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

[Bill Morris]

I enjoyed his post too.

And maybe I'm speaking too much as a mod, but I don't even have a problem with the 'purists'.

The only people I have a problem with are assholes. Whether they like the movie or hate the movie, or anything in between.

On the charge of purism, I plead not guilty. On the charge of drinking prune juice after thinking about his movie, I have to plead no contest.

The movie hasn't come to my island yet. My wife tells me it's opening May 29. So I haven't seen it, and as unthinkable as it might seem to skip a Paramount production titled Star Trek, I'm really put off by the trailers and photos.

 

[Gepard]

The movie hasn't come to my island yet. My wife tells me it's opening May 29. So I haven't seen it, and as unthinkable as it might seem to skip a Paramount production titled Star Trek, I'm really put off by the trailers and photos.

As weird as this is going to sound, see it. At least once. You'll never know otherwise, and to be fair, the movie does have a lot of elements to recommend it. They clearly work to create a functioning film for the majority of people, so you never know. At any rate, you owe it to yourself for the opening scenes, which are almost worth the price of admission on their own.

 

[Captain Euphoria]

Honestly, my biggest problem with it was how just... dumb it was. It honestly felt more like a gussied-up version of Galaxy Quest to me. And it's bothering me how the media and the obnoxious people who've hated Star Trek (because it wasn't cool) are now using this Star Trek movie as a new excuse to bash Trek fans. If I hear one more joke about how Trek fans are complaining because it's "entertaining," I'm going to vomit!

Look, feel free to not like a film. Whatever. I refused to see Mama Mia because I felt it would emasculate me somehow, but you have to realise that describing this film as dumb against the 40 odd years of Trek makes you sound like an idiot.

In all honesty, the thing that gets me the most is that from this point forward, this is what Star Trek is. And I don't like it, mainly because, with all the other shows and movies (including Nemesis), that was a universe I would have loved to live in. The Abrams Trek-i-verse, not at all.

So, apart from the absence of Vulcan, what so different about the new universe/timeline that you wouldn't want to live in it? We probably won't see men in skirts again but is that such a bad thing?

Why you'd want to live in a universe where women can't captain a starship and Earth is under constant threat from invasion or destruction is beyond me.

(SPOILERS BELOW!)

I sound like an idiot? Because... why? Because I refuse to go down on JJ Abrams simply because he dangled something shiny (obnoxiously so, in fact! Did you see all those lens flares?) in front of my face and called it Star Trek? It's an entertaining movie, yes, (much like watching people get hit in the balls on America's Funniest Home Videos) but it's one of those things that if you actually stop to think about it, it's full of blatant stupidities. Why exactly did Spock just sit around in a cave instead of going to the outpost to WARN PEOPLE? How is it that he just HAPPENED to run into Kirk at the perfect moment... on an ENTIRE planet? That's like accidentally running into my mother while taking a trip to New Zealand when I was expecting her to be back here in the States. Why was the Romulan ship so pointy and nonsensical? Do they not believe in railings? Why was it covered in water? What good did putting the bug in Pike do and was it ever removed? Did you notice the NOKIA product placement? How did a guy they picked up on some forgotten outpost end up running engineering so quickly? Did the Enterprise not have its own Chief Engineer? Is it normal practice to promote a bunch of not-even-graduated cadets to run a fleet's flagship? Sure, Kirk saved the Federation but is he REALLY ready to Captain a starship?

The way people are acting, I should just sit back, turn off my brain and enjoy it. Well, I don't want to. It's not what I like about Trek.

The movie was stupid. Entertaining, yes, but still stupid in the same way Wolverine is. Big, shiny and dumb. Heck, at least Nemesis had a cool undercurrent of Picard having to deal with the fact that it was HIS CLONE (in essence, his shadow) responsible for so much death and destruction.

And wasn't Janeway a Captain? Wasn't the Captain of the Enterprise-C a woman? What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Myasishchev]

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.

This struck me when I saw it too. But then I thought about it, and I came to be at peace with it.

Kirk did try to get Nero to let him save him. But Nero refused. Now, granted, the notion that Nero gets to decide that for every Romulan aboard his ship is pretty undemocratic, but no one got mad at Wall-E for doing the same thing...

The point is, he made an offer of peaceful coexistence with a man who had just killed six billion people. That alone has got to take the moral courage of a saint.

Would it have been more Trek if he'd made a stupid joke afterward and pretended Vulcan hadn't imploded? That was the usual reaction to mass-murder on a planetary scale in TOS.

Spock shooting Kirk off in a pod was... well, probably evidence enough of his emotional compromise. A true dick move. Then again, how many times have we seen some jerk break out of a brig and return to menace the ship? Maybe Spock-2's just genre-savvy.

And for this remarkable (?) performance he's promoted to Captain.

Oh, quite. This part was nothing short of retarded. Couldn't they have at least flashed forward a couple of years for this? Wholeheartedly agree, and really I think everyone does--at best, we can poorly justify it by saying Starfleet got its ass kicked, but even so, five grades? Five? It makes even less sense than that, because the guy who's already a commander and been one for a while, and who should probably be made like a vice admiral by that metric, winds up being Captain Five Grades in a Day's XO.

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.

I don't know if this is a bad thing at all.

But I admit I felt a little was missing in showing us how awesome the future is, or at least should be. I agree with someone else who felt that the theme of cooperation across cultural and racial barriers was far too underplayed.

For example, the Federation was mentioned about once and if I were totally new to the series, I could probably only guess from inference that Vulcan was even a Federation world. They should've utilized their far vaster technical resources and put in a lot more aliens, particularly a lot more Vulcans, Andorians, and Tellarites, to even out a still human-dominated Starfleet. Plus, if they wanted to emulate Star Wars, and they did and it shows and that's not necessarily a bad thing, more background aliens would've been one way they could have done so.

 

[eepruls]

This thread is really interesting to read. I agree with what everyone is saying. I wish they would have added a bit more of Star Trek's core themes in the movie (cooperation, friendship, exploration, discovery, doing the right thing, etc.). Why must we eliminate the core of Star Trek in order to make a big, 'fun', blockbuster? I don't think we should have to turn off our brain to make a big film. I like science fiction because it makes me think and demonstrates what the future could be like.

The Kelvin scene worked because it was emotional and was completely Star Trek. Kirk Sr. was honourable and putting the lives of his crew above his own. But the rest of the film wasn't like that. There was no payoff when Kirk becomes Captain because it seems like you can be any grade of officer you want (McCoy becomes Chief Medical Officer, Scotty becomes Chief Engineer, Kirk becomes Captain from a cadet). There's no order or reason and there needs to be to establish a chain of command. When cadets can overthrow other senior officers like it's nothing, it becomes less believable. When the captain gives an order you don't like, just mutiny!

After the whole thing with Nero, Kirk should have received a commendation and then they should have jumped some years to the future where Kirk would then be Captain. That would have worked fine because they had already done the '3 Years Later'. That would have demonstrated how awesome Kirk is to be able to move from Cadet to Captain so quickly (and more believable).

I agree the Federation was not well represented. New people would have no idea what the Federation is or what it stands for. We needed more cooperation between worlds and other races on the ships. We needed some Vulcan ambassadors on Earth or something to show people that Vulcan is important because it was one of the founding members of the Federation. Because Starfleet and the Federation was so weakly shown, it didn't feel grand and important. If cadets have to man all the vessels above Earth, what does that say about the organization of the Federation? I did appreciate that Kirk offered to save Nero and his crew. That was completely Star Trek - trying to do the right thing and better humanity. That demonstrated compassion.

What the heck was with all the lens flares? I couldn't stand it. I can understand if you're standing in front of a light or something but in the hallways, on the planets, etc? It was way overdone and really annoying. I hope they remove that crap in the sequel. I hated that the phasers had become small bursts like in Star Wars instead of what they've always been - a single orange-red beam. That was unique. It's like making a Star Wars reboot and changing the way light sabres look or how the force works. I hate when things are changed for no reason when they've clearly been established and make the franchise unique.

I also hated Engineering. I know, I know, it's been discussed. It looked too 'today' and not futuristic enough for me. They could have added some futuristic panels all over the place or other futuristic tubes or something. Or what about a huge warp core? Instead it looked like the Brewery where it was shot. I don't want the Enterprise engine room to look like a brewery. The ship has dilithium crystals, anti-matter, and a warp coil! That's advanced technology that needs specialized equipment and technology. I was expecting WAY more considering the size of budget. They didn't even build an engineerinig set for a futuristic ship in space! Star Trek was always about new technologies (which we are still trying to create today!)

Was it an entertaining movie? Yes! I LOVED the cast. I thought Pine, Quinto, Urban, Saldana, Pegg, Cho, and Yelchin were superb. They were funny and believable. I have no problem with changing things up a bit. I liked many things. Why can't we get a big Star Trek blockbuster that still has the basic themes that Star Trek has always possessed?

 

[The Sneeze Police]

Overall I enjoyed the movie, but not necessarily as a Star Trek movie. I enjoyed the energy in the theater. I rarely read spoilers and I was not particularly thrilled about Trek set at Star Fleet academy involving characters I already knew. I really think I would have preferred a movie involving the universe of the TOS era characters like the Kelvin crew. I really didn't intend to see it so soon, preferring to let the hype die down, but house rennovations drove us from home to the theater, and I am glad we went.

I love the analysis of movie consistencies and inconsistencies on a routine basis, and I have loved that aspect to the Boards right now. I admit I was brought out of the movie while trying to wrap my head around the engineering stage, but inconsistencies were not the reason I disliked the movie.

I had a very muted reaction to the movie leaving the theater, and I have had a pervading sense of melancholy when I think about the movie. Old Trek is gone. New Trek with much more modern sensibilities is here and here to stay if Trek is to have new installments. I will have to satisfy my self with mere glimpses of old Trek, and appreicate that this new, successful movie brings the promise of more (although less recognizable to me) Trek.

 

[pookha]

Honestly, my biggest problem with it was how just... dumb it was. It honestly felt more like a gussied-up version of Galaxy Quest to me. And it's bothering me how the media and the obnoxious people who've hated Star Trek (because it wasn't cool) are now using this Star Trek movie as a new excuse to bash Trek fans. If I hear one more joke about how Trek fans are complaining because it's "entertaining," I'm going to vomit!

Look, feel free to not like a film. Whatever. I refused to see Mama Mia because I felt it would emasculate me somehow, but you have to realise that describing this film as dumb against the 40 odd years of Trek makes you sound like an idiot.

In all honesty, the thing that gets me the most is that from this point forward, this is what Star Trek is. And I don't like it, mainly because, with all the other shows and movies (including Nemesis), that was a universe I would have loved to live in. The Abrams Trek-i-verse, not at all.

So, apart from the absence of Vulcan, what so different about the new universe/timeline that you wouldn't want to live in it? We probably won't see men in skirts again but is that such a bad thing?

Why you'd want to live in a universe where women can't captain a starship and Earth is under constant threat from invasion or destruction is beyond me.

(SPOILERS BELOW!)

I sound like an idiot? Because... why? Because I refuse to go down on JJ Abrams simply because he dangled something shiny (obnoxiously so, in fact! Did you see all those lens flares?) in front of my face and called it Star Trek? It's an entertaining movie, yes, (much like watching people get hit in the balls on America's Funniest Home Videos) but it's one of those things that if you actually stop to think about it, it's full of blatant stupidities. Why exactly did Spock just sit around in a cave instead of going to the outpost to WARN PEOPLE? How is it that he just HAPPENED to run into Kirk at the perfect moment... on an ENTIRE planet? That's like accidentally running into my mother while taking a trip to New Zealand when I was expecting her to be back here in the States. Why was the Romulan ship so pointy and nonsensical? Do they not believe in railings? Why was it covered in water? What good did putting the bug in Pike do and was it ever removed? Did you notice the NOKIA product placement? How did a guy they picked up on some forgotten outpost end up running engineering so quickly? Did the Enterprise not have its own Chief Engineer? Is it normal practice to promote a bunch of not-even-graduated cadets to run a fleet's flagship? Sure, Kirk saved the Federation but is he REALLY ready to Captain a starship?

The way people are acting, I should just sit back, turn off my brain and enjoy it. Well, I don't want to. It's not what I like about Trek.

The movie was stupid. Entertaining, yes, but still stupid in the same way Wolverine is. Big, shiny and dumb. Heck, at least Nemesis had a cool undercurrent of Picard having to deal with the fact that it was HIS CLONE (in essence, his shadow) responsible for so much death and destruction.

And wasn't Janeway a Captain? Wasn't the Captain of the Enterprise-C a woman? What the hell are you talking about?

well odd coincidence have happened in trek..
look at arena.. they just happened to go through a system that the metrons patrol just as they seemed to be paying attention to the area.

in all the vastness of space they just happened upon a planet with the space vampire .. just at the right time when it was getting to breed.

galileo just happened to finally achieve orbit just as enterprise was leaving on he medical mission.

the name of the changling's Creator just happened to be similar to kirk.

yeah way convenient things happened in the film but it is the type of stuff that often happens in entertainment.

 

[Butters]

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

Honestly, my biggest problem with it was how just... dumb it was. It honestly felt more like a gussied-up version of Galaxy Quest to me. And it's bothering me how the media and the obnoxious people who've hated Star Trek (because it wasn't cool) are now using this Star Trek movie as a new excuse to bash Trek fans. If I hear one more joke about how Trek fans are complaining because it's "entertaining," I'm going to vomit!

Look, feel free to not like a film. Whatever. I refused to see Mama Mia because I felt it would emasculate me somehow, but you have to realise that describing this film as dumb against the 40 odd years of Trek makes you sound like an idiot.

In all honesty, the thing that gets me the most is that from this point forward, this is what Star Trek is. And I don't like it, mainly because, with all the other shows and movies (including Nemesis), that was a universe I would have loved to live in. The Abrams Trek-i-verse, not at all.

So, apart from the absence of Vulcan, what so different about the new universe/timeline that you wouldn't want to live in it? We probably won't see men in skirts again but is that such a bad thing?

Why you'd want to live in a universe where women can't captain a starship and Earth is under constant threat from invasion or destruction is beyond me.

(SPOILERS BELOW!)

I sound like an idiot? Because... why? Because I refuse to go down on JJ Abrams simply because he dangled something shiny (obnoxiously so, in fact! Did you see all those lens flares?) in front of my face and called it Star Trek? It's an entertaining movie, yes, (much like watching people get hit in the balls on America's Funniest Home Videos) but it's one of those things that if you actually stop to think about it, it's full of blatant stupidities. Why exactly did Spock just sit around in a cave instead of going to the outpost to WARN PEOPLE? How is it that he just HAPPENED to run into Kirk at the perfect moment... on an ENTIRE planet? That's like accidentally running into my mother while taking a trip to New Zealand when I was expecting her to be back here in the States. Why was the Romulan ship so pointy and nonsensical? Do they not believe in railings? Why was it covered in water? What good did putting the bug in Pike do and was it ever removed? Did you notice the NOKIA product placement? How did a guy they picked up on some forgotten outpost end up running engineering so quickly? Did the Enterprise not have its own Chief Engineer? Is it normal practice to promote a bunch of not-even-graduated cadets to run a fleet's flagship? Sure, Kirk saved the Federation but is he REALLY ready to Captain a starship?

The way people are acting, I should just sit back, turn off my brain and enjoy it. Well, I don't want to. It's not what I like about Trek.

The movie was stupid. Entertaining, yes, but still stupid in the same way Wolverine is. Big, shiny and dumb. Heck, at least Nemesis had a cool undercurrent of Picard having to deal with the fact that it was HIS CLONE (in essence, his shadow) responsible for so much death and destruction.

And wasn't Janeway a Captain? Wasn't the Captain of the Enterprise-C a woman? What the hell are you talking about?

It makes you sound like an idiot because you're comparing the New Trek to the rest of Trek and calling it dumb. If it doesn't make you sound like an idiot then I must conclude that either you haven't seen anyother trek and just believe it is intellectual because of the rhetoric, or you genuinely believe that star trek in general is an intellectual pursuit. Its not.

I'm not saying the film is the greatest ever made, not saying you have to like it, but don't pretend its somehow inferior to everything else in the whole of the franchise because its styled differently. Even Python fans admit that most of Monty Python just isn't funny, doesn't make em love it less.

In summary, calling this film dumb in comparison to the others is like call McDonalds fine cuisine.

As for woman captains, have you not seen the series? Turn About intruder? Or is everything other than this film excempt from continuity errors. Captain Janeway is a canon violation don't ya know.

 

[El Chupacabra]

This thread is really interesting to read. I agree with what everyone is saying. I wish they would have added a bit more of Star Trek's core themes in the movie (cooperation, friendship, exploration, discovery, doing the right thing, etc.). Why must we eliminate the core of Star Trek in order to make a big, 'fun', blockbuster? I don't think we should have to turn off our brain to make a big film. I like science fiction because it makes me think and demonstrates what the future could be like.

The Kelvin scene worked because it was emotional and was completely Star Trek. Kirk Sr. was honourable and putting the lives of his crew above his own. But the rest of the film wasn't like that. There was no payoff when Kirk becomes Captain because it seems like you can be any grade of officer you want (McCoy becomes Chief Medical Officer, Scotty becomes Chief Engineer, Kirk becomes Captain from a cadet). There's no order or reason and there needs to be to establish a chain of command. When cadets can overthrow other senior officers like it's nothing, it becomes less believable. When the captain gives an order you don't like, just mutiny!

After the whole thing with Nero, Kirk should have received a commendation and then they should have jumped some years to the future where Kirk would then be Captain. That would have worked fine because they had already done the '3 Years Later'. That would have demonstrated how awesome Kirk is to be able to move from Cadet to Captain so quickly (and more believable).

I agree the Federation was not well represented. New people would have no idea what the Federation is or what it stands for. We needed more cooperation between worlds and other races on the ships. We needed some Vulcan ambassadors on Earth or something to show people that Vulcan is important because it was one of the founding members of the Federation. Because Starfleet and the Federation was so weakly shown, it didn't feel grand and important. If cadets have to man all the vessels above Earth, what does that say about the organization of the Federation? I did appreciate that Kirk offered to save Nero and his crew. That was completely Star Trek - trying to do the right thing and better humanity. That demonstrated compassion.

What the heck was with all the lens flares? I couldn't stand it. I can understand if you're standing in front of a light or something but in the hallways, on the planets, etc? It was way overdone and really annoying. I hope they remove that crap in the sequel. I hated that the phasers had become small bursts like in Star Wars instead of what they've always been - a single orange-red beam. That was unique. It's like making a Star Wars reboot and changing the way light sabres look or how the force works. I hate when things are changed for no reason when they've clearly been established and make the franchise unique.

I also hated Engineering. I know, I know, it's been discussed. It looked too 'today' and not futuristic enough for me. They could have added some futuristic panels all over the place or other futuristic tubes or something. Or what about a huge warp core? Instead it looked like the Brewery where it was shot. I don't want the Enterprise engine room to look like a brewery. The ship has dilithium crystals, anti-matter, and a warp coil! That's advanced technology that needs specialized equipment and technology. I was expecting WAY more considering the size of budget. They didn't even build an engineerinig set for a futuristic ship in space! Star Trek was always about new technologies (which we are still trying to create today!)

Was it an entertaining movie? Yes! I LOVED the cast. I thought Pine, Quinto, Urban, Saldana, Pegg, Cho, and Yelchin were superb. They were funny and believable. I have no problem with changing things up a bit. I liked many things. Why can't we get a big Star Trek blockbuster that still has the basic themes that Star Trek has always possessed?

I agree. I have been saying this all week and got universally ridiculed by the gushers. I am pleased that more people are letting their first impression excitment calm down and are looking at the movie more analytically. I really want to see the core Trek themes back in the sequel, otherwise I probably won't bother with it. I don't think I could stomach two new Kirk & crew movies without some sort of morality play.

 

[Count Zero]

So would you say that it's been a long road getting from there to here?

Yes. Yes I would. But I can feel change in the wind right now.

You can't be afraid of the wind.


(Oh god, I'm quoting ENT in the Trek XI forum. I'm a pathetic jerk.)

 

[Balrog]

I enjoyed this movie, but not as a Star Trek movie too:

I wasn't bored to tears!

 

[FrankR]

(SPOILERS BELOW!)
[snip]
Why exactly did Spock just sit around in a cave instead of going to the outpost to WARN PEOPLE?

For all we know Spock was on his way to the outpost when he saw Vulcan destroyed.

 

[Borgminister]

So would you say that it's been a long road getting from there to here?

Yes. Yes I would. But I can feel change in the wind right now.

You can't be afraid of the wind.

Just leave the gazelles out of it.

And as to the wind, depends on the origin thereof...

 

[Professor Moriarty]

It was a quarry. End of discussion.

Welll good. Then the wait is over. Heil Devon!!!!!!!!

It was a quarry. Iowa does have them, you know.

But why bother with smallfry like devon... all hail ME. I am a professor, after all.

 

[trampledamage]

I think a lot of us (even those who really liked this movie) agree that they would have rather seen a Kelvin movie because of that scene. It was almost too good.

Yeah, pity there was no way they could work that into the main part of the movie rather than have it be the setup for the movie.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The Kelvin and the actors aboard her rocked.

 

[seigezunt]

A tip of the hat to the OP. I enjoyed the movie, but I respect your well-spoken criticisms. Perhaps the next movie, which will be less about resurrecting the franchise and more about getting down to storytelling, will be more to your taste. They had a lot on their plate for this one, and had multiple levels to appeal to.

 

[steveman]

Personally, I loved it. The thing I had to get past was how this movie didn't feel like Star Trek. It didn't feel like movies 1-10.

But I realized that the key to appreciating this movie is to simply go into it with the understanding that it's Star Trek with a Star Wars sensibility. The production design in grander. The cinematography is more dynamic. The score is more arresting. The visual effects are more dazzling.

All those things that Lucas et al hung their collective hat on were adopted by Star Trek, due to an increased budget and also to the fact that Star Trek's "Supreme Court" saw how well those things worked for Star Wars and that there was no reason why they should be mutually exclusive to George Lucas.

That Star Trek feels different from the other films is because of those aforementioned points -- not because the "Supreme Court" wanted to throw fans off or be different from the other films "just because." I think all the changes that were made were done so for good, justifiable reasons, and that this movie succeeds in not only starting something new, but also serving as this franchise's eleventh picture.

In short, though the filmmaking may differ from the other films, that's irrelevant. This is still Star Trek, through and through. And that's what matters most.

 

[Borgminister]

This is still Star Trek, through and through. And that's what matters most.

Yup. It set the table perfectly.

 

[steveman]

This is still Star Trek, through and through. And that's what matters most.

Yup. It set the table perfectly.

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.

It'll be interesting to discuss how the sequel should strike a balance between bringing in already established characters and stories (i.e. should we see Carol Marcus, Gary Mitchell, Janice Rand, etc?) and bringing in new material. As of right now, I'm leaning toward mostly new material. Nostalga only goes so far; new material is the only way to keep the franchise from growing stale, or feeling too familar.

But I say this knowing that I think it'd be perfectly acceptable to re-introduce characters that we, the fans, already have a connection with. I know I'd love to see Carol Marcus, especially if she's written as an equal to Kirk. I'd also love to see a Kristen Bell-portrayed Janice Rand that knows Kirk from his academy days. It'd be interesting if they had had a relationship and Kirk now has to deal with the fact that he has to work with one of his former academy conquests on a daily basis. (Wish I could take credit for the abovementioned, but they were some great ideas in an article linked to by TrekMovie yesterday.)