# Rate the new Star Trek Film



## fanboy2000 (May 7, 2009)

It opens worldwide tonight. I'll be seeing it at 7pm PDT. I'm excited.


----------



## Mallus (May 7, 2009)

It's the most fun I've had at the movies in several years.

(I saw a sneak preview 2 weeks ago)


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 7, 2009)

Mallus said:


> (I saw a sneak preview 2 weeks ago)



I know and I'm still jealous.


----------



## Thanee (May 7, 2009)

I give it a 9. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Knightfall (May 8, 2009)

"One of the best Star Trek movies ever made. This is right up there with Khan!"

10 out of 10!


----------



## EricNoah (May 8, 2009)

I know it's early, but if anyone sees it more than once please let us know how it stands up to multiple viewings.


----------



## Mallus (May 8, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> I know it's early, but if anyone sees it more than once please let us know how it stands up to multiple viewings.



I'll let you know tomorrow. I'm seeing it again with some friends who couldn't make (read: didn't score tickets to) the sneak preview.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 8, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I'll let you know tomorrow. I'm seeing it again with some friends who couldn't make (read: didn't score tickets to) the sneak preview.



I'll let you know to. I'm seeing it with a couple of my players tomorrow morning. 

I saw it last night, and it was great. First, the writers did a good job of bringing-up Star Trek lore. Second, Zachary Quinto does a good job of playing Spock at the beginning of the first series, merged with how Nimoy played him later on. I was shocked at how consistent it was previously established continuity, even given what I already knew about the plot. Anymore and I'll need spoiler tags.


----------



## Mallus (May 8, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> Second, Zachary Quinto does a good job of playing Spock at the beginning of the first series, merged with how Nimoy played him later on.



I really liked how Quinto's Spock was different from the Nimoy's, but in a way that was consistent with the original character's history. Quinto's Spock is very much the road not taken, the Spock that made some different choices.

I also liked how Pine's young Kirk is pretty much the a-hole that you always suspected a young James T. Kirk would be.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 8, 2009)

The actors were excellent. I bought Spock, Kirk was entertaining, most of the other roles were well-done. I wish there had been more McCoy; I didn't really feel the Kirk-Spock-McCoy 'triangle' which so defined the original. Checkov seemed more like a parody and the silliness was a bit of a distraction.

I didn't quite understand the machinations that brought Leonard Nimoy into the plot, but the general idea of time travel and its consequences is hardly new to Star Trek and I could at least buy that he was there and accept his role, which he handled with an appropriate blend of eloquence and humor.

The villain never really registered, and some of the action was a bit silly and overdone. The effects I didn't much notice, which is a good thing (in the same sense that in a sporting contest, if you don't notice the officiating, that's good). It also seems like they tried to cram a lot in and I suspect quite a bit was left on the cutting room floor. It was not as cerebral as one might hope, and you miss not having at least one ethical debate in a Trek movie. The score was disappointingly pedestrian. Not that it needed to be a copy of the original, but I expected grander, more operatic music (the music for some of the trailers actually worked better).

Those weaknesses aside, I found it to have walked the line between reverence and originality. The worlds were entirely believable, the characters understandable, and I was entertained. I could certainly imagine a great movie series coming out of this and I think almost anyone who sees it can find something to like.


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2009)

Ahnehnois said:


> I didn't quite understand the machinations that brought Leonard Nimoy into the plot...




If you'd like to know more, they put out a 4-issue comic book series, titled "Star Trek: Countdown", which I am told gives you the full skinny on what happened.  I have not read it myself yet.


----------



## EricNoah (May 9, 2009)

I'm giving it 3 stars - I enjoyed it, I'm glad I saw it, it wasn't the life-changing event I read about in so many reviews.  The casting and dialogue (banter in particular) were quite good, the plot was a little sloppy, some of the silliest stuff was a smidge too silly, and the heartwrenching moments weren't heartwrenching enough for my taste.  I do like that the plot essentially takes care of the "Smallville Problem" (i.e. we don't have to worry about each "episode" moving us closer and closer to a pre-determined outcome), and I do want to see where this goes in the next movie.  I don't have a great urge to see it again immediately but probably will see it again at some point before it leaves theaters.  

My favorite things: Pine's Kirk really was quite good; Urban's McCoy was quite good; Pegg's Scotty was great; Chekhov was a lot less annoying than I'd been led to believe. 

Disappointments: I didn't feel the "grandeur" of Nimoy's performance - I felt like I could barely see/hear the Spock I thought I knew.   Quinto's Spock was fine but not superior; just a notch more complexity, or a shade more reserve might have helped. The "Kirk with giant hands" thing was just too silly. Scotty's little Ewok/muppet/whatever friend ... no.  And I did not feel that people were nearly devastated enough when (spoilers) [sblock]Vulcan goes bye-bye[/sblock].


----------



## RangerWickett (May 9, 2009)

This was the most fun I've had at a movie in _years_. I'm interested to see how non-fans react, but for me, as a fan who had come to lament how mediocre Star Trek had become, this movie with all its fan service (we should make a list) mixed in with a rather good action story, it was perfect.


----------



## Krug (May 9, 2009)

Am not a fan but thought it was decent (Gave it 3 stars), though trying a little too hard to amaze and be grandiose. One thing I did hate; the constant use of lens flare. Thankfully there was less of it in the latter half. 

Quinto was quite good, Pine so-so. The plot didn't quite grab me, but just took in the visual feast onscreen. 

And aren't there enough middle-aged women around without asking 



Spoiler



Winona Ryder


 to play Spock's mom?

[sblock]Also thought a single micro-ship carrying world destroying material was like driving a car around carrying nuclear warheads. And the monster sequence was quite superflous.
[/sblock]


----------



## Remathilis (May 9, 2009)

It had everything I'd want out of an Old Series homage.

* Shirtless Kirk.
* All the classic lines (I'm a doctor, not a __, I'm givin it all she's got keptin!)
* Green skinned alien makeout session
* Both themes playing at the credits (TV and movie)
* a Redshirt buying it in the opening of a land mission ;-)

Was surprised by:
* Captain Pike. Seriously, didn't see the pilot homage coming. 
* 



Spoiler



Uhura/Spock. Take that Kirk/Spock shippers!


----------



## EricNoah (May 9, 2009)

Krug said:


> And aren't there enough middle-aged women around without asking
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My understanding is there was a scene of Spock's birth that likely would have shown some deeper interaction between his parents, but it was cut.  

I wonder if there will be an "extended" version DVD ... I feel like I heard there were other things like this that were trimmed, like an explanation for where Nero was for 25 years...


----------



## drothgery (May 9, 2009)

Good, fun, movie, but only three stars because I've read too much MilSF lately, so was a little annoyed by things like...

- Kirk appointed first officer without anyone explicitly saying the Enterprise was, due to the emergency, crewed by Pike, Spock, a bunch of cadets and ensigns, and enlisted personnel/non-line officers.

- After everything was done, Kirk kept command of the Enterprise, instead of being sent off somewhere as Lt. Kirk.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 9, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> * Captain Pike. Seriously, didn't see the pilot homage coming.



That was really surprising. I liked how the film really showed that it was "the road not taken", yet some things seemed to be destined to happen. And a time-travel story without reset button!

I liked Urban's McCoy, though I wish we had seen more of him. Quinto's Spock was great - he was a different Spock, but still Spock. Pegg's Scotty was fun! The Kirk... well-played, but I'm still not sure whether Pine is the ideal actor, but still good. Chekov was funny, but sadly Sulu was really underused.

I liked the re-design of the ship, it looked believeable without looking all grim-and-dark (like the realistic look of BSG), but rather Star Trek-like. Love that new warp effect and sound. The villain's ship was... very meh, however (and gave me bad Nemesis flashbacks) - and ditto for the villain who was rather flat and not charismatic enough at all - definitely no Khan or Borg Queen - more like Shinzon 2.0. 

Still 3.5/4.0 - one of the best Star Trek films ever - and the cast has the potential to trump that performance if they do a sequel. As a film in general: Good, but not awesome - no Iron Man (which, with it's rather light story, is a better comparison than Dark Knight).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## satori01 (May 9, 2009)

I gave it a 7. I like most of the reinvisioned characters...with the notable exception of Kirk.

Kirk was too much a cocky A-hole.....Shattner Kirk had some smugness...but not to that level. New Kirk...felt too frat boy....did not have enough gravitas.

The Villians motivation was a bit ridiculous....so if Spock and by extension the Federation had not tried to help save your planet......your planet would still be destroyed....so therefore by attempting to help him, and falling short, he will punish you.....wah (?).....

My other quibble is the best thing about Roddenberry's vision is the utopian dream of exploration and championship of the more enobling attributes of humanity. The movie had very little of that (Pikes speach in the bar being the only bit). Star Trek w/o the aspiration to goodness is not Star Trek.

All in All, pretty good, and I will definetely go see a Second Movie in the Alt Verse.


----------



## Plissken (May 9, 2009)

I think too many people are buying into the hype. They get so excited from Rotten Tomato reviews, trailers, watch it and even though deep inside they know it pretty much sucked, they don't want to admit they spent $10+ for the movie and really end up believing it was a great movie.

My opinion, it was a fun movie. It was entertaining. However, there was no story, no character development. It was just mindless blowing stuff up, fighting, blowing up some more stuff, etc. 

The movie just moved along way too fast at too fast a pace and the movie wasn't really sci-fi...the movie would fit better into the comedy genre.

I'll admit though that I've never seen TOS in depth, so I don't know if TOS bends more towards action adventure like ENTERPRISE or more towards seriousness like TNG.


----------



## Mallus (May 9, 2009)

Plissken said:


> I'll admit though that I've never seen TOS in depth...



I grew up on TOS. I just saw the new film for the second time. I loved it. Again. It reminded me of what I've loved about the original since childhood. 

(though there was a lot more shake-y cam than I recall from the sneak preview)

Suggesting that people who liked something you didn't 'fell for the hype' is tantamount to calling them impressionable, at best, and stupid at worst. Adding that they're committing acts of self-deception over a measly $10 means you're calling them _cheap_ as well. 

This is kinda rude. Also, it makes you look dumb.  

If you'd like to discuss the relative merits (or demerits) of the film vs. the various franchises, or what makes something 'scifi', great.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (May 9, 2009)

Plissken said:


> My opinion, it was a fun movie. It was entertaining. However, there was no story, no character development. It was just mindless blowing stuff up, fighting, blowing up some more stuff, etc.
> 
> The movie just moved along way too fast at too fast a pace and the movie wasn't really sci-fi...



The above quote, to me, is an example of real life imitating The Onion.


----------



## Wolf72 (May 9, 2009)

enjoyed it immensely ...

loved how they merged everything and changed everything.

Loved even more how I read almost NO real spoilers from anyone here (to be fair, been lurking not posting lately)

heard that main cast has signed up for at least 3 more films, very cool.

one thing I did not like ... new chekov (well he's fine, just thought original Walter Koneg sp ... well I just like him better)


----------



## wingsandsword (May 9, 2009)

Plissken said:


> I'll admit though that I've never seen TOS in depth, so I don't know if TOS bends more towards action adventure like ENTERPRISE or more towards seriousness like TNG.




Trek has always been in a balancing act between action and drama.

The very first pilot of TOS, The Cage (the one with the original Capt. Pike) was pretty cerebral and "talky" with very little action.  The network hated it, so they recast everything and made TOS as a much more action-packed show.  There were still occasional plotlines or scenes that were very serious and dramatic, but TOS was definitely closer in tone to Enterprise than TNG.  You can go definitely too far over on the serious drama in Trek and undercut the action, look at Star Trek: the Motion Picture.

Not to say that TNG is bad (or that Enterprise was good, except for the 4th season), but in the huge realm of existing Trek productions (727 hours of live action TV, 10 movies before this one, the deuterocanonical animated series. . .) this movie was much closer to TOS in tone than anything else.  To me it did seem like what they could have done if they'd given Gene Roddenberry and company modern filmmaking technology an budgets back in the late '60's.


----------



## wingsandsword (May 9, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> I wonder if there will be an "extended" version DVD ... I feel like I heard there were other things like this that were trimmed, like an explanation for where Nero was for 25 years...



Yeah, as I understand it they had filmed a subplot that had Nero and crew captured by Klingons and held for over two decades before they escaped and retook their ship.  However, all the test screenings involving it flopped and apparently it confused the audience or something.


----------



## freyar (May 10, 2009)

Don't even know how to rate this movie.  On the one hand, I thought the character portrayals were pretty close, especially Urban as McCoy IMO.  And there were a lot of nice tips of the hat to pieces of Trek lore.  On the other hand, I thought that the whole plot and 



Spoiler



continuity rewrite


 was incredibly disrespectful of not just the original series but all the other Trek set after this in time.

Not to mention the various silliness such as the ship full of cadets, etc, etc.

Off to read the other thread...


----------



## Dire Bare (May 10, 2009)

Krug said:


> And aren't there enough middle-aged women around without asking
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Spock's mom was hot!!!  If I were Sarek, I'd go for Winona Ryder in a heartbeat!


----------



## Dire Bare (May 10, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> I'm interested to see how non-fans react, but for me, as a fan who had come to lament how mediocre Star Trek had become, this movie with all its fan service (we should make a list) mixed in with a rather good action story, it was perfect.




I saw it tonight, and the audience clapped and cheered at multiple points in the film.  Is there really such a thing as Star Trek "non-fans"?  Everybody loves Star Trek!!!


----------



## Dire Bare (May 10, 2009)

Plissken said:


> I think too many people are buying into the hype. They get so excited from Rotten Tomato reviews, trailers, watch it and even though deep inside they know it pretty much sucked, they don't want to admit they spent $10+ for the movie and really end up believing it was a great movie.




Thanks for opening my eyes!  Here I thought that I'd genuinely enjoyed the movie, that it was the best Trek film since Wrath of Khan.  But here it's just that I bought into the hype and was tricked into liking a crappy movie!  I hate when that happens!


----------



## Dire Bare (May 10, 2009)

freyar said:


> Not to mention the various silliness such as the ship full of cadets, etc, etc.




Yeah, a ship crewed mostly by cadets, how lame!  Wait, are we talking about the new Star Trek movie or Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn?


----------



## freyar (May 10, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> Yeah, a ship crewed mostly by cadets, how lame!  Wait, are we talking about the new Star Trek movie or Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn?



That was also a bit silly, but at least the senior officers were well-seasoned. 

Re: my previous comments, maybe there is a secret plan to clear things up in sequels, in which case I'll feel a lot better.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 10, 2009)

*Thoughts *SPOILERS**

Some thoughts, in no particular, order. Possible *SPOILERS*


The answer to my long-time question: why is the Chief Engineer always running the transporter? Because beaming people is actually fairly complicated.
Admiral Archer? Next movie, I want a Sam Becket cameo.
We have a good explanation of why Spock joined Starfleet.
We now have _a_ reason why McCoy is in Starfleet. Seriously, I'd always wondered why he just didn't stay on Terra Firma. 
Uhura is, finally, given a great set of skills.
Green woman and mini-skirts? Setting back the feminist movement by 40 years shows real dedication to continuity. (It sounds snarky, but really, I just think it's fun.)
What, no Caption April? Well, I guess the dedication to continuity had to end somewhere. Not that it's important.
No mention of 5 year missions either. Probably a good thing as a continuous 5 year missions sounds rather silly. Not to mention it doesn't seem like that that's how the original series went.
You know what this movie was really missing? Original series Klingons.
I'm not sure, but it sounds like Scotty said "Caption Picard" as a swear word near the end of the movie.
Ok, so enlistment actually means joining the Academy.
And there are no Ensigns or lieutenant juniors grades, you just go straight to regular lieutenant. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
This is the first movie without any Klingons since Khan. In fact, it's the only movie without Klingons except for Khan.
Costume Design: What does it say about Starfleet that they make all their cadets where red?


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 10, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> Some thoughts, in no particular, order. Possible *SPOILERS*
> 
> 
> Costume Design: What does it say about Starfleet that they make all their cadets where red?




[sblock="Spoiler...ish"] You know... I was half expecting that drill to come down over Star Fleet Academy and wipe out the entire student population.[/sblock]


----------



## Fast Learner (May 10, 2009)

Good god I loved it. Grew up on TOS reruns and felt it was the perfect blend of the original and a totally fun action film, rebooted with glee. One of the most enjoyable films I've seen in many years.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 10, 2009)

Lord Tirian said:


> That was really surprising. I liked how the film really showed that it was "the road not taken", yet some things seemed to be destined to happen. And a time-travel story without reset button!



Indeed, that was a surprise. Not using the reset button was the only sensible thing to do, but I still miss Vulcan.  (Though if you think about it - Vulcan never played a very central role in the series. Individual vulcans, yes, but the two most important got away anyway. )



Lord Tirian said:


> I liked Urban's McCoy, though I wish we had seen more of him. Quinto's Spock was great - he was a different Spock, but still Spock. Pegg's Scotty was fun! The Kirk... well-played, but I'm still not sure whether Pine is the ideal actor, but still good. Chekov was funny, but sadly Sulu was really underused.



Sulu definitely needs more combat scenes, the one on the digging thing was too short.  

I liked the characters, the actors were a good fit. At the end, at least Kirk and Scotty had a moment where they really looked exactly like the original. 



> I liked the re-design of the ship, it looked believeable without looking all grim-and-dark (like the realistic look of BSG), but rather Star Trek-like. Love that new warp effect and sound. The villain's ship was... very meh, however (and gave me bad Nemesis flashbacks)



I watched it with a friend yesterday and he said something similar to the ships design, and I think he's right. Well, in a way it's "consistent", but I'd rater prefered the Scimitar to be an anomaly. 
Similar things can be said about certain areas on either ships - strange design that seemed to serve no purpose (and doesn't seem to fit inside the ship in case of the Enterprise) except to give us a good action scene. I think they need to improve on that (but Star Trek XI is far from the only Sci-Fi movie with that problem.)


----------



## wingsandsword (May 10, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> We now have _a_ reason why McCoy is in Starfleet. Seriously, I'd always wondered why he just didn't stay on Terra Firma.



Actually, that is a huge continuity nod showing they have really done their research.  The idea that McCoy joined Starfleet after a bad divorce was originally though up during the original production run in the '60's.  The episode was going to be about McCoy meeting his estranged daughter who had fallen in with a disreputable crowd.  The episode was rewritten, losing this subplot and eventually became "The Way to Eden".  They had never had the opportunity to mention it, but that was the actual original idea for his backstory.



> Ok, so enlistment actually means joining the Academy.



I think "Enlistment" means joining Starfleet in any capacity, and Kirk was immediately put in for Officer training because of Capt. Pike.  We have already seen enlisted crewmembers in Enterprise (which since it took place before this, are not affected at all by the timeline shift), and there were some explicit mentions of A Starfleet Academy Enlisted Training program in the TNG episode "The Drumhead" when a guest star held the rank of Crewman 1st Class.



> And there are no Ensigns or lieutenant juniors grades, you just go straight to regular lieutenant. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.



Not unprecedented in Trek canon.  Saavik held the rank of Lieutenant while in her Senior year at the Academy.  The TOS Episode "Obsession" also mentions that in the original timeline, Kirk was a Lieutenant before his graduation.  Apparently at Starfleet Academy in the 23rd century it is possible for outstanding cadets to earn a commission before graduation, and for graduates to be commissioned at higher ranks of Lieutenant J.G. and Lieutenant with some regularity (at least in the TOS era, we didn't see any examples in the TNG era of this practice, when it was much more like a modern-day Service Academy with commissioning upon graduation to Ensign).



> This is the first movie without any Klingons since Khan. In fact, it's the only movie without Klingons except for Khan.



 Well, they were the adversary in the Kobayashi Maru test, just like they were in Kahn.  Because of how they finally explained the difference in Klingon appearances back in Enterprise, they can use either "old" or "new" Klingons without trashing continuity, because Enterprise left in a backdoor that said that the "New" Klingons were there back in that era, just much less common.


----------



## Pbartender (May 10, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> And there are no Ensigns or lieutenant juniors grades, you just go straight to regular lieutenant. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.




That may be going back to the idea of Star Trek being Horatio Hornblower in space.

Back then, as far as naval officers were concerned, you had...


Midshipmen, which were the equivalent of a combination of Ensigns and Cadets.
Lieutenants, which were fully-fledged officers. Relative seniority determined your rank within lieutenants.  If there were 4 LTs on a ship, then you'd have a first, second, third and fourth lieutenant.  If a more senior lieutenant joined the crew, you'd get bumped down.  If a more senior liuetenant left the crew, you get bumped up.  First lieutenants were automatically the "first mate", and would take command in the absence of the captain...  Captains couldn't technically choose their first mates, except by ensuring that one particular lieutenant was the most senior lieutenant on the ship.
Commanders, which were lieutenants half-way promoted to captain.  Usually given to lieutenants who have been commissioned command of a ship by the Admiralty (as opposed to liuetenants would have assumed command of a ship, because their captain is otherwise indesposed).
(Post) Captains, which was like gaining tenure.  Captains are commissioned to command rated ships of the line...  Like the _Enterprise_.
Commodores, which are simply captains who are in command of more than one ship.  Much like Commander, it was a rather temporary title.  Once you went back to commanding one ship, you were a captain again.
Admirals, who permanently commended multiple ships. If you survived long enough to gain enough seniority as a Captain, you automatically become an Admiral, even if you had no ships to command.

Of course, the movie doesn't precisely follow that, either.

Also note that anyone who commands a ship, regardless of rank, is called "captain" as a courtesy.

As noted elsewhere, at the time there was also the tradition of the Admiralty granting one special request to a newly promoted Admiral or to a retiring Admiral...  Pike, in gratitude, could very well have made a special request to have Kirk promoted and posted to the Enterprise when he made Admiral.


----------



## Silver Moon (May 10, 2009)

freyar said:


> ....silliness such as the ship full of cadets, etc, etc.



Long tradition on that one, the aforementioned Star Trek II, plus there was a DS9 episode where Jake and Nog wound up on a Defiant-class ship of cadets.   There are also at least a dozen Star Trek novels that also reference ships manned by mostly close-to-graduation cadets.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (May 10, 2009)

My vote's on "Excellent!", and I'm not much of a ST fan overall (SW is more my thing). 

If they can maintain the quality and the energy, I'm definitely looking towards more movies in this vein.


----------



## Eridanis (May 11, 2009)

I gave it four stars - I don't know if it's the best Trek of all time, as only time and repeated viewings will decide that for me. It definitely felt better than a 3.5 vote, so there you go.

I thought they did as good a job of balancing multiple masters as could be expected. They needed - no, wanted - to pay homage to the past. They needed to bring in new viewers to make money. They had to tell a good story, one that would hold the attention of thoughtful science fiction fans as well as people whose idea of "skiffy" (as Harlan Ellison would say) is formed completely by Star Wars and Independence Day.* I think Orci and Kurtzman did a better job servicing all these needs than anyone could have expected, and their Trek-loving script was given an A+ treatment by a non-Trek-loving director in Abrams. Perfect combination of interests and skills.

I loved Bruce Greenwood's portrayal of Pike. I was genuinedly inspired. "I dare you to do better..." And him pulling the weapon out and shooting the Romulans when Kirk was saving him was awesome, showing that he was broken but not defeated. And "I am relieved." I would love to see this character again in the sequels, serving a role for Kirk similar to how Pellew serves as a mentor for Hornblower. (After all, as Spock Prime says, Kirk Prime looked up to his father and was inspired by him to join Starfleet... Pike in this timeline is already serving that role.)

Nimoy was right on as an aged Spock. I don't know how much of his quietness and his touch of frailty was acting and how much was Nimoy's actual condition (I suspect people are not giving him as much credit for _acting_ as they should) but I thought it was right on for the character. And I love that they did not kill him off in the end, like 95 out of a 100 dramas would have done. It's ironic that Spock Prime is now older and likely retains more knowledge of Vulcan culture than his father, and important consideration in a Vulcan-less timeline.

I've never seen any of Simon Pegg's movies, but I'm going to seek them out. He was genuinely funny, and kicked the movie to another level when his Scotty arrived. (One of the few things I disliked about the movie was his alien sidekick, who seemed to step right out of Star Wars and onto this movie. But there wasn't much of that character, so no big deal.)

It's a shame that the main female character was basically written as the female love interest cog in the plotwork, but luckily Zoe Saldana did a lot with Uhura. She's obviously got a lot more going on above the shoulders than the equivalent character would have in a lot of other movies. I found her Uhura to be a lot more integral to the ship than Nichelle Nichols' was (which was no fault of the actress, but rather the scriptwriters and their times, methinks).

That brings up a point that I wanted to make about this movie. You get a real sense that every single person on that bridge was extraordinarily intelligent and gifted, and had worked hard to earn a place on that bridge. So refreshing from most entertainment these days, filled with slackers and people made heroes for thumbing nose at authority. It was great to see a work where some things need to be earned. (Yes, Kirk thumbs his nose, but he demonstrates competence while doing it, so that it is effective and is rewarded rather than punished.)

Karl Urban's McCoy has already been praised. I'll just concur, and say I'm relieved that a line that sounded kind of twee in the previews ("Space is disease and danger wrapped  in darkness and silence") was far more awesome in context.

And I MUST have that image of Enterprise in front of Saturn as my desktop background soon. Please, please, Paramount? I heart starship pr0n.

All in all, I only see one movie a year, if that. This was so good that I hope to go again to see it in the theatre, something I've never done.

_*No offense to lovers of those two works. SW is science fantasy/pulp, and ID4 was a summer blockbuster with SF trappings._


----------



## stonegod (May 11, 2009)

Eridanis said:


> I've never seen any of Simon Pegg's movies, but I'm going to seek them out. He was genuinely funny, and kicked the movie to another level when his Scotty arrived. (One of the few things I disliked about the movie was his alien sidekick, who seemed to step right out of Star Wars and onto this movie. But there wasn't much of that character, so no big deal.)



Just a quick OOC: Shaun of the Dead (which he co-write and starred) is one of my favorite movies ever, and a great zombie flick and a comedy. Get it now!

I enjoyed ST much, giving it 3 to 3.5.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 11, 2009)

wingsandsword said:


> Actually, that is a huge continuity nod showing they have really done their research.  The idea that McCoy joined Starfleet after a bad divorce was originally though up during the original production run in the '60's.



That's awesome. McCoy was defiantly one of my favorite characters. I can only hope to grow-up to be half the curmudgeon he was.



> I think "Enlistment" means joining Starfleet in any capacity, and Kirk was immediately put in for Officer training because of Capt. Pike.



Makes the most sense.



> We have already seen enlisted crewmembers in Enterprise (which since it took place before this, are not affected at all by the timeline shift), and there were some explicit mentions of A Starfleet Academy Enlisted Training program in the TNG episode "The Drumhead" when a guest star held the rank of Crewman 1st Class.



I remember that episode. IIRC, _Undiscovered Country_ had enlisted people as well. (Also called crewmen, they had tan tops on their uniforms.) The lack of enlisted members tweaks me a little because _I_ was enlisted and I feel the need to stand-up for my fellow enlistees. _Star Trek_ has always focused on the officers though, so I was expecting it. I mean, if the movie didn't focus on the officers, it wouldn't be very, well, Star Trek.  



> Not unprecedented in Trek canon.



Nope. Real life US Navy advancement is fast anyways. I don't think anyone comes out an O-3, but it doesn't take long to get there.



> Well, they were the adversary in the Kobayashi Maru test, just like they were in Kahn.



Simulated Klingons don't count.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 11, 2009)

I loved it, while not a 10 in my book at least an 8.5.  I was surprised by just how much I enjoyed the casting, Bones really did shine.


----------



## Pbartender (May 11, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> I remember that episode. IIRC, _Undiscovered Country_ had enlisted people as well. (Also called crewmen, they had tan tops on their uniforms.) The lack of enlisted members tweaks me a little because _I_ was enlisted and I feel the need to stand-up for my fellow enlistees. _Star Trek_ has always focused on the officers though, so I was expecting it. I mean, if the movie didn't focus on the officers, it wouldn't be very, well, Star Trek.




Pretty much, every one you see walking around in he background is enlisted.    Like you said, the show focuses on the command crew officers, show enlisted crewmen are rarely featured.

However, there are details of enlisted ranks.  Here's a list of Stearfleet Crewmen and a list of Starfleet enlisted personnel who have shown up in the series and movies.

Don't forget...  Miles O'Brien was perhaps the most conspicuous enlisted crewman; he was a Chief Petty Officer.

Also, FYI: The Memory Alpha website mentions that Starfleet Academy has training programs not only for officers, but also for NCOs and crewmen.


----------



## drothgery (May 11, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> Don't forget...  Miles O'Brien was perhaps the most conspicuous enlisted crewman; he was a Chief Petty Officer.




... also the most conspicuous source of officer/enlisted continuity errors. He was always enlisted on DS9, but in TNG they referred to him as an Lt. a few times.


----------



## Rykion (May 11, 2009)

Best reboot ever.  Gave it 3 and 1/2 stars.


----------



## Victim (May 12, 2009)

7/10.


----------



## shilsen (May 12, 2009)

2 stars (out of 4). It was just an average entertainer for me, with much of its quality not coming from the movie itself but from the way it referenced what we already know of Star Trek.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 12, 2009)

Ahnehnois said:


> The actors were excellent. I bought Spock, Kirk was entertaining, most of the other roles were well-done. I wish there had been more McCoy; I didn't really feel the Kirk-Spock-McCoy 'triangle' which so defined the original. Checkov seemed more like a parody and the silliness was a bit of a distraction.
> 
> I didn't quite understand the machinations that brought Leonard Nimoy into the plot, but the general idea of time travel and its consequences is hardly new to Star Trek and I could at least buy that he was there and accept his role, which he handled with an appropriate blend of eloquence and humor.
> 
> ...



Uh... wow. You just covered almost exactly how I felt about the movie. Good stuff!

I voted 3.5 stars, but that's probably too high. 3 stars is more like it.


----------



## Richards (May 13, 2009)

Was anybody else bothered by the new transporter beam effects?  I greatly preferred the original effects, and those of the follow-on series, over the way they look in this film.  Besides seeming like a change merely for the sake of change, they just looked "wrong" to me.

Johnathan


----------



## drothgery (May 13, 2009)

Richards said:


> Was anybody else bothered by the new transporter beam effects?  I greatly preferred the original effects, and those of the follow-on series, over the way they look in this film.  Besides seeming like a change merely for the sake of change, they just looked "wrong" to me.




FWIW, if I were full-on rebooting Star Trek, rather than kicking off an alternate timeline ~25 years pre-TOS, I'd ditch the transporter. It's too easy to forget that you can do certain things if you've got it.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 13, 2009)

Richards said:


> Was anybody else bothered by the new transporter beam effects?  I greatly preferred the original effects, and those of the follow-on series, over the way they look in this film.  Besides seeming like a change merely for the sake of change, they just looked "wrong" to me.



I wasn't bothered, but it did seem a little off. I'm used to an "atomizing" effect not a "wrap around" effect, if that makes any sense.


----------



## Evilhalfling (May 13, 2009)

I really liked this move - really does any other movie attempt stand up to it except for KHAN?  

I eagerly await a sequel, or better yet a new TV series. 
The series would work better for me because with this interesting crew dynamic I would savor the slower development.  A series would also allow some good and some bad arcs or episodes, the built in Fan base should help alot with series longevity - and some leading current directors like more JJ Abrams or Josh Weaton could turn the franchise.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (May 13, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> I wasn't bothered, but it did seem a little off. I'm used to an "atomizing" effect not a "wrap around" effect, if that makes any sense.




I'm hoping they're using the "wrap around" thing as an excuse to finally fix transporters from "disintegrate-project-integrate" model to some sort of displacement thing. The former only leads to giant cans of worms and bad technobabble-driven plots.


----------



## Wombat (May 13, 2009)

Overall, I'd give it something around an 8, possibly a 7.  Not bad by any means, but I'm with Chief O'Brian:  "I hate temporal physics."


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 13, 2009)

Lurks-no-More said:


> I'm hoping they're using the "wrap around" thing as an excuse to finally fix transporters from "disintegrate-project-integrate" model to some sort of displacement thing. The former only leads to giant cans of worms and bad technobabble-driven plots.



I love Star Trek, but I don't trust them _not_ to do bad technobabble-driven plots. 

Anyone remember the time the transporter made Picard younger? (Like 15) Really, was this the sort of thing anyone would call a problem?

"Scotty, beam us down and I want to be 22 again." 

"Aye, Captan. You want me send down a beer bong while I'm at it?"

"No Mr. Scott. That won't be necessary this time."


----------



## Darth Shoju (May 17, 2009)

I can't remember the last time I enjoyed a Trek movie this much. Like others, I didn't think it was perfect: the villain was mediocre (and I like Eric Bana in general) and the plot had some "huh?" moments, but overall it was a bloody good time. Kirk and Spock worked well, though my favourites were Scotty and Bones. Wish we'd seen more of them, but I'm sure they'll get more time in the sequel.

Our audience applauded at the end of the movie, which I don't think I've ever experienced. Did this happen for anyone else?


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 18, 2009)

One thing this movie did was allow future Star Trek writers to pick and choose what parts of continuity they'd want to use.  

It's good to see a Star Trek without Rick Berman or Brannon Braga, because they ran the franchise into the ground, and it was time for the franchise to get someone else.


----------



## EricNoah (May 18, 2009)

Has anyone had a chance to see it twice or more?  How does it hold up to a second viewing?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 18, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> Has anyone had a chance to see it twice or more?  How does it hold up to a second viewing?



Fine.


----------



## Pbartender (May 19, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> Has anyone had a chance to see it twice or more?  How does it hold up to a second viewing?




My wife and I have seen it twice...  She wants to see it again.



I love my wife.


----------



## Mallus (May 19, 2009)

I got a little misty-eyed during my 2nd viewing. This film has obliterated my ability to be objective. What can I say? It reminds me of being a kid and first falling in love with those characters, with SF in general. No other Trek film has done that. Not even Khaaannnnnnn!

I mentioned to my wife over dinner I might see it in the theater a 3rd time. She told me not to tell her if I did .


----------



## Atlatl Jones (May 20, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> I love Star Trek, but I don't trust them _not_ to do bad technobabble-driven plots.



I really liked that the Applied Phlebotinum plot device was called "red matter", and never explained.  It's a big blob of red paint that creates black holes.  That's good enough for me.

I gave the movie a 3.5.  It was far from perfect, but it was immensely enjoyable, and shows even more promise for the future. 

Some random thoughts:
- This was a character movie, not a plot movie.  The plot was, at best, mediocre, and the villain was one-dimensional and boring.  Nero and the Romulans were basically a plot device that set up a dramatic situations for the characters to react to.  Fortunately, the characters, and their relationships and banter, were fantastic.

- I loved the way they jettisoned canon by cleverly using Star Trek temporal pseudoscience against itself.
- I LOVED the reveal with the green-skinned woman.  I laughed out loud when they turned on the lights.
- Karl Urban as McCoy was fantastic, and the new Spock is a valid and interesting direction for the character.  Simon Pegg was, of course, lots of fun. 
- I was dubious about the actor playing Kirk at first, but by the end I was sold on him.  He managed to portray the cheeky essence of Kirk without doing a Shatner impression: he wasn't playing Shatner playing Kirk, he was playing his own Kirk.  
- The only characters I wasn't entirely enthusiastic about were Chekov and Sulu: Chekov was played mainly for laughts, and didn't have any depth.  Sulu was too bland; the Sulu I remember had a strange gravitas to him, helped by a deep voice and odd accent, while the Sulu of this movie acted and sounded like any random American college kid.


----------



## El Mahdi (May 21, 2009)

Just saw it tonight.

I gave it ***stars (Good).

It was definitely fun, action packed, and had quite a few humorous sections (usually clever comments linking it to past movies and series - I especially liked how Scotty had gotten in trouble for trans-warp teleporting _Admiral_ Archer's beagle).

It was wonderfully campy and retro in spots, while still being cutting edge and incredibly modern the rest of the time. My only real criticism is one that a lot of people have brought up - way too much "shaky cam".

It was completely irreverent to previous movies, series, and cannon - but it worked. They even state in the movie that they are essentially in an alternate reality due to the actions of Nero. If one goes into it expecting it to be closely related to the movies and series that came before - you'll probably be disapointed. If you view it as a stand alone or an alternate reality retelling, then one will probably quite enjoy it.

Will it go down in history as a classic like _"The Wrath of Khan"_? Personally, I doubt it. At least it won't be for me. But, it was a very fun, action packed romp through a familiar and well known, yet changed, world. Definitely worth seeing.


----------



## Rackhir (May 21, 2009)

I really enjoyed it. 

It's the third best trek film ever (Khan is #1 and #2 is Galaxy Quest)

LOVED Urban as Bones. Quinto was very good as Spock. Pegg is hilarious as always and makes a great Scotty.

Pine was okay, but missed out on one of Kirk's defining characteristics, his rock solid, absolute confidence and air of command. Admittedly, he was only a Lt for most of the movie, but it was one of the things that made you believe Starship Captains were a breed apart.

Two minor quibbles

1) Red Matter/Black Hole bomb - Er, if you have a weapon that can create a black hole that will suck an entire planet into it in about 5 min, then WHY do you need to drill anything? Just let it go. It's obvious why they did it from a dramatic point of view (the drilling device served a number of plot points), but would putting a little bit more thought into things have hurt?

2) Virtually no off planet Vulcans? - I realize that Vulcans do seem to be somewhat insular, but they were also clearly established as a major star faring race. I mean there's WAAAAAYYYY more than 10,000 US citizens abroad and we've only got a population of 300 million.

I was pleased that they showed a bit more imagination than was in a ST short story I read many years ago as to how Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru scenario (Short answer : He changed it so that his simply announcing who he was caused the Klingons to surrender).


----------



## El Mahdi (May 21, 2009)

Rackhir said:


> ... It's the third best trek film ever (Khan is #1 and *#2 is Galaxy Quest*). ...




LOL!  XP for you!


----------



## Pseudonym (May 24, 2009)

Darth Shoju said:


> Our audience applauded at the end of the movie, which I don't think I've ever experienced. Did this happen for anyone else?




I finally got a babysitter and was able to catch this with my wife.  At the end there was applause, and I agree with most here:  it was an excellent movie.

Good was the fact that they mentioned that by traveling back in time Spock/Nero created an alternate universe that we get to see unfold in this and hopefully a few more films.  That said, there was a lot of nods to the Trekness of it all.  Nice that Pike was in a wheelchair at the end when Kirk took over.  I can't wait to see what extras the DVD will have.


----------



## Mark (May 24, 2009)

Rackhir said:


> Pine was okay, but missed out on one of Kirk's defining characteristics, his rock solid, absolute confidence and air of command.





I think he showed some hints of this during the test.


----------



## LightPhoenix (May 24, 2009)

Overall I liked it.

I think all the positives/negatives have been gone over by everyone else, so I'm not going to mention them.

I'm getting really tired of time travel in sci-fi.  When used well it's excellent.  However, most of the time I think it's just a lazy plot device.  It wasn't used awfully here, but I'm not convinced it was strictly necessary.

I consider this to be an origin story, effectively.  Like all origin stories, the onus of having to go through the origin makes the story a little weaker.  It's my opinion that most of the time a series (movie or tv) gets vastly better once the origin stuff is out of the way.

I didn't catch the Admiral Archer reference.  Doh.



			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> Red Matter/Black Hole bomb - Er, if you have a weapon that can create a black hole that will suck an entire planet into it in about 5 min, then WHY do you need to drill anything? Just let it go. It's obvious why they did it from a dramatic point of view (the drilling device served a number of plot points), but would putting a little bit more thought into things have hurt?




This is a semi-fan wank, but it may depend on how strong the black hole is.  If you've read anything on the LHC/Black Hole debate, it's the same general principle.  Small black holes will "evaporate", but perhaps the added bonus of a planet's gravity helps stabilize it long enough.

Though I'll admit, the whole black hole physics was wonky in the movie.  I chalk it up to _deus ex machina_.


----------



## Pseudonym (May 24, 2009)

LightPhoenix said:


> I'm getting really tired of time travel in sci-fi.  When used well it's excellent.  However, most of the time I think it's just a lazy plot device.  It wasn't used awfully here, but I'm not convinced it was strictly necessary.




I'll give them credit that they at least didn't go with the slingshot-around-the-sun method used in previous Trek movies.


----------



## wingsandsword (May 24, 2009)

LightPhoenix said:


> I'm getting really tired of time travel in sci-fi.  When used well it's excellent.  However, most of the time I think it's just a lazy plot device.  It wasn't used awfully here, but I'm not convinced it was strictly necessary.



While not strictly necessary, they could have made it a pure origin story/flashback, the alternate timeline lets them work without the "Smallville problem" of doing a lengthy prequel series (such as future movies, a TV series ect.) with a predetermined outcome.  

They can refer to backstory events that are still canonical (like Star Trek: Enterprise, or Cochrane breaking the light barrier ect.) because they still happened, and they can bring in other alien races we know to exist at their leisure as they are discovered or interacted with before they otherwise would be (Borg, Ferengi ect.), and thanks to Future-Spock they have someone with knowledge of the galaxy and science from a century ahead, providing a nice explanation if they want to have things like Holodecks appear before their time, a little like him bringing back what was bleeding-edge transporter technology.  Since they coudn't even do that in TNG.

I'll assume perfecting Transwarp beaming was something Montgomery Scott did after he was rescued and set loose into the 2370's, guess he didn't retire after all.  Since the year Future-Spock came from was 2387, and we hadn't seen much of that far into the 24th century (Voyager came home in 2378, Nemesis was set in 2379, so we haven't seen a thing of what has happened in the last 8 years or so, Scotty might have really revolutionized Transporting instead of retiring).  Given the load of Future-Tech and Borg Tech that Voyager came home with, they could have had a sizable jump in technology especially with the Transwarp technology Voyager used to get home and the super-long distance subspace communications Lt. Barclay invented to communicate with Voyager during the Pathfinder Project.



> This is a semi-fan wank, but it may depend on how strong the black hole is.  If you've read anything on the LHC/Black Hole debate, it's the same general principle.  Small black holes will "evaporate", but perhaps the added bonus of a planet's gravity helps stabilize it long enough.
> 
> Though I'll admit, the whole black hole physics was wonky in the movie.  I chalk it up to _deus ex machina_.




Personally, my fan-wank on the Red Matter issue is that it's probably Romulan technology.  We know that in the TNG Era (2360's+) Romulans use artificial singularities as power sources for their starships.  We also know that malfunctions in these quantum singularity power cores can have odd temporal side effects (TNG episode "Timescape").  I figured that the joint Vulcan/Romulan plan to save Romulus involved using their entire supply of whatever they used to create these artificial singularities, hence the huge supply of "Red Matter", and they'd never used it in such quantity, creating a singularity with more temporal side effects.  

What is Red Matter, we don't know, but being honest, there is a lot about condensed matter physics and singularities that we don't know in the 21st century, so I'll accept that it's some form of exotic condensed matter that when subjected to extreme heat and radiation (like say, a planetary core, or an exploding starship) can implode to form a singularity.


----------



## Mallus (May 24, 2009)

Why did they need the drill when they had the insides of a lava lamp red matter? Simple. Because the filmmakers wanted the cool space-diving sequence onto the drill platform!

I go easy on stuff like this. Because, when you think about it, most (all?) SF action scenes are illogical. Take space battles. Any depiction of space combat where the combatants are in the same frame is automatically "unrealistic". Wouldn't the engagement distances would be huge? Would the most sensible weaponry be lots of tiny, unmanned drones capable of bone-crushing acceleration (FYI, I think Peter F. Hamilton gets this right in his Night's Dawn trilogy), or simple things, like clouds of fast-moving _sand_ dumped in a ship's path? Shouldn't lasers/masers/phasers be _invisible_ in space? 

SF action is supposed to look cool. That's the guiding principle.


----------



## Pbartender (May 24, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Why did they need the drill when they had the insides of a lava lamp red matter? Simple. Because the filmmakers wanted the cool space-diving sequence onto the drill platform!
> 
> I go easy on stuff like this. Because, when you think about it, most (all?) SF action scenes are illogical. Take space battles. Any depiction of space combat where the combatants are in the same frame is automatically "unrealistic". Wouldn't the engagement distances would be huge? Would the most sensible weaponry be lots of tiny, unmanned drones capable of bone-crushing acceleration (FYI, I think Peter F. Hamilton gets this right in his Night's Dawn trilogy), or simple things, like clouds of fast-moving _sand_ dumped in a ship's path? Shouldn't lasers/masers/phasers be _invisible_ in space?
> 
> SF action is supposed to look cool. That's the guiding principle.




"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Mallus again."

It's the difference between SCIENCE fiction and science FICTION.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 24, 2009)

I disliked the movie. Bad direction and acting, a silly plot, and a very poor screenplay. I spent the last part of the movie constantly looking at my watch, since I was getting really bored.

There are Star Trek movies much worse than this one, but that's not much of a compliment...


----------



## Mark (May 25, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> I disliked the movie. Bad direction and acting, a silly plot, and a very poor screenplay. I spent the last part of the movie constantly looking at my watch, since I was getting really bored.
> 
> There are Star Trek movies much worse than this one, but that's not much of a compliment...





You might have gone into the wrong theatre.  Did you notice that you never see Hannah and Miley together?


----------



## Fast Learner (May 25, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> Has anyone had a chance to see it twice or more?  How does it hold up to a second viewing?




I saw it last night for the second time (after having seen it on opening weekend) and it was a real hoot again. This time I got to check out details I wasn't able to see the first time, and got to enjoy some of the large screen and sound system stuff that I won't get on DVD. Definitely worth a second shot, imo.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 25, 2009)

Pseudonym said:


> I'll give them credit that they at least didn't go with the slingshot-around-the-sun method used in previous Trek movies.



Suck is still suck. Time travel sucks no matter how you do it.

Slingshot-around-the-sun is just as fine as anything else... it's time travel - you're doomed to suckiness from the start.


----------



## LightPhoenix (May 25, 2009)

wingsandsword said:


> While not strictly necessary, they could have made it a pure origin story/flashback, the alternate timeline lets them work without the "Smallville problem" of doing a lengthy prequel series (such as future movies, a TV series ect.) with a predetermined outcome.
> 
> They can refer to backstory events that are still canonical (like Star Trek: Enterprise, or Cochrane breaking the light barrier ect.) because they still happened, ... (snipped for length)




Here's the thing - they can do all of that without time travel and still reboot the series.  Just put in references to the stuff (ie, Admiral Archer, Pike, etc).


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 25, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> Has anyone had a chance to see it twice or more?  How does it hold up to a second viewing?



The plot holes and pseudoscientific nonsense stand out more. It goes by so fast that the first time you just accept things, but the second time I was constantly scratching my head and going "how'd that happen?".

Conversely, it was fun to hunt for in-jokes and references. I still haven't caught the tribble.


----------



## roguerouge (May 28, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> I know it's early, but if anyone sees it more than once please let us know how it stands up to multiple viewings.




Spoilers ahoy...



It stands up well, actually. The opening two scenes, in particular, retained their impact for me. The Scotty intro seems more forced this time around and the Kirk-horn-dog low comedy is amusing but not delightful now. 

Two things occurred to me: The enemy ship is the antagonist, not the villain, which is a good thing. The fact that the crew had no training, that they were miners, proved to be the crucial balancing factor and was used well dramatically. Once two trained people beamed in, they made mincemeat of the crew in a phaser battle. (The SFX of which was awesome, with missed shots thudding against walls). It made sense that they were missing moving targets. And the captain gets surprised by tactical considerations, falling for the ramming speed maneuver, letting himself get lured away from earth, and allowing emotion to rule him. The future technology of their ship was their huge advantage, but it was also their only one.


----------



## Krug (May 30, 2009)

Well it's official. *Star Trek* is the #1 box office grossing movie this year.
2009 Yearly Box Office Results


----------



## Mark (May 30, 2009)

Krug said:


> Well it's official. *Star Trek* is the #1 box office grossing movie this year.
> 2009 Yearly Box Office Results





Wow.  OUTLANDER seems to have missed the boat.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 2, 2009)

Saw it tonight and gave it 9/10, which is my highest personal score for a film in a couple of years.

I loved the characterisation, I loved the nods to TOS tradition, I loved the ensemble atmosphere it had. It might have been a 10 if it hadn't been for too much dratted shakeycam.

Possibly my favourite Trek film ever (just ahead of 4 and leaving 2 in third place)


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jun 2, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Possibly my favourite Trek film ever (just ahead of 4 and leaving 2 in third place)



I was listening to the director's commentary on 4 and Nimoy said that an executive had asked him if Trek fan's were ready for a comedy. Nimoy said his response was "are you kidding, they're desperate for a comedy!" Having saw the film when it first hit the theaters, I gotta agree with him.

I loved 4.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 2, 2009)

A good, solid, 8 out of 10.  (I tend to rate low, I think that I use a logarithmic scale when rating....) 

Not perfect, and my inner physicist was curled in a corner whimpering (bad physics, even for Star Trek), but I really liked it anyway.

Not my favorite movie for this summer, but that is only because UP was so very good. (I give UP a 9 - something that does not happen every year.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Rhun (Jun 2, 2009)

6 out of 10 for me. Sure the action was great. The actors did a good job. But they butchered the Star Trek timeline (granted, altering the timeline accounts for this, but that just makes it worse in my book), they paid no attention to ship design basics that were firmly established for Federation starships (with the exception of the Enterprise...because really, what can you do?), and they end the show by giving a cadet command of the Federation's Flagship? Give me a break. I don't care if Kirk received a battlefield commission or not, he wouldn't suddenly be given command of the Enterprise. There were just too many inconsistencies and liberties taken for me to get real, true enjoyment out of the movie. On a personal note, I dislike almost any show that deals with time travel, and this one was really no different...of course, that is my issue and not necessarily an issue with the movie.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2009)

Rhun said:


> ... they paid no attention to ship design basics that were firmly established for Federation starships (with the exception of the Enterprise...because really, what can you do?)



How so? I thought the ships looked great (and I was a kid whose most cherished possession was a copy of the Star Trek Technical Manual -- did I just admit that in a public forum?!?!).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 2, 2009)

Mallus said:


> How so? I thought the ships looked great (and I was a kid whose most cherished possession was a copy of the Star Trek Technical Manual -- did I just admit that in a public forum?!?!).



On a forum dedicated to role-playing games.You know, the type of game where you pretend to be an elf? 

I still remember that I was sooo looking forward to my new Startrek Technical Manual (TNG version, I don't know what you had). And it seemed to take an eternity till it arrived at the bookseller. And it was awesome when I finally had it.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> On a forum dedicated to role-playing games.You know, the type of game where you pretend to be an elf?



When you put it that way I feel better . 



> I still remember that I was sooo looking forward to my new Startrek Technical Manual (TNG version, I don't know what you had).



I was talking about the TOS edition. It was a present from my mom on my 5th or 6th birthday.


----------



## Rhun (Jun 2, 2009)

Mallus said:


> How so? I thought the ships looked great (and I was a kid whose most cherished possession was a copy of the Star Trek Technical Manual -- did I just admit that in a public forum?!?!).




Well, there has been many deviations over the years on ship design, but it has been firmly established that two Warp nacelles is the optimal configuration for a starship. Gene Roddenberry was even quoted at one point as saying warp engines need to come in pairs to create a proper warp field.

Of course, this isn't the first time I've seen single nacelled or triple nacelled ships in Star Trek shows, but it drives me nuts everytime I do. I believe there was a single nacelled ship in Star Trek: TMP. And we see a triple nacelled future Enterprise in the final episode of TNG (although this assumes that all the issues with unstable warp fields are fixed by advancements in technology).

Its the small things that get me. I just wish there would have been a little more effort to stick to how things are supposed to be, instead of making changes just to make ships that look cool.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2009)

Rhun said:


> ... but it has been firmly established that two Warp nacelles is the optimal configuration for a starship.



I'd disagree that its firmly established. 



> Of course, this isn't the first time I've seen single nacelled or triple nacelled ships in Star Trek shows, but it drives me nuts everytime I do. I believe there was a single nacelled ship in Star Trek: TMP.



My beloved copy the first Star Trek Technical Manual (circa 1975) had single-nacelled ship configurations. 



> I just wish there would have been a little more effort to stick to how things are supposed to be, instead of making changes just to make ships that look cool.



'How things are supposed to be' varies wildly in the Trek universe(s). There's not as much _continuity_ in the continuity as we were led to believe . Especially when it comes to the bullsh*t science/engineering. Which isn't to say you should like the new movie more than you did. 

FYI, I was watching the new Blu-ray of The Wrath of Khan last night. Scotty keeps referring to the main 'energizer', which apparently powers the ship. First time and last time I recall hearing that specific term (wasn't it called a 'matter/antimatter reactor').


----------



## Rhun (Jun 2, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I'd disagree that its firmly established.




I guess "firmly established" could be a point of contention. Perhaps merely "established" or "commonly thought" might have been a better way to put it.



Mallus said:


> My beloved copy the first Star Trek Technical Manual (circa 1975) had single-nacelled ship configurations.




I'll just smile and nod that everything from that particular source is actually from established continuity and canon.  However, it was used as the basis for Star Fleet Battles, I believe, which is why many of the FASA technical game manuals also had single nacelle ships.



Mallus said:


> 'How things are supposed to be' varies wildly in the Trek universe(s). There's not as much _continuity_ in the continuity as we were led to believe . Especially when it comes to the bullsh*t science/engineering. Which isn't to say you should like the new movie more than you did.




True, I've seen many times were continuity and canon have been departed from. It is a matter of having so many different writers, I guess. It is one of the main reasons I didn't like Star Trek: Enterprise much either. They kept changing the established timeline. In a universe as big as Star Trek, you shouldn't have to rely on changing established canon and continuity to write a good story. 

Also, I'm a fairly harsh judge of movies. And this one did entertain me. I just don't think it was an 8+ that the vast majority seem to think it was. And while I guess I am a trekkie/trekker, I also differ from the norm; for example, I personally think DS9 was by far the best Star Trek series.



Mallus said:


> FYI, I was watching the new Blu-ray of The Wrath of Khan last night. Scotty keeps referring to the main 'energizer', which apparently powers the ship. First time and last time I recall hearing that specific term (wasn't it called a 'matter/antimatter reactor').




I think the term energizer was also used in TOS episode The Doomsday Machine. But those are the only two times I've heard "energizer" used in the Star Trek. Not sure why they the decided to all it something different. Perhaps one of the writers just liked the sound "energizer" better than the term reactor or core or such? I've tried finding some information on this online, but so far I've come up with nada.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2009)

Rhun said:


> I also differ from the norm; for example, I personally think DS9 was by far the best Star Trek series.



I got your back on that one. DS9's great.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 3, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I got your back on that one. DS9's great.



I used to think that was controvserial, but it doesn't really seem to be, at least not on EN World.


----------



## delericho (Jun 3, 2009)

It was okay.

The things that I thought would really bother me, notably the extreme youth of the cast, turned out not to be an issue at all. I could definately get behind seeing this cast in action in Star Trek movies. In particular, Spock and McCoy were really well done. (Simon Pegg really needed to settle on one particular Scottish accent, but that's a very minor quibble.)

But I didn't rate the rest of the film at all. It kept moving at a relentless pace, which almost but not quite masks the silliness of the plot, the poor characterisation, the plot and logic holes, and so forth. It beggars belief that they'd all just happen to be assigned to the Enterprise as their first mission all together (could have fixed that really easy, too - Bones and Scotty are both older than the rest, so make them 'old hands'). And the way Kirk took command just didn't work - you can't do that in front of everyone and expect them to follow you.

Plus, time travel, prequels and origin stories all suck.

Hopefully, "Star Trek 2" will be the film this _should_ have been - they're a new but integrated crew away on the start of their five year mission, when something happens that demands attention.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 3, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I used to think that was controvserial, but it doesn't really seem to be, at least not on EN World.




Does anyone really disagree? DS9 was both more fun and more interesting than any other Trek series. Characters actually developed, had serious relationships, important people died... plus DS9 ought to have blown up any notion that Trek couldn't do war.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 4, 2009)

drothgery said:


> Does anyone really disagree? DS9 was both more fun and more interesting than any other Trek series. Characters actually developed, had serious relationships, important people died... plus DS9 ought to have blown up any notion that Trek couldn't do war.




Well, I've always preferred TNG to DS9 by a long shot, so there's one person that disagrees. Possibly because I abandoned DS9 by season 3 or 4, but I could never get behind the characters in it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Well, I've always preferred TNG to DS9 by a long shot, so there's one person that disagrees. Possibly because I abandoned DS9 by season 3 or 4, but I could never get behind the characters in it.



Hmm. You either abandoned it before it became really great - or you abandoned it when you learned that it really wasn't to your liking. 

TNG wasn't bad, either. I think it influenced my moral compass greatly. There were a lot of real "stinkers" in the first seasons especially - neither characters nor story really worked, and it was all pretty cheesy. I think DS9 is standing up a lot better in that regard, but it had the problem that it was very different from TNG (or TOS) and it took me some time to get into it. 

But TNG also had a lot of great episodes, and interesting characters - they were just used in a very static manner compared to DS9...


----------



## Rhun (Jun 4, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Hmm. You either abandoned it before it became really great - or you abandoned it when you learned that it really wasn't to your liking.




Season 3 is when it started picking up, and by Season 5 it completely rocked.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> TNG wasn't bad, either. I think it influenced my moral compass greatly. There were a lot of real "stinkers" in the first seasons especially - neither characters nor story really worked, and it was all pretty cheesy. I think DS9 is standing up a lot better in that regard, but it had the problem that it was very different from TNG (or TOS) and it took me some time to get into it.
> 
> But TNG also had a lot of great episodes, and interesting characters - they were just used in a very static manner compared to DS9...




Agreed. I think the coolest thing about DS9 is that they were able to develop one large, over-arcing story plot, where they couldn't do that with TNG. They were also able to do a much more in depth look at some of the cultures and such (Bajorans, Cardassians, etc) than TNG, because of the stationary presence of the station.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 4, 2009)

delericho said:


> It was okay.
> 
> The things that I thought would really bother me, notably the extreme youth of the cast, turned out not to be an issue at all.




Actually they aren't all that much younger. Most of SToS was in their mid/late thirties and most of the new cast is in their early thirties.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 4, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Well, I've always preferred TNG to DS9 by a long shot, so there's one person that disagrees. Possibly because I abandoned DS9 by season 3 or 4, but I could never get behind the characters in it.




I find a lot of this sort of preference tends to come down to an "imprinting" effect. IE. what did you encounter first or at the right time in your life.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2009)

Rhun said:


> Season 3 is when it started picking up, and by Season 5 it completely rocked.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. I think the coolest thing about DS9 is that they were able to develop one large, over-arcing story plot, where they couldn't do that with TNG. They were also able to do a much more in depth look at some of the cultures and such (Bajorans, Cardassians, etc) than TNG, because of the stationary presence of the station.



Though that had the tiny disadvantage of being about Bajorans and Cardassians, not, say Romulans and Vulcans.

I think TNG _could_ have done an over-arcing story plot, but it wasn't the time for that yet. I think series in the past decades slowly moved more towards the long arcs and became less episodic. It might also be what makes it so hard to follow them - and poses a general risk. If you don't like the particular story arc - even if you might like the setting and the characters - the entire series might be disappointing.

Ongoing story arcs could have been stories that actually have been told, but in single episodes or occassional two-parters: 
- Return of the Romulan Empire
- Sarek & Spock and the reunion of the Romulan Empire
- The strange crab-like mind control creaturs
- The Borg
- The Klingon Civil War
- The Cardassian-Maquis Conflict
- Q 
- Lore (Lore allying with various of the oher forces, with his own plan for a power grab)
- Archeology Hunt (The origin race of the humanoids, the story where Picard was underccover on a Pirate ship)
There would still be plenty of room for singular episodes, but each could have been a longer-running story arc with plenty of detail - and also room to explore the characters. 
Heck, Picard and Beverly shouldn't have danced around each other so long, they could have gotten together and learned to live together. "Menage a Troi" with Deanna, Riker and Worf. The friendship between Data and LaForge. Wesley growing into a responsible adult. The trust between Riker and Picard. Data and Yars relationship (and the meaning of her death to him. Of course, if that would have been a major plot, Denise Crosby might not have wanted to leave the show.)

I also think they really missed their chance with Voyager in that regard - it was the perfect show for an ongoing story arc, with episode-to-episode continuty and all. BST:TNS could have happened in the Startrek Universe!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 8, 2009)

Rackhir said:


> I find a lot of this sort of preference tends to come down to an "imprinting" effect. IE. what did you encounter first or at the right time in your life.




I think one of the biggest issues is that Babylon 5 had started, and showed what could really be done with multiple story arcs. Trek had never done that in the past, and early DS9 wasn't really doing it (at least not well) at the start. It seemed that one of the positive influences of B5 on DS9 was that it kicked their writers up a notch or two in terms of their large-scale story planning.

Even now though I prefer TNG characters to DS9 characters. I prefer Picard to Sisko, I prefer Data to Odo (the 'fish out of water' character, if you will), I prefer Riker to Major Kira. I also disliked episodes where (for example) O'Brien completely disobeyed an order from a superior officer and nothing came of it. Seemed really wrong to me).

Cheers


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 8, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> TNG wasn't bad, either. I think it influenced my moral compass greatly.



Ditto here, as a kid, TNG was great and I kept some ideas from it. But I have to say, DS9 _aged_ much better than TNG. Reruns of DS9 tend to suck me in, TNG... not so much.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mark (Jun 8, 2009)

DS9 ditched exploration in favor of a spiritual element as it's underlying thematic throughline.  It was less a show about a string of adventures than an episodic drama.  While it was an enjoyable show, it was really a departure from ST norms.  Voyager tried to get things back to the norms but was too repetitious, relying on too many of the same old plot devices, and many fans had problems with the casting of the female starship captain.  Enterprise was a good attempt to bring things back with an updated feel but broke too many traditions for most long time fans.  It appears to me like the new movie is about the best thing since the ended of TNG for the ST franchise.


----------



## Rhun (Jun 9, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think one of the biggest issues is that Babylon 5 had started, and showed what could really be done with multiple story arcs. Trek had never done that in the past, and early DS9 wasn't really doing it (at least not well) at the start. It seemed that one of the positive influences of B5 on DS9 was that it kicked their writers up a notch or two in terms of their large-scale story planning.




I agree with this completely. Of course, the other thing in B5's favor is that what, like 95% of the episodes were all written by J. Michael Straczynski. This made the overall story much more fluid.



Plane Sailing said:


> Even now though I prefer TNG characters to DS9 characters. I prefer Picard to Sisko, I prefer Data to Odo (the 'fish out of water' character, if you will), I prefer Riker to Major Kira. I also disliked episodes where (for example) O'Brien completely disobeyed an order from a superior officer and nothing came of it. Seemed really wrong to me).




I liked both Sisko and Picard. Completely different types of captains. I think this is best illustrated when Siso punches Q. "You hit me. Captain Picard never hit me." 

I agree with you on the O'Brien thing though, even though I liked O'Brien as a character. Plus, later epsisodes of DS9 had a lot more Worf. And who doesn't like Worf?


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jun 9, 2009)

Rhun said:


> I agree with this completely. Of course, the other thing in B5's favor is that what, like 95% of the episodes were all written by J. Michael Straczynski. This made the overall story much more fluid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




IMO Worf was at his best on DS9 (though he had his moments on TNG, too). And Miles O'Brien is my favourite DS9 character. I love the episode where he infiltrates the criminal organisation.

I'm also a huge B5 fan, which I guess made me an easy mark for DS9.


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Jun 10, 2009)

LightPhoenix said:


> I didn't catch the Admiral Archer reference.



And Porthos!


----------



## Orius (Jun 22, 2009)

Average.

Where to begin?  

Overall, the movie itself wasn't too bad, and was better than I was expecting.  Yeah, there's the whole alternate reality thing throwing a massive (insert technobabble term of your choice here) into the shreds of Trek's continuity, but then there've been so many alternate universes in Trek now that what's one more?   I already knew that this was supposed to be an alternate timeline so I was buffered for the shock.

And they were really going for shock here.  I mean 



Spoiler



destroying *VULCAN?!*


.  It's like Orci and Kurtzman looked at the previous movies and said, "They killed Spock in II, blew up the Enterprise in III, killed Kirk and destroyed the Enterprise-D in Generations, and killed Data in Nemesis; how can we top that?"  Top that they did.  If I were a Trekkie with less of a life I might have actually been pissed, but Trek's been messed up so many times that I was able to shrug it off.  I guess I have to credit Voyager and Enterprise for that.  I was surprised there was no reset button at the end, but then this wasn't a Voyager episode.  So now we have three major Trek timelines: the Prime line, this timeline and the Mirror Universe; as well as a dozen or so minor timelines from various episodes like "All Good Things..." "The Visitor", "Year of Hell 1&2", and "Twilight".  I need a drink; anyone have some Romulan ale?  

It's a shame too about 



Spoiler



Romulus getting blown up too (and according to the timeline this happens approximately 8 years after Nemesis), because the Romulans kick ass.


  If the franchise returns to after the TNG, I want the Romulans to still be around and causing trouble.

And of course technically, they shouldn't really know that Vulcans and Romulans are related too, because of "Balance of Terror", but then this is an alternate universe.  Of course it gets even weirder when this movie has a Stardate of 2258.42 where "Balance of Terror" is 1709.2, so make of that what you want.  Of course TOS startdates aren't really consistant anyway, and the movie's stardate also coincides with the year, which might have been the intent.   

So while there's a lot of really picky things to snark about, why bother?  It's another timeline, so what's the point?  The thing is the whole alternate timeline thing kind of messes with the good stuff in the movie, which is a shame.  Did the cool stuff happen in the Prime timeline too?  That's the big question, I'll just assume everything I like happens in both.  

And there is stuff to like.  According to Memory Alpha Orci's a long time Trek fan, and it shows a bit here.  There's a lot of nods to what we know about the original crew here, so I give him credit for that.  

First he deserves credit for really building up Uhura's character here.  Seriously, of all the original crew members, she had absolutely the least development.  They finally gave her a first name; Nyota had been floating around non-canon stuff for quite a while, and they finally canonized it here.  I wonder if her refusal to tell Kirk her name was a dig at the fact that she didn't have an official first name until the movie?  Though I find it ridiculous that she's supposed to be an expert on xenolinguistics, yet had to drag a big-ass Klingon dictionary on the the bridge for an inane joke in Undiscovered Country (though that was always a stupid scene).

I liked the scenes from Spock's childhood as well, but then I was always a Spock fan.  Vulcan bullies are so...._Vulcan_.  The young Spock is done very well here, which is probably why Nimoy agreed to the cameo.  It's amusing that Spock was the one who programmed the Kobayshi Maru simulation the Kirk ends up cheating at.  Especially given simulation's part in the story in Wrath of Khan: Kirk cheated at it, and so didn't face the no-win situation until Spock gave his life to save the Enterprise.

Uhura and Spock?!  What the heck?

Kirk does seem to be played up a bit too much of a punk here at times (look how cocky he is during the Kobayashi Maru simulation!).  He was still fun to watch though.

So yeah, for me it was kind of a typical summer action film.  And while there were parts I enjoyed, the whole alternate universe stuff makes it harder for me to really care about it.  It did dodge the odd-Trek rule though.


----------



## Orius (Jun 22, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> Yeah, a ship crewed mostly by cadets, how lame!  Wait, are we talking about the new Star Trek movie or Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn?




The biggest difference here is that in this movie the Enterprise is new, while in Khan, it's old and ready to be retired; it's used for training because Kirk's using privledge as an admiral.



fanboy2000 said:


> [*]Admiral Archer? Next movie, I want a Sam Becket cameo.




Admiral Archer's prized beagle.  I can't believe I missed that.  Though I wonder, since this is a little over 100 years after Enterprise, so maybe Archer had a son or grandson in Starfleet who was important?



> [*]We have a good explanation of why Spock joined Starfleet.




Yeah, the whole scene with the Vulcan Science Academy is something that I'd like to see in the main timeline.  



wingsandsword said:


> Actually, that is a huge continuity nod showing they have really done their research.  The idea that McCoy joined Starfleet after a bad divorce was originally though up during the original production run in the '60's.  The episode was going to be about McCoy meeting his estranged daughter who had fallen in with a disreputable crowd.  The episode was rewritten, losing this subplot and eventually became "The Way to Eden".  They had never had the opportunity to mention it, but that was the actual original idea for his backstory.




Yeah, I think the whole "she took the whole damn planet!" in the divorce was pretty good.  Another part from the movie that would be great in the main timeline.



Eridanis said:


> And I MUST have that image of Enterprise in front of Saturn as my desktop background soon. Please, please, Paramount? I heart starship pr0n.




Best shot in the film.



drothgery said:


> FWIW, if I were full-on rebooting Star Trek, rather than kicking off an alternate timeline ~25 years pre-TOS, I'd ditch the transporter. It's too easy to forget that you can do certain things if you've got it.




They were already starting to use the transporter regularly in Enterprise at least for emergencies, and that was 100 years before this movie.



Evilhalfling said:


> I really liked this move - really does any other movie attempt stand up to it except for KHAN?




Yes.  Khan, First Contact, and Undiscovered Country do rank above this one.  Perhaps Search for Spock and maybe Voyage Home.  It is better than TMP,  Final Frontier, Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis.



wingsandsword said:


> I'll assume perfecting Transwarp beaming was something Montgomery Scott did after he was rescued and set loose into the 2370's, guess he didn't retire after all.  Since the year Future-Spock came from was 2387, and we hadn't seen much of that far into the 24th century (Voyager came home in 2378, Nemesis was set in 2379, so we haven't seen a thing of what has happened in the last 8 years or so, Scotty might have really revolutionized Transporting instead of retiring).  Given the load of Future-Tech and Borg Tech that Voyager came home with, they could have had a sizable jump in technology especially with the Transwarp technology Voyager used to get home and the super-long distance subspace communications Lt. Barclay invented to communicate with Voyager during the Pathfinder Project.




That's an excellent idea, but the whole transwarp beaming sounded like the usual Trek tech of the week.  Again.  



Ahnehnois said:


> I still haven't caught the tribble.




There was a Tribble?  Damn, missed that.

I did catch one joke; the Romulan ship destroyed 47 Klingon vessels.  There's our favorite random odd number again!


----------



## drothgery (Jun 22, 2009)

Orius said:


> They were already starting to use the transporter regularly in Enterprise at least for emergencies, and that was 100 years before this movie.




I think you're missing what I'm saying. There are a whole lot of capabilities that pretty much have to exist if you have the transporter (and it's real technology, not a magic beaming box). And except for the occasional plot device used for one episode, this is pretty much ignored in the TV shows and movies.

The transporter was originally created a plot device to reduce production costs; if I were rebooting Star Trek, I'd get rid of it, as it's not needed to reduce production costs any more.


----------

