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

[Tentacle]

Yeah, human faith is a dangerous and often detrimental force. I don't like it, and I would prefer people use their heads and not their hearts to make decisions.

That being said, they wasted a lot of time on a lot of different things in the movie. The pace was intentional, as the movie was not built to withstand even a modicum of scrutiny. Why? Because it is a popcorn action film and made for action and cheap thrills. Does it work? Not on I, but I appear to be in the minority. Most people seem very pleased with this action flick. However, and you have not yet addressed this, why would they change an wildly successful formula? They have the majority, and the box office takes to prove it, why would they make anything different? Time spent on character introductions could very well be spent on, I don't know, action sequences or some small service to the character interaction. I don't see the overall structure of the movie changing very much.

That is why its so sad to see the old trek die because of this. And its equally sad to see so many intelligent loyal fans of trek be taken in by the flashy pop corn flick.


P.S. Stop using the scene where kirk pushes that klingon over the cliff as justification for kicking nero when his down.

That klingon kirk kicked over the head was going to drag kirk down the cliff with him, Now I dont recall seeing nero had a trackor beam on enterprise do i?

 

[Feofilakt]

Yeah, human faith is a dangerous and often detrimental force. I don't like it, and I would prefer people use their heads and not their hearts to make decisions.

That being said, they wasted a lot of time on a lot of different things in the movie. The pace was intentional, as the movie was not built to withstand even a modicum of scrutiny. Why? Because it is a popcorn action film and made for action and cheap thrills. Does it work? Not on I, but I appear to be in the minority. Most people seem very pleased with this action flick. However, and you have not yet addressed this, why would they change an wildly successful formula? They have the majority, and the box office takes to prove it, why would they make anything different? Time spent on character introductions could very well be spent on, I don't know, action sequences or some small service to the character interaction. I don't see the overall structure of the movie changing very much.

That is why its so sad to see the old trek die because of this. And its equally sad to see so many intelligent loyal fans of trek be taken in by the flashy pop corn flick.


P.S. Stop using the scene where kirk pushes that klingon over the cliff as justification for kicking nero when his down.

That klingon kirk kicked over the head was going to drag kirk down the cliff with him, Now I dont recall seeing nero had a trackor beam on enterprise do i?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdc0eYL3QJU

True, and Kirk even offers to help Kruge up.

 

[Borgminister]

Nu Kirk and Spock offer to help Nero too... y'know what, Nero might resisted with whatever weaponry he had left, too.

Good God man, he destroyed Vulcan and was about to do the same to the entire Federation.

And chose to say bye-bye. What about non-interference??? A key tenet of Trek.

 

[3D Master]

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.

Wait the Cage, Which NBC told Roddenberry Go back and Reshoot?

That THE CAGE???

If it did such a great job the first time Why wasn't it picked up..

Why make WNMHGB?

Because The Cage was made over budget and over time. Roddenberry and crew had to prove they could produce the same quality in time and in budget.

 

[Feofilakt]

Nu Kirk and Spock offer to help Nero too... y'know what, Nero might resisted with whatever weaponry he had left, too.

Good God man, he destroyed Vulcan and was about to do the same to the entire Federation.

And chose to say bye-bye. What about non-interference??? A key tenet of Trek.

Haven't we already discussed this to death in that one thread?

 

[TenLubak]

I liked the opening scence with Kirk being born, I felt something there.

Thank God. Nothing for Spock's loss of his mother and home planet?

I didn't understand why Spock lauched Kirk onto the ice world, and why he just happend to bump into old Spock.

None of the other movies ever took license, did they?

As for launching Kirk onto the ice world--it was so he wouldn't be continuously disruptive on board the Enterprise...

The landing site was probably approximated so that a rescue team would get there... eventually (13 km).

I see nothing confusing about any of this... perhaps a second viewing is in order?

The 25 year thing bothered me too--big hole in the story. Probably should've worked around that better.

Agreed.

Let's see... he realized what was happening and convinced Pike and Spock that the Romulans were lying in wait--and he was going to the other ship. Maybe he felt Spock and Kirk had a kind of working relationship.... I didn't feel it was that far-fetched given the flow of the movie.

He just saved their asses from obliteration for crying out loud. There is a dynamic at work here...

Again, he is the one who manages to put 2 and 2 together, has a unique past with the "lightning storm in space", and he is a wunderkind of sorts, just lost in direction. Now he's finding it. Plus, maybe Pike thought under the circumstances and given his history Kirk is the best man for the job.

Brain and brain, what is brain? (A "classic" TOS episode that really made you think)

I... have had enough... of YOU! (Shatnerkirk just before killing a stubborn Klingon)

At least they didn't have to warehouse any whales...

Um... he did 3 years... didn't he? Kirk's not a pencil pusher, he's an iconic hero. Why don't you treat him as such... Leaps of logic are what we make for any of our favorite shows or movies.

It really made me leaving the theatre thinking huh...so that's it....why....ok..and then being sorta sad.

Well there are always the new novels..

Enjoy, and thanks for your financial support of the movie. I sincerely hope the next one is more to your liking...

Join the club. We grieve with thee.

In my case, those tears are of unvarnished joy...

Spock's Planet: Sure, but i think since I've seen this happen many times before, it seemed like old hat. I didn't feel it as much as I should. That's my only explanation.

Lacnching Kirk: Alternative: Put him in a holding cell. Beam him directly to the base. I understand the reasoning. I just think the expense, time to go all the way over to Delta Vega when there is an emergency that requires Mr. Spocks USS Enterpise elsewhere. Bumping into Spock who live within miles from the Starfleet base it was too many concidences. Not only did Kirk land precisely where Spock lived, but he shows up just in time to save him from the creature's attack. Then hes conviently close to the base 15 KM or so i belive. Then Scotty's there. Wow what a day for old Spock first Kirk drops in, then Scotty's there. Oh and I remember Scotty formula for doing something 'impossible' in the trek world. Which the audience doesn't know Scotty can do. I guess in the time from whem he was found on the Jenolin, and Spock left Romulus sometime they met up and Spock memorized this. Then Scotty didn't share this info with anyone else. Only he would know how to beam GREAT distances so pricicely while moving at warp speed! Shooting him off the ship just was like supposed to be an omg i can't belive he did that. Thats cool. Ha. Didn't like it. Kirk could have been killed. Spock's resoning is confusing. Maybe because his logic's flawed due to all the stress he going thru.

25 YEARS LATER: Perhaps a fill in the blank time period that Greg Cox could write ala Exile of Kahn Singh. I'm just guessing his drill bit broke. What was he up to? ".......Nero, where'd ya go, what did you do?"

Gotta leave for a sec, will address other comments when I return from the failed city..

 

[Kruge]

Yeah, human faith is a dangerous and often detrimental force. I don't like it, and I would prefer people use their heads and not their hearts to make decisions.

That being said, they wasted a lot of time on a lot of different things in the movie. The pace was intentional, as the movie was not built to withstand even a modicum of scrutiny. Why? Because it is a popcorn action film and made for action and cheap thrills. Does it work? Not on I, but I appear to be in the minority. Most people seem very pleased with this action flick. However, and you have not yet addressed this, why would they change an wildly successful formula? They have the majority, and the box office takes to prove it, why would they make anything different? Time spent on character introductions could very well be spent on, I don't know, action sequences or some small service to the character interaction. I don't see the overall structure of the movie changing very much.

That is why its so sad to see the old trek die because of this. And its equally sad to see so many intelligent loyal fans of trek be taken in by the flashy pop corn flick.


P.S. Stop using the scene where kirk pushes that klingon over the cliff as justification for kicking nero when his down.

That klingon kirk kicked over the head was going to drag kirk down the cliff with him, Now I dont recall seeing nero had a trackor beam on enterprise do i?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdc0eYL3QJU

True, and Kirk even offers to help Kruge up.

Yes and you saw what happened to me in the end

Still, I have to say that I saw Star Trek for a second time this weekend..dragged a buddy of mine along who is more of a Star Wars fan...I can only say that, upon second viewing, I liked this film less...meaning that if I were to grade it as a 9/10 initially, I'd now say it's a 7/10...it's still a fine film, and was almost as much fun to watch, but my friend kept pointing out how much Abrams had Lucas-a-fied it...I have to agree with the original poster who started this thread...this film is just not as spectacular as it has been reviewed as being...a good film, yes...solid action sequences, an absolutley breathtaking opening sequence with a music score that still gives me chills...and yet, there are problems, and I think in some way they were inevitable...Abrams and Co. had so much time to introduce the characters, get them in place, and tell the story...I wish, I truly wish, that your average Joe Sixpack and Susie Housecoat Moviegoer had the patience to sit through perhaps two films, or even perhaps a longer single film, that took the time to delve deeper into the backstories of the main characters...whatever, my gripes are immaterial, but I can say that Star Trek was a pretty good intro and that the next film has near-unlimited potential

 

[Gepard]

See, now this is how you do it. The difference between a Gep Malakai negative review and someone like Captain Robert April just being pissy and condescending is like night and day!

Absolutely. I don't completely agree with the review, but I definitely see where he's coming from and appreciate the effort to explain his opinions, rather than just running around with his arms flailing like a midget with a serious head injury.

The irony being that I am a midget with a serious head injury.

 

[jayrath]

It's my first post so I'm sorry if its a bit long.

You can look at a story from the elements it contains: the characters, the plot, the telling of it (in the case of films, direction, performances, FX)...

You can look at a story from the message it carries - the point of it, its reason for being.

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.

Sorry to anyone who disagrees, and feel free to flame me. So many fans of the movie have been so aggressive with anyone who disagrees with them, it kind of proves my point.

Well, that's a HELL of a first post! You summed it up better and more eloquently than anyone else. Thanks very much!

 

[Borgminister]

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".

What you got was an extremely well handled introduction of characters to a general audience that was welcomed by the overwhelming majority of Trek fans.

I got a Spock who has so little respect for others that he maroons someone he doesn't like on some random planet.

Look up what maroons means... Kirk had a functioning computer and a rescue team was at a base 13 km away, ready to retrieve him. Not marooned.

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).

Submit to what, exactly? Nero didn't want to be saved... and might well have had a Khan like self-destruct mechanism to take out the Enterprise if push came to shove. Nero chose suicide--it wasn't up to the Enterprise to take him against his will. That would've been forced submission.

A good topic of discussion by the way... thanks to Trek, we have it.

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.

Who went to war with whom in Star Trek?

Sorry to anyone who disagrees, and feel free to flame me. So many fans of the movie have been so aggressive with anyone who disagrees with them, it kind of proves my point.

Not gonna oblige, not my style. But I will point out to you that the great majority of fans and a sizable chunk of the general public disagree with you.

Yeah, I know--the general public is dumb, let me anticipate that right now... that's not a flame, is it...?

 

[Gepard]

What you got was an extremely well handled introduction of characters to a general audience that was welcomed by the overwhelming majority of Trek fans.

Extreme, maybe, but I wouldn't agree it was well-handled.

 

[Borgminister]

What you got was an extremely well handled introduction of characters to a general audience that was welcomed by the overwhelming majority of Trek fans.

Extreme, maybe, but I wouldn't agree it was well-handled.

That is your prerogative, of course.

I appreciate what this film did, and greatly look forward to the next one.

 

[Overgeeked]

Maybe, just maybe, there is a group of people who have never written fan fiction or even read any of the tech manuals, and they judged this movie as a movie and thought it was a bad movie.

Nah, I'm just a figment of your imagination.

+1

Kirk's not a pencil pusher, he's an iconic hero. Why don't you treat him as such... Leaps of logic are what we make for any of our favorite shows or movies.

No, that other guy (you know Shatner's version from the TOS timeline), he's the iconic hero. This guy is an alternate reality version. He's just a punk kid who was promoted past officers with more experience.

A leap of logic (or two) are required of most modern movies. The mental gymnastics required to have this movie make sense are staggering.

 

[Blue_Trek]

What I don't get is that, some of you guys would prefer it to be more like some episodes, where you don't see many space ships, there is very little action, there is a ton of dialogue, and there is a lack of good special effects.

Maybe truer to Trek, but boring as hell, and would equal a mass failure that would shut down the movie series for good. If you would rather have had that happen you are a different type of fan, I dare say a selfish fan, that doesn't want to share Trek with the new generation.

Now, we have a chance for more Star Trek movies with strong budgets, and that's bad???

 

[Gepard]

What I don't get is that, some of you guys would prefer it to be more like some episodes, where you don't see many space ships, there is very little action, there is a ton of dialogue, and there is a lack of good special effects.

How many people have said this? I don't recall noticing much in the way of commentary to that effect.

 

[Kruge]

I liked it and hated parts of it at the same time...I'm still pretty conflicted about the whole thing, but the positive parts seemed to have stood out more, so overall I'm excited to see where this is going...2011 may be a good year indeed

 

[Trilliam]

A leap of logic (or two) are required of most modern movies. The mental gymnastics required to have this movie make sense are staggering.

FTL travel, interspecies breeding, intergalactic time travel, and the above you can't believe?

 

[Qonos]

Yeah, human faith is a dangerous and often detrimental force. I don't like it, and I would prefer people use their heads and not their hearts to make decisions.

That being said, they wasted a lot of time on a lot of different things in the movie. The pace was intentional, as the movie was not built to withstand even a modicum of scrutiny. Why? Because it is a popcorn action film and made for action and cheap thrills. Does it work? Not on I, but I appear to be in the minority. Most people seem very pleased with this action flick. However, and you have not yet addressed this, why would they change an wildly successful formula? They have the majority, and the box office takes to prove it, why would they make anything different? Time spent on character introductions could very well be spent on, I don't know, action sequences or some small service to the character interaction. I don't see the overall structure of the movie changing very much.

That is why its so sad to see the old trek die because of this. And its equally sad to see so many intelligent loyal fans of trek be taken in by the flashy pop corn flick.


P.S. Stop using the scene where kirk pushes that klingon over the cliff as justification for kicking nero when his down.

That klingon kirk kicked over the head was going to drag kirk down the cliff with him, Now I dont recall seeing nero had a trackor beam on enterprise do i?

Wait HOW THE HELL DID NERO GET TO THE PAST.. A BLACK HOLE MADE WITH RED MATTER...

Let's say it again.. A BLACK HOLE MADE WITH RED MATTER.... What was that that took him to the past... A BLACK HOLE MADE WITH RED MATTER..

Now what was Nero's Ship falling into at the end of the movie...


Wait for it.......




A BLACK HOLE MADE WITH RED MATTER..

DO THE VULCAN MATH...

The ship survived a Black hole made with Red Matter once and came out and killed Kirk's dad, destroyed Vulcan and gave the Fed a hard ass time. What's to say his ship wouldn't survive again and go another 100 years into the past.

Destroying the Narada insured that Nero wouldn't fall into an even further past and succeed where he had failed in the movie.

And you guys claim to think about Star Trek.

You really just want to nitpick it to death.

 

[Overgeeked]

A leap of logic (or two) are required of most modern movies. The mental gymnastics required to have this movie make sense are staggering.

FTL travel, interspecies breeding, intergalactic time travel, and the above you can't believe?

A space opera still has to be consistent within it's own rules, which it basically is. This is soft SF, I'm not nitpicking about, FTL not really being possible, etc. I'm criticizing the glaring plot holes (i.e. bad writing), not the tech level or any of that.

To be precise, I didn't say I couldn't believe it.

The ship survived a Black hole made with Red Matter once and came out and killed Kirk's dad, destroyed Vulcan and gave the Fed a hard ass time. What's to say his ship wouldn't survive again and go another 100 years into the past.

Destroying the Narada insured that Nero wouldn't fall into an even further past and succeed where he had failed in the movie.

And you guys claim to think about Star Trek.

You really just want to nitpick it to death.

No. He would have fallen into another alternate reality in the past somewhen. It would have no more affect on the events in this movie, than this movie had on the reality that came before it (all previous series and movies).

I just want good writing. My only real bitch is the myriad plot holes within the movie. I don't really give a damn about canon, nacelle color, etc.

 

[Butters]

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

Indeed, any episode that result in a reset, and there are many, is empty meaningless shite because none the portrayed events actually transpire.

By those standards, Year of Hell would would be terrible. I disagree.

None of the portrayed events ever actually transpire, because it's fiction! Should it really matter to us whether events in a fictional timeline are reset? If you're saying that they are meaningless because they don't have an impact on the characters, I think of the vast majority of episodes are never mentioned again in any context. Does that make all those episodes equally meaningless?

As long as they are actually entertaining, I don't see the problem.

For me, yes. Year of Hell was forgettable nonsense. Yes, it was entertaining, excellent even, but as the story unfolded I could sense what was wrong, a precognition if you will that I would be disappointed. The episode was too good to be true, it had to be reset at the end, this anticipation of an anticlimax spoils the viewing experience. When the reset happens it undermines any emotion it may have triggered.

Its a cliche of story telling but when the answer to "then what happened?" is either "it was all a dream" or "Nothing, it didn't happen anyway", then you've got a terrible story and deflated audience. Meaningless shite as some might call it. Unforgivable.