Replies

Wow you watched a completely different movie. I found this movie to be a return to the TOS mentality, the closest Trek has come to it’s roots since half way through the first movie. It is once again bold. (SPOILERS) I think the argument between Spock and Kirk after the destruction of Vulcan was really an argument between post TMP Trek and TOS Trek. Spock, being the voice of post TMP wanted to meet with the fleet and talk and plan; Kirk in the roll of TOS wanted to go kick the bad guy’s ass. Trek had forgotten that they were supposed to be BOLDLY going where no man has gone before, they are once again bold.

J J Abrams used computer cheat codes.

Seriously folks (SPOILER ALERT)

“Prime” Spock, as they put it, is trapped in the past.

We have HUGE errors in the continutity only a pot head, snorting cocain, chased with a enian and johnny walker (ugh) can think is consistent.

(SPOILERS ALERT II)
Perhaps the next episode can address the continuity issues (principle planet destruction, main character’s sexual affair in his position as professor with one of his students, AMANDA GRAYSON!)

The sound track in the back ground was not trek, it was almost like it wanted to be Narnia I.

For the next one they better demonstrate their REAL skill at telling a story by respecting the cannons.

Using “cheat codes” just exposes weak writers who can’t tell a story.

(plus I though kirk did not become captain until his 30’s not 25! talk about blatent marketing)

PS: Keep in mind Paramout owns the star trek franchise outright pretty much. see: merchandising, video games, casino themes, dvd sales, spin offs, star trek perfume...

It was bad. And lazy movie making. It’s everything that Gene Roddenberry fought the network over. Now the first 15 minutes was OK. Just Ok. But they can’t expect Star Trek Fans to watch this and forget what Roddenberry wanted in the first series . If they had made it a Star Trek Movie with all new characters that would have been different. It still would have had problems with the time line and story telling . After the movie was over I had to talk to others in the Theater. The Young ones loved it. Most of the older people didn’t like it at all.

Add to that the continuing worship of youth in our ever-more infantile culture...

Other stuff:
Why is the Federation fleet so always tactically inept?
If you can deliver three cadets via “space diving” to a drill head, why can't you deliver three smart bombs, or the future equivalent thereof?
And why isn't your boarding party heavily armed?
And why don't phasers have lanyards?
If you are using a risky means of delivering troops to a small target (like “space diving”), why don't you spread the mission-critical equipment between the boarding party members so that any one or two them can accomplish the mission? (Also why don't you just shoot the cable or drill head with your phasers - it worked for Spock...)
If you're going to beam on to an enemy ship why don't you take a BIG party equipped with all sorts of nifty future mayhem, so that you can lay waste their ship and crew while rescuing the hostage?
Why did the Vulcan Science Academy send the entire blob of “Red Matter” with Spock, instead of one or two primed “devices.”
And why didn't Spock jettison the stuff before he was captured?

Anyway, I got in a lot of trouble bringing this up with my wife...

BTW: I was raised on first-run, first generation Star Trek and liked it to the point of fighting for a later bedtime just to watch it...

Off the screen stuff - Got this from a well informed fan.
Nero is apparently the most competent sapient in the known universe:
He got the technology to turn his humble mining vessel into a super-dreadnought by stealing it from the Borg.
He spent some or most of the missing 25 years in a Klingon prison; somehow he managed to escape and reacquire his ship; somehow the Klingons never captured it or or didn't learn anything from it and left it intact for him to steal back. I guess that's when they lost those “47 warbirds.”