Content Removed

I liked it for it was a good movie.  Alot of action, with familiar characters.  They rewrote alot of history (for the hardcore Trekkies) so if that is important to you, then you won't like it much.  It was interesting as a stand alone movie, even if you don't get all the inside jokes.  There are some appearances of actors that are surprising, and some that are very well acted.

I just got back from seeing it.  And frankly, I think it rather sucked.

And this is comming from somebody that has seen all 10 Star Trek movies on opening night.

In fact, I am having a hard time deciding which was worse, this one or Star Trek V: The Search for Spocks Unknown Brother & God.

How to begin...  It is in many ways more like a "Mirror Universe" Star Trek.  The action takes place entirely in another reality.  The ages and backgrounds are hopelessly skewed, and it fits nowhere in any of the previously established cannon.  Ages were vastly skewed (Spock, Kirk, Scott, Urura, Sulu, and McCoy are all shown to be around the same age).  It also introduces things that are not in keeping with the original series.  In Enterprise, they were careful to make sure you never saw Romulans.  This is because until the Original Star Trek, they were never seen.  But in this one, it is common knowledge that they were related to Vulcans.

They also has other problems.  The Enterprise being built in Iowa, flying cadets up to multiple starships to fly into battle (What, do the ships normally fly around with half crews, requiring replacements before they can fight?), wondering why there is a giant ball of "Red Matter", when a single drop is enough to destroy a sun, escaping from a Black Hole's gravitational field, an explosion pushing a starship out of the effect of a black hole, the list goes on and on.

I should say, it is not a really bad movie, as much as it is a bad Star Trek movie.  But I came closer today to walking out then I have in a long long time.  The last movie I walked out of was "The Nanny", this was almost as bad.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/star-trek39-has-whopping-765-million-opening-ap;_ylt=Aj5rYLWR3Xev48W0OeDH31lfVXcA

Wow.

The Enterprise being built in Iowa, flying cadets up to multiple starships to fly into battle (What, do the ships normally fly around with half crews, requiring replacements before they can fight?),

Why wouldn't they just beam the cadets up? ???

Why wouldn't they just beam the cadets up? ???


Ion storms create interference that prevent a transporter lock.

  I walked into this flick with no expectations.  I pretty much liked it although, officially, I hate-hate-hate time travel, alternate reality and interdimensional stuff.  I like stuff to take place here, now and in this dimension.  I've always thought it an all too convenient cop-out.  Now that's out of the way...

  It's an origin story set against a common revenge tale.  I was too preoccupied with studying Kirk, Spock, Sulu, Uhura, Sarek and Chekov to notice the rest of the story.  That will take a second, maybe a third, screening...

  You have to tread very carefully with these remakes.  It's easy to cross over into eyeball rolling territory (George Lucas), but I think they pulled it off pretty good.  Um, leave the entire Leonard Nimoy thing on the cutting room floor.  Problem is if you do that you cut out a major plot device which goes back to the alternate universe thing which I hate.  Hmm...

  Bottom line I came out of the theater smiling and not frowning.  I mean, hey...it's Star Trek and not that infernal Next Generation... 8-P

   

  Alternate realities and parallel universe: I have no idea why screenwriters feel the need to keep recycling that tired plot device.  It's sooo boring...

Why wouldn't they just beam the cadets up? ???


Let's see.  Checkov was there, 17 years old.

Would you want untrained students in space?  How about taking an Intern and throwing him into surgery?  A Police Cadet, give her a gun, and throw her into a riot?

And they emptied "Star Fleet Academy".  Every single cadet went to battle.  How stupid.  What a waste.

Where in the hell did they put all of them if the ships had been fully staffed?  Imagine emptying Anapolis, and putting every midshipman onto a ship as an officer.  Not only would there a mess from people not knowing what in the heck they were doing, it would create a mess for the rank structure.

Not that Star Trek seems to have much of one.  Everybody is an Officer, and there is no need for enlisted.

Let's see.  Checkov was there, 17 years old.

Would you want untrained students in space?  How about taking an Intern and throwing him into surgery?  A Police Cadet, give her a gun, and throw her into a riot?

And they emptied "Star Fleet Academy".  Every single cadet went to battle.  How stupid.  What a waste.

Where in the hell did they put all of them if the ships had been fully staffed?  Imagine emptying Anapolis, and putting every midshipman onto a ship as an officer.  Not only would there a mess from people not knowing what in the heck they were doing, it would create a mess for the rank structure.

Not that Star Trek seems to have much of one.  Everybody is an Officer, and there is no need for enlisted.


  When everyone ran to their stations in the middle of training the first thing I thought was "Starship Troopers"...

Well from what I remember the main fleet was tied up somewhere else, and they needed to scratch up a new fleet to protect Vulcan.


Then where did all the ships come from?  In cluding Lexington and Enterprise, both Constitution Class cruisers?


A misconception that I had going in were that these were all 18 year olds. But Kirk is already 28, Spock is an established Commander, and the Enterprise does have a seasoned Captain- Pike. It's not too out of line. These cadets had finished their training and during an emergency would be called up for front line service. We send in troops into battle after what 2-6 months of Basic Training? During a war like WW2, Bomber and other crews did not have the luxury of waiting for a couple of years before being sent out.


But promoting somebody straight from Cadet to Captain?  That blew even my mind.  Never happen.  Naval Captain is something somebody reaches after maybe 20 years of service, not right out of training.

And sending troops into combat is different then Officers.  Officers get much more training then Enlisted get.

Not to mention, even Enlisted get more training then that.  2-4 months for Basic, then from 1-24 months of specialized training, depending on their job.  A Marine Rifleman gets about a month and a half extra training.  A PATRIOT radar tachnician gets about 10 months of additional training.


As for enlisted vs officers, I've noticed that too. The only enlisted person I knew was  Chief O'Brian of DS9. You'd think though that the person in charge of operating an entire space station would have a higher rank than Nogg (of course on ST any teenager on Star Fleet property automatically gets a commission) Of course by then you'd also figure they would've gotten rid of the gentleman system.     


You are right there.  Chief O'Brian was the only person you could identify as "Enlisted" during the entire Star Trek saga.

I remember way back in 1991, getting into debates in FidoNet about the rank structure of Star Trek.  In a nutshell, it is totally broken.

There are never any Enlisted shown, nor any NCOs.  For some reason, everybody seems to be an officer.  And for obvious reaons, that does not work.

Also, everybody seems to go to Starfleet Academy.  Once again, something that just would not work.

And it is obvious if you think about it.  There is need for all kinds of experience and training on a large Starship.  And why would you need 4+ years of training if somebody is simply going to cook?  Or repair the air conditioning?  Or transcribe the daily logs?

Amd that is not the only time they totally ignored the traditional Naval rank structure.

Wesley Crusher was made an "Acting Ensign" in TNG.  Within weeks of that happening, I remember arguing on Fido that the correct rank would have been Midshipman, not Ensign.  A Midshipman is a "rank" that traditionally could be given by a Captain for an officer in training.  It carries no authority, the carrier being addressed as "Mister", not "Sir".  Because they are outside of the chain of command, they can't give orders (unless under the active authority of a commissioned officer).

This happened all the time in Historic military organizations, as well as modern ones.  I have served with Cadets from West Point.  I address them as "Mister SMITH", and follow their orders, but I would not be penalized if I did not follow one.  Because legally, they have no authority over me.

I thought it was f**king awesome.

Has anyone seen it in IMAX version yet?  That is an option at my theater for about one more week and I wondered if it was really any different then regular screen.  I'm not sure if it costs more to see it in IMAX at my theater or not.

I'm seeing it this weekend behest of an old girlfriend...

;)

It has been decreed that we shall see it next weekend when the nerdboys in the audience dwindle to a manageable number :D

For those who've seen it, what do you think?




I really love the movie.  My brother and I grew up on watching Star Trek the Next Generation and Voyager, but never really seen the original Star Trek series.  Overall, I enjoyed every minute of it, especially for the fact that they can make a lot of squeals out of it.

I'm seeing it this weekend behest of an old girlfriend...

;)


  Or just skip the movie and take your ex home for some horizontal tennis...

   Or just skip the movie and take your ex home for some horizontal tennis...


I politely conceded to a strike out for the evening but not without sultry previews of coming attractions...
:-[

Uh, anyway, I've never been a Trekkie, so I had no issues with them dicking around with alternative timeline fantasy.  Lots of explosions, space fights, monsters, humor, irreverence and great special effects, the real Nimoy, and the promise of a sequel. 

I was happy with it.
:)

We're seeing it soon.  I figured we'd give the fanboys enough time to either stop jizzing in their manties or throwing schitt at the screen before we went.

As for them screwing up the storyline or continuity or whatever it is people are bitching about, big deal.  They do it with all the big franchises.  Batman (the exception to the screwup rule), Superman, The Incredible Hulk, etc.  Besides, Star Trek has always been implausible, so the little quirks and "errors" don't faze me.

Then where did all the ships come from?  In cluding Lexington and Enterprise, both Constitution Class cruisers?

But promoting somebody straight from Cadet to Captain?  That blew even my mind.  Never happen.  Naval Captain is something somebody reaches after maybe 20 years of service, not right out of training.

And sending troops into combat is different then Officers.  Officers get much more training then Enlisted get.

Not to mention, even Enlisted get more training then that.  2-4 months for Basic, then from 1-24 months of specialized training, depending on their job.  A Marine Rifleman gets about a month and a half extra training.  A PATRIOT radar tachnician gets about 10 months of additional training.

You are right there.  Chief O'Brian was the only person you could identify as "Enlisted" during the entire Star Trek saga.

I remember way back in 1991, getting into debates in FidoNet about the rank structure of Star Trek.  In a nutshell, it is totally broken.

There are never any Enlisted shown, nor any NCOs.  For some reason, everybody seems to be an officer.  And for obvious reaons, that does not work.

Also, everybody seems to go to Starfleet Academy.  Once again, something that just would not work.

And it is obvious if you think about it.  There is need for all kinds of experience and training on a large Starship.  And why would you need 4+ years of training if somebody is simply going to cook?  Or repair the air conditioning?  Or transcribe the daily logs?

Amd that is not the only time they totally ignored the traditional Naval rank structure.

Wesley Crusher was made an "Acting Ensign" in TNG.  Within weeks of that happening, I remember arguing on Fido that the correct rank would have been Midshipman, not Ensign.  A Midshipman is a "rank" that traditionally could be given by a Captain for an officer in training.  It carries no authority, the carrier being addressed as "Mister", not "Sir".  Because they are outside of the chain of command, they can't give orders (unless under the active authority of a commissioned officer).

This happened all the time in Historic military organizations, as well as modern ones.  I have served with Cadets from West Point.  I address them as "Mister SMITH", and follow their orders, but I would not be penalized if I did not follow one.  Because legally, they have no authority over me.


But did you happen to notice that this has nothing to do with the Navy or any Armed Forces related to the US?  So why should Roddenberry have cared about ranks, titles, and seniority when he started this franchise?

Methinks your nitpicking is misplaced.

Science fiction for the win!

I liked it for it was a good movie.  Alot of action, with familiar characters.  They rewrote alot of history (for the hardcore Trekkies) so if that is important to you, then you won't like it much.  It was interesting as a stand alone movie, even if you don't get all the inside jokes.  There are some appearances of actors that are surprising, and some that are very well acted.


I think they did a good job of addressing how and why they "rewrote history" it should make the complainers that it's not true the star trek lore shut up...

....um..... guess not....

Kay.... I'm editing to save space....


I just got back from seeing it.  And frankly, I think it rather sucked.

How to begin...  It is in many ways more like a "Mirror Universe" Star Trek.  The action takes place entirely in another reality. 



I thought that was the whole point.... if it appears in an alternate universe then of course its different than the history you know....


The ages and backgrounds are hopelessly skewed, and it fits nowhere in any of the previously established cannon.  Ages were vastly skewed (Spock, Kirk, Scott, Urura, Sulu, and McCoy are all shown to be around the same age). 



I disagree.... spock is obviously an instructor which would make him older than Uhura. Sulu, Uhura and Kirk are relatively the same age..... Scott looks about 5-10 years older than them... and McCoy came in as a doctor which means he had to go to med school before getting into the federation so he's obviously older...



It also introduces things that are not in keeping with the original series.  In Enterprise, they were careful to make sure you never saw Romulans.  This is because until the Original Star Trek, they were never seen.  But in this one, it is common knowledge that they were related to Vulcans.



if you think about the time space continuum thingy...the movie technically starts at the end of the Star Trek storyline it then jumps back thru time and tells an alternate stories based on events that Old Spock experiences... so whether or not there are romulans is irrelevant because the romulans we see are from the future.... Also...isn't there some talk of the Romulan planet having not yet been destroyed since it happens way later than the actual storyline and don't they say that Romulans are peaceful...so perhaps that's why they aren't seen in Enterprise...they were so peaceful then no one needed to see them.... I'll admit I am not a huge Star Trek fan so I don't know the history.. I'm just giving you the average viewer's interpretation...


They also has other problems.  The Enterprise being built in Iowa, flying cadets up to multiple starships to fly into battle (What, do the ships normally fly around with half crews, requiring replacements before they can fight?), wondering why there is a giant ball of "Red Matter", when a single drop is enough to destroy a sun, escaping from a Black Hole's gravitational field, an explosion pushing a starship out of the effect of a black hole, the list goes on and on.


we see the enterprise being built 3 years before the attack on vulcan....theoretically, since it was almost completed it had probably been flown up to be docked at the base long before they knew they were going to have to staff it for battle.... I mean really they could have brought crews from the other ships already at base, down to fly it up to the base and have it docked waiting for its new crew...since all this happened off camera...its purely an assumption but I bet spock would deem it a logical one....

if movies showed every detail of every scene they would be 8 hours long.... you have to fill in some blanks yourself...


I should say, it is not a really bad movie, as much as it is a bad Star Trek movie.  But I came closer today to walking out then I have in a long long time.  The last movie I walked out of was "The Nanny", this was almost as bad.


I think you're too hard on it... it was very entertaining, fairly well written for a space odyssey action flick and well directed...

Like I said I have no problem with a new start for Star Trek. I just don't want to feel out of place because of my age (32), even though the actors are of the same. I'm also a big fan of Lost which is one of the last TV shows I stop to watch. However I got the general gist that Abrams didn't want anyone over 21 to attend ("This isn't your father's Star Trek"-Abrams) even though he's 44   


I think they just meant that.... and that was the studio.... not JJ.... I think they advertised it that way to say... hey, if you're a fan of the original check all your knowledge at the door because this is going to be different than anything you've ever known about the star trek universe....because in a way- they've rewritten the history...

Count me in as a believer  :)


glad you enjoyed it!!!!

Why wouldn't they just beam the cadets up? ???


logistically speaking...earth is out of range.... or what Rice just said  :P

   I walked into this flick with no expectations.  I pretty much liked it although, officially, I hate-hate-hate time travel, alternate reality and interdimensional stuff.  I like stuff to take place here, now and in this dimension.  I've always thought it an all too convenient cop-out.  Now that's out of the way...
   



  Alternate realities and parallel universe: I have no idea why screenwriters feel the need to keep recycling that tired plot device.  It's sooo boring...




I disagree. Time travel and alternate universes have always been a favorite with me... Quantum Leap, Early Edition, Tru Calling... hell even Voyagers.... LOVE IT!!!!

Let's see.  Checkov was there, 17 years old.

Would you want untrained students in space?  How about taking an Intern and throwing him into surgery?  A Police Cadet, give her a gun, and throw her into a riot?

And they emptied "Star Fleet Academy".  Every single cadet went to battle.  How stupid.  What a waste.

Where in the hell did they put all of them if the ships had been fully staffed?  Imagine emptying Anapolis, and putting every midshipman onto a ship as an officer.  Not only would there a mess from people not knowing what in the heck they were doing, it would create a mess for the rank structure.

Not that Star Trek seems to have much of one.  Everybody is an Officer, and there is no need for enlisted.


how do you know he's untrained? Maybe he's like the Doogie Howser of the freakin Star Fleet Academy?  Again... me... not much on the star trek history... I'm just saying.... its plausible...


and I don't think every single cadet went to battle I mean maybe i'm wrong but the cadets boarded a shuttle to go to the academy right? then they show a building over looking the golden gate bridge when the drill was about to attack... those people looked like star fleet cadets to me...but again... maybe I'm wrong...

i always thought red shirts were crew and yellow and blue shirts were officers? 

Is it possible...that the people we saw were not in the "academy" but in say... I don't know... the Officer Candidate Program at the academy? (think Officer and a Gentlemen)

Then where did all the ships come from?  In cluding Lexington and Enterprise, both Constitution Class cruisers?

But promoting somebody straight from Cadet to Captain?  That blew even my mind.  Never happen.  Naval Captain is something somebody reaches after maybe 20 years of service, not right out of training.

And sending troops into combat is different then Officers.  Officers get much more training then Enlisted get.



lets look at it this way.... Pike Captain.... Spock Commander .... Kirk.... LT Commander.... as the dominos fall only one is left standing.... its not like he boarded the enterprise and said...hey I think I'll be captain today.... he was given the position by the captain... no one else seemed to challenge it... hell didn't look like anyone else wanted it...

Here's something Mushroom that you might appreciate- including the promotion question:
http://io9.com/5250171/so-really-why-is-captain-kirk-such-a-douchebag


that was a good article... in the nerdy section tho he talks about Kirk (in the series) mentioning that he's read someone's work at the academy... I distinctly remember that line being uttered in the movie... I did not know at the time it was a direct reference to the series... I forget who he said it to tho...

I thought it was f**king awesome.


YAY AL!!!

Has anyone seen it in IMAX version yet?  That is an option at my theater for about one more week and I wondered if it was really any different then regular screen.  I'm not sure if it costs more to see it in IMAX at my theater or not.


I wish Santa Barbara had IMAX!!!!

   Or just skip the movie and take your ex home for some horizontal tennis...



see the movie...then horizontal tennis  ;)

We're seeing it soon.  I figured we'd give the fanboys enough time to either stop jizzing in their manties or throwing schitt at the screen before we went.

As for them screwing up the storyline or continuity or whatever it is people are bitching about, big deal.  They do it with all the big franchises.  Batman (the exception to the screwup rule), Superman, The Incredible Hulk, etc.  Besides, Star Trek has always been implausible, so the little quirks and "errors" don't faze me.


Yeah Jess.... honestly I think you'll like it!

11 rebuttal posts......guess.. I...liked...it!!!!!  :D


Nope....


I FREAKIN' LOVED IT!!!!

One thing I just thought of:  When young Kirk stole his uncle's (stepdad's?) Corvette and drove it off the cliff I had to wonder:


Since when did the Grand Canyon start running through Iowa???

In the alternative universe the states boundaries are different.  ::)

   I walked into this flick with no expectations.  I pretty much liked it although, officially, I hate-hate-hate time travel, alternate reality and interdimensional stuff.  I like stuff to take place here, now and in this dimension.  I've always thought it an all too convenient cop-out.  Now that's out of the way...

   It's an origin story set against a common revenge tale.  I was too preoccupied with studying Kirk, Spock, Sulu, Uhura, Sarek and Chekov to notice the rest of the story.  That will take a second, maybe a third, screening...

   You have to tread very carefully with these remakes.  It's easy to cross over into eyeball rolling territory (George Lucas), but I think they pulled it off pretty good.  Um, leave the entire Leonard Nimoy thing on the cutting room floor.  Problem is if you do that you cut out a major plot device which goes back to the alternate universe thing which I hate.  Hmm...

   Bottom line I came out of the theater smiling and not frowning.  I mean, hey...it's Star Trek and not that infernal Next Generation... 8-P

   


I agree.  I enjoyed it quite a bit.  The mistake some "serious" sci-fi fans make is taking it all too, uh, seriously.  This is more the light fantasy realm of sci-fi rather than, say, Jules Verne.  My experience with the earlier Star Treks (except possibly the boring 1979 movie) is they're more about interpersonal drama mixed with flash and excitement. 

My one complaint with it is they made young James T. Kirk seem like young George W. Bush, which I thought was too great a departure from the classic Kirk, who was gutsy and willing to bend the rules to get the job done, but otherwise was rather straight-laced.

Actually Pike made Kirk 2nd officer before being abducted, a fact restated when Kirk took the chair.  Thus when Spock removed himself from command he became Captain by default. As for the scratch fleet, Pike said only the main fleet was previously engaged. There would be other ships scattered around, which could come together to form a fleet. Plus like the Enterprise, there might have been several ships being built. Pike said that the incident was going to pre-empt the ships official launch ceremonies.   


yeah I don't know my star fleet titles but that was essentially my point... the chain of command, based on Pike's appointment was Pike to Spock to Kirk. so we're in agreement.

I disagree.... spock is obviously an instructor which would make him older than Uhura. Sulu, Uhura and Kirk are relatively the same age..... Scott looks about 5-10 years older than them... and McCoy came in as a doctor which means he had to go to med school before getting into the federation so he's obviously older...


Based on my knowledge of Star Trek canon, Spock is a few years older than Kirk and served on the original Enterprise with Captain Pike, and was third in command since Roddenberry's wife was actually the second in command.  Scotty served on a number of ships before he became chief engineer of the Enterprise.  McCoy is about the same age as Spock, methinks.

Based on my knowledge of Star Trek canon, Spock is a few years older than Kirk and served on the original Enterprise with Captain Pike, and was third in command since Roddenberry's wife was actually the second in command.  Scotty served on a number of ships before he became chief engineer of the Enterprise.  McCoy is about the same age as Spock, methinks.





sounds about right.

  ("This isn't your father's Star Trek"-Abrams) 


It's Trek, Dad, but not as we know it.

It's Trek, Dad, but not as we know it.


I doubt my dad ever watch Trek, so this WOULD be as he knows it (if he happened to watch it)(which he won't).  lol

They got Nimoy, but did they ask Shatner?  Maybe Shatner demanded the same salary as Pine, so the producers told him to screw.  Just a guess.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif

They got Nimoy, but did they ask Shatner?  Maybe Shatner demanded the same salary as Pine, so the producers told him to screw.  Just a guess.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif


I'm guessing that when they were shooting it (Filming took place from November 2007 to March 2008), Shatner wasn't up physically for an appearance (Underwent right hip replacement surgery on June 2008) or maybe he had other commitments as he was also filming his talk show "Shatner's Raw Nerve" at that time.  I'm probably wrong though.  I think I read somewhere that he said he didn't want to show up the young Kirk (Christopher Pine) drawing all the attention to Shatner. 

edit: Found on Wiki - Orci and Kurtzman wrote a scene for William Shatner, where old Spock gives his younger self a recorded message by Kirk from the previous timeline. "It was basically a Happy Birthday wish knowing that Spock was going to go off to Romulus, and Kirk would probably be dead by the time," and it would have transistioned into Shatner reciting "Where no man has gone before". But Shatner wanted to share Nimoy's major role, and did not want a cameo, despite his character's death in Star Trek Generations. He suggested the film canonize the novels where Kirk is resurrected, but Abrams decided if his character was accompanying Nimoy's, it would have become a film about the resurrection of Kirk, and not about introducing the new versions of the characters. Nimoy disliked the character's death in Generations, but felt resurrecting Kirk would also be detrimental to this film.