Then came M-Day and most of them lost their powers. But that was not good enought and as their buses went out the gate, they were blew up and all the characters were killed.
And that it the problem here, destroying Vulcan is a step too far. Yes you want to show your bad-ass villain is bad ass, but if you go too far you have to spend too much time expaining what you did or you just hand wave it and introduce "new Vulcan" in the next movie and never mention it again.
Very apt comparison.
I really don't allow myself to wonder much about what dead people would think about certain things, but I really wonder how happy Roddenberry would've been with the destruction of Vulcan and especially the way it was done in this movie.
I mean, Spock Prime gives Nero the means (allows the red matter to fall into his hands), then Pike, Kirk, and Spock are unable to save Vulcan. I do wonder if Roddenberry would've allowed Spock Prime to have been humiliated like that and then let Kirk and Spock fail on such an epic scale.
That fact they needed to create an alternate reality to tell an origin story. I probably would've focused on telling a truer to the Original Series tale, which would've meant not rushing to get Chekov in this film or making Kirk the Captain right away. A blend more like Superman The Movie, following our heroes growth and development. Spending a good hour covering Spock and Kirk's childhood, then Academy days. Ending the movie during Pike's time, with only half of its most famous crew in place. The new bridge and uniforms were perfect, but production design has always changed between films, depending on the Director's approval. I would've had no difficulty with this look squeezed inbetween TOS pilots, for the sake of an interesting story about how the crew gradually came together.
Too many elements I disliked. Easier to focus on a handful of positives for another thread.
Too many elements I disliked. Easier to focus on a handful of positives for another thread.
Last edited:
Two things stood out glaringly that bothered me...
It's an old Trek staple but WHY is the ENTERPRISE always the only ship available to defend Earth? Would the Federation really leave its capital that unguarded? It took me right out of the movie.
And second was the idea that ONE STAR could destroy the Galaxy. Was that just sloppiness like original GALACTICA use to interchange Solar System with Galaxy with no regard?
It's an old Trek staple but WHY is the ENTERPRISE always the only ship available to defend Earth? Would the Federation really leave its capital that unguarded? It took me right out of the movie.
And second was the idea that ONE STAR could destroy the Galaxy. Was that just sloppiness like original GALACTICA use to interchange Solar System with Galaxy with no regard?
I certainly would have liked a movie about their childhood and academy days that was more in depth and longer than what we got.
That there were six billion Vulcans living on Vulcan. It never seemed crowed in TOS, TAS, TMP or Enterprise. Tens of millions would have made more sense and only a few hundred surving the explosion.
But I guess they wanted a number that was similar to our global population today.
But I guess they wanted a number that was similar to our global population today.
My only real complaints/issues:
- Engineering. Going for an industrial look is fine but they took it too far by actually filming on-location in a giant factory. The design aesthetic doesn't mesh with the rest of the ship.
- The fact that nearly all of Starfleet is deployed to one region of space when Vulcan is attacked, causing Starfleet to send all of their cadets and new officers out to space. Surely they wouldn't have the ENTIRE fleet centrally located? And what about the Vulcans? Don't they have their own planetary defenses?
- Kirk's rapid promotion from flunky cadet to Captain.
- Engineering. Going for an industrial look is fine but they took it too far by actually filming on-location in a giant factory. The design aesthetic doesn't mesh with the rest of the ship.
- The fact that nearly all of Starfleet is deployed to one region of space when Vulcan is attacked, causing Starfleet to send all of their cadets and new officers out to space. Surely they wouldn't have the ENTIRE fleet centrally located? And what about the Vulcans? Don't they have their own planetary defenses?
- Kirk's rapid promotion from flunky cadet to Captain.
There were huge monsters in TAS. For instance in Mudd´s Passion. And that was long before Star Wars and Cloverfield. Monsters should be part of Trek.
I think you are right about this. I thought the relationship worked in the movie, but it may not be that interesting in a sequel. Trek should not have relationships between the main characters, this is one area where Trek went wrong but after TNG.
Vulcan blown up.
I'm not entirely happy with the beaming distances.
^
^^I enjoyed the film, but yes -- Being able to beam onto the Enterprise after it had long warped away from Delta Vega bothered me a bit, also.
Besides a few minor "in-film" issues like that, I also had some "filmmaking" issues, such as the pacing. The pacing should have been slower and each scene should have been longer. I never got the chance to be comfortable enough with a scene to "immerse myself" in it. Anytime I would begin to get into a scene, it would cut to the next scene. To be able to immerse yourself into a scene is what makes a film a memorable one -- one you think about after leaving the theater.
The last thing would be More McCoy!! They didn't use McCoy enough. Star Trek excelled when the entire "brat pack" of Kirk, Spock, AND McCoy got their considerable chemistry rolling. I can see already that Pine/Quinto and Urban have a good chemistry, and I'm sure adding more McCoy into the Kirk/Spock dynamic will make for great fun.
I think this last part is the most important, since I feel that the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic was at the heart of almost all good Star Trek, especially the good films. It's what made TOS so special.
^^I enjoyed the film, but yes -- Being able to beam onto the Enterprise after it had long warped away from Delta Vega bothered me a bit, also.
Besides a few minor "in-film" issues like that, I also had some "filmmaking" issues, such as the pacing. The pacing should have been slower and each scene should have been longer. I never got the chance to be comfortable enough with a scene to "immerse myself" in it. Anytime I would begin to get into a scene, it would cut to the next scene. To be able to immerse yourself into a scene is what makes a film a memorable one -- one you think about after leaving the theater.
The last thing would be More McCoy!! They didn't use McCoy enough. Star Trek excelled when the entire "brat pack" of Kirk, Spock, AND McCoy got their considerable chemistry rolling. I can see already that Pine/Quinto and Urban have a good chemistry, and I'm sure adding more McCoy into the Kirk/Spock dynamic will make for great fun.
I think this last part is the most important, since I feel that the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic was at the heart of almost all good Star Trek, especially the good films. It's what made TOS so special.
Similar threads
