Screening report from chud.com

[Enterpriserules]

This writer has captured all my fears in this article. I would LOVE for this to be an amazing movie, but I think that the disregard that has been shown so far for what has come before is just ridiculous. It seems like the writers and director just don't seem to care about these nuggets of information that TOS gave us about the characters before the series starts. We do know some good bits about them before the Enterprise, but it looks like most of it is being forgotten. The only thing that looks constant is the change we see in Spock from The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before. It would be much more interesting to see a story that explained the Kirk that Marshall describes, becoming the Kirk in the series. Also on continuity and the building place of the Enterprise the Star Trek Encyclopedia says,

Launched in 2245 from the San Francisco Yards orbiting Earth.

Exact quote. So, this is not just a fan thing. Also, Robert April is listed as the first commander of the Enterprise, not Pike.

These are the things that I am disappointed that they just glossed over. There is a smart way that all of these things could have been worked into a great story, but instead of taking time and care to craft a smart movie, they took the easy way out and just threw out whatever did not fit a "sexy" Trek. As if that makes things good. Star Trek, for the most part, was always about great characters, good story and smart, scientific storytelling. This can still be good in the right hands.

 

[CorporalClegg]

It seems the more I read, the more I'm convinced this is going to be a disaster.

Not so much because of style, cannon, casting, etc., it's just going to be a bad film.

 

[Devon]

I keep getting hung up on the ship in the field because it's so simply dumb. You wouldn't build a battleship in New Mexico, and you wouldn't build a starship on the ground. That ship is not designed to be launched, and I have to wonder if the neck and the nacelle arms would even be load-bearing in Earth gravity. This indicates to me the film isn't being approached as science fiction but as space opera. Rather than being based on scientific concepts of any sort, no matter how wacky or far-fetched, JJ Abrams' Star Trek seems to be on the Star Wars wavelength, which is fantasy dressed up in science fiction clothes. Another writer noted that Star Trek sent many people to careers in NASA, while Star Wars hasn't. To me there's an honor in Star Trek's science fiction background that is lost when you turn it into space fantasy.

Funnily enough.. this issue was just brought up to a NASA message board and the over all feeling was "why not?," especially in the Star Trek world.

One theory:

"If they had the technology to create artificial gravity on every deck of a ship so people could walk instead of float, then why couldn't they do the reverse to lift a ship out of a gravity well."

This indicates to me the film isn't being approached as science fiction but as space opera.

I was sort of under the impression this is how Star Trek was originally written to be. There wasn't really too much in the original Star Trek that would cause NASA to train their astronauts with. It was more about the characters, and the occasional science fact of the day or whatever.

 

[Devon]

Also, Robert April is listed as the first commander of the Enterprise, not Pike.

Which basically IS a fan thing. The source material for April's existance was deemed non-canon. If they canonized him in the new film or not, it wouldn't make any difference.

 

[Devon]

The author, Devin Faraci, sounds like a bit of a whiner. I don't think he'd be happy with anything.

He is. He went on about the same thing with the trailer too and he received a more brutal beating than he gave the trailer.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

What, it's Devin? Crap, I didn't even look at the byline.

No wonder.

 

[davejames]

But the concerns about acting, character and story are what I feared after giving the trailer a little contemplation. Especially the Star Warsian aspect of all these people meeting each other so early and instantly coming together as a team. It's not so much about canon violation as it is that I simply liked the tone of a group of mature professionals assigned to a ship being forged into the "greatest crew in Starfleet" through their many experiences together. A bunch of quippy young adults magically gelling into a kick ass crew just sounds, well, as he said, not smart and not satisfying.

Yeah that I kinda have to agree with. I'm not terribly upset over how Abrams is bringing the crew together, but I do prefer a much more natural explanation.

Of course the fact the crew remained together for so damn long was never very realistic either...

 

[Trevacious]

I can live with the gags after witnessing the lame attempts at humour during Insurrection and Nemesis.

Those lame attempts should've put an end to lame attempts.

 

[Maxwell Everett]

I could give a shit about the ship being built in Iowa - like where on Earth matters for a spaceship - or on Earth at all.

The sign at the back of the ship all series long that said "San Francisco, Earth" cares.

No such sign existed.

It couldn't "care" if it had. It's a sign.

There was a sign - never readable onscreen - that said "San Francisco, Calif."

Didn't say a thing about being constructed in whole or part there.

Sure as hell didn't say anything about "orbital construction."

We're done here.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Dude!

 

[Phily B]

This guy should've judged it against the other movies, and not the TV shows. The movies have always been different.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

How about judging it as a film, period?

I mean, who cares that he has an obsessive knowledge of and concern with Trek trivia? That makes him unusual somehow on the Internet? Don't think so.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I could give a shit about the ship being built in Iowa - like where on Earth matters for a spaceship - or on Earth at all.

The sign at the back of the ship all series long that said "San Francisco, Earth" cares.

No such sign existed.

Dennis, I KNOW you know better than that. Hell, you've seen the replica plaque used on the "New Voyages" rebuilt set, too, haven't you? Every TOS fan knows the two things found flanking the bridge 'lift shaft... the rather inaccurate "ship diagram" and the dedication plaque which states:

U.S.S. ENTERPRISE
STARSHIP CLASS
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
​

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The sign at the back of the ship all series long that said "San Francisco, Earth" cares.

No such sign existed.

Dennis, I KNOW you know better than that. Hell, you've seen the replica plaque used on the "New Voyages" rebuilt set, too, haven't you? Every TOS fan knows the two things found flanking the bridge 'lift shaft... the rather inaccurate "ship diagram" and the dedication plaque which states:

U.S.S. ENTERPRISE
STARSHIP CLASS
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
​

Yep. It says "San Francisco, Calif." - not "San Francisco, Earth" as the poster cavalierly asserted. No sign reading "San Francisco, Earth" existed.

Trivial, but if someone's going to try to count coup on the basis of such trivia they'd better get it right. Otherwise it's like misspelling words in a message that complains about bad spelling on the Internet.

Notably, the sign says nothing about shipyards, orbital construction, or anything else specific.

 

[M'Sharak]

I can't recall if it is ok to post an article in this fashion, so if the mods deem otherwise here is a link: http://chud.com/articles/articles/17106/1/STAR-TREK-FOOTAGE-THE-WRATH-OF-CHUD/Page1.html

I posted it because I thought it was well-written, I agree with it, and I think it echoes the reservations of many here.

[sundry mod yapping here]

Understood. Thanks for the leeway, M'Sharak. I'll go back and trim it down.

Thanks!

Double hard return. How hard is it?

See? Easy?

There did it again.

Breaks things up.

Makes it easy to read.

Big block of text?

Not so much.

Damnit in the text box it looks more BLOCKY to me, so shove the return key up your ass!!!

I know that was supposed to be a joke, but less flamey next time, okay?

And Trekker: Grammar and Formatting Police... seriously? Turn in your badge, dude.

 

[Peacemaker]

How about judging it as a film, period?

I mean, who cares that he has an obsessive knowledge of and concern with Trek trivia? That makes him unusual somehow on the Internet? Don't think so.

Indeed, and wasn't the obsessive checklist of internal to TNG era Trek one of the problems with Nemesis?

So, on the one hand, a Trek movie should run a checklist.
On the other, if it does it hampers the flow of the film.

 

[Phily B]

How about judging it as a film, period?

I mean, who cares that he has an obsessive knowledge of and concern with Trek trivia? That makes him unusual somehow on the Internet? Don't think so.

I agree with you totally. Just make it not shit all over continuity and you're fine. First Contact wasn't exactly loyal to the series.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Of course the fact the crew remained together for so damn long was never very realistic either...

One of the many reasons TMP, TFF and TUC were crappy. At least TWOK made an attempt to explain that and bring the crew back together in a slightly more organic fashion. And of course TSFS and TVH had a good reason that they were all still together.

But, you know, it's not even about realism, which I don't particularly expect from Star Trek. It's about a self-conscious approach to the 'legendary' status of the characters. It's exactly why numerous things in the last Indiana Jones movie rang false - because they stood up, waved their hands and screamed "ICONIC -DON'T MISS IT! THIS IS ICONIC! SEE! RIGHT THERE! ICONIC!"

Which isn't iconic at all.

 

[Timo]

I'm rather elated by what I read here. It seems that all my expectations of the movie are being met in a positive way. Then again, I'm just the sort to enjoy it if M tells the New Bond that the Old Bond is gone and that she never liked him anyway...

Is there any particular reason to believe that the shipyard and the Academy are in Iowa? I mean, the writer here is so biased that he will probably imagine such a thing even when nothing of the sort is shown in the footage.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shatterhand]

I recall Abrams saying that there were some scenes in the movie set in San Francisco. Could it possibly be that we will see Starfleet Academy in its proper setting, or maybe, just maybe, the scene with the Enterprise under construction was, in fact, taking place in SF? Just a thought.

Anyway, I'm sure this guy's "review" is the first of many negative screeds that will pop up all the way up to the premiere. And, I honestly could not care less about a word he said. Does he have a right to his opinion? Absolutely. Am I going to let his negativity spoil my enjoyment of this movie? Not in the slightest. I've got this real moron thing I do; it's called "thinking for myself", and I'll follow my own heart and mind on this one, thank you; not the jaded viewpoint of a disappointed fan.