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

[Trilliam]

Okay, its not TOS, its not TNG, its not DS9 and, thankfully its not that abomination they called Voyager. I understand, I get it. But I think too many Trekkies, Trekkers and Trekmonkeys are missing the ride here and allowing the old shows to color opinions. I have never in my life seen so many different versions of "Yeah, it was a good movie but..."

For the record, my stance--and intent in starting this thread--is pretty much the opposite. I'm glad they got rid of a lot of the stylistic and continuity-driven shit that bogged Trek down in later years. I'm even glad they destroyed Vulcan--those guys were boring anyway. I just don't think it was a good movie. It was an okay movie, perfectly entertaining but easily forgotten: just not all that good, and definitely not great. (I will say that if it wasn't for it being Star Trek, I wouldn't be expending this much energy on analyzing it; I probably would have just shrugged, said "huh, that was kind of lame" and moved on.)

So this is not "Yeah, it was a good movie but...," but instead, "Yeah it was Star Trek, but it wasn't good."

I can't help but think back to the first season if TNG. I remember a lot of conversations just like this one. Even into the 90s and the advent of the internet that argument still rages. I have to wonder how long this one will go on.

Yes, I remember the TNG naysayers.

 

[erebus]

Its ok you're allowed to say you don't like Star Trek, its a free country.

 

[donners22]

I've been more or less repulsed by some of the fan's attitudes, new and old, since the movie came out. This is not the trek or community I experienced even 6 years ago, or the one time I went to a convention with my father when I was a kid. All things in nature do die eventually, I guess the only question is what I shift my attention to.

Only since the new film came out? Hell, you're fortunate. I've been getting frustrated with various forums and communities since the mid-90s. It's not easy being someone who actually enjoys most of Trek in general, and constantly being confronted with negative comments about them and about the fans of them. Even in this forum there's constant shots at Enterprise, Voyager and Nemesis, among others.

So many Trek fans are just as bad as those non-fans who dismiss all Trekkies/ers in one ignorant sweep.

 

[ndcarlin]

I really wanted to enjoy it, read about it for the last 2 years, but walked out after about half an hour. Beastie Boys? Ads for Budweiser, Jack Daniels, and Nokia? Jim Kirk hiding under a woman's bed? Jim Kirk hitting his head on an I beam? It was way too juvenile and insulted my intelligence. The early 20s kids I know loved it. I'll never know how it ended. It just wasn't Star Trek despite the title.

 

[Trilliam]

I really wanted to enjoy it, read about it for the last 2 years, but walked out after about half an hour. Beastie Boys? Ads for Budweiser, Jack Daniels, and Nokia? Jim Kirk hiding under a woman's bed? Jim Kirk hitting his head on an I beam? It was way too juvenile and insulted my intelligence. The early 20s kids I know loved it. I'll never know how it ended. It just wasn't Star Trek despite the title.

DH and I must be developmentally delayed then - we're both over 48 and loved it.

 

[TheGodBen]

I'd say that a development of themes was lacking. The story offered several in the beginning--a rehash of the "no win" idea, the idea of working hard to improve oneself, some thoughts on choosing one's path in life, and the notion of emotional pain, loss and grief, having to face a conflicted nature, and, by the writers' own admission, a theme about having to change what you know.

Which might be part of the problem, actually. The script had so many thematic balls in the air at once with no clear sense of how they related to each other beyond that they were happening to a bunch of people at the same time that it came across as lacking focus. Again, as setup, that's fine--I'd rather see a story be ambitious and try to tackle a lot of themes rather than too few; but it's when we got to the end of the story and it didn't do anything to pull all those threads together into a cohesive whole that the movie retroactively fell apart.

All IMHO, of course, but it's a problem I hope to see addressed in the next film.

That's an excellent point which I hadn't thought about until I read it, but it is spot on.

This movie didn't go anywhere thematically, it had ideas but never developed them into anything beyond that, and those ideas didn't coalesce to make a whole. An idea would be presented, then another, and then another, until we reach the final act and they give up on trying to present new ideas in favour of non-stop action. As you say, they threw a lot of balls in the air but did nothing to stop them from falling to the ground.

I think that movies need themes, they need to have an understanding of where they are going and they need to seed the earlier parts of the script with that theme so that the whole movie comes to a logical conclusion. That isn't instantly going to make a movie good, TFF had a theme about finding god within ourselves and that movie deserved all the razzies it won, but it is something which Star Trek needed in my extremely modest () opinion.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Praetor,

I was not saying he wasn't a CDR in the new movie. I'm saying he wasn't in TOS

 

[Count Zero]

So, without any foundation of Star Trek knowledge that might lead me to complain about the contradictions in canon, the (mis?)characterizations, the whatever-it-is-veteran-fans-don't-like... I still got the sense you described: that it was a fun and exciting movie for as long as it kept playing, but was just missing something underneath. That was just my feeling. And now, watching the original series (with 60's special effects, dubious scientific equipment/explanations, and Shatner acting), I feel like I'm getting a lot more out of the show than I did from the movie. I don't know what it is that I'm getting, but it's definitely a lot of fun so far.

First of all, welcome to Trek!
I don't think it's fair to compare a two-hour-movie with a TV series, which offers much more time and opportunities for themes, character development, world building and different kind of stories.
Once you'll watch the TOS movies you might find that they aren't too different from this one. And at least the movie was good enough to get you interested in Trek and I think that's not a small feat with all the preconceptions weighing Trek down.
Let's hope you enjoy the next movie even more.

I do kind of role my eyes at this part. Pike's whole "You can graduate in 4 years. You can have your own command in 8."

Really? Once you graduate from Starfleet Academy, it only take 4 extra years before you're put in command of a starship?

Um, tell that to Harry Kim.

I think the idea was to get back to the feel of TOS where Starfleet seemed to be rather small organisation run by humans for the most part.

Now, a week later, all I can say is that I forgot most about it except the general feeling that it was ok, I might watch it another time if I get the chance and that's all. I wanted to be enthusiastic, exhilarated, happy about it, I just wasn't

I'm sorry to hear that. I did see it twice but I find myself still thinking about it, 1,5 weeks after seeing it. To me, it seemed to be quite rich in details and story opportunities not elaborated upon.

On the other hand, I can see the advantages of the Zero Punctuation method of anticipation, which is to abandon hope ahead of time and assume that everything will suck balls, such that if it doesn't it might be a pleasant surprise.

Well, there's something to be said for this strategy. Don't become one of the resident curmudgeons, though, ok?

Okay, its not TOS, its not TNG, its not DS9 and, thankfully its not that abomination they called Voyager. I understand, I get it. But I think too many Trekkies, Trekkers and Trekmonkeys are missing the ride here and allowing the old shows to color opinions. I have never in my life seen so many different versions of "Yeah, it was a good movie but..."

Well, I guess I should be grateful that you didn't even mention Enterprise. While I didn't like Voyager and actually gave up on it in season 5 or so, I wouldn't call it an abomination. That sounds a bit too dramatic.

But there are two things here...first it IS a Trek film and we are lucky to have it. And two...and this'll piss a few folks off...is that I like the new Crew

I, too, liked the new crew a lot (and Pike, too) and because of that I'm willing to overlook the weaker points of the plot.

I can't help but think back to the first season if TNG. I remember a lot of conversations just like this one. Even into the 90s and the advent of the internet that argument still rages. I have to wonder how long this one will go on.

Forever or at least as long as the internet will last.

I've been more or less repulsed by some of the fan's attitudes, new and old, since the movie came out. This is not the trek or community I experienced even 6 years ago, or the one time I went to a convention with my father when I was a kid. All things in nature do die eventually, I guess the only question is what I shift my attention to.

Only since the new film came out? Hell, you're fortunate. I've been getting frustrated with various forums and communities since the mid-90s. It's not easy being someone who actually enjoys most of Trek in general, and constantly being confronted with negative comments about them and about the fans of them. Even in this forum there's constant shots at Enterprise, Voyager and Nemesis, among others.

So many Trek fans are just as bad as those non-fans who dismiss all Trekkies/ers in one ignorant sweep.

I kind of agree here. People are people, and Trek fans are, too (surprisingly ). Besides, meeting someone in real life and discussing with someone on the internet are two different things. I bet that if we were all to meet, Trek XI lovers and 'haters', we'd get along fine and maybe have a civil discussion over a beer or coke.
Don't take negative remarks on the net too seriously. The worst trolls often turn out to be poor buggers in real life (I once had this experience on another board). Just be kind and civil and grow a thicker skin towards the negativity.
(As an Enterprise fan I know what I'm talking about... )

 

[CaptainStoner]

Its ok you're allowed to say you don't like Star Trek, its a free country.

NOOOO! THE NAYSAYERS WILL BE FORCEFULLY CONVERTED! WATERBOARDED WITH nuPEPSI! UNTIL THE MERE MENTION OF TOS CAUSES THEM TO DROP INTO A FETAL POSITION!

 

[Roshi]

Um, I love Pepsi...

 

[Ward Fowler]

^Have you tried Pepsi Throwback? It's tasty.

 

[Ovation]

True, but Saavik (who's the only other person we've actually seen take it) was a Lieutenant in TWOK, which means probably that she was a cadet who'd graduated the Academy proper already and went on for "post-graduate" command training. Cadets are by definition not commissioned, even if "enlisted" in modern terms means something slightly different.

No matter how Starfleet specifically treats its cadets, the new film might have probably done better to have skipped a few years, have had Kirk get some service under his belt and be at least a Lieutenant (like Saavik) when taking the test.

I do kind of role my eyes at this part. Pike's whole "You can graduate in 4 years. You can have your own command in 8."

Really? Once you graduate from Starfleet Academy, it only take 4 extra years before you're put in command of a starship?

Um, tell that to Harry Kim.

Pike said you "can", not you "will". Bit of a difference (and in any reality, Harry Kim is NOT James T. Kirk)

 

[aridas sofia]

To me and I suspect many other trek fans the point of Star Trek (all the versions) was Roddenberry's idea: mankind becomes civilized. They explore space to understand, communicate and learn. They respect each other and other cultures. They try to do the right thing, even in the face of a challenge, an enemy or a no-win scenario. You know what I'm talking about if you have seen more than 3 episodes of any trek series.

None of that was there in XI. We got updated versions of the characters. Cool. New actors. Great. New FX. Fantastic. A new story. Could be OK in future, even though this plot was lame IMO.

What I didn't get was star trek. I didn't get exploration, I didn't get respect of others or other cultures, I didn't get "doing right in the face of adversity".

I got a Spock who has so little respect for others that he maroons someone he doesn't like on some random planet. I got a version of Kirk that orders the death of his enemies when they won't submit (even though they're doomed anyway it seems). I cringed when I saw that - I could name a dozen stories where Kirk and ST were defined by the exact opposite actions. And for this remarkable (?) performance he's promoted to Captain.

This isn't a civilized mankind, this is today's culture with all its ills, when we choose to go to war for convenience or to prove our might makes us right. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

XI was an exciting looking action story with the characters of the original series. It just wasn't Star Trek.

It is good to have you aboard. Your ability to write such an insightful, well-reasoned and succinct review is to be welcomed. You have managed in very few words to distill the real "Trek" problems with the movie. Not canon violations or Treknical issues or whatever. More than its many internal inconsistencies and logical gaps, XI takes a wildly different stand on how people might one day learn to behave. That is to be expected, because it's JJ Abrams view and not the view of Roddenberry or Bennett or Berman. But I feel it's a bit of a shame it had to go by the name of "Star Trek". I would have liked to have seen something more consistent with the ethos of the original show be carried forth in flashier packaging. C'est pas grave. C'est la mode.

 

[RoJoHen]

True, but Saavik (who's the only other person we've actually seen take it) was a Lieutenant in TWOK, which means probably that she was a cadet who'd graduated the Academy proper already and went on for "post-graduate" command training. Cadets are by definition not commissioned, even if "enlisted" in modern terms means something slightly different.

No matter how Starfleet specifically treats its cadets, the new film might have probably done better to have skipped a few years, have had Kirk get some service under his belt and be at least a Lieutenant (like Saavik) when taking the test.

I do kind of role my eyes at this part. Pike's whole "You can graduate in 4 years. You can have your own command in 8."

Really? Once you graduate from Starfleet Academy, it only take 4 extra years before you're put in command of a starship?

Um, tell that to Harry Kim.

Pike said you "can", not you "will". Bit of a difference (and in any reality, Harry Kim is NOT James T. Kirk)

It's still a ridiculously short amount of time.

 

[Ovation]

I do kind of role my eyes at this part. Pike's whole "You can graduate in 4 years. You can have your own command in 8."

Really? Once you graduate from Starfleet Academy, it only take 4 extra years before you're put in command of a starship?

Um, tell that to Harry Kim.

Pike said you "can", not you "will". Bit of a difference (and in any reality, Harry Kim is NOT James T. Kirk)

It's still a ridiculously short amount of time.

Meh. Hardly the most egregious example of ridiculousness in Trek. Beyond that, I was merely trying (and not succeeding very well, it seems) to make a joke at Kim's expense.

 

[Qonos]

I'd say that a development of themes was lacking. The story offered several in the beginning--a rehash of the "no win" idea, the idea of working hard to improve oneself, some thoughts on choosing one's path in life, and the notion of emotional pain, loss and grief, having to face a conflicted nature, and, by the writers' own admission, a theme about having to change what you know.

Which might be part of the problem, actually. The script had so many thematic balls in the air at once with no clear sense of how they related to each other beyond that they were happening to a bunch of people at the same time that it came across as lacking focus. Again, as setup, that's fine--I'd rather see a story be ambitious and try to tackle a lot of themes rather than too few; but it's when we got to the end of the story and it didn't do anything to pull all those threads together into a cohesive whole that the movie retroactively fell apart.

All IMHO, of course, but it's a problem I hope to see addressed in the next film.

That's an excellent point which I hadn't thought about until I read it, but it is spot on.

This movie didn't go anywhere thematically, it had ideas but never developed them into anything beyond that, and those ideas didn't coalesce to make a whole. An idea would be presented, then another, and then another, until we reach the final act and they give up on trying to present new ideas in favour of non-stop action. As you say, they threw a lot of balls in the air but did nothing to stop them from falling to the ground.

I think that movies need themes, they need to have an understanding of where they are going and they need to seed the earlier parts of the script with that theme so that the whole movie comes to a logical conclusion. That isn't instantly going to make a movie good, TFF had a theme about finding god within ourselves and that movie deserved all the razzies it won, but it is something which Star Trek needed in my extremely modest () opinion.

Maybe they weren't strong themes but they were there, and really what this movie was was a way to introduce a wide audiance to Star Trek, my girlfriend enjoyed the movie and she's not a ST fan. She thought they chose a great actor for Spock.

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. I think this film told that story well. Forget about the coincidences, because frankly all of real life is one big coincidence.

Themes on Revenge, redemption, friendship, overcoming a more advanced enemy where all there, they just weren't as heavily handed as they have been in past Trek. The way of getting Ideals across in the new Trek seems to be more sublte.

I've seen it twice and I could see it again, if that doesn't tell you it's compelling I don't know what does, especially since the OP said he had to see it twice to decide if he didn't like it. What was the honest first impression of it before you saw it the second time?

Just asking.

 

[Roshi]

(and in any reality, Harry Kim is NOT James T. Kirk)

Meh. Hardly the most egregious example of ridiculousness in Trek. Beyond that, I was merely trying (and not succeeding very well, it seems) to make a joke at Kim's expense.

It's that Janeway bitch who is to blame, she not only demoted Tom Paris but later on she reinstated him, when Harry Kim was just in front of her!

 

[Praetor]

Praetor,

I was not saying he wasn't a CDR in the new movie. I'm saying he wasn't in TOS

Ah, my mistake. That's a whole other can of worms, methinks.

 

[skippyluvs]

I really wanted to enjoy it, read about it for the last 2 years, but walked out after about half an hour. Beastie Boys? Ads for Budweiser, Jack Daniels, and Nokia? Jim Kirk hiding under a woman's bed? Jim Kirk hitting his head on an I beam? It was way too juvenile and insulted my intelligence. The early 20s kids I know loved it. I'll never know how it ended. It just wasn't Star Trek despite the title.

Wow I feel sorry for you

 

[Gepard]

That's an excellent point which I hadn't thought about until I read it, but it is spot on.

<snip>

A well-said response to a well-said post.

Well, there's something to be said for this strategy. Don't become one of the resident curmudgeons, though, ok?

Oh, God no. I'll probably just be sitting in the corner of the forum, clutching my sombrero and weeping quietly. You can all ignore it.

To me and I suspect many other trek fans the point of Star Trek (all the versions) was Roddenberry's idea: mankind becomes civilized. They explore space to understand, communicate and learn. They respect each other and other cultures. They try to do the right thing, even in the face of a challenge, an enemy or a no-win scenario. You know what I'm talking about if you have seen more than 3 episodes of any trek series.

None of that was there in XI. We got updated versions of the characters. Cool. New actors. Great. New FX. Fantastic. A new story. Could be OK in future, even though this plot was lame IMO.

What I didn't get was star trek. I didn't get exploration, I didn't get respect of others or other cultures, I didn't get "doing right in the face of adversity".

I got a Spock who has so little respect for others that he maroons someone he doesn't like on some random planet. I got a version of Kirk that orders the death of his enemies when they won't submit (even though they're doomed anyway it seems). I cringed when I saw that - I could name a dozen stories where Kirk and ST were defined by the exact opposite actions. And for this remarkable (?) performance he's promoted to Captain.

This isn't a civilized mankind, this is today's culture with all its ills, when we choose to go to war for convenience or to prove our might makes us right. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

XI was an exciting looking action story with the characters of the original series. It just wasn't Star Trek.

It is good to have you aboard. Your ability to write such an insightful, well-reasoned and succinct review is to be welcomed. You have managed in very few words to distill the real "Trek" problems with the movie. Not canon violations or Treknical issues or whatever. More than its many internal inconsistencies and logical gaps, XI takes a wildly different stand on how people might one day learn to behave. That is to be expected, because it's JJ Abrams view and not the view of Roddenberry or Bennett or Berman. But I feel it's a bit of a shame it had to go by the name of "Star Trek". I would have liked to have seen something more consistent with the ethos of the original show be carried forth in flashier packaging. C'est pas grave. C'est la mode.

Well put on both ends. I think it was Dennis (amongst others) who's mentioned on several occasions in the past that one of the reasons 23rd century humans were more interesting than the stiff, perfect automatons of the 24th century is that in the 23rd, the characters had to always struggle to be better than their flaws would allow. They weren't perfect, but damn if they weren't going to try.

But in ST, there's a development--implicit and unintended, I'm sure, but still there--that says "Ah, these people are fine the way they are." Kirk is a cocky, arrogant sure-of-himself-at-all-times kid who stays that way throughout the entire film; Spock, as you say maroons Kirk just because. These are the people they are at the beginning of the story, and its the people they are at the end of the story; putting aside the question of weather or not it's consistent with how Trek has presented itself in the past, it's just bad storytelling. You don't put characters onstage and then not change them in some meaningful way as a result of the events around them.