What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?

[number6]

I would have liked more TOS sound effects and more TOS motifs in the score.

Agreed on both. I sorely prefer the TOS/Kelvin Red Alert effect to the one in the new Enterprise. I do miss the TOS phaser sound but don't know where that would fit. As for the motifs, playing the Courage theme reminds me of the show's 60s-brand of grand scale whimsy adventure, something I feel the movie has in spades but the soundtrack doesn't.

Of course, a swooning score when Spock and Uhura kiss would have been very fitting.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy the score and sound effects.. I did. I also recognized a couple of "Star Wars" Ben Burtt sounds snuck in, which I found amusing. Did you notice that's Spock's little ship sounded a lot like a pod racer as it swirled on by?? I thought that was subtle. He also invented new versions of familiar TOS sounds, which I think works in this film. I never liked hearing the red alert klaxon or comm whistle on TNG. I thought it was out of place, as I would if I saw it on ENT or even the other TOS films..I thought the bridge door sound is a little over the top, but I loved the newly designed "pinnggggg!" of the viewscreen!! I don't like the phasers going "Pyew-pyew.." at all, but I couldn't really see the "classic" phaser sounds working in the context of this film.

The score worked in the context of the film. Star Trek really starts with the birth of JTK, but we don't hear the fanfare so much until the end, when the "Trek" part of Star Trek really begins, with our familiar characters all in place ready to go.
So I dug it, but I wished there had been more musical homages as there were visual homages.

 

[Gepard]

The cliché that things today are all flash and no substance is in truth usually overblown, but not here. This follows the true dumb action flick approach: cram it with stuff and run it all at breakneck speed to veil the fact that there's nothing of any sense happening.

Jesus Christ, I agree with Warped9. Reality is coming apart faster than Nero's ship.

 

[number6]

The cliché that things today are all flash and no substance is in truth usually overblown, but not here. This follows the true dumb action flick approach: cram it with stuff and run it all at breakneck speed to veil the fact that there's nothing of any sense happening.

Jesus Christ, I agree with Warped9. Reality is coming apart faster than Nero's ship.

No it isn't. Hardcore fans like Warped9 aren't supposed to like this film. That's not who the film is made for. There's enough in it to make this hardcore fan happy to see what they're doing with it, but other people had specific expectations for this film as they do for every film. We're never going to agree on the particulars of those expectations and as such, some people are going to feel left out and be left out. That's just the way it is.

Star Trek has been "destroyed" and "reinvented" so many times since 1969 that there are always bound to be people who are only going to be fans of a specific era. It's only natural.


There are people who I expect to hate this film for all the reasons they hate everything else. The criticisms and complaints never change no matter what it is.

They are fans of a specific era. Some of us like the other eras of Star Trek, too. Being a diehard TOS fan and a fan of the other Trek material shouldn't always need to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Gepard]

No it isn't. Hardcore fans like Warped9 aren't supposed to like this film. That's not who the film is made for. There's enough in it to make this hardcore fan happy to see what they're doing with it, but other people had specific expectations for this film as they do for every film. We're never going to agree on the particulars of those expectations and as such, some people are going to feel left out and be left out. That's just the way it is.

Since I'm anything but a hardcore TOS-er, yet I agree with a hardcore fan's assessment of the film, you tell me how it is that reality is still in one piece. Aren't we supposed to be on opposite sides of this issues? It's like a freaking law of nature on this board or something.

 

[Amaris]

I think I can sum it up with "To each their own". I love the movie, Warped9 does not. However, he and I have agreed on many other aspects of Trek in the past. We both have a love and admiration of Star Trek, and only want what's best for her. Neither of us, I believe, wish to see Star Trek destroyed. So with that common ground, we should be able to simply disagree civilly.

J.

 

[Tikkun]

Then you're missing a great movie. Let me ask you this: Did you go see Insurrection and Nemesis?

If you paid to see those two crapfests, then you should DEFINITELY go see Abram's film...this is a much, much, much better movie.

Those last two were just bad TV episodes...and NO Star Trek film has had the scope of this one.

This is something that has to be seen...and on the biggest screen you can get to.

I didn't go see Insurrection and Nemesis, 'cause I never got into TNG and just wasn't interested. Although I don't actually like the term, I guess I'm a TOS purist...

I'm sure XI is a good film regarding its scope, special effects, action, etc. and it surely is fun to watch. But as a TOS maniac, I just got pissed off by the direction they're heading. So I've decided for myself to not include it into my "personal" canon.

Yeah, I'm that same sort of purist. I watched a few episodes of several of the shows and liked them varying amounts. I liked the movie - but only as an AU. It's like Son of Trek for me - how things might have happened in a different reality. That reality isn't in my canon either - however, it might be fun to play with.

 

[smosquito]

I am the sort of person you don't want to get into a minutia battle with about Star Trek. I know about all the shows, the spin offs, the games, the books, etc... Why? I'm not sure, but know why I like it. Star Trek is a sort of better moral code.

If you lie you are punished, if you steal you are punished, if you are stupid you are less good than smart people, if you are aggressive, there are people who will stop you. Friendship is rewarded. Loyalty is rewarded. Honesty is rewarded. Knowledge is rewarded.

I am younger than Star Trek, but not much. I believe it has shaped my life in some ways.

I think it is a pity that then new movie has laid aside many of the above principles in favour of... whatever.

 

[SummerDream]

I know I am in the minority. My intent is not to just 'stir the pot'. I've enjoyed Star Trek as much as anyone, which is why I have such a strong opinion about this movie. So give me a chance and hear me out.
Overall this latest rendition of Star Trek disappoints and doesn't deserve the title of space epic or even a reboot. It should be forgotten. Give the franchise a rest and begin again with a properly themed screenplay and script. One can only hope that this is not the direction that this venerable franchise will take moving forward.

(Realizing Treks are tv show/movies)
I have not read any scifi books for years so I do not know about today's talent. But I think that with Trek, there comes the burden of all the decisions made before and thus a new approach would need a new series, a new writer etc. and that it would be better if the studios dared to try something new for a change. It is better to get Trek movies than no scifi at all but I am not only a Trek fan, also like other scifi stories and therefore I would prefer, were it possible, that something new came instead of Trek.
Probably they think about money and it is easier to finance a new Trek with established fanbase but with the same money (was it 150 million) maybe they could produce three scifi movies and one of them was better than this Trek movie despite two flopping.
Although I consider TOS the best tv show, best movie I have seen was Blade Runner. I will probably go see the next Trek movie, but think the money could be used better.

 

[Butters]

The cliché that things today are all flash and no substance is in truth usually overblown, but not here. This follows the true dumb action flick approach: cram it with stuff and run it all at breakneck speed to veil the fact that there's nothing of any sense happening.

Yes, lets keep only the essential elements in there, like blinking lights, nebula photos and turbolift handles. Whats the point in seeing the action unfold on screen when Spock can describe it for us perfectly adequately.

All this flashy stuff only serves to place more people in front of me when I queue to buy a ticket.

Disgraceful.

 

[Warped9]

You can only really paint Kirk as being "a guy who acts like he did in the movie" if you accept the alternate universe premise. I.e. I always imagined young Kirk as a mix of studious ("a walking stack of books"), adventurous, and a little bit sad after his experiences with Kodos. As portrayed, he was just a simplistic rebel.

Never thought of him as studious. Picard maybe but not Kirk.

Then you haven't really paid attention watching the episodes. In WNMHGB and "Shoreleave" they establish the young Kirk as a serious student who obviously later in liofe loosens up with more confidence and relaxed disposition. Later in a couple of episodes of TNG it's established that the younger Picard chased skirts and was a bit of a rabble rouser. So what Abrams effectively did was take the younger Picard's personality and graft it onto his alternate universe Jerk, er Kirk.

 

[Nerys Myk]

"Jerk" How witty.

Yet this is the same guy who outwitted the Kobayashi Maru by reprogramming it and cheating. Not exactly the by the book up tight cadet presented in those episodes. The guy who was "no boy scout" according to an ex girlfriend.

 

[Butters]

"Jerk" How witty.

Yet this is the same guy who outwitted the Kobayashi Maru by reprogramming it and cheating. Not exactly the by the book up tight cadet presented in those episodes. The guy who was "no boy scout" according to an ex girlfriend.

But theres good canon and bad canon. What you're saying is bad canon because it came from TWOK and contradicts TOS, and TWOK is the thoughtful movie that STAR TREK should have been. Its all perfectly logical.

 

[Timo]

Hmm... My take on last Friday:

+ Continuity. They did all the necessary tricks, and offered quite a few insider references for a specific part of the audience to enjoy. It just so happened that the local theater seemed to be filled to capacity (about 700) with people who got it...
+ Spirit. That was a good Star Trek adventure in structure and use of characters.
+ Characters. Spock and McCoy were dead on in terms of looks and dramatics. Kirk of course wasn't the Kirk we know, but that was more or less the point. Scotty was perfect despite being something of a novelty item. Uhura, Sulu and Chekov were background decoration, as they should, quite regardless of the number of lines or angles they got. Pike was awesome set dressing. And Nero was hilarious. That's exactly the sort of casting and character writing we need.
+ Pacing. A good balance between the elements, although an old codger like me might have preferred an overall slowing down by, oh, 7.21 % or so.
+ Music and sounds. Not too intrusive or jarring, not too memorable, good for the mood.

- Visuals. I liked the grand vistas and the designs, and I liked some of the (virtual) camera movement, but far too much of it was done in Blair Witch Project style; the pretty bits were unwatchable because the camera shook, the focus puller was asleep, lens flares hid the view - things that not so long ago would have counted as "amateurish mistakes" but now are "artistic choices".
- Plot contrivances. A plot consisting of nothing but contrivances. I can so believe in warp cores, transporter beams, red matter and scaly monsters hiding in ice. But I cannot believe in the story of STXI.

All in all, several delightfully big pluses and one tiny minus. And then a whopper of a minus to ruin the whole thing. It just couldn't have happened, except in a lazily written comic book.

Ah, well. It's still rewatchable because it's so pretty, witty and fun. I was just hoping for something completely enjoyable, and at most fearing that they'd drop the continuity ball or be aesthetically alienating or something. I wasn't betting on a plot hinging on coincidences.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Brutal Strudel]

TWOK, a movie I loved to pieces and rank second only to TMP, tells us that the James T. Kirk who killed his best friend (I always got the impression that, in WNHGB, he and Spock were still getting to know each other), saw family members phasered into oblivion on Tarsus IV, discovered his brother's dead body on Deneva and, through deliberate inaction, allowed the most realized love of his life die under the wheels of a milk truck "never ha[d] faced death."

Grain of salt? Salt mine.

 

[Warped9]

TWOK, a movie I loved to pieces and rank second only to TMP, tells us that the James T. Kirk who killed his best friend (I always got the impression that, in WNHGB, he and Spock were still getting to know each other), saw family members phasered into oblivion on Tarsus IV, discovered his brother's dead body on Deneva and, through deliberate inaction, allowed the most realized love of his life die under the wheels of a milk truck "never ha[d] faced death."

Grain of salt? Salt mine.

Yes. But Abrams decided to chuck all of that to show us a hotshot with a smartass mouth.

In fairness there's precedent for Abrams' approach because the '80s films also ignored what TOS had established to peddle their interpretation.

 

[ST-One]

Then you haven't really paid attention watching the episodes. In WNMHGB and "Shoreleave" they establish the young Kirk as a serious student who obviously later in liofe loosens up with more confidence and relaxed disposition. Later in a couple of episodes of TNG it's established that the younger Picard chased skirts and was a bit of a rabble rouser. So what Abrams effectively did was take the younger Picard's personality and graft it onto his alternate universe Jerk, er Kirk.

Obviously it is you who hasn't been paying attention.
This Kirk has lost his father, he didn't have that great role-model to look up to.
That's why he is different.

 

[Warped9]

Then you haven't really paid attention watching the episodes. In WNMHGB and "Shoreleave" they establish the young Kirk as a serious student who obviously later in liofe loosens up with more confidence and relaxed disposition. Later in a couple of episodes of TNG it's established that the younger Picard chased skirts and was a bit of a rabble rouser. So what Abrams effectively did was take the younger Picard's personality and graft it onto his alternate universe Jerk, er Kirk.

Obviously it is you who hasn't been paying attention.
This Kirk has lost his father, he didn't have that great role-model to look up to.
That's why he is different.

Hello! The issue debated was that the initial poster didn't understand how some could envision the younger Kirk being studious. We could envision it because that's how he was initially portrayed in TOS, not the recent movie.

 

[trevanian]

Then you haven't really paid attention watching the episodes. In WNMHGB and "Shoreleave" they establish the young Kirk as a serious student who obviously later in liofe loosens up with more confidence and relaxed disposition. Later in a couple of episodes of TNG it's established that the younger Picard chased skirts and was a bit of a rabble rouser. So what Abrams effectively did was take the younger Picard's personality and graft it onto his alternate universe Jerk, er Kirk.

Obviously it is you who hasn't been paying attention.
This Kirk has lost his father, he didn't have that great role-model to look up to. That's why he is different.

I was staying out of this thread because I won't go see it, but in reading it, I see I gotta step in anyway.

I don't recall seeing anything in the series indicating that Kirk had a father around while growing up in prime. The lack of a father in Abramsverse shouldn't account for anything, unless they put stuff back in another cut that shows he wasn't raised by his ma (then again, there's nothing about her existing in TOS either, just his brother.)

And if you want to take the view that this movie legitimizes using Novel elements ... well, that opens things up all over again, since there are past novel elements that were supposed to be legit (like GR TMP novelization) that some folks are now saying non-legit (I'm using this word because I'm tired of seeing canon used like it was a cannon.)

Also, the no-daddy thing shouldn't matter if Kirk has got a Campbell-oops- a destiny to fulfill, since he would always be making captain regardless, right?
Takes the fun out of life, and the drama out of storytelling to go that route though.

Kirk doesn't need a Pike-daddy, because he is Kirk ... if any version of Kirk needs a Pike Daddy, then he is a tool of history and the servitor of plot, not James T. Kirk, the guy who chooses.

 

[ST-One]

Then you haven't really paid attention watching the episodes. In WNMHGB and "Shoreleave" they establish the young Kirk as a serious student who obviously later in liofe loosens up with more confidence and relaxed disposition. Later in a couple of episodes of TNG it's established that the younger Picard chased skirts and was a bit of a rabble rouser. So what Abrams effectively did was take the younger Picard's personality and graft it onto his alternate universe Jerk, er Kirk.

Obviously it is you who hasn't been paying attention.
This Kirk has lost his father, he didn't have that great role-model to look up to.
That's why he is different.

Hello! The issue debated was that the initial poster didn't understand how some could envision the younger Kirk being studious. We could envision it because that's how he was initially portrayed in TOS, not the recent movie.

I always saw him as a somone highly intelligent, gifted, always on the jump and very knowledgable (hence the 'stack of books with two legs'), but not as a bookworm.

 

[QuasarVM]

Well, we do have Cawley's Trek for that...

What's that?

James Cawley's Star Trek Phase II