Simple Question: Do You Like The Reboots?

[Cromwell]

Or at least with adversarial attitude. "All right, I'm expecting to be disappointed. Prove me wrong!"

Again, not just a Star Trek thing. I've met fans who actually seem to regard movie-going as a combat sport played against Hollywood, where you score points for every flaw you find in the movie, and feel vindicated if the movie lives down to your worst expectations.

"See! I told you it was gonna suck!"

Not "movie-going" per se... When I visit the cinema, I tend to switch off, so to speak, and enjoy myself (it's also better for the people I'm going with). Certain small details often get picked up on, however, and I'll tend to use those as a jumping off point to seriously consider the film afterwards.

If a film still holds up after a second viewing then it gets a pass. This film didn't.

 

[Ghrakh]

Or when one goes in fully prepared and intent on hating something right off the bat.

Or when one goes in fully prepared and intent on loving something right off the bat.

TPM comes to mind...

 

[Marsden]

One of the charges that often gets thrown at dissenters is: we're just against anything being changed or we're just against something new and want everything to stay the way it was.

Not true for a lot of dissenters.

A reboot was inevitable. Reboots are always inevitable. Many characters and franchises have been rebooted over the years--some sccessfully and many not. Of course your mileage may vary depending on your tastes on which succeded and which didn't.


Daniel Craig's Bond and Christian Bale's Batman are both reboots of pre-existing characters. And, speaking for myself, I think they were vast improvements on much of what came before. While I have some reservations I'm also not bothered by Henry Cavill's rebooted Superman.

So here we have three very well known and very popular franchises rebooted and overall I think they did quite well by them. They managed to update the materiel without losing much of the original appeal.

Now individuals will find different things to like in a property and so opinions can vary on how well a reboot works greatly dependent on whether the new materiel brings in things you like while retaining a portion of what you liked originally. And this is where we get into arguments where you have one group arguing the new work resonates with the original and dissenters arguing that there just isn't enough recognizable along with the new for it to resonate for them.

I do agree with some posts upthread that I was indeed predisposed to dislike the Trek reboot. But not because it was a reboot which I, and many others, understood was inevitable. I was predisposed because with every tidbit that was being released about the (then) forthcoming film I was disappointed.

The first major disappointment was the nuEnterprise design. It was an immediate turnoff. If it had been a completely different and original never-before-seen design it probably wouldn't have turned me off to the degree of seeing Matt Jefferies' original concept contorted into something I found ugly. The original design was well balanced, well proportioned, clean and majestic in design and presentation. It was perfectly symbolic of all the things TOS was meant to represent. The nu design telegraphed an idea that it was throwing away all those things. It was a truly disppointing moment when I first saw it.

I also agree that the first 10-20 minutes of the film completely turned me off as I was seeing nothing whatsoever that resonated with the Star Trek I admired so much for so many years.

So we haven't even really gotten going with this film and already it's a huge fail in my eyes. And nothing throughout the rest of the film convinced me otherwise. It was an exercise of one WTF after another.

I admit to being predisposed to dislike it, but I've been predisposed to dislkie films before and after viewing came away impressed with a positive opinion. But that didn't happen this time around.

I was predisposed to be critical. I did not expect to come away feeling contempt.

Yes, I mean contempt.

I not only disliked the film I was disgusted by it. For all the criticism I could heap on latter day Trek on television and film that pales with the scorn I have for JJtrek.

I can bypass a lot of things I disliked about JJtrek by just citing one other example: the character of nuKirk.

New actors come along and bring something of their own (as well as the writers and directors) to give new life to old characters. Daniel Craig's Bond is not the Bond we've seen several other actors portray before, but he is still recognzably James Bond. Christian Bale's Batman is unlike what has come before, but he is still Batman (and I'm referring to character rather than costume). The same with Henry Cavill's Superman. In each case they still retained elements that I found appealing originally so many years ago.

But Chris Pine's nuKirk is not just a reinterpretation of William Shatner's Kirk. Shatner's Kirk was flawed yet still heroic and likeable. Pine's nuKirk is not only flawed, but he's not heroic and he's not likeable. Shatner's Kirk was a man I could admire. Pine's nuKirk is someone I wanted to punch in the face for being such a shitty little punk.

Shatner's Kirk was a character that earned his position and his accolades. Pine's nuKirk was a portrayl of a little shit that gets rewarded for being lucky rather than having earned it.

I could go on about the style of the film that never stopped grating on my nerves, but the two examples I've cited above are perfectly symbolic of what turned me off about these films. They're representative of the thinking (or lack there of) or difficient thinking behind them.

TOS was a wonderful balance of enthusiasm and intelligence. The key word is balance. It had gobs of visual appeal and the excitement of adventure balanced with an overall decent dose of intelligence guiding things along. Yes, it stumbled, but it got far more right than it got wrong. It was the product of adults with an adult perspective while spiced with elements of being young-at-heart. And I really think that is part of TOS' long lasting appeal and part of why it still manages to resonate with new viewers born long, long after the show ceased production.

JJtrek is all energy with next to no evident intelligence. It might well be made by adults, but they are displaying an adolescent mindset. There is little to no evidence of a reasoning mind behind the materiel. It displays a focus on change for change's sake and an unyielding preoccupation with flash and loud noises. It's akin to kids banging on pots and pans just to make a racket, but with no thought put into it other than that.

JJ turned Trek into a noisy and nonsensical action movie--a type of film I lost what little interest I might have had long ago. It isn't just the changes he made to the subject matter, but also how he chose to execute it. So he annoyed me on two big counts.

TNG was a reboot of familiar Trek, and while I didn't initially care for it I could still see a measure of value in it. Ditto with DS9.

But I don't see anything like that in JJtrek. All it gave me was a migraine.

+1

George and Winona saying good bye was pretty emotional.
Can't imagine someone not like it. Life, death, bravery,sacrifice. Very Trek to me,

The whole time they were having that conversation I was wondering what Nero and his supership were doing, why isn't the Narada continuing to blow up the Kelvin and why is he letting the shuttles escape. That conversation is taking forever and nothing is happening. I didn't like it.

 

[fireproof78]

I tried to communicate the fact that it's beyond the point. Most of the things on my list could be; explained away, tolerated, forgiven, whatever. For me, however, they can't.

For example, I'm immediately struck by how irrational Nero is acting because I already know what comes later in the film (a very poor and illogical explanation of his motivation and back-story).

I'm curious-how is Nero's story illogical?

He lost his entire world and seeks revenge on the person who promised to save it. At some point in time, the mind is going to snap under the strain and there can be a break with reality, where no rational explanation is going to satisfy the loss.

Maybe it is illogical, because Nero isn't rational. He is psychotic, in the most clinical of ways, due to his loss. To me, that is the most tragic of backstories and all the more fascinating.

 

[Cyke101]

The whole time they were having that conversation I was wondering what Nero and his supership were doing, why isn't the Narada continuing to blow up the Kelvin and why is he letting the shuttles escape. That conversation is taking forever and nothing is happening. I didn't like it.

I notice this trope for a lot of TV shows and movies, not just Trek. The gunfire stops just long enough for the emotional moment. But there were a couple times in TNG (don't recall in TOS) where there'd be enemy fire and the ship would rock, but there'd still be enough time to explain the lengthy technobabble plan.

But if anyone here watches anime, hooo-boy, Dragon Ball Z takes the cake.

However, as far as the Narada vs. the shuttles, George was providing cover fire by blowing the missiles away. One very nearly hit Winona's shuttle, if it wasn't for George.

 

[Marsden]

I notice this trope for a lot of TV shows and movies, not just Trek. The gunfire stops just long enough for the emotional moment. But there were a couple times in TNG (don't recall in TOS) where there'd be enemy fire and the ship would rock, but there'd still be enough time to explain the lengthy technobabble plan.

But if anyone here watches anime, hooo-boy, Dragon Ball Z takes the cake.

However, as far as the Narada vs. the shuttles, George was providing cover fire by blowing the missiles away. One very nearly hit Winona's shuttle, if it wasn't for George.

I accept your point with no argument, but the way it was handled really took me out of it and any nice emotional moment was crushed for me by the goofiness of it.

 

[Cyke101]

I notice this trope for a lot of TV shows and movies, not just Trek. The gunfire stops just long enough for the emotional moment. But there were a couple times in TNG (don't recall in TOS) where there'd be enemy fire and the ship would rock, but there'd still be enough time to explain the lengthy technobabble plan.

But if anyone here watches anime, hooo-boy, Dragon Ball Z takes the cake.

However, as far as the Narada vs. the shuttles, George was providing cover fire by blowing the missiles away. One very nearly hit Winona's shuttle, if it wasn't for George.

I accept your point with no argument, but the way it was handled really took me out of it and any nice emotional moment was crushed for me by the goofiness of it.

Oh, no argument. I'm just saying it's a pretty common (and yes, pretty silly) trope in fiction overall. Cop movies would have two partners in a gunfight; one partner would get shot just a couple days shy of retirement, and the enemies cease fire long enough for the partner to die in his colleague's arms.

 

[Cromwell]

I'm curious-how is Nero's story illogical?

He lost his entire world and seeks revenge on the person who promised to save it. At some point in time, the mind is going to snap under the strain and there can be a break with reality, where no rational explanation is going to satisfy the loss.

Maybe it is illogical, because Nero isn't rational. He is psychotic, in the most clinical of ways, due to his loss. To me, that is the most tragic of backstories and all the more fascinating.

These are separate, but related issues.

The idea of witnessing the destruction of your home planet is, certainly, enough to drive an already unstable mind insane. However, his crew should be able to recognise the completely irrational nature of his quest for revenge.

He, incorrectly, blames the Vulcans (and the Federation) for the death of his wife. He should blame the Romulan government which, apparently, didn't take any steps to ensure that Romulus was evacuated before it became inhospitable (either destroyed by its sun or destroyed by a black-hole; the only two possible outcomes).

He, then, incorrectly, comes to the conclusion that the Vulcans from a reality where the Supernova has not yet even taken place, are just as blame-worthy as those who, in his reality, he blames (incorrectly) for the death of his planet.

He (and his crew), then, has over a decade to think about exactly whether or not he's being entirely rational and, incorrectly, chooses to go ahead with his plan anyway.

I could buy that he was just a psychotic thug, but it still wouldn't explain why his crew don't come to the same conclusion.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm curious-how is Nero's story illogical?

He lost his entire world and seeks revenge on the person who promised to save it. At some point in time, the mind is going to snap under the strain and there can be a break with reality, where no rational explanation is going to satisfy the loss.

Maybe it is illogical, because Nero isn't rational. He is psychotic, in the most clinical of ways, due to his loss. To me, that is the most tragic of backstories and all the more fascinating.

These are separate, but related issues.

The idea of witnessing the destruction of your home planet is, certainly, enough to drive an already unstable mind insane. However, his crew should be able to recognise the completely irrational nature of his quest for revenge.

He, incorrectly, blames the Vulcans (and the Federation) for the death of his wife. He should blame the Romulan government which, apparently, didn't take any steps to ensure that Romulus was evacuated before it became inhospitable (either destroyed by its sun or destroyed by a black-hole; the only two possible outcomes).

He, then, incorrectly, comes to the conclusion that the Vulcans from a reality where the Supernova has not yet even taken place, are just as blame-worthy as those who, in his reality, he blames (incorrectly) for the death of his planet.

He (and his crew), then, has over a decade to think about exactly whether or not he's being entirely rational and, incorrectly, chooses to go ahead with his plan anyway.

I could buy that he was just a psychotic thug, but it still wouldn't explain why his crew don't come to the same conclusion.

Solidarity is a powerful thing in the wake of such a massive loss. Nero's crew was likely already loyal to him anyway, due to working together like they do. It would not take much for Nero, in his grief, to blame Spock (who promised to help) and to convince his crew of the same reality. Then, they spent that decade plotting, and calculating how to get to Spock and make him pay.

I'm not saying Nero is correct. That isn't the point. We don't have to agree that Nero's grievances are not legitimate. I'm saying that it works for for me because I can understand his point of view to a degree.

Is it logical? Nope

Is it rational? Not at all.

Is is psychotic? Absolutely ("He is an extremely troubled Romulan." Understatement of the year, Spock).

Is it tragic? Yes, and far more successful than many other Trek villains over the years, in my opinion.

 

[Cromwell]

Solidarity is a powerful thing in the wake of such a massive loss. Nero's crew was likely already loyal to him anyway, due to working together like they do. It would not take much for Nero, in his grief, to blame Spock (who promised to help) and to convince his crew of the same reality. Then, they spent that decade plotting, and calculating how to get to Spock and make him pay.

I'm not saying Nero is correct. That isn't the point. We don't have to agree that Nero's grievances are not legitimate. I'm saying that it works for for me because I can understand his point of view to a degree.

Is it logical? Nope

Is it rational? Not at all.

Is is psychotic? Absolutely ("He is an extremely troubled Romulan." Understatement of the year, Spock).

Is it tragic? Yes, and far more successful than many other Trek villains over the years, in my opinion.

I could accept that, as I've said before, if it didn't immediately bring up other issues and wasn't a part of a long list of inconsistencies.

For example, Cypher's meeting with Agent Smith in "The Matrix" doesn't make any sense whatsoever but, since the rest of the film is engaging and tends to be self-consistent, I can let it slide.

This example, however, immediately brings up a whole host of other issues.

The Romulan Government is implied to be totally incompetent (which doesn't really make sense). I'd expect Romulans to be extremely suspicious of outside help and want to solve the problem themselves (which would involve evacuating their home-world as soon as the Supernova became predictable). Why didn't they?

Spock, himself, is implied to be totally incompetent. Why didn't he give himself enough time (considering stars can't travel at any speed faster than light) to complete his mission (which, whilst we're on the subject, wouldn't have saved Nero's wife or anyone else on Romulus). Why did he even tell anyone he could save Romulus? The planet was doomed.

Also, where is Delta Vega? Why can Vulcan be seen in the skyline? If it's in orbit of Vulcan, then why is it not destroyed by the black-hole?

 

[fireproof78]

Solidarity is a powerful thing in the wake of such a massive loss. Nero's crew was likely already loyal to him anyway, due to working together like they do. It would not take much for Nero, in his grief, to blame Spock (who promised to help) and to convince his crew of the same reality. Then, they spent that decade plotting, and calculating how to get to Spock and make him pay.

I'm not saying Nero is correct. That isn't the point. We don't have to agree that Nero's grievances are not legitimate. I'm saying that it works for for me because I can understand his point of view to a degree.

Is it logical? Nope

Is it rational? Not at all.

Is is psychotic? Absolutely ("He is an extremely troubled Romulan." Understatement of the year, Spock).

Is it tragic? Yes, and far more successful than many other Trek villains over the years, in my opinion.

I could accept that, as I've said before, if it didn't immediately bring up other issues and wasn't a part of a long list of inconsistencies.

For example, Cypher's meeting with Agent Smith in "The Matrix" doesn't make any sense whatsoever but, since the rest of the film is engaging and tends to be self-consistent, I can let it slide.

This example, however, immediately brings up a whole host of other issues.

The Romulan Government is implied to be totally incompetent (which doesn't really make sense). I'd expect Romulans to be extremely suspicious of outside help and want to solve the problem themselves (which would involve evacuating their home-world as soon as the Supernova became predictable). Why didn't they?

Spock, himself, is implied to be totally incompetent. Why didn't he give himself enough time (considering stars can't travel at any speed faster than light) to complete his mission (which, whilst we're on the subject, wouldn't have saved Nero's wife or anyone else on Romulus). Why did he even tell anyone he could save Romulus? The planet was doomed.

Also, where is Delta Vega? Why can Vulcan be seen in the skyline? If it's in orbit of Vulcan, then why is it not destroyed by the black-hole?

First of all, the Romulan government (such that it is) is incompetent. It's the same government that allowed Shinzon to wipe out the majority of the Senate, including the Praetor, without so much as a question. This means that the Romulan government is either in the hands of the military (extremely suspicious of outsiders, especially the Federation-that whole Dominion War thing) or the Tal Shiar (paranoia is a way of life for them and definitely don't trust the Federation, especially Spock). So, I don't see the Romulan government attempting to do anything beyond study the phenomenon and tell Spock they have it under control.

Spock admits he is incompetent and that he failed. So, there is that.

Delta Vega is left vague and uncertain on purpose. I don't think it orbits Vulcan or that Spock saw it from the skyline. I think that Nero left him video equipment to watch it, and marooned him to he could die in the cold after watching Vulcan be destroyed. The scene is nebulous on purpose.

Also, this has nothing to do with Nero's psychotic break, beyond the Romulan government's failure. Which, after the events of Nemesis is not a hard stretch for me to believe that the Romulans took forever to attempt to evacuate their world. Kind of like the Kryptonians in Superman.

 

[Cromwell]

First of all, the Romulan government (such that it is) is incompetent. It's the same government that allowed Shinzon to wipe out the majority of the Senate, including the Praetor, without so much as a question. This means that the Romulan government is either in the hands of the military (extremely suspicious of outsiders, especially the Federation-that whole Dominion War thing) or the Tal Shiar (paranoia is a way of life for them and definitely don't trust the Federation, especially Spock). So, I don't see the Romulan government attempting to do anything beyond study the phenomenon and tell Spock they have it under control.

What's that got to do with evacuation? Whether or not they'd request outside help is irrelevant.

Spock admits he is incompetent and that he failed. So, there is that.

I tend to believe that he is incredibly intelligent and highly competent. His plan for saving the planet, seemed, however, to require severe lapses in logic quite unusual for a Vulcan (of half-Vulcan, as the case may be): wait until the last second to create a black-hole right next to a planet that has not only probably been roasted alive but which you're trying to keep from being destroyed.

Delta Vega is left vague and uncertain on purpose. I don't think it orbits Vulcan or that Spock saw it from the skyline. I think that Nero left him video equipment to watch it, and marooned him to he could die in the cold after watching Vulcan be destroyed. The scene is nebulous on purpose.

That wouldn't really fit the format and style of the rest of the film, but I could accept it.

Since we're on the subject, however, why does Spock (Quinto) maroon Kirk there rather than send him to the brig? Aren't there regulations against sending someone to their very possible death on a dangerous sub-zero and unpopulated planet? If he was just angry and breaking regulations, why did the crew agree to follow his orders?

Also, this has nothing to do with Nero's psychotic break, beyond the Romulan government's failure. Which, after the events of Nemesis is not a hard stretch for me to believe that the Romulans took forever to attempt to evacuate their world. Kind of like the Kryptonians in Superman.

Well, I don't think bringing up "Nemesis" in defence of this film is the best strategy. Otherwise, I could bring up the events of "Threshold" to argue against any and every inconsistency in Star Trek on the basis that, clearly, the ordinary laws of nature don't apply.

Even so, I don't see why I should like a film that wants me to believe that the Romulans are so extraordinarily dough-brained.

 

[BillJ]

Since we're on the subject, however, why does Spock (Quinto) maroon Kirk there rather than send him to the brig? Aren't there regulations against sending someone to their very possible death on a dangerous sub-zero and unpopulated planet? If he was just angry and breaking regulations, why did the crew agree to follow his orders?

Because Spock is going through issues of his own. Kirk even complains during a log entry on Delta Vega that Spock was violating regulations about the treatment of prisoners.

Author and board member Christopher (Christopher L. Bennett) has had discussions about why Delta Vega doesn't get sucked into Vulcan's black hole. He has a degree in physics, I believe.

 

[Cromwell]

Because Spock is going through issues of his own. Kirk even complains during a log entry on Delta Vega that Spock was violating regulations about the treatment of prisoners.

Then, why do the crew still carry out his orders? Do they not know Starfleet regulations?

Author and board member Christopher (Christopher L. Bennett) has had discussions about why Delta Vega doesn't get sucked into Vulcan's black hole. He has a degree in physics, I believe.

It'd be interesting to read, if you could link me to the discussion in particular.

One of the reasons (despite my near-hatred of these films) that I haven't created threads about my problems (I've simply posted my opinion here) is that I'm sure before I joined (and during my long hiatus) there were innumerable discussion covering basically all of them.

What I'd say, and what you'd say in response, has probably been said a few hundred times already.

 

[BillJ]

Then, why do the crew still carry out his orders? Do they not know Starfleet regulations?

Cadets knowing regulations and unseating the commanding officer are two distinct things. Besides, I'm sure (like many other regulations in Star Trek), there is some leeway for how a commanding officer can handle a disruptive influence on his/her ship.

It'd be interesting to read, if you could link me to the discussion in particular.

It has been a long while. You could either PM him or swing by the TrekLit sub-forum where he hangs out.

 

[FADM Tribble]

I like them enough, but I much prefer the older Trek.

 

[Cromwell]

To prove that I'm not just a hater. I will say that I actually liked the Spock/Uhura romance. I thought it might have had something to do with a behind-the-scenes story from "Plato's Stepchildren", which Nichols retells here, but I'm not too convinced.

 

[fireproof78]

First of all, the Romulan government (such that it is) is incompetent. It's the same government that allowed Shinzon to wipe out the majority of the Senate, including the Praetor, without so much as a question. This means that the Romulan government is either in the hands of the military (extremely suspicious of outsiders, especially the Federation-that whole Dominion War thing) or the Tal Shiar (paranoia is a way of life for them and definitely don't trust the Federation, especially Spock). So, I don't see the Romulan government attempting to do anything beyond study the phenomenon and tell Spock they have it under control.

What's that got to do with evacuation? Whether or not they'd request outside help is irrelevant.

Spock admits he is incompetent and that he failed. So, there is that.

I tend to believe that he is incredibly intelligent and highly competent. His plan for saving the planet, seemed, however, to require severe lapses in logic quite unusual for a Vulcan (of half-Vulcan, as the case may be): wait until the last second to create a black-hole right next to a planet that has not only probably been roasted alive but which you're trying to keep from being destroyed.

Delta Vega is left vague and uncertain on purpose. I don't think it orbits Vulcan or that Spock saw it from the skyline. I think that Nero left him video equipment to watch it, and marooned him to he could die in the cold after watching Vulcan be destroyed. The scene is nebulous on purpose.

That wouldn't really fit the format and style of the rest of the film, but I could accept it.

Since we're on the subject, however, why does Spock (Quinto) maroon Kirk there rather than send him to the brig? Aren't there regulations against sending someone to their very possible death on a dangerous sub-zero and unpopulated planet? If he was just angry and breaking regulations, why did the crew agree to follow his orders?

Also, this has nothing to do with Nero's psychotic break, beyond the Romulan government's failure. Which, after the events of Nemesis is not a hard stretch for me to believe that the Romulans took forever to attempt to evacuate their world. Kind of like the Kryptonians in Superman.

Well, I don't think bringing up "Nemesis" in defence of this film is the best strategy. Otherwise, I could bring up the events of "Threshold" to argue against any and every inconsistency in Star Trek on the basis that, clearly, the ordinary laws of nature don't apply.

Even so, I don't see why I should like a film that wants me to believe that the Romulans are so extraordinarily dough-brained.

Not dough-brained, and that isn't my argument. More a matter of willful ignorance as to the nature of the threat. I can't think of a good real life example, but there are several times throughout history were governments had plenty of warning and did not act until the last possible moment, resulting in loss of life.

Nor am I arguing that Nemesis provides a foundation for arguing that Trek 09 is good film by comparison. I am simply citing that the resulting political turmoil within the Romulan Empire would result in changes that mean they are either inefficient or unwilling to accept the possibility of such a catastrophe.

I'm not arguing that Spock is incompetent in terms of his general character. Just that his plan, as you noted, is full of deficiencies. The reasons why it took so long for him to deploy the Red Matter are left unclear, so I can only speculate as to the reasons.

As to your other point, which are not really regarding Romulans or Nero, but ok-Spock was removing someone who was a disruption to good order and discipline on a starship. Would the brig have been more appropriate? Possibly, but Spock sent Kirk off ship to avoid further discipline problems.

Also, Kirk wasn't technically marooned, as there was a Starfleet outpost on Delta Vega that would have been informed of his landing. Yes, it can be argued that Spock violated regulations, but he was trying to preserve order aboard the Enterprise and mutiny, which Kirk was threatening to do, by the regulation standards.

To be blunt, they were both in the wrong (cue "Crimson Tide" scene ).

And, to my larger point, none of this has to do with Nero or his motivation.

 

[Nerys Myk]

They used the title of the TV show as the title of the newest film.

... and why would they do that?

Why wouldn't they?

He isn't wearing his uniform for a large portion of the film.

He's wearing regulation pants, boots and a shirt with the arrowhead on it.

I tried to communicate the fact that it's beyond the point. Most of the things on my list could be; explained away, tolerated, forgiven, whatever. For me, however, they can't.

And what about the stuff that you were wrong about?

• Not looking like Romulan.
  
• The insignia
  
• The single nacelle
  
• The design of the Narada
  

Or the absurd stuff

• No pregnant women on starships
• One off Aliens
• Why do people follow psychos

They still on the list? Will you stubbornly cling to them?

For example, I'm immediately struck by how irrational Nero is acting because I already know what comes later in the film (a very poor and illogical explanation of his motivation and back-story).

Not sure I understand why. Family killed and planet destroyed. Seems to me like good reasons to want to make the man you hold responsible suffer

It's a Star Trek board, we're that sort of people.

I'm not trying to tell you why you shouldn't like it, I'm trying to explain why I don't like it. And, no, most of the things in the first ten minutes do not constitute the biggest reasons.

I didn't think you were. All I did was explain why your reasons don't hold up. The things I pointed out don't stand up to scrutiny.

• Nero does look like a Romulan
  
• The insignia was used by non Enterprise personnel and was supposed to fleet wide.
  
• There have been single nacelled ships
  
• We've never seen a Romulan mining ship.
  

Which isn't to say there aren't thing in the films that don't make sense.

• Cadet to Captain? Silly
  
• Delta Vega? Nice easter egg, but make no sense for it to be in the Vulcan system.
  
• Marooning Kirk. Pure plot convenience

Then there is the subjective stuff.

• Lens flare
  
• The pacing
  
• The design changes

If those thing bother a viewer that's legit. People have different tastes.

These are separate, but related issues.

The idea of witnessing the destruction of your home planet is, certainly, enough to drive an already unstable mind insane. However, his crew should be able to recognise the completely irrational nature of his quest for revenge.

He, incorrectly, blames the Vulcans (and the Federation) for the death of his wife. He should blame the Romulan government which, apparently, didn't take any steps to ensure that Romulus was evacuated before it became inhospitable (either destroyed by its sun or destroyed by a black-hole; the only two possible outcomes).

He, then, incorrectly, comes to the conclusion that the Vulcans from a reality where the Supernova has not yet even taken place, are just as blame-worthy as those who, in his reality, he blames (incorrectly) for the death of his planet.

He (and his crew), then, has over a decade to think about exactly whether or not he's being entirely rational and, incorrectly, chooses to go ahead with his plan anyway.

I could buy that he was just a psychotic thug, but it still wouldn't explain why his crew don't come to the same conclusion.

The real world is full of psychotics with tens, hundreds, thousands and even millions of followers. Followers who haven't lost their homeworld and are stranded centuries in the past.

Also, where is Delta Vega? Why can Vulcan be seen in the skyline? If it's in orbit of Vulcan, then why is it not destroyed by the black-hole?

According to this discussion on Reddit A planet can orbit a black hole.

Good point. Always worth reminding people that black holes are just mass that behaves like other masses, not cosmic suction devices or anything like that.

I'm no scientist ( not even close) but I think the black hole formerly known as Vulcan would have the same mass as Vulcan so any pull it had on Delta Vega would be the same in planet form and black hole form.

Or I could be totally wrong.

 

[Greg Cox]

To prove that I'm not just a hater. I will say that I actually liked the Spock/Uhura romance. I thought it might have had something to do with a behind-the-scenes story from "Plato's Stepchildren", which Nichols retells here, but I'm not too convinced.

You can also see hints of it in "Mantrap" and "Charlie X."

Ultimately, the original show didn't go there, but they sure seemed to be flirting with the idea at first. I think it's neat how the new movies picked up on that and ran with it . . . down the proverbial road not taken before.