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

[exodus]

I see allot of people quoting what they think Trek should be but I think Picard said it best: "We re highly evolved people who live to better ourselves."

However, looking at some of the comments I don't see that here. I see many people standing stagnant unwilling to evolve their point of view.

If you don't like the film, fine but let's stop treating Trek like it's the Bible and everything in it is written in stone.

 

[IvosevicJ]

Sure, it was fun, funny, moving, energetic, shiny, charming, charismatic, and all the things that should make for a great film, but somehow they didn’t gel, and I can’t escape the impression of the movie as a fast-talking car salesman who keeps the patter going so you feel good and don’t notice that you’re being fleeced.

Being fleeced by a fast talking used car salesman implies that you didn't get what you paid for. If you got a movie that was, in your own words, "un, funny, moving, energetic, shiny, charming, charismatic, and all the things that should make for a great film" I don't know what else you want from 2 hours of entertainment.

 

[Gepard]

Being fleeced by a fast talking used car salesman implies that you didn't get what you paid for. If you got a movie that was, in your own words, "un, funny, moving, energetic, shiny, charming, charismatic, and all the things that should make for a great film" I don't know what else you want from 2 hours of entertainment.

I think they key here is "should." Yeah, it had all those elements, but they failed to connect into anything bigger; and by the final act, I found the film's reliance on pretty much nothing but charm to be insufficient for greatness.

 

[Delta1]

Indeed.
Hell, I didn't become a fan at the age of seven because of some greater underlying moral meaning in Trek. I was just fascinated by that gigantic green hand holding the Enterprise in deep space (Who Mourns For Adonais was my first episode).

If the show had only been hands and other body parts floating through space, would you still be a fan today? Would there have been films, TNG, and a reboot if the series had nothing to commend it but hands in space? It seems self-evident that, for all its superficial charms, there was a deeper meaningfulness to Star Trek that many people find absent in the new movie.

Come on, are we scraping the bottom of the barrell to go as far as to question what made people watch Trek now?

I mean seriously?

Yes, seriously. I apologize if my curiosity offends you. The fact remains that ST-One became a fan at the age of seven because he (or she) saw things that tickled his childlike fancy. Perhaps you did, too. If so, is that still why you like Trek? That's a perfectly respectable answer. But I don't think you should generalize from your own case and assume that everyone else is in it for the same reasons.

And I don't think "Why do you like Trek?" is or should be a taboo question. In and of itself, it doesn't marginalize or belittle anyone ... unlike, say, accusing someone of scraping the "bottom of the barrell [sic]" and questioning the sincerity of their motives.

 

[exodus]

If the show had only been hands and other body parts floating through space, would you still be a fan today? Would there have been films, TNG, and a reboot if the series had nothing to commend it but hands in space? It seems self-evident that, for all its superficial charms, there was a deeper meaningfulness to Star Trek that many people find absent in the new movie.

Come on, are we scraping the bottom of the barrell to go as far as to question what made people watch Trek now?

I mean seriously?

Yes, seriously. I apologize if my curiosity offends you. The fact remains that ST-One became a fan at the age of seven because he (or she) saw things that tickled his childlike fancy. Perhaps you did, too. If so, is that still why you like Trek? That's a perfectly respectable answer. But I don't think you should generalize from your own case and assume that everyone else is in it for the same reasons.

And I don't think "Why do you like Trek?" is or should be a taboo question. In and of itself, it doesn't marginalize or belittle anyone ... unlike, say, accusing someone of scraping the "bottom of the barrell [sic]" and questioning the sincerity of their motives.

If you follow my comments, I'm one of the few that is saying people like Trek for different reason & stay for different reasons too. It was that same comment that ST-One was repling too.

What I see you saying is that there are deeper meaningful things that keep them watching. I'm saying not always & what if they don't? Sorry but I interpret your comment as pigeon holding a group of people into one catagory: that everybody stays for the deeper meaning.

 

[Cryogenic]

Sure, not everyone stays for the "deep and meaningful stuff", the rich characters, the great craftmanship or whatever else, but it's usually the things certain people found Trek XI lacking in, if not totally bereft of, that endear a film or a series to me.

 

[exodus]

Sure, not everyone stays for the "deep and meaningful stuff", the rich characters, the great craftmanship or whatever else, but it's usually the things certain people found Trek XI lacking in, if not totally bereft of, that endear a film or a series to me.

Has "Diff'rent Strokes" been of the air that long already?

Oh well, lets sing the theme song anyway:

"The world don't move to the beat of just one drum.
what might be right for you, might not be right for some.."

However, I find the film very Trek. It went the opposite of Voyager where technology fixed everything but rather technology caused these problems. Did they use techonology to fix it, no. The answer was just like we do in modern times, to endure it and continue to survive. So at it's core, the film is about the human condition of overcome any obsticle no matter how great.

 

[dkazaz]

I honestly can't wait for the sequel, which I'm sure is a sentiment shared by many, many others. This movie set things up perfectly for a second outing capable of being Dark Knight-caliber.

I'm sorry but I've just got to get this out! I get really freaked out when I see people comparing this film to Batman Begins and the Dark Knight.

Honestly the only thing I think they have in common is being commercial successes based on a 'franchise'. But to compare these films in any other way is simply delusional (sorry I don't mean to offend but I feel pretty strongly about it).

What do people feel they have in common? The complex and layered plot of the Batman films? The subtle but intense direction shich effectively showed less to say more? The performances of a stellar cast of some of today's greatest actors (we're talking about Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Michael Kane, Heath Ledger and Gary Oldman - all widely aknowledged masters of the art). Or is it the intelligent way of portraying an entertaining fiction in a adult way but staying faithful to the original in both form and meaning? Preserving the core of the characters as well as the point of them?

If you're looking for a Batman franchise film to compare Star Trek XI to, I suggest you look to "Batman Forever" - a similarly campy blockbuster, and set your expectations for a sequel to the tune of "Batman & Robin" cause that's what you got and that's what you're getting.

If you're comparing Star Trek XI to properly the most artistically successful genre/superhero film to date, you must be smoking something good!

 

[Praetor]

Has "Diff'rent Strokes" been of the air that long already?

Oh well, lets sing the theme song anyway:

"The world don't move to the beat of just one drum.
what might be right for you, might not be right for some.."

However, I find the film very Trek. It went the opposite of Voyager where technology fixed everything but rather technology caused these problems. Did they use techonology to fix it, no. The answer was just like we do in modern times, to endure it and continue to survive. So at it's core, the film is about the human condition of overcome any obsticle no matter how great.

Well said.

(I find myself quoting the "Diff'rent Strokes" theme on this board too often on this board myself. )

 

[Cryogenic]

Diff'rent Strokes? My ass.

Let's take another look at my beautifully concise post:

Sure, not everyone stays for the "deep and meaningful stuff", the rich characters, the great craftmanship or whatever else, but it's usually the things certain people found Trek XI lacking in, if not totally bereft of, that endear a film or a series to me.

See the final words?

Let's read them, children:

"that endear a film or a series" ... *drum roll* ... "to me".

Not to you, not to your next-door neighbour's cat, not to God Almighty, but, to me.

If other people love the new Star Trek film, that is their business, not mine. I never said otherwise. Nor did I consciously imply anything about anyone that does.

Diff'rent Strokes? Try singing those lyrics back to yourself and stop preaching to others just because they expressed their opinion *and* annotated it as such.

 

[Borgminister]

Whachutalkinbout?

 

[Cryogenic]

Whachutalkinbout?

The supercilious response of exodus. Did you miss it?

Sure, not everyone stays for the "deep and meaningful stuff", the rich characters, the great craftmanship or whatever else, but it's usually the things certain people found Trek XI lacking in, if not totally bereft of, that endear a film or a series to me.

Has "Diff'rent Strokes" been of the air that long already?

Oh well, lets sing the theme song anyway:

"The world don't move to the beat of just one drum.
what might be right for you, might not be right for some.."

 

[Borgminister]

Whachutalkinbout?

The supercilious response of exodus. Did you miss it?

Superciloufagilousdeexialidocious!

I'm just kidding around, sorry.

 

[3D Master]

I see allot of people quoting what they think Trek should be but I think Picard said it best: "We re highly evolved people who live to better ourselves."

However, looking at some of the comments I don't see that here. I see many people standing stagnant unwilling to evolve their point of view.

If you don't like the film, fine but let's stop treating Trek like it's the Bible and everything in it is written in stone.

I and others are perfectly willing to evolve their point of view.

There is a major difference between willing to evolve one's point of view, and after careful examination deciding that a view has to be changed to, is a degeneration of one's point of view, and thus not changing one's point of view.

With me, and I more than suspect others who don't like this movie, it's the latter.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Now, from the very beginning I thought this movie was going to be bad. When I heard about a timewarp altering the plot to justify the changes, my opinion actually improved.

Watching the movie today, I actually think the movie is far worse than I even thought it was going to be initially. The plot was ridiculous and had huge holes in it, Kirk was an immature jerk during the Kobayashi Maru, Spock never took the Kobayashi Maru (in the TWOK novel, he did, but elected not to rescue the vessel) let alone programmed the thing and wasn't a CDR yet (he was an LCDR all the way to 2265 at least, he wasn't made a CDR until somewhere during TOS). Kirk went from being a Cadet who damn near got court-martialled for mutiny to a Captain in a weak, black-holes and worm-holes aren't at all the same. The fact that Sulu made such a dumb-mistake when he attempted to take the ship to warp was just even more inane...

The ships were much larger than they were in the show. Even the Kelvin's shuttle capacity was enormous, let alone the Enterprise. The fact that the Enterprise was constructed in on the ground let alone in orbit didn't help.

The fact that the engineering areas looked like a beer-brewery was just ridiculous, when you consider that the ship for the most part looked far more advanced than the TOS Enterprise (it's kind of odd that the Engineering room would look like 300 years older) and the fact that the warp-engines had flames shooting out the back of them (which when Star Trek was created, Gene Roddenberry specifically did *NOT* want to see in the show -- technically Nemesis already made this mistake however) was absolutely retarded.

Kirk, Uhura, McCoy, and Scotty were not all in the same class. Uhura was younger than Kirk to the best of my knowledge, McCoy and Scotty were about 10 years older.

Additionally Christopher Pike was not anywhere near as old as the guy who played him (52 or 53). If the age of Jeffrey Hunter was any indication, Chris Pike was 38.


CuttingEdge100

 

[cmdrbolly]

I honestly can't wait for the sequel, which I'm sure is a sentiment shared by many, many others. This movie set things up perfectly for a second outing capable of being Dark Knight-caliber.

I'm sorry but I've just got to get this out! I get really freaked out when I see people comparing this film to Batman Begins and the Dark Knight.

Honestly the only thing I think they have in common is being commercial successes based on a 'franchise'. But to compare these films in any other way is simply delusional (sorry I don't mean to offend but I feel pretty strongly about it).

What do people feel they have in common? The complex and layered plot of the Batman films? The subtle but intense direction shich effectively showed less to say more? The performances of a stellar cast of some of today's greatest actors (we're talking about Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Michael Kane, Heath Ledger and Gary Oldman - all widely aknowledged masters of the art). Or is it the intelligent way of portraying an entertaining fiction in a adult way but staying faithful to the original in both form and meaning? Preserving the core of the characters as well as the point of them?

If you're looking for a Batman franchise film to compare Star Trek XI to, I suggest you look to "Batman Forever" - a similarly campy blockbuster, and set your expectations for a sequel to the tune of "Batman & Robin" cause that's what you got and that's what you're getting.

If you're comparing Star Trek XI to properly the most artistically successful genre/superhero film to date, you must be smoking something good!

Gawd, Batman Begins was a turgid POS. Dark Knight was even worse.

You had superfluous characters created with the express desire to gin up the cast in the hopes that some respectability would rub off on the film. Obviously a paycheque movie for the likes of Caine and Freeman ( talk about superfluous - 'look, you can have your Obi Wan AND your Yoda too!' ) Nonsense script with loads of unlikely things happening. And that silly sequence on the ferries? Talk about ham-fisted BS designed to elicit intellectual palpitations from those generally too obtuse to recognize it in real pieces of art.

To add insult to injury, Christian Bale was acting like he had a ball gag in his mouth and a strap on up his arse whenever he had the suit on. Ledger was average. Nolan prolly knew he had an inert lump of coal and was prolly hoping for a miracle when Ledger died. Voila - instant goodwill!

I certainly hope no one is comparing STXI to those POS.

Oh yeah, all entirely 'In My Opinion' of course.

 

[Trilliam]

I understand the complaints.

That said, is it possible that any of this is just because we aren't as young as we once were?

My 5th grader loved this movie. I would've too. I was a 70s Trekkie kid who had the Enterprise as a place he would like to live on, populated with people he would like to be around. (Several Narnia fans have recently told me that's their attraction to Narnia. Probably true of Tolkien fans).

Now at age 42, I don't dig overly loud, hyprkinetic, explosive action flicks. Luckily the series often have intelligent concepts behind their episodes. They still appeal, esp. the first season TOS. This movie was just another action flick using characters I know. It was ok.

42? you're still a whipper-snapper . Here I am at the grand old age of 48, DH is 52. Both "Trekkies" since it first aired here in 1969. We loved the movie. We're going back again to see it tonight.

The "loudness" didn't worry me - probably an artifact of too much disco in the 70s.

Re the different ship sizes - I put that down to Archer finding the Borg stuff in "Enterprise". That's where the timelines actually diverge. In TOS and before season 2 of TNG, the Borg were an unknown. After Enterprise, SF R&D know about the Borg and what is "Out there" so they can reverse engineer and build beefier ships.

ETA: HOw many versions/variations of the Arthurian Legends are there floating around? How is this any different?

 

[The Lensman]

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.

 

[Tentacle]

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,

I dont remember the old trek ever being hot and young. beer goggles?

 

[cmdrbolly]

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,

I dont remember the old trek ever being hot and young. beer goggles?

Back when Mama Cass was hot and young.