Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I liked the movie alot. I will agree with others about Spock. However I was looking at this as still a building block for Spock. Maybe this is why he doesn't show so much emotion now.

Great movie thou!
 
I'm a huge Star Trek fan. I have not seen every single Voyager or Enterprise episode, but I've probably seen everything else at least twice. I've probably watched the Wrath of Kahn 20 times and is my favorite Star Trek movie, though after watching Star Trek the other night, I may have a new favorite.

The new movie was amazing IMHO. I wasn't quite sure what to expect since the reviews were so good so I searched for as many poor reviews as I could find. After reading Roger Ebert's review, I was successfully brought back down to earth. I am a big Ebert fan, though after watching Star Trek, I have to say he doesn't know anything about Star Trek and was probably one of the worst reviews he's ever done.

I know Spock is getting a lot of heat, but I thought it was perfect. I don't recall it being said in any previous movie/tv show that he was purly logical his ENTIRE life and never went through emotional growth. Don't forget that Spock looses his home planet and his mother. Like Old Spock said, he was "emotionally compromised". He gives himself quite a bit of advice at the end of the movie too which I'm sure will change him slightly from the original Spock. I think a truly hybrid human/vulcan is more interesting than a straight vulcan anyway. I also think it's awesome that the one girl Kirk couldn't get ended up being Spock's girlfriend! Brilliant!!

As for everything else, I could go on and on but I don't have the time.
 
I didn't have a problem with Spock's reaction to the loss of his planet and his mother... those revealed the conflict of emotions in being human and Vulcan. And, it was germane to the plot overall (and somewhat consistent with Spock as we know him).

What struck me as out of place was his unabashed emotional involvement with Ohura. There was no conflict presented at all. While some will see this as a good thing and something to build on moving forward, to me it was foreign and unnatural. He had gone through the whole purging thing on Vulcan so we (I) expected him to be more Spock-like. Perhaps this was part of his 'rebellion' and attempt to embrace his humanity. But it was sandwiched between the purging on Vulcan (loss of emotion) and the destruction of his planet and death of his mother (full emotion), so there was no real explanation given for his behavior.

Just my opinion. It was the only real "hmmmm" I had about the movie. Other than that... I liked it a lot. Again, thin plot/bad guy, but the character development of the crew was the important part.

As far as Kirk being too cocky... that is exactly the Kirk I would expect to see

Woof, Woof - Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
^+1 to that post. The relationship with Uhura came out of deep space.

In regards to Kirk... If he ain't being brash and cocky, then it's not Kirk.

This says it all...

awesome-kirk.jpg
 
What struck me as out of place was his unabashed emotional involvement with Ohura. There was no conflict presented at all. While some will see this as a good thing and something to build on moving forward, to me it was foreign and unnatural. He had gone through the whole purging thing on Vulcan so we (I) expected him to be more Spock-like. ]

As far as I can remember, Spock has been away from Vulcan quite a long time before Kirk arrives. I know the movie made it seem like they were the exact same age and got there around the same time, but I'm pretty sure Spock is quite a bit older (like 8-15 years older). You could blame it on the fact that with the destruction of the Kelvin at the beginning, everything after that is no longer the original Star Trek universe, but I see it as something that started out as a secret (they hide their first encounter we see) and toward the end they are much more open about it after Spock allows himself to feel emotion more than he might have if his mother had not of died and Vulcan destroyed.
 
I was watching some of the original series and saw this in Season 1 Episode 3
As Kirk battles the 'bad guy' the villain makes a grave appear with a tombstone

jamesrkirk.png


It immediately struck me that the middle initial appears to be "R"
James R. Kirk, not the familiar James T. Kirk

Just thought that was interesting in light of the "James Tiberius Kirk" we have all known over the years


Woof, Woof - Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
The characters remained true to form enough so that you can see how they would become the characters of the 70's sitcom. They were too freaking young for my tastes, and much of the development into the Enterprise crew was rushed and coincidental.

60's and it was a drama, not a sitcom.
 
The new movie was amazing IMHO. I wasn't quite sure what to expect since the reviews were so good so I searched for as many poor reviews as I could find. After reading Roger Ebert's review, I was successfully brought back down to earth. I am a big Ebert fan, though after watching Star Trek, I have to say he doesn't know anything about Star Trek and was probably one of the worst reviews he's ever done.

I like Roger Ebert. I think he's a pretty good film critic in the general sense and I agree with him most of the time. He also does a lot for movies other than just reviewing them.

The thing I don't like about Roger Ebert is that he misses plot points. I can't count the number of times he points out a perceived flaw in the plot that was explained in the movie itself. It's not just for the sci fi pew pew type movies, but across the full range of movie making. I can forgive him for it because the guy probably watches an insane number of movies a week, but it's evident to me that he doesn't get into the average movie like the rest of us do.

Here's what I mean:
The logic is also a little puzzling when Scotty can beam people into another ship in outer space, but they have to physically parachute to land on a platform in the air from which the Romulans are drilling a hole to the Earth’s core.

Yo, what are you talking about, Roger? They jumped down to the platform (poor redshirt) because the platform was jamming the transporter in order to disable it. Scotty and his crazy tech hasn't even shown up in the movie yet. BTW, Scotty was great, but that supertransporter stuff has to go.
 
I was watching some of the original series and saw this in Season 1 Episode 3
As Kirk battles the 'bad guy' the villain makes a grave appear with a tombstone

…

It immediately struck me that the middle initial appears to be "R"
James R. Kirk, not the familiar James T. Kirk

Just thought that was interesting in light of the "James Tiberius Kirk" we have all known over the years

Third episode broadcast, but that was actually the second pilot for the series (the Shatner pilot, following the rejected Jeffrey Hunter pilot), which is why you'll notice the costumes are also odd. Little details like middle initials had not yet been carved in stone, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

*slinks back into the nerd closet*
 
So I just saw the film last night. I've always been a TNG fan, I also like Voyager (less than TNG, definitely had its cheesy moments, but overall I liked it). Never really got into TOS, DS9 or Enterprise.

I definitely agree with the "Michael Bay! Michael Bay!" comment early on in this thread. I think blockbuster movies in general are all getting silly but hey, it was fun to watch.

I also liked how the Enterprise came in near the end of the movie with guns a-blazing. This always bothered me about the confrontations with alien warships in the TV series. The entire battle with the Kelvin seemed to me like one giant wink to people who remember the standard "formula" for Trek battles: Federation ship meets big, nasty enemy ship. Awkward silence. Captain orders "Red Alert, shields up". Enemy ship starts to fire. Captain does nothing. Shields are knocked down by half within 2 or 3 shots. Captain orders "evasive pattern"+(name of fraternity) but does not order return fire. Enemy ship fires again. "Our shields can't take another hit sir!" Enterprise finally fires back one shot. "Our weapons had no effect!" Enemy ship fires a third time. Shields, weapons are knocked offline. Add steam vents, exploding panels, flying crew members, hull breaches as needed.

I always wondered how the Federation became any kind of galactic superpower when it was clearly outgunned by pretty much everybody else out there.
 
Saw the film and it was pretty good...better than expected. True to all characters. Uhara was the weird character for me...wasn't really like the original i remember and her relationship with Spock looked awkward each scene...overall...meh

Scotty was the best casting for me followed by Bones, Kirk & Spock. Chekov wasn't far behind either

Overall i give the movie 8/10 because i expected the last battle to be more...'epic' and the uhara thing
 
Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by the film.

I was impressed by the last scene (iirc) of the film, with Kirk coming onto the bridge of the Enterprise - I thought the actor nailed the characterization of the Kirk we're used to, but with his stamp on the character also. Overall, I thought the level of Kirk's cockiness was just right (throughout the movie).

I liked the new take on Spock, and really with the whole "alternate timeline" plot device, there is plenty of room to tweak the classic character(s).

Supporting cast was good - particularly Bones, Scotty and Pike.
 
Personally, I didn't want to see the movie, but my mother on mothers day was going to watch it by herself because she does that.. Anyways, I went with her and I REALLY enjoyed the movie. I actually want to watch it a second time..
 
After seeing it Saturday morning, I wish I hadn't. They could have done so much more with this film, but instead had to be lazy and resort once again to time travel/alternate reality mastodon excrement to explain everything away. To me, that just screams that they don't care about continuity or accuracy. Don't get me wrong, under the right circumstances it makes sense (see: First Contact), but it seems in recent years and offerings it's way overdone, beaten to death, and used as a cop-out for not doing one's homework.

Red Matter: plot device, do not touch. Got it.

Nero: What happened to the real villains like Khan or even Chang from Undiscovered Country? This guy looks and acts like he moonlights in the UFC or on some fake wrestling program. Other than the trite and cliched tattooing, there is absolutely nothing remarkable about this guy.

Kirk: 8/10. I thought his arrogance was a little over the top at times, but overall a decent nod to Shatner's portrayal, but at least there wasn't any bad overacting.
Bones: Perfectly done. Someone needs to give that guy a bonus.
Scotty: Nicely done, but a little too...happy.
Chekov: Also perfectly done, except this time he wasn't looking for noocleear wessels.
Sulu: Meh.
Uhura: Nicely done.
Spock: One could almost argue that this film was more about the development of Spock than any other character, Kirk included. I would have liked to see more of the human/Vulcan conflict trying to resolve itself, since apparently in this timeline Spock will not be returning to Vulcan to undergo the Kohlinahr training (between TOS and The Motion Picture).
 
He had gone through the whole purging thing on Vulcan so we (I) expected him to be more Spock-like. Perhaps this was part of his 'rebellion' and attempt to embrace his humanity.

If you're referring to the Kolinahr, Spock didn't go through that ritual until the beginning of Star Trek: The Motion Picture which took place after the five year mission. Furthermore, eventhough he completed the Way of Kolinahr he stopped the elder from giving him the medallion because he sensed V-ger lurking in deep space.
 
They could have done so much more with this film, but instead had to be lazy and resort once again to time travel/alternate reality mastodon excrement to explain everything away.

To be honest, it does seem a little lazy at first, but time travel has been a staple of Star Trek for a very long time and they are always screwing with the timeline with very little damage done. This is the first time that I can recall that messing with the timeline actually did some major damage and it wasn't reversed. When Vulcan was destroyed, I automatically thought "oh well, they'll go back and fix everything" and I was completely wrong, and I'm glad. It didn't feel like the only goal was to "explain everything away" at all.

This is like Star Trek mixed with some Battlestar Gallactica reality of "nothing goes perfectly." I think it is a brilliant way to bring the same story of Star Trek to people in the 21st century that would not appreciate the happy-go-lucky feeling of TNG and everything getting neatly fixed in the end.

I'm also forgiving just for the fact that there have been over 700 episodes and 10 movies set in the Star Trek universe. That's a lot of history to be constantly thinking about. I'm perfectly fine with them tweaking it a little bit.
 
They could have done so much more with this film, but instead had to be lazy and resort once again to time travel/alternate reality mastodon excrement to explain everything away. To me, that just screams that they don't care about continuity or accuracy. Don't get me wrong, under the right circumstances it makes sense (see: First Contact), but it seems in recent years and offerings it's way overdone, beaten to death, and used as a cop-out for not doing one's homework.
Time travel as a plot device might be played out in the Star Trek films, but the point of this film was to be a re-boot. How else could this be accomplished except by time travel? If they started from the original film and onwards, they'd have to stick almost 100% to the established canon.

On the bridge, Quinto/Spock actually explained the whole point of the movie and the necessity of time travel as a plot device again: Nero had changed things in such a way that an alternate reality was created. Where Kirk argued that they should be unpredictable to Nero (because Nero would presumably know exactly what happened... like the fans), Spock argued that they could make decisions outside (4th-wall here) of the established canon because the future in this alternate reality was no longer bound to Nero and Old Spock's future. There are parallels and maybe even clues you could transfer from Star Trek to Lost... but that's a different thread.

In any case, time travel as a plot device was necessary (again, 4th wall) to allow the filmmakers -some- creative license to fit the established canon to their own vision of the Star Trek universe while at the same time paying homage to it.

I loved it. 9.5/10

If you view this film as a proper re-boot of the franchise, you'll see that time travel was not only brilliant use of an established plot device, but necessary as well.
 
If you view this film as a proper re-boot of the franchise, you'll see that time travel was not only brilliant use of an established plot device, but necessary as well.

Necessary yes, brilliant no.

The film still wreaks of new aged Hollywood gloss, but it does hold the film to the traditions of the original genre without destroying it completely then stuffing it full of new ideas.
 
Time travel as a plot device might be played out in the Star Trek films, but the point of this film was to be a re-boot. How else could this be accomplished except by time travel? If they started from the original film and onwards, they'd have to stick almost 100% to the established canon.
ST: The Motion Picture took place after TOS and the 5 year mission. This film was set well before TOS. Regardless of wanting to go off in a completely different direction (and invalidating TOS and 7 films along the way I might add), there's still hordes of space (pardon the pun) available to tell the story of how Kirk became Kirk: his Academy years, which were glossed over here, and his tours aboard the Republic and Farragut, as examples.

stonyc said:
On the bridge, Quinto/Spock actually explained the whole point of the movie and the necessity of time travel as a plot device again: Nero had changed things in such a way that an alternate reality was created. Where Kirk argued that they should be unpredictable to Nero (because Nero would presumably know exactly what happened... like the fans), Spock argued that they could make decisions outside (4th-wall here) of the established canon because the future in this alternate reality was no longer bound to Nero and Old Spock's future. There are parallels and maybe even clues you could transfer from Star Trek to Lost... but that's a different thread.
That's a circular argument and weak sauce. It boils away to "we changed things so we could change things". To quote James Doohan, "if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon."

stonyc said:
In any case, time travel as a plot device was necessary (again, 4th wall) to allow the filmmakers -some- creative license to fit the established canon to their own vision of the Star Trek universe while at the same time paying homage to it.
What's the point of telling a story if you're not going to do it correctly? Why not hire the writers to redo Star Wars where random Jedi from the future go back in time to kill Anakin before he can become Darth Vader? Sounds absurd, doesn't it?

stonyc said:
If you view this film as a proper re-boot of the franchise, you'll see that time travel was not only brilliant use of an established plot device, but necessary as well.
I can get behind the rebooting idea, especially given that we've lost two of the original actors. I just think that they way they did it was cheap and lazy.
 
I loved it. Spock and Uhura, Bones made the movie for me. I never did like Kirk much but the fun in the old series was in watching the interaction between the main characters. This movie made a great effort in giving me that. I will be getting it on blu-ray when it comes out.
 
Regardless of wanting to go off in a completely different direction (and invalidating TOS and 7 films along the way I might add), there's still hordes of space (pardon the pun) available to tell the story of how Kirk became Kirk: his Academy years, which were glossed over here, and his tours aboard the Republic and Farragut, as examples.

What's the point of telling a story if you're not going to do it correctly? Why not hire the writers to redo Star Wars where random Jedi from the future go back in time to kill Anakin before he can become Darth Vader? Sounds absurd, doesn't it?

Invalidating? Correct storytelling?

Seems to me that you're upset because the story that was told was not the story you wanted them to tell.

The telling and retelling of stories, particularly adventures, is a part of the human experience since time immemorial. Every Greek hero and Olympian has several versions of his story and these types of variations exist in almost all cultures.

Why should the rest of us be beholden to your idea of what is correct for Kirk, Spock and crew? Where's YOUR imagination, creativity and for that matter, tolerance, in allowing us to accept this group of story teller's "what if"?
 
Invalidating? Correct storytelling?

Seems to me that you're upset because the story that was told was not the story you wanted them to tell.

The telling and retelling of stories, particularly adventures, is a part of the human experience since time immemorial. Every Greek hero and Olympian has several versions of his story and these types of variations exist in almost all cultures.

Why should the rest of us be beholden to your idea of what is correct for Kirk, Spock and crew? Where's YOUR imagination, creativity and for that matter, tolerance, in allowing us to accept this group of story teller's "what if"?
I was going to reply with something similar, but couldn't quite find the right words.

I understand what you were getting at Corvus... time travel, again?

I just don't see how else they could accomplish a "re-boot" of the series, any other way. If their intention was to "re-tell" the Star Trek canon, I could see why some would be upset... but the game is now changed. Don't get me wrong, sometimes riding the same roller coaster is not a lot of fun... but sometimes it is (Millenium force at Cedar Point, anyone? Anyone ever tried riding it at closing time with almost no lights?).
 
I understand what you were getting at Corvus... time travel, again?

Here are some excerpts from an interview with the writers. I'm glad to know that they expect this to be the last of time travel in Star Trek.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/30/interview-roberto-orci-alex-kurtzman/

the problem becomes that we know the fate of the characters from The Original Series. So if you are going to breathe new life into Trek, how do you do it while making it unpredictable? If you know how they die, you can never put them into real jeopardy. That led us to where if we altered the timeline we can tell a whole new set of stories with our characters.

We always felt that Star Trek fans can handle paradoxes and multiple interesting thoughts. Yeah, that is why we couldn’t say ‘no’ once we hit upon the idea of it being both a prequel and a sequel. It is literally a film for two audiences. If you know Trek, then you understand where it all comes from. If you aren’t, it acts very much as a prequel.

We hesitated to use time travel, because it was so used. However, it was such an important reason to use it — to have both a prequel and a sequel — to maintain canon, yet free us up. Despite its overuse, we thought ‘let’s use it one more time before we put it away, and then not use it again.’ It was also the only way to justify the level of involvement that we felt for Nimoy to be a genuinely active participant in the movie. And that was worth it and specific enough that it didn’t feel like a gimmick. So we allowed ourselves to use it to jump off.
 
I've never really gotten into Star Trek, but I loved the movie. Seems some of the die-hard fans are a bit upset with it, but there is no pleasing those people.

I'm planning on seeing the other 10 films now. I remember seeing some of them when I was younger.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.