Originally posted by themilton

Originally posted by AgtSmith

I am not questioning the once there they succeed although I am not sure taking out some miners is all that big a deal, the question is the weakness of them being stuck there in the first place.  And on that success, had Uhura spoke up about the transmission she heard earlier the rescue fleet wouldn't have been lost, 1) She was a cadet - not yet an officer. 2) It was in Klingon space. 1 + 2 = She probably reported it to someone higher up who just hadn't analyzed it yet. Sulu looked pretty incompetent not knowing how to get to warp even if he had other moments later. He's probably another cadet who just forgot a small but important step due to nerves.  The point is the plot of these guys getting where they got is so ridiculous a start that it doesn't much matter how it ended.

That is my point though, these green cadets in a matter of an hour in the movies real time take over senior positions on the Enterprise, it is ridiculous.  It diminishes the idea that these characters are developed at all as the onyl justification for them in their positions is the very universe that this movie reboots.

The movie did not make this clear there was one throw away line that the main fleet was elsewhere.  Of course, even that is a lame excuse as the fleet is always elsewhere federation space is not just Iowa/San Fran.  No explanation of the flagship in orbit with no bridge crew or otherwise so poorly staffed as to need never even graduated students to man it.  And the whole ship on the ground being built thing a silly thing too but again typical of this movie in so far as silly is OK so long as it looks cool in the moment.

Did you miss Captain Pike's little speech about not wanting to ship out in that condition and the ship's christening being more of a welcome home ceremony? Very rarely do ships embark on their maiden voyage with a full crew complement - look at Encounter at Farpoint (had to go pick up 1st officer) and Generations.

Again, weak setup.  It takes a very lot of of camera rationalization to get these three year recruits as the senior Enterprise crew plain and simple.  As I noted before, in TOS Kirk spent more than 10 years in Starfleet before becoming Captain and tht time made him who he was while this new Kirk assumes the role young, inexperienced, and with nothing but selfish concerns to motivate him.

Originally posted by CazNeerg 

Sulu had previously been established to be a fencer, so the only thing new there was the fancy sword.

So the Enterprise didn't snatch up any first or second year security personel while at the Starfleet Vo-tech? What a shame, oh well makes sense to send the helmsman and a stowaway.  I will remember Sulu as the guy who couldn't get the parking break off (as Pike said) and who had a phaser and could have shot the Romulans coming out of the hatch on the mining platform but instead decided to risk life adn limb and the mission to give J.J. Abrams a good sword fighting scene.  It is jsut a shame for JJ he didn't have a ligth saber I suppose.

The Romulans were already out of the hatch by the time Sulu landed. Remember Kirk shooting the holes in Sulu's chute? And Sulu going over the edge and using the chutes retraction mechanism to pull himself up? Kirk had a phaser and dropped it - did it even show Sulu having one? They used the Romulan's weapons to shoot the drill. At least it was a nifty looking katana and not a wimpy little epee or foil.

No, they came out of the hatch after they landed and whatever transpired they had the phasers at the end because the shot the drill since they didn't have the explosives.  But that is all beside the point, a photon torpedo from Enterprise or a short phaser burst would have taken the drill out so the whole sword fighting drill platform base jumping scene was contrived for the Vin Diesel x-game crowd.

Look, as I said before it was not a bad summer flick - just a bad Trek and a terrible reboot in so far as it is a weak foundation on which to rebuild the ST universe this movie supplants.  Like the TOS episode I mentioned earlier many episiodes from the various series and movies talk about the responsibility and weight that a Captain bears and how his career in Starfleet readies him for the task.  In TNG Picard as a fresh officer our of hte academy all brash and full of vigor picks a fight with the Nausicans in teh bar and ends up getting stabbed in the back and allmost dies.  This he says, along with many other experinces as an officer working up the ranks with Starfleet made him the man he was to become Captain.  Riker as a yound officer defended his Captain, who was wrongly acting in violation of a treaty with teh romulans that kept the peace for years and it sin't until the present as 1st officer on the Enterprise that he learns the lesson of when loyalty has to give way to right and wrong and the greter repsonibility. 

Some may call this studd stupid trekkie fodder and maybe it is, but it is the depth and weight that made Star Trek more than just another Scifi show/movie.  30+ years of similar stories and character explorations and the reboot to tell us about this future is a bunch of kids not even out of college who are magically swept to the heights of the profession?  Not a chance.

Originally posted by Kravis

I am confused, in order for them to open the black hole (destroying the planet) they need to mine to the planets core by dropping it into the atmosphere, drill, after which they drop the bomb w/red matter to create the black hole. My question, where are the planetary defenses? The drill Kirk takes down with some simple gun fire. It seemed like once they dropped the drilling rig everyone on the planet just scurry around for their impeding doom. Didn't anyone think to shoot the thing?

Agree this, among many other things, just make no sense.  Sure plots for movies like this all have holes but this one simply had so many that it was nothing but a mindless action and effects show - fine for your average summer flick but in no way the basis for the reboot of one of the greatest SciFi franchises ever.

Originally posted by Kravis

 

What I would have loved to have seen was a way to reboot the franchise, bridging the established ST universe and fans with a new compelling story to draw in new fans. The ST universe is so vast I just didn't think it needed the new timeline/alternate reality and the reboot to center on old tired characters.

I personally hated the movie, not because I felt it betrayed some ST lore either. It was just a weak story, with WAY to many plot holes were you basically had to turn off your brain to enjoy it. The soundtrack for the movie certainly didn't help either. What I am shocked at is the number of good reviews from critics. It made nearly 80 million over the weekend and many people enjoyed it so it will be interesting to see where it is at in week 2 & 3.

Agree, it wasn't that it was a bad movie it just wasn't a very good beginning to Star Trek.  They took the easy way out in introducing the characters and magically appointing the to their positions and they took the easy way in supplanting established Trek with the new trek.  In the end they made a flashy and fun summer movie at the cost of erasing and supplanting 30+ years of a well defined and well though out SciFi franchise.  They may get more movies from this but no way in hell does this movie server as the basis for a revival of what ST was before.

Originally posted by spdkilla

If you are wondering I have seen it ... it is a GOOD, flashy, special effects movie it's just BAD Trek.

That sums it up perfectly.

Originally posted by Kravis

***SPOILER***

I assume anyone reading this thread already knows to stop reading until they see the movie.

I am confused, in order for them to open the black hole (destroying the planet) they need to mine to the planets core by dropping it into the atmosphere, drill, after which they drop the bomb w/red matter to create the black hole. My question, where are the planetary defenses? The drill Kirk takes down with some simple gun fire. It seemed like once they dropped the drilling rig everyone on the planet just scurry around for their impeding doom. Didn't anyone think to shoot the thing?

What I would have loved to have seen was a way to reboot the franchise, bridging the established ST universe and fans with a new compelling story to draw in new fans. The ST universe is so vast I just didn't think it needed the new timeline/alternate reality and the reboot to center on old tired characters.

I personally hated the movie, not because I felt it betrayed some ST lore either. It was just a weak story, with WAY to many plot holes were you basically had to turn off your brain to enjoy it. The soundtrack for the movie certainly didn't help either. What I am shocked at is the number of good reviews from critics. It made nearly 80 million over the weekend and many people enjoyed it so it will be interesting to see where it is at in week 2 & 3.

Oh, love those new ship engine rooms! NOT! I was waiting for Joe the Plummer to show up yelling, "I can give you more power captain!".

YES SPOILERS!

Heh, ok as a Sci-Fi flick the movie was great, and generally I felt the acting and plot well transported the idea into 21st century movies. Insofar I greatly enjoyed the film.

As to some logic loopholes... yes they are there. But tell me one Sci Fi movie without? The entire time travel thing is ALWAYS illogical at some point. When I were a Romulan and travel back in time... why waste my time on some quite fishy revenge on people who at least TRIED to help, but instead I'd rather try to avoid the catastrophe altogether, now that I am in the past!

And yes it is VERY odd that Vulcan has zero defenses to to shoot down a drill, which the Enterprise did with a few shots. But then, travelling back to the 20th century to get hunchback whales or a voyager satellite coming back as super intelligence wasnt more logical either. ;)

What I agree with is, that the soundtrack was very Trekkie but weak and generic. Not a single moment to enjoy some good Trek music, alas. I cried when they destroyed Vulcan. It was a shock for me, I always liked Vulcans most; their calm and rational ways... taking that planet out of Trek still is something I have difficulties to accept. :(

Originally posted by CazNeerg

So, the original crew characters are "old and tired"?  The original Star Trek crew are still the most interesting and well-developed characters in the entire franchise.  That is true even if you hate this movie.  There is a reason the movies did substantially worse and the franchise died out once the original crew were all gone.  What came later just wasn't that engaging.  Kirk is > Picard, Spock > Data, Bones > Crusher, Scotty > O'brien.  If anything was a tired and boring reboot, it was TNG.  Note, I am not claiming it "isn't Trek" just because I don't believe it met the prior quality standard, as some are prone to do.  Also, there were a couple of really good seasons buried around the middle of TNG.  Which is more than can be said for DS9 and Voyager.  DS9 was just a contrived trekkie version of Babylon 5.  Hell, more people watched reruns of TNG than watched new episodes of DS9.  And Voyager, come on, Torres and Seven-of-Nine were nice to look at, but the number of really good episodes in the series wouldn't even fill one season. 

If they had continued the movie series with the DS9 or Voyager characters, there would have been more people inspired by nostalgia to go watch the *old* movies after seeing the movie posters than would bother to go the theater for the new ones.  There simply aren't enough people who care about Sisko or Janeway to make a successful tv movie, let alone a theatrical one.  The only way Star Trek was going anywhere on screen was with the greatest crew to ever board the Enterprise, even if they had to replace all the actors to do it.

  This part i agree with....

That's why they should have had many of the TNG, DS9,VoY characters in the REAL Trek movie to show a changing of the guard to a NEW crew. They could have given a back story that showed some of the new crew interacting with the old and they could have still had Spock make an appearance  to further the story along. This would have allowed them to shape the all new crew and provide a foundation for them to take command of the all new uber high tech enterprise near the end of the movie. And prove that they had the background, skill set and approval of the previous torch bearers. Then they could have spun off a whole new series with this new crew and ship and re-lit the ST franchise.

OR .....  Just make a movie to re-tell (new-telling?) a totally inaccurate and plot hole filled mess of a story line (that shredds all ST cannon and shows before it) that is only saved by awesome, graphics, and beautiful special effects with nice explosions. To make an easy buck.

We know which one they did.

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Forget the cannon issues (mind as well since this movie effectively erased them) and jsut consider the plot of this movie...

 

Nero comes back in time after a tragedy destroys his world and he wants revenge on Spock and Earth, funny he doesn't bother to warn Romulas of the coming disaster or otherwise do a thing to keep it from happening (i.e. go to the star and inject the red matter and save Romulas).

 

Spock (Nemoy) gets stuck on the ice planet so he has to watch Vulcan be destroyed and he sits in the cave waiting to see that happen rather than walk to the Starfleet outpost nearby and warn people (his own line in the movie says (there is a Starfleet outpost nearby).

 

Spock (new) is an instructor at Starfleet and has an affair with one of his students (Uhura) and then as a crisis comes he is vaulted to the position of 1st officer on the fleet's flagship. 

 

Kirk is a car stealing drunken bar brawler who suddenly decides to join Starfleet, seemingly out of spite.  3 years later before even graduating and without any on the job experience as a starfleet enlisted man or officer he is made 1st officer while Spock (an instructor at Starfleet) is made Captain.

 

Sulu is not even competent enough to know the basic methodology to jump to warp speed, but he does carry a sword instead of a phaser so he has that going for him.

 

Chekov is quite the ingenious transporter operator, he can beam up two guys falling at terminal velocity but; somehow, he cannot beam up Spock's mom as the ledge she is standing on collapses.  "Don't move" being the operative instruction for transporting I wonder how starships in space that even in basic orbit are moving far faster than a woman falling of a ledge or people falling at terminal velocity work with these new transporters.  On the flip side though, Scotty can transport people even with warp speeds involved so go figure.

 

Uhuru, who has a great ass as the movie went out of its way to establish, is obviously very talented because she intercepted some secret Klingon message and then promptly told nobody at Starfleet about it until it was too late to save the bulk of the fleet acting on the crisis.

 

For some reason Captain Pike thought sending three people to parachute through high atmosphere and rig the drill thing to blow was a better plan than just targeting it with a photon torpedo and blowing it to pieces.  Furthermore, nobody though of the problem it might cause in a risky jump to the drilling platform if only one person had explosives.

 

Starfleet, apparently, is so staffed with incompetents, or so disorganized, that nearly the entire bridge crew of the Flagship of the fleet was replace in a matter of minutes by raw recruits who haven't even graduated yet (Nemoy, Uhuru, and Scotty).

 

Those are just a few of the serious plot flaws for even an ST/SciFi movie.  Good action, style, effects, even casting (I can live the the actors they picked as replacements for TOS crew), but the plot just sucked terribly.  It was mindless with action supplanting decent plot logic.  It destroyed the timeline of ST we all know even if the idea of infinite timelines says it could still have happened ST now resides in a world where all we know doesn't exists as we know it save Enterprise.  It sets up the new ST universe as a place where anything can happen if it serves the action of the moment (I.E. a bunch of 3 year cadets being made the bridge crew for Starfleet's flagship in a matter of the near minutes in the movies real time.  And since Kirk and Spock are irrevocably change by this movies plot (Kirk had a different life from birth) and Spock experienced a serious trama of losing his homeworld and billions and billions of his fellow Vulcans not to mention how the loss of Vulcan affects the Federation - point being that with all this change to this timelime the only reason to care about it anymore than any other SciFi is because the main characters share names with these characters?  No enough, not by a long shot especially with a weak like I outlined above.

 

 

Ouch. You are right. I tend not to see such things. Guess when it comes to watching movies I am too easily caught up by the action to really ponder this. But you are right. But now what? I enjoyed the movie and still you are right. I am not sure tho, that any other Trek movie had less loopholes. Somehow most Sci Fi movies are relatively... hairraising. But I agree that this was really fishy in some aspects. Quite made up. But as I said, I still was able to enjoy the movie.

I see such things more emotional than rational. For instance, I was quite used to the more "elderly style" of leadership of Picard and his settled ways to handle things. This 1960ies rough action way to deal with things as Kirk did... it just kinda irritated me. I understand in 2009 you cant present kids a crew with old men all the way, and maybe it was just time for a new generation doing things different. Still... that is what I missed the most, this old feeling of Picard and his people.

Technically they didn't shred all of the shows that came before. Enterprise is still Canon. Or does that not count as Star Trek either?

As for the idea that they should have used a bunch of washed up tv actors to introduce a new crew in the 24th century, even if the new crew in the future part of the idea worked, the plethora of "torch bearers" passing things on would have been super cheesy and appealed to a very tiny audience.  Paramount wasn't trying to make an internet fan-film, they were trying to make a successful movie.  And there *was* a torch bearer passing things on: Spock passed the torch to himself and Kirk.  You don't need the clutter of 15 cameos.  That is not good movie-making.

And could they have made a new crew, sure, but why do that when not one of the new crews they have made since TOS can hold a candle to the original crew?  Doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result isn't the brightest of tactics.

And remember, given the state of the franchise, the premise a lot of you seem to be working from is severely flawed.  It likely wasn't a choice between this vision of Star Trek and one which continued the 24th century storyline.  It was likely a choice between this Star Trek and no Star Trek at all, with maybe a television reboot in another 25 years like happened after TOS, if you got lucky.

Originally posted by Elikal 

Ouch. You are right. I tend not to see such things. Guess when it comes to watching movies I am too easily caught up by the action to really ponder this. But you are right. But now what? I enjoyed the movie and still you are right. I am not sure tho, that any other Trek movie had less loopholes. Somehow most Sci Fi movies are relatively... hairraising. But I agree that this was really fishy in some aspects. Quite made up. But as I said, I still was able to enjoy the movie.

I see such things more emotional than rational. For instance, I was quite used to the more "elderly style" of leadership of Picard and his settled ways to handle things. This 1960ies rough action way to deal with things as Kirk did... it just kinda irritated me. I understand in 2009 you cant present kids a crew with old men all the way, and maybe it was just time for a new generation doing things different. Still... that is what I missed the most, this old feeling of Picard and his people.

The plot wholes are part of movies, though this movie had quite some big ones even relying on them to go from A to B to C to D quite often.  I can forgive that, but not the the extent that the holes substantially take away from the characters and the idea that this is the story of how these characters came to the position and role we are to care about.  If who they are and how they got there is glossed over in favor of flashy effects and plot conveniences then I just don't see how that effectively reboots things in a way that is supposed to be a foundation for 30 more years of the Trek universe.

What allways set Trek apart was the depth of the characters and the universe that the stories existed in - yes there where plot issues along the way but not of the type that shortchanged the big pillars of who these characters where, how they got where they are, and why they are unique in this universe.  Additionally, the sould of trek wsa the ideals of a future version of ourselves that was at least plausible.  I saw nothing in this movie that was anything but who we are now - instant gratification, selfish pursuit of our own interests, and flash over substance. 

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Technically they didn't shred all of the shows that came before. Enterprise is still Canon. Or does that not count as Star Trek either?

As for the idea that they should have used a bunch of washed up tv actors to introduce a new crew in the 24th century, even if the new crew in the future part of the idea worked, the plethora of "torch bearers" passing things on would have been super cheesy and appealed to a very tiny audience.  Paramount wasn't trying to make an internet fan-film, they were trying to make a successful movie.  And there *was* a torch bearer passing things on: Spock passed the torch to himself and Kirk.  You don't need the clutter of 15 cameos.  That is not good movie-making.

And could they have made a new crew, sure, but why do that when not one of the new crews they have made since TOS can hold a candle to the original crew?  Doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result isn't the brightest of tactics.

And remember, given the state of the franchise, the premise a lot of you seem to be working from is severely flawed.  It likely wasn't a choice between this vision of Star Trek and one which continued the 24th century storyline.  It was likely a choice between this Star Trek and no Star Trek at all, with maybe a television reboot in another 25 years like happened after TOS, if you got lucky.

Yes, Enterprise is still cannon but all the rest is now erased in terms of the new ST universe.  I doubt many fans of any franchise would be happy to see 30+ years of the stories and characters they where interested in just tossed aside for commercial reasons.  How about if the Lord of the Rings franchise decided that people cannot identify these days with hobbits so just retold the stories with a young human boy as the ringbearer?  That is not much different that changing Kirk from a career officer of experience and great ability and leadership to a drunken brawler who magically assumes command never even having served on a starship let alone been in command of anything.

Yes, the franchise needed updating, and they did a good job picking new actors for the roles.  But it didn't need erasing and it certainly didn't need to be turned in to a very typical summer action flick with little to none of the ideals, depth, and attempt to be plausible and hold to cannon that built a 30+ year franchise.

It would not have taken any effort at all to tell the story of a young Kirk and his crew without erasing all that came before in erms of TOS/TNG and the rest.  But they took the lazy way and erased waht wee knew then went about substituting explosions and action (good as they might have been) with real character development and motivations.  And they completely let go of the Star Trek ideals that also make up the backbone of the franchise.

Originally posted by Elikal

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Forget the cannon issues (mind as well since this movie effectively erased them) and jsut consider the plot of this movie...

 

Nero comes back in time after a tragedy destroys his world and he wants revenge on Spock and Earth, funny he doesn't bother to warn Romulas of the coming disaster or otherwise do a thing to keep it from happening (i.e. go to the star and inject the red matter and save Romulas).

I have to agree

 

Spock (Nemoy) gets stuck on the ice planet so he has to watch Vulcan be destroyed and he sits in the cave waiting to see that happen rather than walk to the Starfleet outpost nearby and warn people (his own line in the movie says (there is a Starfleet outpost nearby).

Agree

 

Spock (new) is an instructor at Starfleet and has an affair with one of his students (Uhura) and then as a crisis comes he is vaulted to the position of 1st officer on the fleet's flagship. 

I have no problem with the affair. I do have issue with the "hey... our ships are elsewhere so let's send cadets to help out.

 Kirk is a car stealing drunken bar brawler who suddenly decides to join Starfleet, seemingly out of spite.  3 years later before even graduating and without any on the job experience as a starfleet enlisted man or officer he is made 1st officer while Spock (an instructor at Starfleet) is made Captain.

Well, given that there weren't any other people aboard it does make sense. However, see my quote above as I don't like the premise that inexperienced cadets were the only people available.

 Sulu is not even competent enough to know the basic methodology to jump to warp speed, but he does carry a sword instead of a phaser so he has that going for him.

Pike asked for people trained in hand to hand combat and he was trained in the use of a sword. Not sure what the issue is for that. As for him missing the warp to light speed I chalked that up to nerves. That was acceptable.

 

Chekov is quite the ingenious transporter operator, he can beam up two guys falling at terminal velocity but; somehow, he cannot beam up Spock's mom as the ledge she is standing on collapses.  "Don't move" being the operative instruction for transporting I wonder how starships in space that even in basic orbit are moving far faster than a woman falling of a ledge or people falling at terminal velocity work with these new transporters.  On the flip side though, Scotty can transport people even with warp speeds involved so go figure.

I'm sorry but you are just on a rampage in regards to this part. I can agree that there are issues but now you are just being unforgiving for the sake of being unforgiving.

At the last moment as they were being beamed up the ledge gave way. It wasn't like he was looking for any immediate changes such as two people falling. He essentially "hit the button" and the ledge simultaneously gave way. Acceptable.

 

Uhuru, who has a great ass as the movie (oh yes... I told my coworkers that I want a movie completely about Uhura just walking up and down the ship's hallways, but I digress) went out of its way to establish, is obviously very talented because she intercepted some secret Klingon message and then promptly told nobody at Starfleet about it until it was too late to save the bulk of the fleet acting on the crisis.

Actually, I think she did mention it. But I can't seem to remember why it wasn't considered an issue. To be truthful, when I see it again I will have to make note of it. But yeah, I was thinking the same thing.. why aren't more people on top of that?

 

For some reason Captain Pike thought sending three people to parachute through high atmosphere and rig the drill thing to blow was a better plan than just targeting it with a photon torpedo and blowing it to pieces.  Furthermore, nobody though of the problem it might cause in a risky jump to the drilling platform if only one person had explosives.

edit: brought this one up and my coworkers reminded me (and when he mentioned it I also remember ...) that if they powered up weapons they would have immediately been destroyed. So they sent the 3 down "under the radar" so to speak. So acceptable.

 

Starfleet, apparently, is so staffed with incompetents, or so disorganized, that nearly the entire bridge crew of the Flagship of the fleet was replace in a matter of minutes by raw recruits who haven't even graduated yet (Nemoy, Uhuru, and Scotty).

Agreed, see above re the cadets

 Those are just a few of the serious plot flaws for even an ST/SciFi movie.  Good action, style, effects, even casting (I can live the the actors they picked as replacements for TOS crew), but the plot just sucked terribly.  It was mindless with action supplanting decent plot logic.  It destroyed the timeline of ST we all know even if the idea of infinite timelines says it could still have happened ST now resides in a world where all we know doesn't exists as we know it save Enterprise.  It sets up the new ST universe as a place where anything can happen if it serves the action of the moment (I.E. a bunch of 3 year cadets being made the bridge crew for Starfleet's flagship in a matter of the near minutes in the movies real time.  And since Kirk and Spock are irrevocably change by this movies plot (Kirk had a different life from birth) and Spock experienced a serious trama of losing his homeworld and billions and billions of his fellow Vulcans not to mention how the loss of Vulcan affects the Federation - point being that with all this change to this timelime the only reason to care about it anymore than any other SciFi is because the main characters share names with these characters?  No enough, not by a long shot especially with a weak like I outlined above.

 

 

 

Ouch. You are right. I tend not to see such things. Guess when it comes to watching movies I am too easily caught up by the action to really ponder this. But you are right. But now what? I enjoyed the movie and still you are right. I am not sure tho, that any other Trek movie had less loopholes. Somehow most Sci Fi movies are relatively... hairraising. But I agree that this was really fishy in some aspects. Quite made up. But as I said, I still was able to enjoy the movie.

I see such things more emotional than rational. For instance, I was quite used to the more "elderly style" of leadership of Picard and his settled ways to handle things. This 1960ies rough action way to deal with things as Kirk did... it just kinda irritated me. I understand in 2009 you cant present kids a crew with old men all the way, and maybe it was just time for a new generation doing things different. Still... that is what I missed the most, this old feeling of Picard and his people.

Personally, I liked the way they handled Kirk. For me it tied in with the Kirk of the first series rather well.

As far as Agent Smith's assessment, it's funny but much of that (except for Sulu carrying the sword ; ) ) was what my coworkers and I were also saying as criticisms.

However, I also have to disagree with Agent smith's assessment regarding the idea that we won't care because of the changes in the story and that the only thing we have are characters with the same names.

I think you (mr. smith) are putting too much on the story line as being why we care. But I will propose that the reason we care is because of the characters and how they handle the story line.

I truly liked their choices with the characters as well as making them a bit more vibrant. Chekov comes to mind as I never really got much from the original chekhov other than I liked the guy. At least here I felt more of what he did.

It is the characters that make up Star Trek. Not just storylines.

Take the characters of Star Trek and put them into any storyline and you will find us caring. That's because the audience reacts and relates to the characters. It's also why such horrible plot issues can go by the wayside. Because we care about the characters.

Characters always first. In anything I write (as it appears that my current life has taken me toward the necessity of more playwriting) I start from the characters first. From them the story unfolds as I know what their backstory is and how they react to things and their likes and dislikes.

Without great characters it really doesn't matter what the story is as no one will care.

Originally posted by Sovrath

It is the characters that make up Star Trek. Not just storylines.

Take the characters of Star Trek and put them into any storyline and you will find us caring. That's because the audience reacts and relates to the characters. It's also why such horrible plot issues can go by the wayside. Because we care about the characters.

Characters always first. In anything I write (as it appears that my current life has taken me toward the necessity of more playwriting) I start from the characters first. From them the story unfolds as I know what their backstory is and how they react to things and their likes and dislikes.

Without great characters it really doesn't matter what the story is as no one will care. 

I agree it is the characters, coupled with the idea of a better humanity in this possible future.  But I disagree that these characters are worthy of interest or caring.  They come from nowhere to assume positions they are not expereince for and not deserving of and we are to care because they have the names of the characters we learned so much about in the previous ST universe/timeline whic was erased by this ST universe/timeline?  That doesn't fly.

What I am getting at is the these characters are not the same ones, this movie erased those characters we knew and loved in favor of these alternate versions.  New Kirk, for example, didn't spend his life in Starfleet to ascend to Captain through the merit of his leadership and ability, new Kirk got the job because he pissed of new Spock enough that he had to step aside.  New Kirk shows throughout the movie he is selfish, reckless, brash, even spiteful - this is a guy I am supposed to care about? 

I like the casting choice and even the acting by the new crew - I just don't accept that because they have the names of the characters that got 'erased' by this plot that I am to respect or care about them as they show little to no reason to care about them or respect them in this movie.

Originally posted by Sovrath

 It is the characters that make up Star Trek. Not just storylines.

Take the characters of Star Trek and put them into any storyline and you will find us caring. That's because the audience reacts and relates to the characters. It's also why such horrible plot issues can go by the wayside. Because we care about the characters.

Characters always first. In anything I write (as it appears that my current life has taken me toward the necessity of more playwriting) I start from the characters first. From them the story unfolds as I know what their backstory is and how they react to things and their likes and dislikes.

Without great characters it really doesn't matter what the story is as no one will care.

 

This ^.

A great argument for why this was the necessary movie if the franchise is going to survive, because the quality of the *characters* has been in decline since the end of the original series.  Data was just an imitation Spock, Riker was just an imitation Kirk, Crusher and Troi were just there to show that TNG was more about gender equality than TOS, Picard was pretty much the only really great character in that whole series.  And in the very first movie after they killed Kirk, suddenly Picard wasn't the same character anymore, he was more of a bald Kirk, because the absence of Kirk was a gaping hole at the heart of the Star Trek cinematic experience.  And TNG did a far *better* job on characters than DS9 or Voyager, which is just sad.  TNG tried to carry a movie franchise and failed miserably, nobody in his right mind would ever consider even giving a chance to the characters of DS9 or Voyager to carry a movie.  When you have a franchise that has only ever produced one set of great characters, and you are going to spend 100 million + on a movie, you don't go with your second or third-stringers.

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Originally posted by Sovrath

It is the characters that make up Star Trek. Not just storylines.

Take the characters of Star Trek and put them into any storyline and you will find us caring. That's because the audience reacts and relates to the characters. It's also why such horrible plot issues can go by the wayside. Because we care about the characters.

Characters always first. In anything I write (as it appears that my current life has taken me toward the necessity of more playwriting) I start from the characters first. From them the story unfolds as I know what their backstory is and how they react to things and their likes and dislikes.

Without great characters it really doesn't matter what the story is as no one will care. 

 

I agree it is the characters, coupled with the idea of a better humanity in this possible future.  But I disagree that these characters are worthy of interest or caring.  They come from nowhere to assume positions they are not expereince for and not deserving of and we are to care because they have the names of the characters we learned so much about in the previous ST universe/timeline whic was erased by this ST universe/timeline?  That doesn't fly.

 

What I am getting at is the these characters are not the same ones, this movie erased those characters we knew and loved in favor of these alternate versions.  New Kirk, for example, didn't spend his life in Starfleet to ascend to Captain through the merit of his leadership and ability, new Kirk got the job because he pissed of new Spock enough that he had to step aside.  New Kirk shows throughout the movie he is selfish, reckless, brash, even spiteful - this is a guy I am supposed to care about? 

 

I like the casting choice and even the acting by the new crew - I just don't accept that because they have the names of the characters that got 'erased' by this plot that I am to respect or care about them as they show little to no reason to care about them or respect them in this movie.

But the thing is they don't come from nowhere. They are the same characters that we all grew up with. And as long as the writers keep this in mind then we are ok.

The characters were not created in a vacuum. They are based upon what we know but now put into a different place to follow different stories based upon their characterization.

oh, and also, I edited my answer to the topic of why didn't they take the drill out with weapons. Apparently they could't else they would have been destroyed.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by Sovrath

 It is the characters that make up Star Trek. Not just storylines.

Take the characters of Star Trek and put them into any storyline and you will find us caring. That's because the audience reacts and relates to the characters. It's also why such horrible plot issues can go by the wayside. Because we care about the characters.

Characters always first. In anything I write (as it appears that my current life has taken me toward the necessity of more playwriting) I start from the characters first. From them the story unfolds as I know what their backstory is and how they react to things and their likes and dislikes.

Without great characters it really doesn't matter what the story is as no one will care.

 

 

This ^.

A great argument for why this was the necessary movie if the franchise is going to survive, because the quality of the *characters* has been in decline since the end of the original series.  Data was just an imitation Spock, Riker was just an imitation Kirk, Crusher and Troi were just there to show that TNG was more about gender equality than TOS, Picard was pretty much the only really great character in that whole series.  And in the very first movie after they killed Kirk, suddenly Picard wasn't the same character anymore, he was more of a bald Kirk, because the absence of Kirk was a gaping hole at the heart of the Star Trek cinematic experience.  And TNG did a far *better* job on characters than DS9 or Voyager, which is just sad.  TNG tried to carry a movie franchise and failed miserably, nobody in his right mind would ever consider even giving a chance to the characters of DS9 or Voyager to carry a movie.  When you have a franchise that has only ever produced one set of great characters, and you are going to spend 100 million + on a movie, you don't go with your second or third-stringers.

I will say that I enjoyed the next generation and its characters but they weren't quite as strong as the original series' characters.

But would see a movie based on Deep Space 9 or Voyager? no. They were good for TV but that is about it.

I won't argue the idea of a reboot or retelling of the TOS crew or a younger version of them was necessary.  What I am arguing is that the questionable plot choices in this movie do not set this new crew up as anything of substance such that it can be a quality foundation to reinvigorate 30 more years of Star Trek.  Might it make for a sequel, probably.  but will it inspire the imagination and creativity of all those trekkies to breath a life into the franchise that sustains it over generations spawning show and show after show and all sorts of movies - doubt it very much.

This movie was needed in terms of a reboot or reimagination of the franchise, but it need to set a good foundation and at least respect the previous incarnation in order to attract new fans and add them to the franchise.  This movie just wrote off the old fans and tried to attract some new ones with flashy action and effects and as soon as something else comes along with flashier action and effects those new fans will move on leaving the franchise in a worse place than it was.

Originally posted by Sovrath 

But the thing is they don't come from nowhere. They are the same characters that we all grew up with. And as long as the writers keep this in mind then we are ok.

The characters were not created in a vacuum. They are based upon what we know but now put into a different place to follow different stories based upon their characterization.

oh, and also, I edited my answer to the topic of why didn't they take the drill out with weapons. Apparently they could't else they would have been destroyed.

Well, I disagree,  I think new Kirk never serving in Starfleet and not even graduating before coming captain is as different a chacter as can be save him being a wookie or something.  Everything about Kirk, save his name, is different and less subtantial in this new ST universe and you can find similar lessenings of the other characters as well.

How can the movie claim we should love these characters as we loved the originals and respect them as being the best of the best when everything about them is different including their experience and the universe they in?  Kirk from birth has an etirely different life, he is not the same person not matter how you slice it.

Originally posted by AgtSmith

I won't argue the idea of a reboot or retelling of the TOS crew or a younger version of them was necessary.  What I am arguing is that the questionable plot choices in this movie do not set this new crew up as anything of substance such that it can be a quality foundation to reinvigorate 30 more years of Star Trek.  Might it make for a sequel, probably.  but will it inspire the imagination and creativity of all those trekkies to breath a life into the franchise that sustains it over generations spawning show and show after show and all sorts of movies - doubt it very much.

 

This movie was needed in terms of a reboot or reimagination of the franchise, but it need to set a good foundation and at least respect the previous incarnation in order to attract new fans and add them to the franchise.  This movie just wrote off the old fans and tried to attract some new ones with flashy action and effects and as soon as something else comes along with flashier action adn effects those new fans will move on leaving the franchise in a worse place than it was.

Well, I sort of agree.

I can see a few more movies but I think that Star Trek will always be anchored in the past for the very reason that the depth of the original series was a result of the times it was created in.

edit: oh and getting back to sending the 3 men to the mining rig, one of my coworkers pointed out that it was needed because the guy in the red shirt needed to die ; )

Im pretty sure that what happened in the movie is from a graphic novel, or a comic of some sort.  Not quite sure but im gonna look it up.

SPOILER

For me the the most terrible thing was that a central planet of the Federation including population was destroyed. I never thought to see that in Trek. To the very end I thought "yeah sure, somehow they will bring the world back". It was and is quite a shock that they didnt, and INVPO that was really very non-Trek-like. Isnt a central idea of Star Trek as Kirk puts it "there are no non-winnable situations"? I sort of felt betrayed with that part of the plot tbh. Still hope they bring back the planet with another time travel in Star Trek 12 haha. *__*

Tbh... I would rather see a Trek series based on the old timeline. The movie was fun for me... but I too cringe at the changes. And besides, Trek was always about heading into the future! It was a good movie, but for the Trek franchise I wish they follow the original timeline further into the future, like the STO game does, and they should not follow this new timeline further. But thats just IMO as Trekkie.

Originally posted by AgtSmith

I won't argue the idea of a reboot or retelling of the TOS crew or a younger version of them was necessary.  What I am arguing is that the questionable plot choices in this movie do not set this new crew up as anything of substance such that it can be a quality foundation to reinvigorate 30 more years of Star Trek.  Might it make for a sequel, probably.  but will it inspire the imagination and creativity of all those trekkies to breath a life into the franchise that sustains it over generations spawning show and show after show and all sorts of movies - doubt it very much.

 

This movie was needed in terms of a reboot or reimagination of the franchise, but it need to set a good foundation and at least respect the previous incarnation in order to attract new fans and add them to the franchise.  This movie just wrote off the old fans and tried to attract some new ones with flashy action and effects and as soon as something else comes along with flashier action and effects those new fans will move on leaving the franchise in a worse place than it was.

 

Originally posted by Sovrath 

But the thing is they don't come from nowhere. They are the same characters that we all grew up with. And as long as the writers keep this in mind then we are ok.

The characters were not created in a vacuum. They are based upon what we know but now put into a different place to follow different stories based upon their characterization.

oh, and also, I edited my answer to the topic of why didn't they take the drill out with weapons. Apparently they could't else they would have been destroyed.

 

Well, I disagree,  I think new Kirk never serving in Starfleet and not even graduating before coming captain is as different a chacter as can be save him being a wookie or something.  Everything about Kirk, save his name, is different and less subtantial in this new ST universe and you can find similar lessenings of the other characters as well.

 

How can the movie claim we should love these characters as we loved the originals and respect them as being the best of the best when everything about them is different including their experience and the universe they in?  Kirk from birth has an etirely different life, he is not the same person not matter how you slice it.

Well, no, you are confusing a character's backstory with characterization.

Back story can contribute to characterization or even support it but you can also change the backstory and still have characterization that stays true to the, er.. "character".

So he didnt' graduate at the point in the movie. it doesn't change the character. And he does graduate. Now, if he "never" graduated then that would change some things about the character.

But he is an action oriented, feeling, cowboyish, by the gut, brawling, playing by his own rules, type of guy. Whether he graduates in the story is not going to change that. And again, he does graduate.

Look, I can agree that the whole "hey, let's get cadets to fly our brand new flag ship" idea was horrible. I liked what they did with it but I think it's not great writing in that it was a bit of the easy way out. But it doesn't have to change the characters.

And again, these characters have existed for so many years that we know them. This might be a more contemporary telling of their exploits but as long as they stay true to their personalities then we should be ok. Even if we don't like how the stories are being told.

I mean, if you suddenly make it so that Kirk is more interested in science and contemplation and make it so that Spock decides that he'd rather be a rodeo clown, well then that will mess with the characters. But altering some story elements won't destroy the characters if the writers remember who these characters are.

I take your point on sticking with the personalities and I acknowledged that saying the casting was good and the acting (meaning the way the actors portrayed their characters) was good enough.  But I have to disagree on it being a small thing that a new Star trek franchise is to be rebuilt on these weak foundations of young raw recruits elevated without justification or merit to high positions and other issues with the plot.  Yes, you can make another mindless action/effect sequel from here but you cannot hope to achieve that was ST, trekkies and all, with this new Star Trek lite.

Look, all the talk and points and counterpoints aside, this movie was way, way more fantasy than previous Star treks.  Fantasy in how the characters ascended suddenly, fantasy in many of the plot contrivances, fantasy in many character motivations.  But I think what misses is that Star Trek persisted for all those years because it carved out a unique identity in SciFi where it offered a plausible reality even if it was futuristic and SciFi and all that jazz.  this movie was more like Star Trek as Star Wars (Abrams admitted favorite as a kid).  An example, Luke in hours goes from first hearing of the force to some big believer on the falcon arguing with Solo about Ben being a great man and Solo not believing in anything just like Kirk goes from punk kid to joining Starfleet on a dare to suddenly being Captain with no real story elements to make this even plausible let alone justified.

It isn't that this more Sci Fantasy Star trek isn't appealing but I hardly see it having the legs to spawn generations of fans that take the franchise through multiple series and movies.

Originally posted by ktanner3

Originally posted by Brenelael

Well I've been a Trekkie since about 1972 when the original series first started to appear in syndication. I've seen all of the episodes of every show and all of the movies at least 10 times each. I've even played most of the Star Trek video games and even watched the animated series when it originally aired. I'm pretty much your stereotypical 'Trekkie'.

 

As for the movie I thought it was absolutely fantastic! Sure there were glaring plot holes and that whole thing between Spock and Uhura...WTF! This does NOT make this movie unTrek however as Star Trek has been known for these things since it's creation in the late 60's. To me anyways Star Trek has always been a fun romp through the stars and a glimpse of what human society could become if we can get over our petty differences. This movie captured that aspect perfectly and just felt like what Star Trek needs to be to survive in the 21st century. This movie has revitalized the IP whether a few die hard Trekkies want to admit it or not. Also it has brought a whole new generation into the fold and for the first time since 1966 it is actually cool now to be a Trekkie. I kinda like that.

 

I did have a few problems with the movie and the story but the overall awesomeness of it more than makes up for it. JJ Abrams has done this IP and all Trekkies a great service with this movie and any Trekkies that don't see that will just be left out in the dark. This is the future of Star Trek whether you like it or not so you'd better get used to it.

 

Bren

 

I've seen similiar sentiments from other Trek fans. I still think that rebooting or making an alternate timeline is a lazy writing tactic, but when I see it on the IMAX screen the weekend after next, I'll keep an open mind.We haven't a good Star Trek movie since "First Contact" (a movie that played fast and loose with trek canon itself) so I'm looking forward to seeing if this movie is really as good as everyone is saying it is.

Not lazy at all. The overall story behind the movie is sound and very plausible. The acting is wonderful and I've seen nothing like it in Star Trek since The Wrath of Kahn. The characters themselves are spot on to the originals with the exception of Mr. Spock who seems a little more 'human' which in my opinion is a good thing. They never really could quite get the internal struggle between Spock's two halves to look quite right in my opinion but this movie nails it to the wall! Don't get me wrong... Leonard Nimoy is a great actor and his characterization of Spock is supurb but the directing has never quite nailed the character like JJ Abrams has. The overall story is quite good and very original. There has been nothing like it in Star Trek before. They attempted something similar with Enterprise but we all know how that turned out. This movie is everything Enterprise should have been and so much more. Don't believe me though, go and see the movie with an open mind to the possibilities it presents and you will see for yourself!

Bren

Originally posted by Elikal

SPOILER

 

 

 

 

 

 

For me the the most terrible thing was that a central planet of the Federation including population was destroyed. I never thought to see that in Trek. To the very end I thought "yeah sure, somehow they will bring the world back". It was and is quite a shock that they didnt, and INVPO that was really very non-Trek-like. Isnt a central idea of Star Trek as Kirk puts it "there are no non-winnable situations"? I sort of felt betrayed with that part of the plot tbh. Still hope they bring back the planet with another time travel in Star Trek 12 haha. *__*

Tbh... I would rather see a Trek series based on the old timeline. The movie was fun for me... but I too cringe at the changes. And besides, Trek was always about heading into the future! It was a good movie, but for the Trek franchise I wish they follow the original timeline further into the future, like the STO game does, and they should not follow this new timeline further. But thats just IMO as Trekkie.

 I would have to agree with this post . And to Caz yes, they did shred the ST cannon into fine strips and then they pasted in  the enterprise and the original spock. Then they threw in 99% filler, and vaporized Vulcan, the single most important planet and race in the early days of ST cannon and was the focal point or at least a launching point for many episodes especially when fleshing out spock as the complicated and conflicted character he is . That is what i mean by shredded...(and yes i do know the names of the char are the same...) my point still stands. In the new version we know Spock was half human and loved his mom (<---cannon) and apparently was Uhara's love intrest and liked to make out with her in public but private places and constantly caved in to her whims...  yeah right. Sorry that is sooo NOT Cannon. It makes for a nice episode of 90210 but not so much for Star Trek. As was stated before this is a good trek-like summer flick but don't get it confused with Star Trek...

Having said everything I wanted to say in my earlier posts (and having AgtSmith read my mind) and heard the response from the other side leaves only one conclusion. We will just have to agree to disagree on the movie.  I am still looking forward to STO as well as SW:TOR with great anticipation...*realizes he is in STO forums Jumps onto the top of the enterprise raises shields then takes out light saber and uses Force lightning to attack incoming Federation Aggro and deflects phasers and Photon torpedoes with light saber *..... Hows that for a trek movie Plot.              

/ end sarcasm 

I think we have all reached the point where we are mostly rehashing things we've already said, but I just have to call BS one more time on complaining about the new movie being more Fantasy than sci-fi.  Regardless of what you want to say about the different tv series, the movies have *always* been pretty heavily tilted toward Space Fantasy rather than science fiction.  I don't want to repeat a bunch of stuff I already said, but I will say this one more time:  Entire movie hinging on going in circles at warp speed in order to travel through time.  And that was one of the *better* post-Khan movies.

All I can say is, after ST:TNG the genra totally sucked.  The only decent movie that came out after the ST:VI was First Contact.  The others just seemed like an episode of the T.V. series.

I don't understand why people are clinging to the canon of the series.  There are so many errors and loopholes in the multiple series it will make your head spin off and they wonder why Star Trek has been failing for so long now.

If anything, this movie just gave the genra a nice breath of life again, even if it had to destroy the flakey canon the so called fans cling to as though it was the holy word of God.  I grew up on Star Trek; I liked the movie, as for Star Trek in general, it needed an overhaul big time.  I was a little skeptical about Vulcan being blown away, I though that was a little pointless, but once again it totally irradicates the original canon, paving way for the to remake Star Trek in a new image.

Well said wardog, Star Trek is now off in a whole new direction - one just like all the other summer wanna be hits coming out each year.  Maybe it works for Paramount, maybe not, but it most certainly isn't very likely to rekindle that folloowing the 'old' Star Trek had that led to 5 series and 10 movies spanning 40+ years because as you said, Star Trek is just another Hollywood IP now wiht the same hit or miss flash as anything else.

OMG! best movie ever....well best Star Trek anyways.

I was really suprised.

Really.

I still remember the big arguments after the announcement of Shatner's non involvement. People thought this movie would fail and Shatner himself said it wasn't a wise business decision. Looks like they were wrong.