“STAR TREK”

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

Long story short–I thought it was great.

Fairly spoiler-free comments follow:

How many times are fans going to have to be proven wrong after they engage in massive bìŧçh fests over initial announced concepts, preliminary photographs, etc., before they realize that howling “It’s gonna suck!” months (if not years) before a film hits the screen is just a waste of energy?

Here we go again, as J.J. Abrams and company produce a film that deftly threads the needle of fealty to what’s gone before while breathing new life into what Paramount routinely refers to as “the franchise.” Concocting a time travel story that basically leaves ST:TOS alone in its own universe while rebooting it here, “Star Trek” creates a 24th century for the 21st century. Yes, granted, there are some bizarre visual disparities–why do all the upper sections of the Enterprise look like an Apple store while the engineering room looks like it belongs on the Red October–but ultimately that’s just Star Trek trivia. For the fans there are plenty of nudge nudge, wink wink references to bits of business from all aspects of the Trekverse (including the inclusion of Uhura’s first name as suggested by Nichelle and popularized in various Trek novels, making Pocket two for two after Hikaru Sulu), well-placed lines of dialogue that harken to earlier films (most notably ST2), and the evocation of beloved character moments (Sulu gets a sword in his hand for the first time since “The Naked Time.”) Plus, of course, the appearance of Leonard Nimoy as Spock (“Spock Prime” as he’s credited), which is being described as a cameo. Not to me. To me, a cameo is Stan Lee playing a hot dog vendor. Nimoy has about as much screen time as Judy Dench did in “Shakespeare in Love” and she won an Oscar.

For the casual movie goers, there is simply an energetic story featuring an excellent cast led by Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Karl Urban (who seems to be channeling De Kelly without even trying). Eric Bana’s Romulan villain Nero (sticking with the Roman theme, I see) is the most formidable opponent since Khaaaaaaaaan. Plus there’s a sequence where Kirk is being chased by an alien beast that I’m pretty sure is a first cousin of the Cloverfield monster. For the first time in a long time we have a Star Trek film that has the scope and vision to come across as a genuine movie rather than an overblown TV episode.

PAD

199 comments on ““STAR TREK””

  1. Overall, I enjoyed it as well. Not quite as successful a reboot as “Batman Begins” or “Casino Royale”, but a very well done job, nonetheless. The sets didn’t phase me at all. I know that’s important to many people, but to me it’s just background. The plot was well done, though. The inclusion of the Kobayashi Maru was a good way to wrap it back to the cheating death theme of ST2.

    I’m hopeful that the casual movie-goer will like it, but it did strike me as a bit too much “inside baseball” in the early goings as all the characters were being progressively introduced. It seemed by the numbers rather than organic. I don’t think the older crowd will care, though, since Kirk and Spock are household names to them. My teen daughter isn’t sensing any excitement from the high school crowd – so I don’t know if it will get any legs or not. When she told someone tonight that we were going the response was “Oh, my dad wants to see that”.

    BTW, she enjoyed the movie immensely – other than the pairing up of – well – the couple in the movie since this is spoiler-free.

  2. Every time I see ‘Chris Pine’ I think ‘Captain Christopher Pike’. It’s strangely comforting to me.

  3. I thought it was a lot of fun too. The original crew always had more foibles than later crews and I loved that this movie embraced that, characters who are good at what they do, but don’t necessarily feel beholden to the rules all the time, Spock possibly excepted. Characters who can earn medals but probably wouldn’t be welcomed at a posh affair. More wild west than high culture.

    I also liked that the old continuity is acknowledged, but in such as way that sequels can go pretty much anywhere. And I agree that Nimoy (rightfully) got more than a cameo.

    I do hope that sequels delve into morale dilemmas in greater depth, but I think this is an excellent start to the new incarnation.

  4. The bright colours, futuristic sets and mix of action/story/humour gave me the same rush I had when my father and I first watched “The Trouble with Tribbles” in the 70’s.

    Despite plot conveniences (but what’s Trek without them?), I left with a smile, wanting more — which is what a good reboot should do. As far as moral dilemmas, I think we got the ‘lite’ version: the choices we make in life that shape who we are just as much as a perceived destiny.

    Important stuff: as I the only one who geeked out when the Enterprise emerged from the moon of Saturn? Also, I apologize to anyone in the theater with me when, near the end as an admiral emerged in costume, I moaned aloud and said “Oh my god, he’s wearing the Penguins”.

  5. I loved the film. This is the first Star Trek made not just for the 21st century but for television as well. Even the best Star Trek films felt like an antique car going full speed. Yes, it might go the distance, but it’s also going to shimmy and putter.

    The geek in me does pipe up on a few things. Not complaints, but funny observations.
    .
    1. What happened to the Time Cops that always bugged the Enterprise crew? I guess they don’t exist now because this is the new “normal” time.
    2. J.J. Abrams said this is now an alternate timeline existing in parallel to the original one. That’s how it works in the Marvel universe, but in Star Trek time jumps always changed the main universe. So long as Picard and Sisko are still born I don’t mind.
    3. What are they going to do when the Whale Probe (Star Trek: The Voyage Home) shows up!? That was a one in a million rescue! Maybe Spock Prime will take care of it.

  6. I know I’m in the minority, but I didn’t like it (in a big way).
    I don’t want to get into opinionated back and forths with anyone here. Taste is subjective, and I’m sure it’ll make a lot of money. But for me, it wasn’t Trek. It was more like a cross between Independence Day and Galaxy Quest (both movies I enjoyed a lot). It just wasn’t Trek.
    I suppose a lot of fans felt the same way when TNG premiered?
    .
    I read an interview with JJ where he said that he was never into Trek, always preferring Star Wars. I think it shows, in this movie.
    .
    If I were to venture a theory, it would be this: A lot of the reviews I’ve read say something along the lines of “At least it was better than the last 2 movies” or some variation of that. Well, I didn’t bother seeing the last two movies. Maybe if I had, this one would seem better by comparison. I just don’t know.

    1. No need to apologize for not caring for it. I didn’t care for the Iron Man movie, yet all my friends say it is good.

  7. I entirely agree with John, other than the characters (which as a whole where really close to the classic feel without feeling like rip-offs) and the names that felt like more a star wars movie in the Trek universe than anything Trek. It was a really good movie on its own, but did not have that Trek feel that even Star Trek IV or Nemesis had.

    It wasn’t science fiction to me, it was space opera.

  8. How many times are fans going to have to be proven wrong after they engage in massive bìŧçh fests over initial announced concepts, preliminary photographs, etc., before they realize that howling “It’s gonna suck!” months (if not years) before a film hits the screen is just a waste of energy?
    .
    Pshaw, how much time have you got? Fans will ALWAYS jump the gun on these things. It’s the safe bet; if it truly stinks they get t say “Told you so!” like there’s a prize being offered and if it’s good they just mumble about being pleasantly surprised.
    .
    It’s no shock to me that Abrams seems to have pulled it off. Even if one hated LOST and CLOVERFIELD (ie, even if you have no taste whatsoever) you have to admit that both at least tried to do something a little different, a little smarter than expected. The guy is no hack, though that word sure gets tossed around by critics who really should know better.

  9. I saw it twice and loved it: first, at a sneak preview and a packed house with the press and rabid fans. Only one couple dressed up, and that was in TOS shirts. The audience cheered several times, including at some of Kirk’s scenes, Spock Prime’s appearance, and at the end. The intro to the Enterprise is the best since the first movie. I’m not ashamed to admit that some lines of dialogue caused me to shed a tear.

    The second time was last night at a theater that was showing it on at least four screens. It was far from packed. I’m hoping that’s due to the multiple screens and it being Thursday. I went with a friend who knew next to nothing about the movie and would only watch Trek occasionally. He enjoyed it, but was a little lost with the time travel technobabble and was concerned that the appearance of Spock Prime would throw the plot completely out of whack. I would’ve liked to have seen some characters get more screen time. I’d also like to read novels based on this new cast, much like Doctor Who novels are based on different iterations of the Doctor.

    Peter: I inquired to you about the Trek film two years ago at Heroes Con. You would not comment on something you haven’t seen and I understood. I wasn’t going to blog: “OMG! Peter David disses Trek film!” I guessed correctly that Zach Quinto would be a good choice for Spock (going out on a limb, I know).

    1. “…but was a little lost with the time travel technobabble…”
      .
      Has your friend not been exposed to time travel stories? Seems a staple of science fiction.

  10. Well, I’ve never said it’s going to suck; it wouldn’t surprise me if I went to see it and I really enjoyed it. But I’m not going to see it.
    .
    I don’t think Star Trek needs a reboot, thus (along with several other reasons) I have no interest in this film. I hope it’s a failure at the box office, because this isn’t what I want the future of Trek to be. It’s as simple as that. Whether I’d like the film or not is irrelevant.
    .
    Oh, the “It’s gonna suck!” was accurate for Wolverine, which was another unnecessary prequel. 😉

    1. Craig…seriously…your loss. Some of the most pleasant surprises I’ve ever had as a movie goer was seeing films that I had no interest in seeing.
      .
      For instance: Golf bores me. Kevin Costner bores me. So I had no interest in “Tin Cup.” Wound up seeing it for reasons I don’t recall and loved it. You never know.
      .
      PAD

      1. I’m not sure that comparison to Tin Cup is really valid. After all, I’m a huge Trek fan. I want to see new Trek… I just don’t want to see this Trek. I don’t want this time line to be the future of Star Trek.
        .
        But even then, I’m not interested in most movies that come out. Should I go and see every film that hits theatres just in case? No, and I wouldn’t expect anybody else to do so either. 🙂

      2. Well, Craig, all I would point out is that what you’re saying is pretty much word for word what fans were saying twenty years ago when Next Gen debuted.
        .
        If you’re a Star Trek fan and you think of it, not as the future of Star Trek, but simply as a diverting entertainment, I think you’ll have a great time.
        .
        PAD

      3. Peter David wrote:

        For instance: Golf bores me. Kevin Costner bores me. So I had no interest in “Tin Cup.” Wound up seeing it for reasons I don’t recall and loved it. You never know.
        .
        PAD

        Rene Russo was in Tin Cup and she doesn’t bore me. 🙂

    2. You’re entitled to your opinion, though I always encourage people to see films before dismissing them. One thing: please don’t wish for a film to fail. From first hand experience, I can tell you that films are forged with the blood and sweat of hundreds if not thousands of people.
      .
      Maybe you don’t like this interpretation, that’s fine. I love it, as I’ve said. Whatever you feel, let it have its day in the sun.

    3. But without a reboot there IS no future of Trek. Even the Next Generation cast is too old now, and the last two movies were rubbish anyway. So it was either a reboot with a new cast playing old characters, or a new cast playing an entirely new set of characters. Really, what’s the difference?

      That said, there is a much better reason for not seeing this movie: it’s really not any good.

  11. I haven’t seen it yet, plan to this afternoon, but if any of the stuff I’ve already seen in trailers and talk show clips involving Kirk and Uhura made it into the original timeline, it makes “Plato’s Stepchildren” an extra notch more awkward for them. 🙂

    Wearing a blue shirt, black pants and shoes, and carrying a flip-open communicator and handheld computer today. In other words, totally normal clothing for work, which just happens to map pretty well onto ToS science section uniforms….

  12. I’m going to see it tonight. As a long time Trek fan (*not* Trekkie, thankyewverymuch) I was worried about rebooting the franchise and how it would fit into continuity. I really tried not to read too much about it in advance but, ah well. The biggest reason I wanted to see it was to see what Abrams did with the series – anyone who can make a “Mission:Impossible” movie worth seeing, much less “Lost” and “Alias” has earned my respect. (We aren’t going to talk about “Cloverfield”)

  13. Though it was excellent, it’s called Star Trek and you get Star Trek not a huge departure as some seemed to fear (and they definitely made an effort to fit in the references for the fans, like why Scotty was where he was:) I think Nero was a credible/worthy threat for the movie, but he wasn’t as much of a character as the likes of Khan.
    My only quibble was too much shaky camera, but that seems the norm these days.

    1. It’s certainly the norm for Abrams. He didn’t direct “Cloverfield,” but that had so much shaky cam that I got motion sickness.
      .
      PAD

    2. It’s the legacy of “Firefly”/”Serenity.” It was the first show to have space travel/battles that looked they were shot hand-held/documentary style, and that, if nothing else about the series (though I think other things have, too), has become hugely influential.

  14. Oh yeah, about JJ Abrams not being a Trek fan, neither was Nicholas Meyer and I would guess most people would say his are the most popular of the previous films.

  15. PAD wrote: How many times are fans going to have to be proven wrong after they engage in massive bìŧçh fests over initial announced concepts, preliminary photographs, etc., before they realize that howling “It’s gonna suck!” months (if not years) before a film hits the screen is just a waste of energy?

    I’m guessing that was a purely rhetorical question. If not, then the question itself is a waste of energy.
    Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, fans gotta bìŧçh.

    1. Yes, fans get to gripe in advance, and I’ll do my mea culpa here. My main pre-film gripe was Spock attacking Kirk (in the second trailer). It seemed WAY out of character. However, the way they handled it in the movie made it very, very convincing.

      I think the main concern for Paramount is if this movie is enough for the fanboys to love it, but still draw a mainstream crowd. So far, the hardcore fans are being drawn to it. As I said in my first post, I’m still concerned about whether it has legs for the mainstream crowd.

      Still, I think they gave it enough balance to have a very good chance of doing so.

      Overall, it’s a good, escapist, summer movie. Just what it’s supposed to be.

      1. As I said in my first post, I’m still concerned about whether it has legs for the mainstream crowd.
        .
        If my Facebook friends are any indication, a number of people who have never seen Trek are going to be seeing this. But then, there’s the segment that still considers Trek ‘geek’, and they may still avoid the film like the plague.
        .
        I expect this film to be a big success. To be honest, it deserves to be more successful than Wolverine (yes, it looks well-everything, even though I refuse to see it), but the experts don’t think it’ll hit that high a mark this weekend in terms of box office.

  16. What do we think of this idea? Since none of us can stop thinking about Khan for even a second… Next movie should be a redo of “Space Seed” with with Javier Bardem as Khan. Bringing Khan back for part 2 is like bringing the Joker back for Dark Knight. Sounds risky, (as did casting someone other than Nicholson as Joker) but we all wanted to see it, and what a payoff! Perhaps they can add in a Gorn/Andorian subplot to make it more epic and give Kirk and Khan a reason to team up against a larger menace after Khan takes over the ship.

  17. I saw a preview showing of the film Wednesday at the Imax dome theatre in the Detroit Science Center. Unfortunately, even though I got there 45 minutes before the show began, the seats I got weren’t the best. Up near the front.

    Meanwhile, a friend for whom we tried to hold a seat somehow snagged himself reserved seats in the top row (Among the best seats for a domed theatre). Remind me to maroon him on Ceti Alpha V some time.

    Overall, I liked the film, but was sometimes too aware of the screen, which took me out of the film. Plus you could sometimes see the “seams” separating the different panels of the screen. A friend’s interested in a bunch of us seeing the movie in a couple of weeks, so I’ll be able to see it again on a flat screen. Hopefully I won’t be as distracted.

    I also liked that despite J. J. Abrams admission that he’s not a Star Trek fan, he still included nods to the original series and the movies. Not only the inclusion of Captain Pike, but also the Kobayashi Maru test (and the fact that Kirk took it three times). Wonder if Spock programmed the simulation in the “original” history, too? I would imagine so. The change in the timeline regarding the circumstances of Kirk’s birth aren’t likely to have affected Spock’s subsequent enrollment in Starfleet and his involvement in the Kobayashi Maru scenario.

    And of course having Leonard Nimoy as Ambassador Spock tells us that the original series still happened, albeit in some other timeline. Abrams could easily have started from scratch and ignored the original series entirely.

    On another note, Gene Roddenberry has stated that one of Kirk’s influences was Captain Horatio Hornblower, from the novels by C.S. Forester. There’s an interesting parallel between the Hornblower books and this movie, whether intentional or not. When Kirk and Spock meet, Spock is a commander and Kirk still a cadet. In the Hornblower books, Bush is initially superior to Hornblower in rank (though just by a bit); but then Hornblower is advanced ahead of Bush, who becomes his first officer.

    One point that’s not clear: did Kirk jump in rank from lieutenant to captain at the end of the film or did he simply get the posting of captain, while still ranked as lieutenant? Or maybe lieutenant commander? Sure, he played a major role in saving the Earth, but going from the rank of lieutenant to captain (jumping over lieutenant commander and commander in the process)? Seems a bit much.

    Also, shouldn’t he have been an ensign (at best), if he were still a cadet? That, in and of itself, is a minor nit, compared to the apparent hurdle in rank. But again, I think it more probable that Kirk hasn’t become captain by rank, but merely has been given the captaincy of the Enterprise. Though who knows? Maybe Kirk’s father also saved some now high-ranking admirals who have remained grateful.

    If Kirk did make this big jump in rank, it’d be interesting to see if future films explore whether he has to deal with any resentment from others in Starfleet. Maybe in the next film, he’ll need to prove that he’s truly earned such a huge promotion.

    To paraphrase Buffy from “Becoming, part 2”, we might hear Kirk say, “I’d love to argue the fairness of my promotion, ‘cupcake’, but I have to save the world. Again.”

    I thought the cast worked well together. And it may just be me, but Karl Urban seems to have a strong facial resemblance to the late Ross Martin. Though I will agree he does a good job of “channeling” DeForest Kelley.

    I’m guessing the initial interchange between Kirk and McCoy is where the nickname “Bones” first comes from. I understand that the idea from the original series was that it was meant to be a diminutive of “sawbones”, an old nickname for a doctor. That meaning could still apply, I suppose.

    Wonder what else has changed in the new timeline? Did Pike still go to Talos IV, and is the accident involving the crippling effects of the delta rays still in his future? Sure, Pike’s rank is different now, and the circumstances under which he first met Kirk have changed; but that doesn’t preclude past and future visits to Talos IV still happening.

    The friend soon to be marooned on Ceti Alpha V tells me that the cast has been signed for a three picture deal, and that Abrams has it in writing somewhere that there won’t be a return to a TV series until at least 2019. If true, that’s probably for the best. After almost two decades of one Trek series or another on the air, a movie every two or three years is probably the best way to go at this point. No need to over saturate the market. Again.

    Rick

    1. After almost two decades of one Trek series or another on the air, a movie every two or three years is probably the best way to go at this point. No need to over saturate the market. Again.

      I agree, especially given the disappointment that was “Enterprise.” The ending of “Voyager” gave them a HUGE chance to show the changes the tech and culture of the Federation could have undergone. That, and sticking to the TNG cast for the movies didn’t help either!

  18. Does the (well-deserved) success of this in any way threaten the book department of the franchise?

    I absolutely loved the movie, but if I don’t keep getting New Frontiers books every year or two I’m going to be majorly pìššëd…

  19. Rarely chime in around here, but have a bit of a diverging viewpoint. First, the disclaimer: we’re talking matters of personal taste, so its perfectly valid for me to hate aspect X while someone else loves it; like previous posters, I’m not here to start a flame war. Now, alons-y! Also, this includes a few spoilers, though minor ones that have already been mentioned on this thread.

    1. As a Trek fan, there is no way that this Star Trek takes place in the same creative universe as the original Trek universe. Note that I’m not talking about alternate timelines, I’m saying this is new Battlestar, classic Trek was old Battlestar. Time travel does not explain why the fundamental characters are different, or why the technology is different.

    2. Kirk is promoted from 3rd year cadet to Captain. Seriously? So the new story for Kirk is that he has only served as a subordinate officer for 6 hours, and that is it for his entire career? Gotta say, this don’t sound right to me.

    3. I have been in the engine rooms of an actual warship powered by steam, and it looked more modern and had less pipes running around than the Enterprise did.

    4. Avoiding spoilers, the scene with young Jim Kirk in Iowa was painfully bad.

    The first one only matters to a fan, but the other three, along with a number of other small details, robbed me of a lot of enjoyment of the movie. I certainly didn’t hate it, but I must admit to being pretty surprised at well reviewed it is. Certainly rates 2 stars at best in my estimation.

    And now for something that I am apparently in a distinct minority for feeling: I think it didn’t go far enough in rebooting the franchise. I love Star Trek, but it has largely become tapped out, and mired in its own continuity. To use the comics analogy, it needs the “Ultimate” treatment, getting right back to basics without being hampered by any of the old continuity.

    What Star Trek needed, from my perspective, was the BSG treatment. One of my favourite moments from the production of that show, was when Edward James Olmos told diehard fans of the old show not to watch the new one; thats what this should have been, a clean break from the old Trek, carrying on only is spirit.

    All that said, however, whether you see it or not, whether you like it or not…Live long and prosper (sorry, had to be said).

    1. As to point one, it was explained in the movie as a parallel universe, that being one where many things are similar, yet some things are vastly different.

  20. I was really wondering what the Trek fans were going to say. I loved it, but I’ve never been a fan to be let down. I knew the characters and I remember liking “Wrath of Khan” back in the day, but I never really got into it. BTW, my 12-year-old son liked it too even though he’s never seen ANYTHING Trek, as did my 19-year-old neice and her friends from college.

  21. I saw it this morning and reviewed it a few minutes ago http://thearmchaircritic.blogspot.com/2009/05/star-trek.html and I thought it was… decent. [Minor spoilers follow] I’m glad they didn’t overdo it on all the references to the original series (“I’m a doctor, not a…”) and the trailers did a nice job of redirecting the Uhura romance. (She was Spock’s girlfriend, and Kirk was fooling around with a green-skinner Orion woman in the bed.) That said, the movie was largely a big fight scene and revenge flick (Nero killed Kirk’s dad AND Spock’s mom), and I think the series worked based on the ideas of communication and regulation, not just blasting enemies. (It was also interesting that this Kirk’s rebellious was shown by him being the only one on the Enterirpse out of uniform, even when captain.)

  22. Just came back from it. I’m going to try my best to be vague and as spoiler free as possible in my comments, but something may slip through. You’ve been warned!

    >2. J.J. Abrams said this is now an alternate
    >timeline existing in parallel to the original
    >one. That’s how it works in the Marvel universe,
    >but in Star Trek time jumps always changed the
    >main universe. So long as Picard and Sisko are
    >still born I don’t mind.

    I had a theory on the way home from the theater, and by lucky chance this theory explains away your nit!

    Spock (Prime) and Nero didn’t travel to an earlier point in time in their own universe. They traveled to a parallel reality. Nero didn’t know well enough to spot the differences, and Spock had been pretty well secluded (either in Nero’s captivity or stranded on Delta Vega) to be able to make that determination when we first came across him.

    I say this as the differences are just to great to be able to say that they were caused by Nero’s apearance. Heck, the design elements of the uniforms and technology were already radically different when Nero first apeared. If they had looked like a “The Cage” style design ethic in the opening scenes, and then just evolved along a different path to where they were in the majority of the movie, then I might be a bit easier to buy that it was an alternite timeline rather then a parallel universe.

    There’d still be problems, though. How would such an (innitially) small change as what happened cause such massive delay (about 20 years) in the construction of the Enterprise? How would any change in a timeline, simple or drastic, alter the location of Delta Vega to make it not some remote planet close to the galactic barrier, but in the very same system as Vulcan? It wouldn’t. Thus, parallel universe and not altered timeline.

    >Did Pike still go to Talos IV?

    He may have. But it would have been on a different ship, as the Big E wouldn’t have existed a decade prior in this reality. Which does bring another thing to mind… Spock’s age seems off. Based on the placement of their two childhood scenes implying that they were happening around the same time, would this Spock have been old enough to have served for 11 years with Captain Pike prior to Kirk’s command? So it is quite possible that any mission Pike may have had to Talos IV would have been not only on a different ship, but without a certian Vulcan science officer, making a “The Managerie” storyline rather unlikely.

    That being said, it was nice to watch an official Trek production, and walk away with only good natured nit picks, not major bìŧçhëš about it. I quite liked it, and hope that it has some sequels. Yet I’m glad that the original timeline / reality / whatever still exists, and I quite am looking forward to Blood and Fire, part 2! (I missed James Cawley’s cameo in the new film, I’ll have to keep more of an eye out next time I see it…)

  23. Continuity issues aside (I now know new Trek is a different reality, but my brain will need some time to be okay with that), I loved this AND thought it was a great Trek flick. On the drive home, I realized that this movie reminded me of why I fell in love with Trek as a kid: it’s Wagon Train to the stars; it’s (and this is why New Frontier is the only Trek I read) a bad-ášš starship captain kicking alien butt, making the galaxy safe for exploration. The last few Trek shows too rarely had bad-ášš characters actually BEING bad-ášš, and that made them boring as hëll. Science fiction is supposed to excite us, and make us wonder about the universe, and I think this first new Trek film is on the right track.

  24. Like some of the other folks who have posted, I consider myself a fan (lower case) of Star Trek, as opposed to a Trekker but I must admit I was pleasantly surprised by an awful lot of the film. I thought Abrams, as well as writers Orci and Kurtzman did a wonderful job of acknowledging the original series and subsequent films without being too devoted to it. Of course we’re going to laugh at Kirk bedding down an Orion girl, because, well, we’ve already seen him do it in the sixties. And of course the notion of Kirk beating the no-win scenario is that much funnier if you know how he did it.

    In some ways, I’m glad the current film isn’t too heavily immersed in continuity and constant nods to the past, because that sort of thing gets tiring real fast. For example, I’m sort of glad the Klingons were dropped from the final piece, because it would have just resulted in endless dicussions about the original swarthy pirate-like Klingons versus the later crab-head Klingons and which ones should have been in the film. Who gives a crap? And incidentally, I’ve seen photos of the ‘new’ Klingons for an article I was writing for the current issue of the Makeup Artist Magazine so I know where they would have gone, but leaving them in the film would have just been a distraction.

    If I have one complaint, it might be that the final third of the film was a bit too visual FX heavy for my taste. I can happily relate to most of the film’s characters, but I’m less excited about giant, lovingly rendered digital spaceships blowing up because there really isn’t much I haven’t seen already. For my money, a two-minute blow-up between Kirk and Spock is much more interesting than ten minutes of digital mayhem.

    Finally, and I know this may throw the purist cat amongst the pigeon as far as the purist out there, I really loved that these characters had genuine emotions. They argued and fought and felt REAL, whereas I could never buy into Gene Roddenberry’s view that into the not-too-distant future, mankind would have much higher aspirations and were less likely to fall prey to their darker emotions. I could never understand why Roddenberry felt we were headed for eventual utopia when just about every event in recorded history would suggest otherwise. Personally, this aspect of the Star Trek mythos always left me cold, because I always felt that if a couple of hundred people were stuck on a ship together for months if not years at a time, it was much more believable for emotions to bubble to the surface more frequently. But hey, that’s just me.

    1. I just saw it this afternoon, and I enjoyed it
      immensely.
      As a long time Star Trek Fan, I had an amusing
      thought, continuity-wise.
      Jim Kirk is a really immature 29 year old.
      Why 29?
      (Classic Trek Geek Hat on!)
      It has been established in Star Trek continuity
      that Kirk is 12 years older than Chekov. When?
      In the classic Trek episode “The Deadly Years”
      at one point Kirk asks Chekov how old he is.
      “Twenty-Two, sir.” is his reply. Later in the
      episode, Kirk, responding to the comment that his
      rapidly aging body has aged as a person of 65,
      he protests “I’m thirty fo… I’M THIRTY-FOUR!”

      In the film, Chekov is asked how old he is.
      “Seventeen”, he proudly replies.
      Add 12, and you get Kirk’s age. 29. 😉

      1. Maybe. It’s pretty evident by the uniforms and the tech they have this was an alternate universe from the get go. Ultimate Star Trek if you will. Spock Prime not only went backwards in time through a blackhole (a Trek 1st I think, if not my bad) but sideways as well. PERHAPS this timeline would have mirrored the original if only with diffrent “sets” or rather better tech. But that all went to hëll with Nero popping into their timeline. So who knows.

        But hey I like this. A reboot that acknowledges what came before. Spock Prime’s original reality Star Trek Prime if you will still happened. It’s still out there and maybe someday it will be revisted. But now for the present we will be following the adventures of this new reality and we can be surprised. Because as Nero said “That was another life.”

        Can’t wait to see what they do for the sequel. 🙂

  25. I just got home from seeing it an hour or so ago.

    As Frank Romano would say,

    “Holy crap!”

    I gotta go see this again.

  26. At some point, the series HAD to be rebooted. It had gotten way too stale over the last decade.
    .
    You really should see it at some point, Craig, perhaps when it is on dvd.

    1. Oops. Too many tabs open. That was in response to Craig’s first post.

    2. At some point, the series HAD to be rebooted. It had gotten way too stale over the last decade.
      .
      Only because Paramount let it get that way in the first place. Personally, I think the book line is great, and has been for many years now. There’s no reason TNG movies couldn’t have been as good, but Paramount seemed to be more concerned about budget than making a great movie.
      .
      You really should see it at some point, Craig, perhaps when it is on dvd.
      .
      Perhaps. If I can shut my brain off to just enjoy it for what it is (and that isn’t an easy thing for me to do), I’m sure I’d enjoy it. Right now, it’s just the principle of it all. I’ll go through this all over again when they make the inevitable sequel. 🙂

      1. Craig, I’m not all that sure I agree with you that the TNG movies couldn’t have been as good as the book series, for one important reason: with the novels, granted there may be some editorial influence, or the occasional bit of ‘input’ from Paramount as a licensed property, but in the end, you should be getting one distinctive voice, which belongs to the writer, or co-writers if you really want to stretch the point. With the TNG movies, you’ve got the continuing influence (or drag factor, according to some) of executive producers Berman and Braga, plus that script had to be passed by Patrick Stewart for his input, plus Brent Spiner, plus I should think whatever cast members they really needed to bring back all had their own list of demands. And I would imagine by the time they got to Nemesis, that list was pretty dámņ long. How much longer could they have gone on like that?

      2. >right now, it’s just the principle of it all. I’ll go through this all over again when they make the inevitable sequel.

        Oh my god am I reminded of a line William Shatner delivered in a SNL skit, “get a life!” It’s a piece of entertainment meant to make money for its owner, it is not some sort of religion which no one can dare contradict. Heck between the original and Next Gen Roddenberry did a 180 on exactly what Star Trek was suppose to be. And because of it we ended up with the crappy first two seasons of TNG.

      3. “get a life!”
        .
        Ahh, I figured somebody sooner or later would turn to the typical crap I’m reading in so many other places toward those that dare have a view contrary to ‘popular opinion’.
        .
        Thanks for stepping forward and filling that void, Brian! Your post is noted and completely dismissed.

      4. >Ahh, I figured somebody sooner or later would turn to the typical crap I’m reading in so many other places toward those that dare have a view contrary to ‘popular opinion’.

        Get a life Craig. I wasn’t exactly looking forward to this film. I am not a JJ fan, I figured it would suck and the last thing I want to see resurrected was tired old kirk, spock and mccoy when TNG deserves at least one good movie outing and there is the far superior DS9 series which is a fantastic idea that could be extended into a movie series.

        The difference between me and you is I wasn’t stomping my feet, having a fit and refusing to give the movie a chance. I walked into the theater expecting a crap fest and walked out loving it.

        The only principal of the thing is that Paramount wants to make money with the franchise. The only way they saw to do so was to return to Kirk and do a reboot. If you want new Star Trek on the big screen or the small screen then the fact is this will be your only option.

        And no one is giving the original 40 year old episodes the finger. Paramount will happily keep selling you boxed sets of the original history until you have no money left and you have watched the episodes for the 1000th time. I fully expect TNG to be redone for HD next.

        But the facts are, Star Trek and it’s fictional history for the last 40 years is dead. And you are passing judgment on something you haven’t even seen… Get a life.

      6. But the facts are, Star Trek and it’s fictional history for the last 40 years is dead.
        .
        Well, the fact that PAD just had a new novel released in that 40 year fictional history tells me otherwise.
        .
        And you are passing judgment on something you haven’t even seen… Get a life.
        .
        Welcome to the real world, where people judge books by their covers all the dámņ time. Are you honestly telling me you’ve never saw the trailers for a film and said, ‘Wow, that’s something you couldn’t pay me to see?’ Because you have, we all have, and it’s very tiresome to see people throw that around *only* when it’s something they support. It’s flat out hypocritical.

      7. Brian, nobody should be expected to go see a movie if they don’t want to. Craig’s reasons for not expecting to enjoy it are every bit as valid as yours or mine for liking it. And it isn’t like you can harangue someone into liking a movie (well, maybe Sita Sings the Blues, since the premise sounds so unlikely to be good and it is so so good).

      8. I keep hearing great things about Sita, but can’t even find a showing anywhere near me. It will probably never play Toledo, Ohio, the closest big city, and I can’t find listings for it in Detroit, Cleveland, or Columbus.

  27. I didn’t think I went into the theater with many preconceptions. I’d seen the photos and trailers and knew it was going to be vastly different in appearance, etc.

    But it wasn’t until literally moments before the end, when Kirk is applauded and the story is clearly over, that I realized they aren’t going to put things back as they were. Guess I had preconceptions after all.

    As the planet crumbled, as not all escaped, as the characters with the relationship were revealed I wondered how they were going to correct things back on course. I mean, so-an-so showed up in an episode of TOS so clearly what I just saw would get undone. I mean, there is a time travel element here, so they’ll end with the major pieces back in place. Right?

    It wasn’t until the end credits were rolling that I got the self-administered D’oh! dope slap (yup, it whacked me on the front and back of head at the same time) that Spock already explained this. It’s an entirely new reality and destinies for all have changed.

    Brilliant move.

  28. Anybody else thinking of transparent aluminum when Spock is telling Scotty about transwarp beaming formulas?

  30. Snap judgement: for me it is probably the third/fourth best Star Trek movie. (Behind 2 and 6, on par with 4 and first contact.)

    Nitpick I hated the most: the Nokia product placement in the car. Even given that the car is an antique, wouldn’t people maintaining the car have swapped out the phone technology with something better within the last 100 years. And even if you want to say that it is a 22nd century phone system, would Nokia still be in business? Wouldn’t their logo evolve? And BTW, didn’t some other movie start out with some similar car joy-ride along a deserted road… Indiana Jones?

    I wish they would have built up the villain more. All we get is a 1.5 minute flashback. I get that it is all about the crew and the main characters but with a stronger villian/plot, I would have cared more. Don’t get me wrong, I loved all the crew.

    But where do they go from here? Another movie? I’m not sure I want one. How many times can we see Kirk & crew save Earth/the Universe? I want a Star Trek story to be more than just an adventure. I want it to appeal to non-geeks, but I want it to make one think as well. That’s what differentiated Trek from most other SF shows. I’d rather see them take this group to a TV show and do periodic movies. If so, they could build up a storyline as a B or C plot as they do 1-off episodes or short arcs that can be good SF. Then when the B or C plot gets hot, they can do a movie. Because unless they go and pull out an established villian/plotline (as in II) or have a resolution to a major underlying issue (war with Klingons in IV and the Borg in First Contact) Trek has a hard time creating a plot weighty enough for a movie.

  31. Thoroughly enjoyed it and all the winks and nudges to TOS (including a token red shirt who dies horribly).

    I eagerly await the sequel.

    (And if I were Spock Prime, I’d suggest to Kirk “Trust me, not Ceti Alpha Five.”)

  32. Joe, I don’t know if any of this was actually shot or not, but I believe Nero and some of his people were actually in a Klingon prison at some point. I seem to remember being told that the Romulan tattos were designed in such a way that they could have been the kind of thing that inmates could tattoo on each other, a la Russian underworld tattoos. And if you notice, Nero has a huge bit mark tattoo running across the back of his head and taking the top of his ear off, which either happened in prison or afterwards, when he got chomped by something. I agree though, there should have been more back-story there.

  35. Best Trek film so far. Yes, I am a LONG time Trek fan, but the series became stale and boring, ruled by “fan boys” who simply ruined it for everyone else. This film works on every level, leaves the “fan boys” with their old, tired continuity, and gives new fans something worthwhile. It was better than Star Wars (save for Empire). I loved it. More importantly, my 15 year old daughter, who HATED when I would watch Star Trek, was on the edge of her seat, and told me afterwards that it blew her mind, and that she loved it. And honestly, folks, THAT is who the studios are playing to now, they are the future. Get used to it, as you will NEVER see classic Trek stories told again.

    1. Get used to it, as you will NEVER see classic Trek stories told again.
      .
      (sarcasm) Hey, Paramount has found that they can turn Trek into just another series of action movies, while completely ignoring what made Trek classic to begin with! (/sarcasm)
      .
      Maybe I’m misinterpreting, but you sound almost proud of this fact.
      .
      Sorry, but these are the kinds of posts that piss me off, and I really hoped would not get made here, because they’ve certainly “ruined it” for so many other sites. You watched the movie, you enjoyed it. Great. But I don’t see why the hëll so many people feel the need to give the finger to those of us who still enjoy the last 40 years of Trek.

      1. You obviously did not read my entire post. I am a long-time ST fan. I want to see what happened to Sisko, how Picard turns out, etc. I want to not just read it, but see it. But the success of this new movie, and the overwhelming praise it is getting, means we will NEVER get those original stories in movie format again. NEVER. And I “proud” of that? No.

      2. Don’t let the words and reactions of others ruin your day.
        .
        I thought Batman was better than Iron Man last year, but most of my friends argue otherwise. I thought Speed Racer was the best pop culture film of 2008, but most of my friends haven’t seen it. I raved about how good Juno and Coraline were, but none of my friends will even see them.

      3. I thought Batman was better than Iron Man last year, but most of my friends argue otherwise.
        .
        Well, it was. 😉

  36. I saw Star Trek Thursday night at 10 PM. The theater seemed only 2/3 full, but there were at least 4 showings that night. But the crowd loved it. Nothing like being in Iowa (though we all wondered where that canyon will be located 200 years from now!).
    .
    I think PAD is absolutely right. I cringed at a few of the previews in that it seemed like they had changed Kirk too much as a cadet making him an arrogant nutcase. Now I know the context. Within the story, it makes total sense.
    .
    I had 4 friends with me, one of whom was only there to hang out with us — he has seen maybe one Star Trek film before this. He thought it was pretty good. For Mark, that was high praise. I suspect this will do pretty well.
    .
    As I sat with my Trek and non-Trek friends, I was amazed that I did not have a single cringe worthy moment. The movie hit the right note in every scene. The actions of the characters within the scenes made sense. Yes, there were a few plot contrivances (was it fate or a miracle that Kirk’s savior was none other than _____________?), but the movie acknowledged as much.
    .
    Was a reboot necessary? Yes. Not because the Start Trek universe was somehow flawed (as many ST books have shown, there is still plenty of life there), but because the powers that be couldn’t figure out how to do a decent movie. In a sense, on a bigger scale, this is what PAD did in creating the Calhoun character and series. It freed the writers up to just tell a good story. The fact that they did it while truly honoring the original is amazing.
    .
    I left the theater wanting more. A lot more. I left ready to see a whole new set of adventures. Yes, I wonder about what will happen when the probe comes to Earth looking for whales. I admit I was very surprised at where they left things with Spock Prime, the new mission Vulcan has, etc. But I suspect the writers will not try to tell old Star Trek stories in this new universe. If they are smart, they will honor the original by coming up with new adventures, boldy going where Star Trek has not gone before.
    .
    No movie is perfect. But this is the first movie I have seen in a long time where I left feeling it was just right, it played by its own rules, and it was fun. In many ways (perhaps because I am such a ST fan), I feel this is a far greater accomplishment than Casino Royale or Batman Begins. Rather than just being a reboot, Abrams tied things together in a way that allows me to love both universes and enjoy them equally as much. And other than Wrath of Kahn, no Star Trek movie comes close to touching this one.
    .
    I liked the new shuttle bay, engine room, and corridors. I felt the bridge was a bit too white and sterile. But, at least in movies, this is how submarines and other ships appear. What engine room is ever as pristine as you see on Next Gen, Voyager, or even Enterprise? I felt like this was actually the engine room on a massive ship.
    .
    Back to was this reboot necessary. I leave with this final thought: Look at the mess Star Wars episodes 1-3 became when trying to fit into the existing mythology. This movie was better than any of those three movies. I am not sure it would be possible if they hadn’t found a way to truly start over and hit the reset button. And even if there was a way, this one was just a lot of fun.
    .
    Bottom line: Go see it — in the theater. It is so worth it.
    .
    Iowa Jim

  37. Two tengental thoughts after seeing this:

    1) When did the Romuland switch to just making massive ships? Before the last two films, and in all the tv series, Romulan Warbirds were the approximate size and firepower of the Enterprise. But in STAR TREK: NEMESIS and this new STAR TREK movie (which I believe copies the Romulan predator ship exactly from NEMESIS) the only Romulan ships are massive things that look 10-15 times the size of the Federation ships.

    2) What’s people’s problem with the Vulcans? In ENTERPRISE they were largely treated as condescending to humans and blocking the attempts for Star Fleet to explore space. Then in STAR TREK they’re fairly racist (against Spock’s human mother), then their planet is destroyed and billions of them are wiped out. When did they become the whipping boys of sci fi? Jar Jar and the Gungans didn’t get such rough treatment!

    1. 1) That wasn’t a typical Romulan war vessel; it was a mining ship, designed to core into planetary surfaces and excavate. I don’t even know for sure that it was necessarily Romulan design; they may have hijacked it. For what that’s worth.
      .
      2) The Vulcans were always hardasses. The treatment Spock was getting as a kid, for instance, was straight out of his mother’s recountings of his boyhood from “Journey to Babel.” In “Amok Time” T’Pau didn’t blink over the prospect of having a clearly outmatched Kirk square off against a berserk Spock in a fight “to the dett.”
      .
      PAD

      1. I read somewhere that the ship has some Borg technology, apparently from the movie prequel comic series (that people have been saying good things about), so not sure how in continuity that is.

      2. Thanks.

        It seems to me that in the original show Spock was portrayed as being smewhat arrogant toward humans, and Bones and Kirk being a little arrogant toward him. But it all was in a friendly sort of way. In TNG and in the movies, Vulcans were viewed mostly in a positive light. In TNG the Vulcan were antithesis to the Romulans. I haven’t seen Voyager, so I don’t know how the Vulcan in that show was viewed. But somehow, in DS9, the most multicultural of Star Treks, you have this one image of Vulcans, which was an extreme version of the arrogance established by Spock. And then came star Trek: Enterprise, in which vulcans again played a major role. But instead of rounding up and adding layers to the Vulcans the way TNG and DS9 did for Klingons and Bajorans and several other species, they instead cast the Vulcans in a very negative light, going so far as to take away from them their original philosophy of logic.

        I’ll find it regretable if this movie goes in the same direction. It’s interesting that hyper-emotional and hyper-spiritual species like the Klingons and Bajorans get all the respect, but a hyper logical species does not.

        I guess being a logical species, Vulcans don’t put much stock in good public relations. Meanwhile the Kardassians, I hear, have their own reality TV show on E 😉

    2. Vulcans are, as a general rule, inclined to extreme douchbaggery. Spock was a good guy because of 1-his mother’s influence, 2- his memories of being the victim of said doucheocity, and C-hanging around humans day in and day out.
      .
      Even Spock had his moments, especially early on in the show. “Annoyance? Ah, one of your Earth emotions.” Yeah, f**k you very much.
      .
      What always got me about them was that they talk a big game about emotion and logic and science…but every glimpse of how they conduct themselves when nobody is around makes you conclude that Vulcans are the biggest emotional basketcase mystics in the universe. Birth to death. Spock’s birth looked like it happened in a cave. I guess logic dictates against stuff like anesthesia and sterile tablecloths. They let their kids bully other kids and probably get a mental laugh out of it in the process. Then they throw their kids into the desert to see if they are worthy of making it to adulthood. (Vulcans are basically Spartans, though at least the Spartans were honest about it–no excuses or pseudo-science, they just don’t want to care for the infirm.) Sex…forget about it, it involves mental instability, duels to the death and guys who jingle bells. Death has more mystic mumbo jumbo though since resurrection is actually doable I guess you can’t complain too much about that.
      .
      Bunch of in denial wackjobs. Make great science officers though.

      1. I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I wanted to ask, how long has this image of the Vulcans been established? It’s one thing to have cultural misunderstanding between Spock and humans, it’s another to condemn the whole culture. Why is it that vulcan culture is not taken seriously, explored? Why are they presented just as emotionaly stunted humans? Isn’t it arrogant? are humans that great? Why are the Vulcans treated with such disdain. What happened to diversity? People take the Klingons seriously, and they are a bunch of primitives who still use knives in fights. And the Bajorans too.

        You know, in a way the whole attitude of Star Trek sometimes tends to be condescending toward all non-human cultures.

      2. Regarding Micha’s question, how long this has been the case is debatable. Some would say it goes back to DS9’s seventh season, when Sisko has a rivalry with a Vulcan captain who’d been at the academy with him.

        Arguably, though, its been under the scenes forever. As Bill mentioned, Spock has had moderate dìçk-ish tendencies since Day 1, and his parents’ first apparence established that Spock was bullied for his mixed racial heritage.

        Before Enterprise, the only Vulcans we ever saw in any detail at all were Spock and Tuvok, so it can be argued that they were always jerkwads and we just never saw enough of them to realize.

        Parenthetically, one of the few things I unreservedly liked about the new Star Trek was the relationship between Spock, Sarek and Amanda. Avoiding plot spoilers, the scene where Sarek tells Spock why he married her was easily my favourite in the film.

  38. Saw Star Trek yesterday. I LOVED IT!

    I’m a long time Trek fan (since Next Gen, although I have seen most of the orignal Trek series) and….

    I thought this was the BEST STAR TREK MOVIE EVER.

    This movie brought back something the orignal series had, but the movies & other TV shows didn’t really have: FUN. It brought the fun back to Star Trek. This new movie felt like the orignal Star Trek series, but also brought something bold and new to it.

    All of the characters were perfect: especially Bones, Scotty, and Spock. (though, I thought everybody was really good in the movie and had great moments).

    This was everything I wanted out of this new movie AND MORE! Much, much, much, much more.

    I want this on Blu-ray NOW. Though, I also would like to see it at the thearter again. lol.

    Wow. Love this movie. Can’t wait to see it again. And I hope we get another new Star Trek soon! 🙂

    DF2506
    ” This movie also makes me want to run out and buy Star Trek Season 1 on Blu-ray! Too bad I don’t have the money for it right now…*sigh* “

  39. Ok, I do have one question about the movie: Why was a mining ship so incredibly well armed? And after all those battles, how did they still have enough to do the damage they did. Did they make their own torpedoes? Do star ships ever run out of torpedoes in these movies? (One advantage of phasers — you just have to have plenty of power to keep going!)

    Iowa Jim

    1. Oh, we get to nitpick it now? Well, if you really want to nitpick something, how about Delta Vega being so close to Vulcan to be able to see it like it was a nearby moon, but not be affected by it’s collapsing – or for that matter that it was at least several minutes or more away at high warp.

      🙂

    2. I assumed those torpedoes were actually small mining units (repurposed to mine a ship into little pieces).

    3. I think those were mining thingies they were using as weapons, but the prequel/sequel comic mini-series (with a story by the film’s writers so it’s as close to official as you’re gonna get) establishes that Nero’s ship is a hybrid of Romulan and Borg technology (that’s why it’s so dámņ big). The ship does look slightly Borg-ish. The viewscreens had that green Borg vibe.

  40. I have watched every Star Trek.

    I loved this movie and will probably go see it again. I was reminded of DC Comics Power Girl (how the universe tried to fix itself to account for her being there). It seemed the universe did its part to thrust the original crew back together.

    Not the least bit worried about Chekov’s age. In my thinking, the Butterfly Effect from 25 years prior (when Kirk was born) may have had some impact on when Chekov’s parents had him.

    I put it up there with Wrath of Khan and First Contact.

  41. Trekkie geekitude, and several serious spoilers, follow:

    Mark L, I’m with you. Delta Vega is nowhere NEAR Vulcan — that was where Gary Mitchell was “marooned”, and it’s near the edge of the galaxy. It is not a moon of Vulcan. Am I misremembering that Vulcan has no moon? I have to admit I was a bit confused about this point in the movie (spoiler alert) — Kirk gets marooned there, spends some time on Delta Vega avoiding monsters, finding Spock, and exploring the station, and the Enterprise is __still__ close enough to beam to?!? Did I miss something? I didn’t think even Scotty’s brilliant beaming equation could get them beamed across light years!

    Another nitpick is Chekov’s age. He claimed to be 22 in “Who Mourns for Adonais?” and Kirk claimed to be 34 in “Lonely Years”, both season 2 episodes. I would have placed Kirk at maybe 25, making Chekov 13… Maybe that’s just my problem. I guess Kirk is 29 in this movie.

    The Chekov thing does tie up a loose end from Wrath of Khan, though… This movie puts Chekov on the Enterprise when Khan appeared in Space Seed, even though Chekov didn’t appear until the next season. So Khan can indeed remember Chekov when this was actually a semi-discontinuity back in 1982.

    One more thing. Remember Spock’s reaction when the Intrepid blew up in “Immunity Syndrome”? He was, well, freaked out by the death of 400 Vulcans. (spoiler alert again) SIX BILLION VULCANS died… and I would categorize Spock’s reaction as “stoic”, at least at the time of the event. Huh? He should have had some sort of physiological effect, at the very least.

    I loved McCoy and Scotty. Kirk was great, too. Spock, I’m not entirely sold on. ZQ (great initials, BTW) had big shoes to fill, though, and I’m willing to give him another movie to fill them.

    That said… I liked it. I liked it a lot. Continuity errors are really “in the noise” — it’s just fun to point them out.

    It is most definitely a New Trek. They can go anywhere with it now, without further offending any Trekker/Trekkie’s sensibilities… that cat is already out of the bag.

    ~DM

  42. Pingback: Star Trek: expectativas conflitantes « O Telhado de Vidro

  43. Well, for my 2 cents: I liked it well enough; great action scenes, a few laughs, and all the actors did well.

    My one gripe is that, to me, this kind of feels like an ‘imaginary story’, like if Lex Luthor finally learns the secret identity of Superman or the like.

    They do establish that, thanks to the Romulan’s meddling with the time stream, this is a new time line.

    Its like how I feel about the Ultimate Marvel universe and the ‘standard’ Marvel Universe; the Ultimate line was a great idea, and I really enjoy most of the titles set in it. It will always be the ‘secondary’ marvel universe to me, and not the ‘real’ one.

    The Star Trek of the Original Series on will always be the ‘real’ timeline, although from now on the movies will focus on this ‘alternate’ timeline, which does seem like kind of a let down to me.

    That being said, I do look forward to what J.J. will do with the sequels (the ‘return’ of the Doomsday Machine maybe? ^_^).

    1. And that’s ok.. for a whole new generation, this is their main Star Trek. We’ll always have our pre-Crisis Star Trek.

  44. Well, if you really want to get obsessive about alternate timelines, you could argue that every Star Trek story since “Where No Man Has Gone Before” is an alternate timeline because that one featured James R. Kirk, a different doctor, and Scotty wasn’t an engineer.
    .
    PAD

    1. And Sulu wasn’t a navigator, he was an astrophysicist.

      I loved how you tied in “Where No Man Has Gone Before” with Imzadi (a must-read)

    2. Well, don’t get me wrong, even if it is an ‘alternate timeline’ I still enjoyed the movie, and am eagerly looking forward to whatever comes next.

      However, seeing what they did with this movie makes me feel very sorry for the writers of the last season of ‘Enterprise’.

      During then, the writers were actually working within the established ‘future history’ of the show to provide some dámņ good stories (we got to see a deeper look into Vulcan culture/history, touched on the relationship of martian colonists to pre-federation earth, and even FINALLY got a good explanation for the differences between the smooth/bumpy forehead Klingons ^_^).

      If only they had had those writers from Season 1 then maybe it would have lasted. I’m not sure what the ‘official’ story is, but it now seems like ‘Enterprise” may be yet another alternate timeline.

  45. Anyone else get a Simpsons-Moment vibe off of this (spoilers included, for those who care)…
    .
    When Captain Pike turned command over to Spock, fair enough, but when he then turned to Kirk, the lowest-ranked person on board, who was about to leave the ship on a suicide mission, and made him 2ic, all I could think about was the Simpsons episode spoofing Crimson Tide. You know, the one were the Captain randomly puts Homer in charge while he wanders off?

    1. One thing (among several) that bugged me about this movie was how there was no sort of procedure or chain of command. Uhura was assigned to the Farragut — but a few sentences and she’s moved to Enterprise literally as the ships are taking off. Kirk wasn’t an officer and had been in the middle of a hearing about violating ethics — and he’s made first officer. Scotty had just beamed on board, the only one who could vouch for him was Kirk, and during the big finale he’s apparently in charge of enginnering ‘cuz he’s the one they’re talking to about the ship instead of the Chief Engineer. There was apparently no first officer after Spock relieved himself of duty — despite a full bridge crew and, y’know, hundreds of other folks on deck. Oh yes, how dumb is it for the captain to leave the ship in the middle of a crisis? (For that matter, why beam into a very dangerous situation without at least a few security guards — or McCoy, in case Pike needed immediate medical assistance?)

      1. Because they were letting the characters drive the story rather than the structure. That makes it easier to move the story to where they wanted it to go. How else do you explain giving a three-year cadet the captaincy of the flagship?

        You are right that it’s one of many sticking points, but it’s the very structure they were trying to jettison in this movie. Just tell a good story without all the technobabble and be done with it. It’s sloppier than Trek fans are used to dealing with, but you can be sloppy and tell a good story.

      2. I may have misunderstood, but I was under the impression that the vast majority of people on the ship were cadets or first year graduates. That this was initially a training mission similar to “Wrath of Khan” and the Enterprise got pressed into service. That the only guy on the ship with serious history was Pike. Which would basically mean that–considering they were all on the same level–it’s not particularly outrageous that Pike (who obviously had huge faith in Kirk) would make a field promotion of Kirk to First Officer, or that Scotty–once he was aboard ship–would actually be senior in rank to whoever was running the engine room.
        .
        That was my assumption which is why none of the events you’re citing bothered me. If I was wrong, then I’d probably have the same objections.
        .
        PAD

      3. Yeap, the vast majority of the crew were cadets (the experienced doctor dies, and McCoy’s left in charge, Sulu botches the launch and the only reaction is raised eyebrows, Kirk deduction of the threat saves the ship and gets him a field promotion).

  46. I have a serious love/hate relationship with this movie. I’ve been an “old school” Trekkie ever since I was a little girl. Spock was even the first childhood “crush” that I can remember. I simply thought that Nimoy hung the moon.

    Any show that Nimoy was on, I was sitting in front of the TV watching. It is in fact some of my earliest memories of watching “In Search Of” with my parents and asking my mother why Spock wasn’t wearing his ears.

    Years later this same young girl would be found spending her allowance money on comic books and novels…every one that she could get her hands on. There are such fond memories of me sitting on the porch swing during a rainy summer afternoons reading those books and loosing myself in the Star Trek Universe. (We didn’t have cable, Internet or VCRs back then. You depended on your imagination for entertainment.)

    ***spoilers ahead

    Star Trek has been a life long source of mental “comfort food” for me. I loved everything about the reboot of Star Trek EXCEPT that they had to do this whole space-time continuum thing.

    It is insulting….if not a bit violating that everything that we know about the Star Trek Universe is out the window. I went into this movie willing to make many…MANY allowances to give it a creative girth to thrive in. Truly, I was excited about it.

    Though now, Vulcan is gone. Vulcans themselves are now an “endangered species”. All of those novels (some brilliantly written) are irrelevant. That to me is insulting. And yes, I will admit that perhaps I am taking that aspect too seriously.

    For the record, I have never been a “hard-core” Trekkie…I am pleased to say that I do not speak a single word of Klingon. It isn’t a fetish for me, though these characters have had my life long affections.

    The Star Trek Universe has been one of my retreats when I need to escape for a few hours from life. Its familiarity has always been comforting to me.

    I also used to read the X-Men “X Titles”. I was a loyal comic book collector for over twelve years. Then they pulled the same stunt of taking all of the titles back to zero and “start over” again…as though none of it ever happened. Within six months I had stopped collecting comic books completely. Sure they were the “same” characters, but it didn’t transpose with me.

    I have a fear of this happening now with Star Trek as well. I loved everything about this movie…EXCEPT what they did to the storyline. I simply do not see that something so drastic was needed to ensure creative license for future movies.

  47. I didn’t like the movie. I say this not as a jaded Star trek fan, but as a jaded movie-goer. Movies nowadays are getting so lazily written it’s really making it hard to enjoy but a handful a year. I’ve now adopted a 3 Just-so-happened rule. If the plot dictates that something Just So Happened more then three times I just think it is a bad movie. Spiderman 3 was the movie that made me make this rule. The whole script was written were everything happened like there were only 6 people in all of the City. The meteor lands right next to Spiderman. Every hostage is someone Spiderman knows. Every bad guy is someone Spiderman knows. Everyone is always exactly where they need to be for everything to happen.

    Star trek was more of this. From the opening scene where Nero just happened to appear where he did. (which should have COMPLETELY changed Kirks life and not have put him exactly where he would have been anyway 20 years later. Something i always hated about alternate reality storylines)
    Then when Kirk was kicked off the ship (really? there was no brig? Noone stopped this?) and just happened to land where he did to find who he did and then THEY just happened to be in walking distance to who THEY found..

    This to me is worse then Spiderman 3 because whereas that was at least focused on one city, the thing about space is.. IT’S INDESCRIBABLY HUGE. So are planets. Even moons. Some movies escape this by calling it Destiny and Fate.. but Star Trek wasn’t claining that. It just hoped everyone overlooked it. Like movies are doing more and more these days. The sad thing is, most of these things could have been easily fixed. Distress signals and future knowledge of where old friends would have been at the time could have made things work logicly instead of talking down to the audience.

  48. Yotsuyasan said, “How would such an (initially) small change as what happened cause such massive delay (about 20 years) in the construction of the Enterprise?”
    .
    Unless I missed something, the Enterprise wasn’t newly constructed; it was just one of the ships in spacedock.
    .
    Thom said, “Jim Kirk is a really immature 29 year old.”
    .
    No, he’s 25. He reminded Pike that 25 years earlier, the day he was born, a similar phenomenon happened. So he’s 25.
    .
    Unless he was rounding. And rounding down because he didn’t like the idea of turning 30.
    .
    PAD,
    .
    Scotty was the engineer in “Where No Man Has Gone Before.” He told Kirk when he and the other department heads assembled on the bridge, “engineering department ready as always, captain.”
    .
    As to the presence of Dr. Piper, he either preceded McCoy or was a temporary substitute. I know the Piper/McCoy chronology has been addressed in both the 1980s DC Comics Star Trek series and in the Pocket Books novels. As I recall, one story had Piper coming first, while another had Piper as a temporary replacement while McCoy dealt with some business back on Earth (related to his divorce, I believe).
    .
    By the way, with regard to the original series, I maintain that “Where No Man Has Gone Before” should be the first of Kirk’s aired adventures. True, it was broadcast third, but not only was it made before the series proper, but the changes in costumes and set decorations are a bit too jarring to put it after any of the other episodes. One can argue production order vs. aired order with regard to other episodes, but to me, “Where No Man Has Gone Before” came first for Kirk.
    .
    As to arguments of this new iteration vs. the original timeline, there are only five alternatives regarding a return to the Star Trek universe on either the big or small screen: Another pre-Kirk prequel, like Enterprise; a Picard-era movie with either the Next Generation, Deep Space Nine or Voyager crews; a completely new crew in Kirk’s era; a completely new crew in Picard’s; or what we got, a reboot of the original Star Trek.
    .
    Let’s analyze these choices. First, why bother with another pre-Kirk era ship and crew? Besides, something like that is in many ways a reboot anyway; why not just start at the beginning, with Kirk and Spock, if you’re going to reboot Star Trek?
    .
    Personally, I’d have no problem seeing a Deep Space Nine movie (the Next Generation films have run their course, in my opinion; and I have no desire to see a Voyager film). However, as good as Deep Space Nine was, to the general public, Star Trek is Kirk and crew (though some may know of Picard). If the goal is to get people in the theater seats– whether fans of any or all of the Star Trek series or not– going with a continuation of one of the later shows is probably not the way.
    .
    As to the idea of new crews in either Kirk’s or Picard’s eras, why bother? If a story takes place in Kirk’s era, then most people want to see Captain Kirk and his crew, not say, Captain Church and his (or her) crew. And Picard’s era is crowded enough as is.
    .
    To my way of thinking, a reboot of the original cast was the best route to take with regard to bringing Star Trek back in either film or TV. One can argue whether Star Trek needed to be brought back, but that’s another discussion. But let’s suppose this movie had never been made, that Star Trek (on film or TV) remained dormant for another decade or two. I’d suspect that anyone wanting to reintroduce it would go back to the beginning, to Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc.
    .
    Meanwhile, the original series is still out there. For some Basil Rathbone was The Sherlock Holmes; for others, it was Jeremy Brett. To name just two of the actors to have played the role. Likewise, various people have their preferred actor as Batman, Superman or James Bond. And all are free to watch the films or TV series they want and ignore the others. Myself, I grew up loving the original series. Doesn’t mean I won’t also love this new version. But if I don’t, the original series is still there.
    .
    Rick

  49. I loved, loved, LOVED it. Karl Urban was utterly uncanny and perfect as McCoy without ever slipping into “impersonation” mode. Loved the Spock/Uhura thing. Got weepy when Leonard Nimoy turned around in the ice cave. And the little teeny bits of business–remember in Star Trek II when Kirk and company are trapped underground on the Genesis planet and Kirk, explaining how he reprogrammed the Kobayashi Maru, is eating an apple? And then in the new one he’s eating an apple during the KM? HEE! Genius. They did it JUST right. All of it. I’m a happy nerd.

  50. I loved it. I was in a snarky post-semester mood. (We profs can get that way at the end of term.) I hardly ever go to movies anymore. Didn’t know much about this one, but went in with low expectations and one hope: Please don’t suck.

    I laughed. I was caught up in the drama. (Didn’t like shaky camera, but I didn’t get motion sickness). Laughed some more. I got choked up at the end voice-over. There was applause in the theater when we went to credits. I want to see it again now that I know the basic story line. Lots of nods to the original. Lots of the “feel” of the original trek. It did seem at times that the crew played fast and loose with the procedures. I cannot imagine one leaving one’s post at the helm to go fix a problem elsewhere. On a ship with computers, you’d think some of that could be done remotely….
    But overall, I can let those things go since the overall story seemed good.

    This may give the Trek enterprise exactly what it needed: a return to the roots while allowing for plotlies that go in new directions.

    $8.50 well spent.

Comments are closed.