Star Trek Movie Flawed

Star Trek Movie Flawed

With all the hype about JJ Abrams' new Star Trek "breathing new life" into the franchise, what most reviewers miss is that the plot and premise of the film is seriously flawed.

Review Opinion
By xtellums1 - May 11, 2009 09:05 AM EST
Filed Under: Star Trek

Yes, the beginning third of the movie was wonderful cinema, but soon the filmmakers went over the top using a black hole to get them out of a black hole -- being faithful to the characters and history of Roddenberry's Star Trek. They wanted to be able to rewrite Roddenberry's characters for future sequels, and they copped out by saying they now have an "alternate reality" to begin a clean slate with.

Although it purports to be a prequel with the original characters, the film is not a prequel at all because it doesn't set the stage for the original series. Why didn't they just use new characters like the Enterprise series? Obviously, they wanted to pull in the original series fans hook line and sinker with the addition of Leonard Nimoy. But they violated every Star Trek and science fiction rule to do so. In the past, Star Trek writers were very careful dealing with time travel -- if a timeline was changed, the characters used painstaking measures to set the timeline right. The way these filmmakers did it just didn't make sense.

In fact, the main premise of the movie is flawed. We are told that the main villain, Nero, shoots back "accidentally" in the past after his world his destroyed. Instead of warning his people or preventing the destruction of this planet, he spends his 25 years just wandering around the galaxy waiting for Ambassador Spock's return to exact his "retribution" against someone who tried to save Romulus.

In the beginning, I could believe that Nero just "happened" to run into a ship commanded by Kirk's father and gets him killed; but when the young Kirk just "happens" to run into a cave the old Spock had been hiding in, then just "happens" to run into Scottie on the same planet -- the coincidences are just to ridiculous to believe. And how could the elder Spock meet his younger self in the same time continuum without things going haywire? It just doesn't make sense.

But in everyone's rush to embrace the new Trek, the plot flaws don't seem to matter. The fans say the story doesn't matter; this film has the old characters with good acting. Even that is debatable --Pine plays Jim Kirk as a reckless, spoiled brat who never grows up and gets everything handed to him on a silver platter by virtual of his lineage. Forget the discipline of Star Fleet -- he apparently didn't get any. And both actors who played McCoy and Chekhov tried so hard to emulate the originals they ended up being pathetic parodies in their roles. The exceptions were Zachary Quinto as Spock and John Cho as Sulu. The best actor turned out to be the veteran Bruce Greenwood who played Christopher Pike -- he took charge and was more Kirk-like than the actor who played Kirk.

But we shouldn't be quibbling about this movie because we have Star Trek back, right? Now we can all look forward to the sequel where Spock witnesses his own death while making love to Lt. Uhura.

STAR TREK: SECTION 31 Trailer And Poster Sees Michelle Yeoh Emperor Philippa Georgiou Assemble A Team Of Spies
Related:

STAR TREK: SECTION 31 Trailer And Poster Sees Michelle Yeoh Emperor Philippa Georgiou Assemble A Team Of Spies

Quentin Tarantino Finally Explains Why His R-Rated STAR TREK Movie Is Never Going To Happen
Recommended For You:

Quentin Tarantino Finally Explains Why His R-Rated STAR TREK Movie Is "Never Going To Happen"

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2
anyjoe2000
anyjoe2000 - 5/11/2009, 11:11 AM
I think your review is a little harsh. You may not like the movie and you may be correct about some of the plot flaws but such things are nothing new to the franchise. The main things is however what they did was completely within the predefined rules of the cannon. They did plenty to upset the time line in ST4 just as they did In TNG Enterprise C story arc to name just a few.

JJ Adams was tasked with a no win scenario. Paramount wanted him to create a movie what would attract new views to their dying money cow franchise Star Trek. But they also did not want him to alienate the old fan base. Thats a tough request because everything you try to do new and fresh is going to be analyzed by the guy in plastic pointed ears in the third row. That guys going to tell you this or that couldn't happen because in this episode or that such and such happened, and he is going to do it in Klingon. In other words the current fan base was going to hold him to the franchise cannon so 40+ years of history was going to get in his way. His solution was brilliant.
JJ, in real life, changed the conditions of the test just as the fictitious Kirk did in the Kobayashi Maru. He did this by changing the past prior to the original pilot for the original series. Basically what he did was give himself a clean slate and did it using the cannons own rules. This makes all complaints of inconsistency irrelevant. He is free to kill off Spocks mother, blow up Vulcan and do just about anything else he wants to do. You don’t have to like it but its falls well within established parameters of the show.
The end result is what is well on the way to becoming the most successful Trek movie ever made. Is everyone going to me happy with it? No but look at what people are saying, both from the old fan base and the new. His move minimized the dissenters like yourself and attracted huge masses of new followers. Leaving the door open for at least two more movies unless they really screw up the next one.
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 5/11/2009, 11:46 AM
XTELLUMS1 @ WHAT? I'm sure this looks like a Masterpiece compared to WOLVERINE!!! Be happy FOX didn't make it!!!!

LMFAO!!!

: D
ladyhope
ladyhope - 5/11/2009, 12:14 PM
I really liked the movie and I just wish someone would explain the whole time line plot to me as it didn't flow where I could understand it, especially at the end when young Spock says to older Spock, so you liked to Kirk? Other than that part of the story, I enjoyed it. Someone please explain the time line plot to me. My email is [email protected] Thanks, Hope
Rachet
Rachet - 5/11/2009, 12:15 PM
wow you are one angry son of a gun. hateful too. I have watched Star Trek since the day it debuted on television. I have no problem with a reset. I have no problem with a more balanced Spock and and Kirk was always a reckless fool. I like McCoy and think his character needs some fleshing out and Chekov needs to loose some of his accent which one can assume would happen over time as the old Chekov didn't have such a heavy accent.
JJ Abrams made Star Trek fun again. I thank him for that and your just a poopyhead.
xyberviri
xyberviri - 5/11/2009, 12:32 PM
Dude your really pissed off.

I've watched start trek since it was on ABC on sundays and kirk didn't have a tie around his waste.

This movie was enjoyable compaired to a couple of the last ones.

I have a rebuttle for your thoughts though, In every start trek when they fix what they break by time traveling, It's because they we either aware they them selfs broke something or had to do it to fix something that was going to destroy there future.

Wikipedia has a whole section on this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Star_Trek_time_travel_stories

This happens before anyone who can stop it is born, and the only people involed are Nero and Spock, its not like spock can do anything because he was captured just as he entered the past.


Since nero encountered the ship George Kirk was on and killed him he upset the rest of the future of startrek time.

They used the Paralle universe theory where each choice has its own universe so the other star trek universe no longer exists because its in the past of this star trek universe.

This time the creators didn't use the Grandfather paradox

So the other Star Trek Still exists, there just is no romulus or spock. just a big black void where all that use to be.

In this star Trek spock is also 125 years older.

The reason nero didn't go to romulus is because is wife and kid had not been born for another 150 years from the point he entered the past.(25 years before spock entered the past, and he said that 125 years from now the event occured)

Also remmber that When Kirk was capitain of the enterprise on the original TV show the Romulons were the enemy, there first encounter was some kind pod thing that shot at the enterprise. so at that point in time who knows that nero was thinking.


Also its JJ Abrams and that guy made clover feild and i think that moved sucked, I think all and all there some rules and traditions we can let go to still enjoy the movies even when some parts are not true to the movie universe they are in.
mobile1ph
mobile1ph - 5/11/2009, 12:35 PM
Clearly you are flawed..
jesselangham
jesselangham - 5/11/2009, 12:37 PM
I agree with you on some major points and I don't think you're being too negative.

The thing that bothered me the most about the time travel reset plot device was Nero's motive. I mean, him wanting to destroy the federation because they didn't make it on time to save his planet from a natural disaster? The only earthly parallel I can think of is the US government and Katrina, but that doesn't apply either. It's like the citizens of New Orleans being murderously pissed off that North Korea didn't come to our rescue in time. I think I'd be more pissed off at the supernova.

They really could have done a lot of better revenge motives. Nero could have been an ultra-conservative Romulan who wanted to destroy Vulcan and the Federation because the future Spock eventually succeeded in over throwing the empire and joining the federation. This at least sounds more plausible.

And since when do mining ships have that kind of weaponry, even in the 24th century? Are there lots of poachers in the Romulan Empire?

I think the general consensus is that JJ will get a pass this time, but future installments better not be so paper-thin.
TKrel
TKrel - 5/11/2009, 12:46 PM
An excellent review; I could not agree more. While the first third of the movie was stunning, the rest of the film quickly became a morass of cheap ploys and bad characterization. Old Spock seems to suffer from the same ailment that drove Sarek to emotional displays, judging by his sickeningly syrupy lines--but then he's portrayed as entirely unconcerned about his connection to the destruction of his entire planet. Plot holes and contradictions abound.

I know it's supposed to be a reboot and hope that maybe the sequels will be better, when they presumably turn away from creating the "set-up" and focus more on exploration. But time will have to tell.
vrbuzard
vrbuzard - 5/11/2009, 12:53 PM
I was thinking the same thing, there you are a couple hundred years in the past. You know that a star will go super nova and will endanger the ENTIRE Galaxy (bit of a strech, don't cha think?) you've got some stuff that will destroy the Super Nova star let alone the way it is now....so why not just go and get rid of the thing NOW? No, you gotta go and blame Spock for not doing his job fast enough and kill billions instead of saving billions and your own wife befoe she is ever born.

I liked the movie, I would say it's my third favorite. After Wrath of Kahn and Voyage Home (Guilty Pleasure)
urbansamurai70
urbansamurai70 - 5/11/2009, 1:56 PM
Whateva! Everybody's entitled to their opinion, and in my opinion, this movie was awesome!
vonstallin
vonstallin - 5/11/2009, 2:06 PM
I think you guys look at this sort of wrong...
This movie is still listed as Star Trek 11...

Not like the reboot of Bat Man that is not listed at Bat Man 6 the prequel...

This movie has ties with the next generation and the current time line/star date. (they told that story in the prequel Star Trek 10.5 comic book format). The events of Ambassadore Spock and Nero in the current time line took them back and that altered the events starting with Kirks Birth.

Just like in Star Trek Generations durring the launch of the Enterprise 1701B Kirk disapeared and was assumed dead. He showed up 50 some years later and changed time with Picard. Its basicaly the same thing...

Accedental time travel changes the course..
anyway....
cable82
cable82 - 5/11/2009, 2:06 PM
Way be another nitpicky geek. Who the [frick] cares. This was a movie to reinvigorate the series so liberties had to be taken for newer audiences. Your concerns are moot. If you are that dissatisfied go and make a fan made movie like a bunch you geeks like to do.
Deathlok
Deathlok - 5/11/2009, 2:12 PM
Everyone should go and read the four part comic book prequel called Star Trek: Countdown. It explains most of the supposed inconsistancies and takes a more in-depth look at the history between Spock and Nero. I didn't have too much to gripe about with this movie. The only things that really bothered me was Anton Yelchin playing Chekov. His voice was great, but he didn't look the part at all. Also, Nero seemed a little weird at times. Like when he first communicates with the Enterprise and says "Hi Christopher." I would think a romulan would be a little less Earth sounding in his greeting? Not a big deal though. Other than that, considering the altered timeline, I was happy with all the characters.
comicb00kguy
comicb00kguy - 5/11/2009, 2:20 PM
I admire and respect xtellums for having the courage to post a review daring to criticize the new Trek film. I think he does a fine job of explaining his problems with the flaws that the film has. I also have more respect for this website for allowing a dissenting viewpoint to have a voice.

I personally know several devoted Trek fans that have many problems with this film, and no, none of them are the kinds that dress up like Spock or speak Klingon. They're just guys who love Trek and think that this film has traded in Trek's intelligent stories and subtle social commentary for lots of loud explosions and MTV-style visuals.
TucsonRican
TucsonRican - 5/11/2009, 3:17 PM
Yeah, well.....that's like....your opinion, Man.
KeepItReal
KeepItReal - 5/11/2009, 3:26 PM
I still hope I am not disappointed when I see the movie. I like Star Trek alot but I admit not to the degree to be called a Trekki I guess. I have hopes it will be good but I feel for xtellums1 in his disappointment and others more devoted Trek fans. It is hard to make a movie and have everyone be pleased. But there's the consolation that it has brought another generation to bridge the gap and rally to Star Trek. This would be a way to bring to my kids a part of me that watched the shows when I was growing up and sharing it with them.

DonkeyPuncher
DonkeyPuncher - 5/11/2009, 4:32 PM
you can think whatever you want but i know it was a kick ass movie
mwmcintyre
mwmcintyre - 5/11/2009, 4:43 PM
While I loved the movie, I understand if you had problems with it. That doesn't mean they did a bad job. The slate wiped clean was , I thought, rather elegantly. Was a bit faster-paced than I'm used to for Trek, but it is a reboot of the franchise, bringing it "up-to-date" and most people going to see a sci-fi show want a lot of action. But even with the action, they got in quite a bit of decent character development. As to the unrealistic nature of Nero's complaint, people throughout history have misplaced blame, mainly because they have a deep emotional need to resolve what happened and "it just happened" provides no comfort or resolution, so they find someone, ANYONE to blame because they cannot accept the alternative. Look at how easily people in the US were willing to blame Saddam for 9/11, even though he had nothing to do with it. In fact, I liked the blue-collar worker with misplacing blame better than a normal evil baddie, because you could sympathize with him to a degree. The best villians are the ones who believe they are heroes.
whatshisname
whatshisname - 5/11/2009, 5:08 PM
The movie was awesome get over it Im sick of people that bitch and complain that this movie wasnt true to the franchise. Well when hollywood ruins a Sci-Fi movie like Star Trek like they did with nearly ever comic book movie such as Spiderman 3, Daredevil or Ghost Rider, Ill listen until then shut up.
Awesomeness
Awesomeness - 5/11/2009, 5:52 PM
Its was an excellent movie. It was just a cheesy way to reboot the series with new characters and make money off of sequels. And they didnt have William Shatner in it, what the french is up with that? Its a science fiction movie that could easily make a one liner and comes back. Ehh oh well, i guess we will have to wait for LETHAL WEAPON ORIGINS, INDIANA JONES THE EARLY YEARS, RAMBO BOOT CAMP, TERMINATOR-ALUMINUM POWER, 48HRS THE DAY BEFORE, BEVERLY HILLS COPS-DETROIT DAYS,CADDY SHACK- HOW THE CADDY GOT HIS GROOVE BACK, THE GOD FATHER- THE BIRTH OF A PIMP.
icecreamdropper
icecreamdropper - 5/11/2009, 6:20 PM
i somewhat agree i enjoyed the movie, i recommend it to others but other then that its just ok, the whole time im like wow...im sooooo glad im a star wars fan
bw
bw - 5/11/2009, 7:01 PM
i agree. i thought the movie started out great but fizzled towards the end. i posted that i thought the movie was ok, worth watching, but it didn't blow me away like many other fans, so i was a little disappointed. i couldn't figure out why either, until i read one readers statement about kirk being kind of a pussy. true! he was always a bad-ass on the show and in the movies, not just a wisecrack. hell, even sulu had to save his hide once. the time continuim thing did'nt work for me either. i did think the casting was great, as was the cgi and the overall acting (bana was underused, as was clifton collins jr, both fine actors imo). this is just my opinion though, i'm not complaining, if another fan loved it, fine, more power to them, glad they loved it. when i say that a movie is just ok i generally mean that i liked it, but wont be going to see it a 2nd time at the theaters, like i did with recent movies like iron man and tdk.
Minotauro
Minotauro - 5/11/2009, 7:45 PM
As one fellow nerd to the other..The Review was alittle to much exaggeration(If I spelled that correctly)..I may not know much about Star Trek as you?..But, the movie was [frick]ing amazing and probably made me consider Star Trek over Star Wars!!! And I'm not a Star Trek guy, until after this movie. If that is saying something?..
Betty
Betty - 5/11/2009, 8:32 PM
Well, it was better than the star wars prequels. Star Trek was more entertaining in one movie than in all three star wars shitquels.
starscream4president
starscream4president - 5/11/2009, 11:05 PM
[frick] off dude! Get a life. The movie was awesome. We got a 5 star treatment on this prequel.
Spada
Spada - 5/11/2009, 11:06 PM
the movie was damn good.

sure things might be kind of skewed here and there, but overall they did a good job especially with introducing Star Trek to the world once again. It was a good movie that I just might see again.


SpiderBat209
SpiderBat209 - 5/11/2009, 11:06 PM
@---YOU SAID IT, BETTY! HELL YEAH! :)

I have a equal respect for BOTH Star Wars AND Star Trek, but this NEW TREK tipped the scales just a bit!

I LOVED IT, AND I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE NEXT ONE!

Hey, JJ ABRAMS! BRING ON THE KLINGONS, FOO!!! :)

jbjoca
jbjoca - 5/11/2009, 11:57 PM
I love this review. It sums up how I felt...

I think they should have done a completely different crew with an all new storyline that would spark the next series. Instead, they write a movie saying "Forget everything you know about Star Trek... you know, the past 40 years... because THIS is how it's going to be now."

Paramount turned their back on the fans and made a movie for the masses so they could make money. They don't give a darn about those people who stuck by them for 40 years or they would have made a movie that kept with the existing storylines that we've watched loyally on TV and in the theaters (instead of throwing little nods to fans here and there, and ridiculing the lines and behaviors of the original series actors).

Using the FX and material that this movie had, they could have made an good movie starring the DS9 and Voyager crews and kept with the TV-to-movie progression.

Checkov was annoying and talked way too much... Sylar, I mean Spock, kept reminding me of Heroes too much... Pine was horrible, especially when he imitated Shatner walking on to the bridge at the end (reminded me of Jim Carrey)... McCoy was trying way too hard... And was it just me or did anyone else notice that the Vulcans and Romulans (from the other reality) had large black pupils and irises?

Oh well... if this is what Star Trek has come to, I must let it go. Let the 90210 Uhura keep drinking Budweiser beers or JJ's Slushos, and making out with Sylar, I mean Spock, all she wants.

Star Trek... you lived long and prospered... till you jumped the space shark. Oh well... at least Shatner is still writing TRUE, faithful, Star Trek material.

And I have to say that anyone saying that Star Trek 4's going back in time altered anything they're severely mistaken. They were VERY careful not to disrupt anything in the past so it wouldn't severely affect the future. Scotty teaching them how to make transparent aluminum or Bones giving an old lady a kidney had no major impact on the future like this movie did... for crying out loud, Vulcan is gone! The Vulcans are all but extinct now!?!?! What messed up kind of crap is that?
mid0riba
mid0riba - 5/12/2009, 1:19 AM
Cheers for Star Trek
Jeers for "Star Trek Yuppies"

I like the comment to the review above this one "this review is dumb as sh*t", and I agree.
You write as if the Star Trek franchise (and everything that is good about it) belongs to you. I don't usually like to judge people; I reserve that right for things I really care about. I registered onto this website just so I could judge you (you must be feeling really special right about now). My judgement is that according to your sentence structure, the way you express your ideals and defend your accusations, you're someone who likes to talk up a storm while being pretty stupid and lacking any real sensitivities or thoughtfulness. You wouldn't know goodness if it saved your life so do us all a favor and stay off the internet until you write us a blockbuster movie. All the reciprocating negative commentaries, well, no one ever said that the entire Star Trek fan base were filled with geniuses. Thanks for distinguishing yourselves into a third category of "Star Trek Yuppies".
wheat4
wheat4 - 5/12/2009, 2:23 AM
I want you to remember something and this is for all trekkies, jj has now made star trek cool, i watched it at imax and it was increadible.

In films there are always plot holes but to pick at everything is so trekkie. I loved DS9, i even loved star trek enterprise, but the franchise despreatly needad this.

And as for plot holes if you read the prequel to the film (availble for iphone as a app) it does explain alot.

And also karl urban was increadbile so dont be a bitch and i think all the bad response's to you show how ridculus your review is!
andrewmoore0
andrewmoore0 - 5/12/2009, 3:07 AM
"And how could the elder Spock meet his younger self in the same time continuum without things going haywire? It just doesn't make sense."

I love how you say that like anyone actually knows how time travel works. You essentially say it makes no sense based on a slew of other time travel movies. One films interpretation of how time travel works is just as valid as another.

Seems to me like you are just looking for things to complain about. Was it a perfect movie? Nope. Neither was Wolverine, but I enjoyed that too.

If you go looking for the bad in any movie you will find it, even the universally praised Dark Knight had its flaws, just try and enjoy it for what it was...a fun ride!
jesselangham
jesselangham - 5/12/2009, 3:32 AM
All you reboot cheerleaders need to stop sucking JJ Abram's cock and let someone disagree with your rabid opinions. So he doesn't like it, WTF is it to you? If you liked it, great, but don't think we're not gonna point out plot holes and character flaws. And if you don't like it, you can sit and spin.
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 5/12/2009, 7:42 AM
There were plot holes and character flaws but so what? You show me a perfect movie and ill show you a funny Wayans Bros movie. All in all it was great. My only prob is that it may have been too action orientated, could have done with a little more drama like the older movies did so well. But anyone that thinks those performances were no good is nuts, with the exception of Chekov, who was quite annoying, the cast was near perfect.
TFMo999
TFMo999 - 5/12/2009, 7:48 AM
How about you so-called fan-boys get over yourselves. It was a good movie, a HELL of a lot more entertaining than the majority of the previous Star Trek flicks.

You guys just don't get how Hollywood works, apparently. They have a LIMITED amount of time to get their story told; they can't all be LOTR. Which means that some things are going to be cut to fit the story within that timeframe.

Secondly, all of your "just happened to" arguments "just happen" to be pissing and moaning. I could go into the nerdy details, like how when a temporal incursion happens, reality tries to shift things around in a close approximation of the original, ergo Scotty JUST HAPPENED to be stationed on that planet.

It's not so much of a coincidence that Kirk's dad would be at the site where Nero first comes into the past; this is PRE-KIRK STAR FLEET, not Picard-era Star Fleet, where they have 800 ships orbiting every chunk of rock floating in the great beyond. There was an anomaly; a ship was sent to check it out. The nearest ship was the Kelvin. This is no more outlandish than any other Star Trek episode from any of its incarnations where the ship and crew of the story JUST HAPPEN to be nearby when a wormhole/blackhole/Borg/Kardassian/Romulan/Skrull/Lesbian Pirate From Outer Space JUST HAPPENS to start acting up.

They wanted to do a reboot. Understandable, considering the source material is about half a century old. Problem is, how do you make such a movie interesting to the non-fans while still recognizing the original fan base? That's not so easy. And consider; the source material is a sixties sci-fi series; I mean come on...SPACE HIPPIES?

They had to find a way to reboot the show with new and exciting and INTERESTING things while still giving props to the base, which they did admirably, and still fit it within a roughly two hour slot and stay within budget.

Every director and writer strives for making a movie that is ground-breaking and new. The problem in this case is that they had to break new ground on a concept that has been around for fifty years, had five TV shows, a cartoon, a dozen movies, and God only knows how many books and comics. It's not "sucking JJ Abrams' cock" to give credit where credit is due; making a reboot of Star Trek is NOT an easy thing to do. Making a halfway decent reboot of Star Trek is even harder.

Abrams did a good job, considering the almost insurmountable challenge he faced. Can any of you do better?

Doubt it.
Chuft
Chuft - 5/12/2009, 7:57 AM
I don't have any problem with the acting in Star Trek. Even karl Urban's dipiction of Dr McCoy, which was a bit over the top, was wonderful.

There were lots of plot holes, but I think those of us that have always been fans of TOS, and have a little imagination can fill them in.

There are fans that want no variation in the mythos they've grown up with. They want the characters locked in an unchanged from what they're used too. This may not be the Trek for them. I welcome the new universe. Am I pissed that Vulvan is gone? Sure. I've read many of the novels, and now there's no chance of those ever becoming a part of the story line. There's a lot of change, and I'm going to buckle up and go for a ride.

There's also the movie fan that needs to be spoon fed everything. They need all the i's dotted and the t's crossed for them. Some movies do that. They take your hand a point out every little detail tht the director wants you to see. These movies aren't nesseccarily bad, or good. It's just a different style. I'm going to choose to beleive that the writers wanted us to fill in a few blanks for them, and I'm OK with that.

I will, however agree, that Nero's greeting to Captain Pike was weird, but it seemed to get a lot of laughs.

The Orion girl botherd be but only because I thought the green body paint looked fake.

The other thing that bugged me was all the aleins. I know, I know. it's Star Trek. It's the Federation, but it's supposed to be the early years. Humans, Tellarites, Andorians, and fianlly Vulcans formed the early Federation. I only saw Spock, and a bunch of weird looking aleins. No Tellarites, and no Andorians. That's just nit picking, and it didn't ruin the movie for me, but It would have been nice to see those races represented in the new film.
Meolithe
Meolithe - 5/12/2009, 8:39 AM
It was a fun movie that successfully reboots Star Trek.
That said, you still have to park your brain at the door of the theater.
Wormhole or Blackhole? There's a difference.
Red Matter? O'kay, it's Star Trek Voyager-ish.
Destroy everyone else's planet but don't save your own?
A supernova??? The radiation travels at the speed of light. Spock had years to get there with the red matter.
Or evacuate the planet or shield it or some other less ridiculous plan.
It was fun, action packed, and DUMB!!!!
I still enjoyed it, but I would love someone to make smarter, more adult Sci-Fi. Wrath of Khan was seriously made Star Trek without beating me over the head with the stupid stick.
Not your fathers Star Trek. Made for the ever evolving Idiocracy of the American movie audience.
I still enjoyed in spite of the plot holes.
And it was a nice reboot of the time line.
They already kinda did that in Star Trek: Enterprise.
The Borg from the movies, the temporal cold war, the etc...etc..etc..
I'm through ranting..
Chuft
Chuft - 5/12/2009, 9:06 AM
Ugh, just noticed all the spelling and punctuation flaws in my post. Sorry about that.
1 2
View Recorder