Star Trek Reboot was amazing. I don't understand the hate!

[M'Sharak]

Very well - I'll rephrase: exactly how old do you need to be, personally, to be able to understand?

That's kind of hard to work out. I can only suggest that since I first saw TOS when I was perhaps 8 or 9 it would have to be sometime after that but before 2009. I like to think I was a "early bloomer" (er, so to speak)?

That's the funny part, though, because every attempt thus far to link being "of a certain age" to the liking or not liking of things about the way Abrams and Co. handled Star Trek have fallen apart in short order. Like it or don't like it; see it as Real Star Trek™ or as something other; whatever criteria are set - the divisions fail every time to fall along lines of age. It utterly refuses to be an Old People-vs.-Young People thing.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

The portrayal of Spock was a little odd too, presenting him as sympathetic in his early appearances (being taunted by the other children and then with the Science Academy and his mother) and when we next see him he's a stuck up prig who let's his girlfriend influence his command decisions.

Odd? The sympathetic childhood story is straight out of a TAS episode. We see both Kirk and Spock as children, young men on the cusp of their career and then a few years later the story starts. Thought this was very well done. Sure I know what Spock's childhood was like but the average movie goer doesn't.

As to stuck up, Vulcans are stuck up. They are superior to humans in just about every way so it's not surprising.

 

[Miss Lemon]

Kirk and Kirk Prime had also experienced two different lives. Differences would be expected. To that point in his life Kirk probably lived more on impulse and instinct than Kirk Prime did. He'll come around.

This.

I find it very believable that growing up without a father led to Kirk's uncharacteristic behaviour. And I agree with you that it's not impossible for him to change. I am willing to believe that his personality is not that different from Kirk Prime's personality. He'll learn.

Hopefully...

 

[Temis the Vorta]

They had a measly two hours to introduce Kirk, and everyone else, and do a whole action plotline involving a grumpy Romulan miner, plus Old Spock and time travel/alt-u stuff...so no wonder Kirk's development got short shrift.

Kirk is young and unformed. His overt personality might be nothing more than a defensive shield, and his true self is yet to emerge. The upcoming movie is where that change will start to happen, if it's in the cards. Kirk does need development, but it's impossible to judge the process now.

This is all part of the frustration of Star Trek not being on TV, where character development could happen much faster. Two hours every three years is maddeningly slow and is just more evidence that Star Trek is too complex to be relegated to the movie format alone. Too much potential has to go to waste.

 

[Franklin]

They had a measly two hours to introduce Kirk, and everyone else, and do a whole action plotline involving a grumpy Romulan miner, plus Old Spock and time travel/alt-u stuff...so no wonder Kirk's development got short shrift.

Kirk is young and unformed. His overt personality might be nothing more than a defensive shield, and his true self is yet to emerge. The upcoming movie is where that change will start to happen, if it's in the cards. Kirk does need development, but it's impossible to judge the process now.

This is all part of the frustration of Star Trek not being on TV, where character development could happen much faster. Two hours every three years is maddeningly slow and is just more evidence that Star Trek is too complex to be relegated to the movie format alone. Too much potential has to go to waste.

"...grumpy Romulan miner...."

For this reason, I really would've supported the idea of jumping in midstream with these characters in their primes, but we got what we got. The result was very good (to me), but you cite the problem. Still, this "proto-Kirk" had the ego, swagger, instincts, and leadership skills of Kirk Prime. The rest will follow. It's there. We know it is.

Now, the real question is whether or not Spock will call Kirk by his first name in this movie. Or, do we have to wait for a third film for that kind of familiarity.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

It depends on whether he go uber-Vulcan because his planet is gone or whether he takes Spock Prime's advice and loosens up a little.

 

[JRoss]

Hmmmm. By the way, did you see that sequence in Of Gods and Men where the saucer section separates and the rest of the ship is blown up in order to drive it into the baddie ship?

Nope. That would necessitate me watching Tuvok's fan film.

 

[UFO]

Hmmmm. By the way, did you see that sequence in Of Gods and Men where the saucer section separates and the rest of the ship is blown up in order to drive it into the baddie ship?

Nope. That would necessitate me watching Tuvok's fan film.

Don't worry, your secret's safe with me. Oh, and there's a reward if you happen to find my point.

 

[BillJ]

Now, the real question is whether or not Spock will call Kirk by his first name in this movie. Or, do we have to wait for a third film for that kind of familiarity.

Called him Jim on the Jellyfish.

 

[Franklin]

Now, the real question is whether or not Spock will call Kirk by his first name in this movie. Or, do we have to wait for a third film for that kind of familiarity.

Called him Jim on the Jellyfish.

D'oh!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Hmmmm. By the way, did you see that sequence in Of Gods and Men where the saucer section separates and the rest of the ship is blown up in order to drive it into the baddie ship?

Nope. That would necessitate me watching Tuvok's fan film.

 

[crab_nebulae]

Last year I loved the movie outside certain plot holes (particularly some aspects of the science...which I understand it's fiction so I should overlook it. Though doesn't it take years for a star to go nova? So Romulans couldn't evacuate? And even if the star did disappear in a black hole wouldn't Romulus still not survive/be uninhabitable? Isn't this like basic astronomy? It's like saying Earth will survive w/o the Sun? No? And also depending on the type of star, the supernova in of itself will become a black hole right? According to certain reports they had cosmologists/astrophysicists serving as advisers?) But anyways I loved the cast, liked the Trek canon references and thought it was fun.

But in the past few months my views somewhat have changed. I didn't grow up watching TOS...though I did watch quite a bit of reruns of TNG and then some DS9 as a kid but in general I only had a passing interest. So when nu!Trek hit theaters I went because it looked fun and I heard good reviews. And like someone mentioned on the thread, it reintroduced me to the franchise because the next time a friend suggested watching TOS episode I was game and the next thing I knew I had watched all of TOS. Which unfortunately has shifted my views on the new film. I still love the film...but my love has been tempered somewhat...I'm not exactly sure why though...still trying to figure that out. Which I admit is bizarre since TOS was pretty campy for the most part but there is something about it that I can't completely explain. I'm conflicted enough that I know the sequel will make it or break it for me in terms of how I see Abramsverse

IMHO, I do agree on one point with Lapis Exilis...Kirk really didn't get any strong emotional scenes directly per say. For example, his birth scene and the Delta Vega scene with Spock Prime had an emotional punch, but it wasn't him struggling with his own emotions or decisions whereas Spock had several scenes like that from where he was being bullied as a child, to his relationship with his mother to his mother's death and struggling to contain his anger. To be honest I blame the script for this because Chris Pine definitely has the ability to bring a vulnerable sensibility to the role...it just hasn't been exploited yet.

One thing I love about TOS is the strong friendship b/t the three...and particularly the friendship between Kirk and Spock. In Kirk, Spock found someone who accepted him for himself and in Spock, Kirk found his emotional anchor and someone who is unquestionably loyal. This has definitely shifted in the nu!Trek since Spock has found that acceptance in Uhura and maybe you could argue Kirk has found his anchor in McCoy (though I would argue McCoy himself is pretty emotional to be providing Kirk a logical balance but who knows) or perhaps in this reality Kirk doesn't need anyone like that. It will be interesting to see if whether and how the depth of their friendship will be developed.

Either way I do think the film is fun and still really liked it despite its flaws.

 

[Set Harth]

And even if the star did disappear in a black hole wouldn't Romulus still not survive/be uninhabitable? Isn't this like basic astronomy? It's like saying Earth will survive w/o the Sun? No?

Is this magnetic poetry?

 

[Captain Mike]

IMHO, I do agree on one point with Lapis Exilis...Kirk really didn't get any strong emotional scenes directly per say. For example, his birth scene and the Delta Vega scene with Spock Prime had an emotional punch, but it wasn't him struggling with his own emotions or decisions whereas Spock had several scenes like that from where he was being bullied as a child, to his relationship with his mother to his mother's death and struggling to contain his anger. To be honest I blame the script for this because Chris Pine definitely has the ability to bring a vulnerable sensibility to the role...it just hasn't been exploited yet.

That is the point, NuKirk IS NOT the same character that I grew up with. He persevered through his hard times and worked hard at getting the position he most wanted, NOT being a dick and manipulating his allies and being an over rated asshole and gets rewarded for "bucking" the system.

One thing I love about TOS is the strong friendship b/t the three...and particularly the friendship between Kirk and Spock. In Kirk, Spock found someone who accepted him for himself and in Spock, Kirk found his emotional anchor and someone who is unquestionably loyal. This has definitely shifted in the nu!Trek since Spock has found that acceptance in Uhura and maybe you could argue Kirk has found his anchor in McCoy (though I would argue McCoy himself is pretty emotional to be providing Kirk a logical balance but who knows) or perhaps in this reality Kirk doesn't need anyone like that. It will be interesting to see if whether and how the depth of their friendship will be developed.

Either way I do think the film is fun and still really liked it despite its flaws.

Star Trek has always been about the "Big Three". NOT the "Big Three" plus Uhura....

 

[Trekkie2]

Star Trek TOS has always been about the big three...and dumbass women that fall for them.

 

[1bulma1]

IMHO, I do agree on one point with Lapis Exilis...Kirk really didn't get any strong emotional scenes directly per say. For example, his birth scene and the Delta Vega scene with Spock Prime had an emotional punch, but it wasn't him struggling with his own emotions or decisions whereas Spock had several scenes like that from where he was being bullied as a child, to his relationship with his mother to his mother's death and struggling to contain his anger. To be honest I blame the script for this because Chris Pine definitely has the ability to bring a vulnerable sensibility to the role...it just hasn't been exploited yet.

That is the point, NuKirk IS NOT the same character that I grew up with. He persevered through his hard times and worked hard at getting the position he most wanted, NOT being a dick and manipulating his allies and being an over rated asshole and gets rewarded for "bucking" the system.

One thing I love about TOS is the strong friendship b/t the three...and particularly the friendship between Kirk and Spock. In Kirk, Spock found someone who accepted him for himself and in Spock, Kirk found his emotional anchor and someone who is unquestionably loyal. This has definitely shifted in the nu!Trek since Spock has found that acceptance in Uhura and maybe you could argue Kirk has found his anchor in McCoy (though I would argue McCoy himself is pretty emotional to be providing Kirk a logical balance but who knows) or perhaps in this reality Kirk doesn't need anyone like that. It will be interesting to see if whether and how the depth of their friendship will be developed.

Either way I do think the film is fun and still really liked it despite its flaws.

Star Trek has always been about the "Big Three". NOT the "Big Three" plus Uhura....

This is one the reasons why I loved the 90's and 20's...thanks to feminists, men alone stopped dominating films and tv...Here are other big three in pop culture

buffy willow xander

harry ron hermonie

If Star Trek wants to attract more fans and be more successful they need to have romance and women in lead roles.

Face it Star Wars would not have been Star Wars without Princess Leia and many girls became fans of Star Wars in 2002-2005 because they were infatuated with the Anakin and Padme love story.Despite the fact that Hayden's Anakin was a douchebag.

 

[Cyke101]

NOT being a dick and manipulating his allies and being an over rated asshole and gets rewarded for "bucking" the system.

I want to point out that Kirk Prime received a commendation specifically because he bucked the system -- namely, the Kobayashi Maru.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I was infatuated with Anakin and Padme's tragedy, not love story. Or precisely, I was infatuated with Padme as a tragic historical figure (historical in the sense of whose mother she was).

I had no problem with ST:XI being male dominated because I think they needed to establish their TOS base however I expect this to be quite different in ST:XII. In ST:XI there were 4 woman characters, two of whom were killed off and one of whom is presumably not seen in a future movie though I suppose it is possible. There needs to be more women and they need a place in the story other than being someone's romantic interest.

 

[1bulma1]

I was infatuated with Anakin and Padme's tragedy, not love story. Or precisely, I was infatuated with Padme as a tragic historical figure (historical in the sense of whose mother she was).

I had no problem with ST:XI being male dominated because I think they needed to establish their TOS base however I expect this to be quite different in ST:XII. In ST:XI there were 4 woman characters, two of whom were killed off and one of whom is presumably not seen in a future movie though I suppose it is possible. There needs to be more women and they need a place in the story other than being someone's romantic interest.

I completely agree that a female should not be just a romantic interest. In fact this is what separated Ewoyn from Arwen in Lord of the Rings.

However Uhura did play a major role in the film, if she hadn’t told Galia about a Klingon prison escape with Kirk eve dropping or if she hasn’t supported Kirk claims that Vulcan was getting attacked by Romanlins when he was confronted by Pike and Spock the crew would have been dead

 

[Miss Lemon]

That is the point, NuKirk IS NOT the same character that I grew up with.

Star Trek has always been about the "Big Three". NOT the "Big Three" plus Uhura....

Why would you want this movie to be exactly like the original series? Do you really think it would work? I don't.
It would be boring as hell. And Trekkies would be bitching about it not being the real thing anyway.

If Star Trek wants to attract more fans and be more successful they need to have romance and women in lead roles.

More women in lead roles yes, more romance no. I would like to see a female character who is more than just a romantic interest for one of the guys.