I agree most of it is nit-picky. What's worse, most of it is factually
wrong. I don't think your friend is as big of a Trekkie as he thinks.
I'm bored and haven't talked about "Star Trek" in a while, so I'm going to go through some of these factual and logical errors for a bit of fun.
I'll start with my favorite, which I think tends to prove my point (along with the rest) that your friend doesn't really know as much about Trek as he implies.
The Kobayashi Maru tests character and therefore can only be taken once. When a person already knows it’s a no-win scenario it is pointless to test a person again. Kirk would never have been allowed to take the test twice. In The Wrath of Khan the suggestion is that somehow Kirk knew the purpose of the test before taking it the first time, which makes sense. This doesn’t.
Direct quote from "Wrath of Khan:"
Spock: "As I recall, you took the test three times yourself. Your final solution was, shall we say, unique?"
I'm sad to say I dredged that up immediately from memory.
Before I go on, I will say that a few of the criticisms have merit. None of the nitpicky, trivia criticisms, but some of the larger, more general criticisms. It's just a shame that they're buried in so much garbage, as all the criticisms without merit or bias really do bring the good ones down.
Ok, here's the rest - factual and logical errors that immediately jump to mind:
They’re too arrogant to provide a subtitle.
How does the lack of a subtitle imply arrogance? And even if it did, why does that make it "lazy movie making?"
The Corvette scene directly contradicts Roddenberry’s vision of a future Earth as paradise; a place where parents are consistently loving, even step-parents, and that teenage rebellion has become rather rare due to the universal acceptance of the precept of personal achievement
TOS had plenty of flawed humans, families, and children. Examples include Harry Mudd and Finnegan.
Roddenberry's vision wasn't that people are perfect individuals. It's that people are decent and united as a whole - but we still have individual flaws and imperfect relationships with other specific individuals.
Also, a technicality - what Rodenberry "envisioned" isn't important. What was portrayed on the screen is what's important. That's the essence of canon.
A policeman would never appear dystopian.
I never saw a dystopian policeman in the film.
If you are trying to say "The presence of a policeman itself is dystopian," then I would disagree - both because the imperfect individuals mentioned above would create a need for policemen (TOS also had a clear justice and penal system) and because their existence is necessitated for safety reasons (policemen serve the public safety, and not just as crime-fighters). Accidents happen in the 23rd century.
There are no canyons in Iowa
A good point, but one never knows how the shape of the land will change in the next 300 years (not from natural geological transformation, but traumatic interference by man, either intentional or accidental).
Still, my response is more of a devil's advocate response. More seriously, I don't think the presence of a canyon in Iowa really hurts the movie.
Kirk was never depicted as rebellious in nature (i.e. – they’ve changed the basic nature of his character which is simply unacceptable).
TOS and the films portrayed Kirk as quite rebellious and insubordinate - defying orders, violating the prime directive, and doing things his own way. Examples include stealing the Enterprise, not raising shields when Reliant did not respond to communications, leaving spacedock on impulse power, and saving the Pelosians (the latter being mentioned in Voyager, not portrayed on screen). As Dulmer and Lucsly said in "Trials and Tribble-ations," the man was a menace.
Also, even if the above were not true, the very point of the movie is that the timeline has been altered. Kirk's early life is radically different, because he grew up without a father. It follows that there may be character differences or changes.
Sorry, I just don’t believe Vulcan children bully one another.
Are you suggesting that Vulcan children are born perfect?
The show has consistently portrayed the Vulcans as being naturally very emotional, but disciplined enough to suppress their emotions. The show has stated that this discipline is a learned one, not an innate part of their biology. Thus, Vulcan children must learn their discipline, and it's perfectly reasonable that they would engage in emotional, destructive behavior as children, much as humans do.
Spocks’s accents are completely inconsistent. It should be mid-Atlantic.
Are you saying Quinto's accent changes throughout the movie? If so, when?
Are you saying Quinto's accent doesn't match child-Spock's accent, or Nimoy's accent? If so, then it's perfectly normal for people's speech mannerisms and accents to change and evolve over a lifetime (especially one as long as Spock's!)
Uhura is from the United States of Africa
Says who?
It is never stated on screen and thus is not canon and cannot be said to be true.
There really should have been at least the smallest reference to this [being from US of Africa and speaking Swahili].
Why?
That would be contrived and unnatural, unless there was a specific plot or story reason to mention it. There wasn't, so it wasn't mentioned.
Just because you'd like an irrelevant fact to be referenced on screen, it does not follow that it should or that the movie would be better for it or that the movie is worse for its absence.
By your logic, I could arbitrarily bring up any piece of trivia and say it should have been mentioned - but because it's not, the movie is not as good.
I'd rather see a natural sounding movie, rather than a verbal dictation of an encyclopedia entry, detailing every miscellaneous, irrelevant fact about the characters.
I personally found the dropping of the romance between Spock and Chapel to be very sad
Spock and Chapel never had a romance. She had feelings for him, but not vice versa.
The romance with Uhura is illogical! Vulcans only engage in romantic activities during the Pon farr
Says who?
Vulcans remain married and devoted to their mates even outside of Pon Farr. This complaint does not jive with the portrayal of Sarek and Amanda in TOS, who seemed to share physical and emotional intimacy in their own way.
In the TOS episode The Menagerie it is made clear Kirk only barely knew Pike.
Yes, and then the timeline was changed, so that Kirk ended up meeting Pike in a bar.
Starships then never had more than a crew of 430.
Says who?
Spaceships are never built on Earth, not to mention Iowa.
Says who?
There’s no reason why Star Fleet would have any major facilities in Iowa
Yes there is. Iowa has lots of space. You need lots of space to build something big, like a starship.
It is too contrived that McCoy would refer to his bones.
But it wouldn't be contrived for Uhura to mention she's from the United States of Africa and speaks Swahili?
Nero is depicted like an avenging human. Romulans, even disturbed ones, simply don’t act like this.
Says who?
Romulans have always been depicted as being as emotional as humans (in fact, often more so, given the extreme nature of Vulcan/Romulan emotions).
I refer you to "Patahk" from TNG as an example of a crazed, disturbed, emotional Romulan.
Orions do not join Star Fleet.
Says who?
Spock refers to the Kobayashi Maru as, “a lesson”. Clearly it is not a lesson, it is a test.
It is a test designed to teach a lesson. Did you not understand that?
Star Fleet Academy would never punish Kirk for the Kobayashi Maru incident, let alone put him up for trial in front of his classmates
Says who?
Also, Kirk was never punished.
A hearing (not a trial) was convened, because he did cheat. Academic disciplinary hearings are pretty standard in institutions like "Starfleet Academy" when cheating is discovered, especially in a place where integrity and honor are considered paramount (as they are in Starfleet).
Uhura bullying Spock to get on the Enterprise is ridiculous. This is the military. Things just don’t happen like that.
Says who?
You should spend some time in the military. It is often as dysfunctional as any other institution.
San Francisco is ugly, like it’s supposed to be a dystopian future.
You might think it's ugly, and that's a subjective viewpoint, but I don't believe the intention was to portray it as dystopian. I think the majority of audiences would disagree with you.
Vulcan is more advanced than Earth and has many more ships.
Says who?
There's no reason to believe that Earth and Vulcan are not at at similar levels of development by the 23rd century (as equal, founding members of the Federation).
At this time in future history very few people knew about the Neutral Zone
Says who?
the Romulans were a very mysterious species.
Yes, but the Earth-Romulan war was a bloody, and well-known, one. The Romulans themselves may have been mysterious, but there was nothing mysterious about the explicitly defined borders and Neutral Zone.
For once some exposition would have been appropriate [regarding the Neutral Zone and the Romulans].
Why? I think most viewers picked up whatever they needed - more information would have been irrelevant and thus overwhelming and confusing.
If they knew that going to Vulcan was a trap, why did they walk into it?
They didn't really realize it until a few seconds before walking into it.
Why are torpedoes loaded manually on the Enterprise?
Ask Nick Meyer, director of "The Wrath of Khan."
Romulans always speak very formally
Says who?
"Always" is a very narrowly-defined word.
We usually see Romulans in formal situations, so they're talking formally - not because they're Romulans, but because they're in formal situations.
But that doesn't mean there aren't non-formal Romulans. Even if we never saw any, there's no reason to assume they don't exist (since we just don't see Romulans that often).
But as it turns out, there does exist non-formal Romulan dialogue. "It's a fake!"
just like Vulcans. Neither do so [speak formally] in this story.
The Vulcans seem to speak quite formally in this movie when appropriate. Spock's discussion with the Vulcan Elders is one example.
Humans are depicted falling from orbit to just a couple of miles above Vulcan’s surface. Why don’t they burn up like meteors?
We don't know how high they were dropped from the shuttle, and they didn't fall far enough to reach the ground - so it's perfectly plausible they didn't fall far enough to gain enough speed to burn up.
Also, Gene Roddenberry would never have allowed an event as dark as the destruction of Vulcan to occur.
Star Trek isn't restricted to Gene Rodenberry's creation. Otherwise, anything post-TNG cannot be considered Star Trek.
Star Trek is the creative product of many artists, of which Rodenberry is only one. Please don't denigrate their contributions to the tapestry.
It is too contrived that Kirk’s parachute should break.
Why is it any more contrived than any other dramatic event in any movie? If everything worked perfectly in movies, they would be boring, uneventful, and pointless to watch.
They wouldn’t fall on the transporter pad just because they were falling when energized.
They would if an imperfect lock was acquired (as implied, by the difficulty the transporter tech and Chekov had in locking on to them).
The original movies showed that people do retain movement and momentum in a transporter beam. I suspect TOS would've done the same, had the special effects been good enough to allow it.
It’s unmotivated and contrived that Uhura would suddenly kiss Spock and he would hug and kiss back.
I've found solace in a girlfriend's touch and intimacy when I'm upset about something. Why would they not be motivated to seek the same?
his is the most obscene contradiction with the real ST universe. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, knows Spock doesn’t show emotion.
Not true. Spock doesn't "usually" show emotion, but sometimes he slips or shows it in his own, awkward way. Examples include his anger with Valeris during her interrogation on the bridge in "The Undiscovered Country."
Certainly such a traumatic event as the death of his world would serve as just cause for him to let his emotions slip.
Nero’s character is too monstrous without proper explanation.
He lost his wife, his child, his home, his people, and his way of life. Senselessly, because it all could have been prevented.
That'd drive me to rage and perhaps monstrosity, so I don't think there isn't "proper explanation."
Nor is it really relevant - Nero's a villain, shaking up lives and tearing through the film. But the movie's not about him or his conflict. It's about Kirk, Kirk's destiny, and these characters meeting each other.
Nero is the setup, not the purpose of the movie.
Nero’s ship’s so powerful, his torturing of Pike serves no purpose.
Nero didn't torture Pike to get information - it has been proven, time and again, that torture doesn't work for the purposes of gathering information.
Nero tortured Pike as an outlet for his anger and rage. "Information" is always the excuse a captor gives himself, to let him do whatever he wants and indulge in his sadistic urges to dominate another person. Nero was no exception.
The talk of an alternate reality is completely unnecessary exposition.
Perhaps for the movie, to some degree, it's unnecessary. But as I discussed in my previous post, on a meta-level, it's important for "Star Trek" that this discussion take place.
They would never have this conversation. Science fiction characters should only ever worry about changing the past. It should never occur to them that their future has been changed while in the middle of a conflict. They might briefly reflect on it when it’s all over, but it has no bearing on the conflict itself and so would never be mentioned.
First, they aren't "science-fiction characters," they're just "characters." The fact that the setting is a science-fiction one doesn't affect their humanity.
And I know that I often think about the future - how my life or my choices would be different, if things had occurred differently or different choices had been made in the past. So for me, it seems perfectly natural that they'd think about these things. They're as human as I am.
Secondly, the details of the future are only discussed as they pertain to Kirk's destiny as well as to Nero.
The former is discussed by Kirk and old Spock - and for old Spock, it's no the future, it's his past. So that makes sense.
The latter is discussed in the context of Nero's technology and capabilities, since Nero is from the future. So it is relevant to the conflict at hand.
Spock twice uses the word “destiny”. This concept is simple superstition and Spock would never use this word.
Direct quote from "Wrath of Khan:"
Spock: "Commanding a starship is your first, best destiny; anything else is a waste of material."
Damn. Also direct from memory. I guess I really love that movie.
Spock was emotional in expelling Kirk; the brig would have been fine.
As stated, Spock had reasons to be extra emotional. This is actually a plot point, which old Spock talks to Kirk about. How did you miss that?
It’s inconsistent that Nero’s ship was able to destroy several Star Fleet ships in just a few seconds, but George Kirk’s ship (the Kelvin) was never destroyed and was able to protect shuttlecraft and ram Nero’s ship. Nero would easily have killed everyone on the Kelvin and hence no Jim Kirk, hence no story. In other words, Nero’s ship’s abilities change with the requirements of the writers; this is the definition of a contrivance and is the second biggest crime of the producers of this movie.
There is no inconsistency. Nero's ship is in tip-top shape when it faces Starfleet's fleet at Vulcan. But when it faces the Kelvin, it has just emerged from a black hole and survived a supernova. Presumably the damage left it at less than full strength.
This is consistent with the fact that the Klingons soon take over the ship.
Afterwards, they may have had up years or decades to fix their ship in time for the battle at Vulcan.
Spock asks, “You are not the captain?” Since he is not aware of the precise circumstances of the new timeline, his assumption that a 21 year-old would be captain is preposterous.
Spock did not know the extent to which the timeline had been altered. It would be reasonable to presume that most things were the same, until something specifically suggests otherwise.
When he says this, it's clear that Spock believes at Kirk's age, in the original timeline, Kirk was the Captain. Also, Spock is presumably estimating Kirk's age (i.e., all he knows is that he looks young, but he doesn't know how young), since it's unlikely he knows the exact year he's found himself in (remember, Nero didn't know the current year either).
The fist fight between Nero & Kirk is unmotivated and Romulans just don’t act like that.
Don't act like what? Nero was angry throughout the film. It makes sense he wants to get a little physical. It feels good to release you aggression.
I don’t like old Spock telling young Spock to put aside logic. Spock is logical and he should stay logical.
By the time old Spock reached his level of maturity, he realized there was more to life than logic, as he had reconciled his human and vulcan halves.
From "The Undiscovered Country:"
Spock: "Logic the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end"
It's a lesson he's learned over a lifetime of living - and now he's trying to impart that wisdom to young Spock, so hopefully he won't have to struggle as long or hard with it.
Also a good thing for us - it means the character can go in new directions in the upcoming films, and not retread the same old character arc.
Why is McCoy always on the bridge?
He's on the bridge in TOS a lot, too.
Spock’s called a commander, but his rank at this time of the future history was lieutenant.
Says who? If he's called a commander, then he's obviously not a lieutenant at this time of the new timeline!
Incidentally, Lieutenant Commanders are referred to "commander" as well (see the numerous times Data was referred to as a commander). So it's likely Spock was a Lt. Cmdr.
