quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
One of the things that was troubling about the original shows was how the entire ship was seemingly run by the same 10 people, over and over.

---

quote:

---

- Sulu's magic folding sword just made me laugh. Would have been better for him to grab something sword-like and use that.

---

quote:

---

- The complete and total absence of any defense of the Earth whatsoever. Or orbiting ships. Or anything.

---

When the fleet went ahead of the Enterprise by what seemed to be a matter of only minutes, they were vaporized. Anyone that was in Earth orbit would have met an equal fate.

And that's not considering that it's rather unclear how much of the fleet was actually left. After all, they did sent the Enterprise - a ship packed full of cadets - seemingly because they didn't have anyone else.

I guess nobody's questioned why, whenever there is a cataclysm somewhere in the universe, the Enterprise is *always* the one NEAREST.

And how does a mining ship get that kind of artillery? I mean, forget Warbirds... let's get something the size of a small moon that can blow up planets and has enough firepower to mop up the Federation fleet single handed!

quote:

---

- I would have liked a bit of the theme to have been played in the beginning. Personal preference.

---

quote:

---

- I would have liked a bit of the theme to have been played in the beginning. Personal preference.

>>The end credits made up for that in my book.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
i just hope future Spock left a long list of upcoming threats that were stopped the first time around, with instructions on how to handle them. "First, get some whales..."

---

quote:

---

"Oh, and Kirk... When you come across a tall, black haired Mexican with a funny accent, push him out the airlock before he makes your life miserable."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:

quote:

---

"Oh, and Kirk... When you come across a tall, black haired Mexican with a funny accent, push him out the airlock before he makes your life miserable."

---

I can't recall if this is a reference to an episode or a movie.

---

quote:

---

Didn't that just piss off an awful lot of experienced officers who spent years working their way up the ranks to get their own ship? "Well done! But instead we're going to give this new ship to the brand new crew of just-graduated cadets." Sure, they saved the Earth, but still.

---

quote:

---

‘Successful’ is what the franchise needs right now if it is ever going to survive. If it’s a movie with good acting, lots of explosions, and some humour (and maybe even a plot) people will actually go and see it.
I don’t care what or who it’s about at this point, as long as it’s a Good Movie. For fans as loyal as Star Trek’s have been, it would be nice to see them get what they deserve.

---

This was THAT movie.

[ May 08, 2009, 04:43 AM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
 

---

Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
 
I posted this in the other thread but this is where it's at now so I'll add my thoughts here, too:

i loved it. reviews have made it sound fun but i was surprised by how fun it actually was. it was really in no way a serious sci-fi film but an action-comedy. i was most surprised by how funny it was, which is really a mark of how well the film was written, cast, and directed. and the cast was perfect. pine is a far better actor than shatner and makes a great kirk, and quinto and urban were also excellent. and really, so was everyone else. my biggest complaint is that the film could have been longer to flesh out the characters a little more, but despite being balls to the wall throughout it had some very nice character moments, especially at the beginning and with kirk/bones and kirk/spock. leonard nimoy was also incredibly well utilized and despite worrying about the time travel aspect i thought it was really well done

another important thing that i liked is that while there wasn't much talk about our society in general, when it did come up (bones' divorce, the bar scene, kirk's childhood), it was pretty much like our society brought into the future. none of this utopian nonsense, all humans are happy and do their jobs to better themselves, etc. which has always been one of the most ridiculous things about roddenberry's world.

i could really go on and on about how great the whole thing was. now that the setup is complete i hope they can explore some more serious sci-fi ideas in the next film, but i do hope it retains the sense of fun this one had. i can't imagine there will be a better film this summer and i hope it rakes in an absolute ton of cash
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Super powers don't obey the laws of physics in the movies any more than they do in the comics. At least, not in any of the super-hero movies I've ever seen. They're basically a form of magic that just isn't called magic, in order to help suspension of disbelief.

Calling it magic or superpowers doesn't help me at all. Yes, it's impossible for a man to leap 35 feet and stick to a wall. But if I know the man has superpowers, AND I am shown him gathering to leap, flying through the air at a velocity that makes sense, and sticking to the wall with the muscle flexing and shifting of mass that my mind expects to see, my "oh, come on" reflexes are not triggered. In "Spider-Man 2," the notion of a man wearing massive metal arms on his back that were connected to his brain seems like a tough thing to swallow. But little details like the fact that whenever Doc Ock lifted something heavy, like a taxi, two of his arms always braced against the ground first... that helped sell it to the parts of my mind that can't stop thinking about things like that.

The way Spidey jumped around on big balloons in the first movie, that didn't look "right." But the closing scene, showing him swinging and spinning to finally land on the Empire State Building, that just filled me with glee because it was perfect.

I knew "Daredevil" was going to be crap from the beginning, when he plummeted 20 stories and landed on a fire escape without his spine telescoping into his feet. I "know" that Daredevil has no powers so shouldn't be able to make superpowered moves. Immediately I'm out of the movie, and a fantasy movie cannot ever let that happen.

It's not just superhero movies. Any movie or show that includes a fantastic element had better pay attention to details to keep me in the story, or I'll get knocked out of the moment and suddenly start noticing all the other problems the movie has...

An entertaining enough movie can skip me past such problems, however. I loved "Iron Man," despite the fact that his two ground impacts should have pulped his internal organs instantly. But by the time that happened, I was already caught up and invested in the story. Same here; Sulu's sword didn't ruin anything for me, it was a just a minor "what?" in two hours of delight.

Obviously, your mileage may vary. This is just how my mind works.
 

---

Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
 
Karl Urban was utterly perfect as Bones, which I would have never guessed when I thought about his relatively wooden performance as Eomer in LOTR.

Quinto was also excellent as Spock. I thought I might be distracted with his "Sylar-isms", but there weren't ANY moments where I was jolted away from the Spock-ness of his mannerisms. I, too, found the idea of a Uhura-Spock relationship to be, ahem, "intriguing", as Spock might say. Wouldn't have seen that one coming.

One of the things I actually liked about the "Enterprise" tv series was that things didn't look as plastic, shiny, and ultimately non-functional as everything in the TNG, DS9, and Voyager series did. It resembled a half-way point between the appearance of modern day naval vessels and appropriately sci-fi looking interiors. So getting to see the engineering section of the Enterprise look like something OTHER than a bright shiny tube surrounded by glass panels was quite gratifying to me!

I agree that the double-coincidence of Spock Prime and Scotty being on Delta Vega within kilometers of each other, which also happened to be near the place where Kirk's pod crash landed was a bit of a stretch. And Chris was right about the stupidity of the interior of the Romulan vessel. As my dad used to say when we watched Star Wars movies, "OSHA would have a fit!!"

Regarding the extreme powers of Nero's vessel, I believe that there are two possible answers:

- First off, some comics were developed and distributed as stand-alone iPhone/iPod Touch apps several weeks ago that provided the back-story for this movie. (Aside: what do you call a back-story that actually took place (willan-taken place) in the future?) Picard and crew work with Ambassador Spock to first attempt the salvation of Romulus, then to prevent the destruction of the galaxy, the story ending with Spock's and Nero's ships getting consumed by the singularity. At some point in there, though I don't recall how/when, Nero's simple mining vessel became transformed to be just completely kick-donkey.
- Second, it's technology from over a century in the future. Imagine modern weaponry being used in World War I and see who wins. Even without massive upgrades, it's at least partially plausible that the Romulan ship would have overwhelming tactical superiority over ships of a previous generation.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Excellent movie, great characterizations. And bold! They pulled a "Terminator" and changed the future! Now they can spawn whole new movie sequels and even a new TV series! I do feel sorry for the Vulcans. And Amanda (Spock's mother).
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Something that's consuming me now: what does this mean for the rest of the franchise?

What about the novels? Will I still get regular New Frontier novels?

What about the ongoing comics?

Will this become an "Ultimate" universe, much like Marvel's mostly successful reboot, with the original one still carrying on (offscreen) as before?
 

---

Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Will this become an "Ultimate" universe, much like Marvel's mostly successful reboot, with the original one still carrying on (offscreen) as before?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carrie:
so long as they never ever try to redo TNG.

---

Yeah, for some reason the idea of redoing TNG is much more offensive to me than TOS, but I guess it's because I always liked TNG more. But also like I said before, Pine is a better actor than Shatner and you're not going to ever find a better actor to play Picard.
 

---

Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
 
I think that the changed timeline fits easily into the established Star Trek canon. Alternate timelines co-existing across a dimensional barrier have been a part of every Star Trek show, with the exception of TNG. TOS introduced the 'dark universe' with the evil Kirk and goatee-sporting Spock, which was continued in DS9 with the alternate universe. IIRC, there was even a series of Enterprise episodes that had this dark universe.

Point is, there's nothing stopping the original timeline from still existing in a universe where, say, Nero was never born or the destruction of Romulus was averted somehow.
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
Pine is not a better actor than Shatner. Will you stop saying that?

I guess I'm the only one who thought this was pretty much your average Star Trek film, with a few modifications. Dumber than most Star Trek films, but on the other hand -- funnier. Lots of self-referential stuff. Lots of little nods to the fandom. (Who didn't expect the space jump guy in the red uniform to die?) Dumbed-down time travel as a major plot point. It pretty much hit all the regular Star Trek notes. I left the theater unsure about why this was supposedly such a huge departure for the franchise. There's not a doubt in my mind that Berman and Braga could have written the same movie.

I'm not saying I hated it. I thought it was entertaining. It was fun to watch. It's an okay time at the movies. I'd probably give it three out of five stars. I don't want to be such a naysayer. I'll step out and let you guys rave rave rave.

But there were just way too many things that made no sense to me. Chief amongst them: How come no one from Starfleet ever, not once, contacted the U.S.S. Enterprise during this movie? There wasn't a single admiral who got on the comm and said, 'Hey boys, looks like you graduated from the academy 15 minutes ago, and now you're running amok like madmen all over the solar system. Why don't you stop off at X? We'd like to get some experienced officers aboard to deal with this earth-threatening crisis.' Another one: Why did they have to go through all the trouble in the movie if solving the problem was as easy as shooting the drill? Why did Kirk Land on a moon magically within walking distance of Spock, who in turn was magically within walking distance of Scotty?

When I start to think about the plot, I also realize that there were multiple instances in which the characters wouldn't have known what to do -- might have done nothing -- except for listening to old Spock. Old Spock has all the answers: Here's how you teleport onto a moving ship. Here's how you take command of the enterprise. Here's how you spend the rest of your life. Stand right here looking scared while I fight off this beast with my fire stick. (There were no trees on that moon. Where did he get wood for a fire?)

Just... I'm sorry. I guess I'm doomed to be that guy. That guy whose mind requires things not to be so easy. I thought the movie was lazily written.

But the actors had a lot of chemistry and were fun to watch. That's what was good about it. The cast.
 

---

Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
Yeah, you are "that guy".

Now go away and let us revel.
 

---

Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
 
I can more easily let those complaints go cause it was an action-comedy, not meant to be taken seriously. Like, that stuff isn't important, it's just supposed to be a fun movie.

And Pine is better than Shatner
 

---

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TL:
Pine is not a better actor than Shatner. Will you stop saying that?

I guess I'm the only one who thought this was pretty much your average Star Trek film, with a few modifications. Dumber than most Star Trek films, but on the other hand -- funnier. Lots of self-referential stuff. Lots of little nods to the fandom. (Who didn't expect the space jump guy in the red uniform to die?) Dumbed-down time travel as a major plot point. It pretty much hit all the regular Star Trek notes. I left the theater unsure about why this was supposedly such a huge departure for the franchise. There's not a doubt in my mind that Berman and Braga could have written the same movie.

I'm not saying I hated it. I thought it was entertaining. It was fun to watch. It's an okay time at the movies. I'd probably give it three out of five stars. I don't want to be such a naysayer. I'll step out and let you guys rave rave rave.

But there were just way too many things that made no sense to me. Chief amongst them: How come no one from Starfleet ever, not once, contacted the U.S.S. Enterprise during this movie? There wasn't a single admiral who got on the comm and said, 'Hey boys, looks like you graduated from the academy 15 minutes ago, and now you're running amok like madmen all over the solar system. Why don't you stop off at X? We'd like to get some experienced officers aboard to deal with this earth-threatening crisis.' Another one: Why did they have to go through all the trouble in the movie if solving the problem was as easy as shooting the drill? Why did Kirk Land on a moon magically within walking distance of Spock, who in turn was magically within walking distance of Scotty?

When I start to think about the plot, I also realize that there were multiple instances in which the characters wouldn't have known what to do -- might have done nothing -- except for listening to old Spock. Old Spock has all the answers: Here's how you teleport onto a moving ship. Here's how you take command of the enterprise. Here's how you spend the rest of your life. Stand right here looking scared while I fight off this beast with my fire stick. (There were no trees on that moon. Where did he get wood for a fire?)

Just... I'm sorry. I guess I'm doomed to be that guy. That guy whose mind requires things not to be so easy. I thought the movie was lazily written.

But the actors had a lot of chemistry and were fun to watch. That's what was good about it. The cast.

---

In the abstract, this wasn't a particularly great movie. A solid fun action flick but not much else. However, what this movie does so magnificently is take the notion of "fan appeasement" to an artform. I say that without a trace of irony. From the way the cast perfectly channels the original actors to the way they squeeze in a million bajillion references to TOS moments without it feeling forced at all, all while keeping it something that a newcomer can just sit down and enjoy... I consider this a great movie, purely from the standpoint of how well they capture the original feel while updating it for a new generation.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I'm simply very tired of the idea of an evil alien (often romulan or borg) setting out towards the Earth with a doomsday weapon, and the intent of destroying human civilization (often because they are themselves from the future). This basic plot has been a part of at least, oh, 6 of the 11 Star Trek movies, and several episodes of various series as well. Go down to the convenient store, and buy yourself a new plot.

Also, why must the Golden Gate be in the vicinity of every alien attack on Earth in Star Trek lore (and most other movies that feature San Francisco)? ST IV, STXI, more than one episode of DS9, TNG, and even Voyager managed to shoehorn in the Golden Gate as the backdrop of violent destruction. Having grown up pretty close to where ST academy is supposed to be (really close in fact) I was always a little disheartened by the GG's butt-monkey status in movies.
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
Raymond, I agree with everything you said. Except for it being a great movie. It might be a great fan appeasement movie -- but as a neutral party, and not a "fan" -- I just can't make the leap from great fan appeasement movie to great movie. It was a pretty decent movie.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
It was a great movie in a lot of ways- some great acting and characterizations, but some I am upset that Abrams: first, used that tired old time travel meme and THEN did not use it to change the time line back pretty much to what ir was before. No Vulcan? Very wrong.
 

---

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
I actually think blowing up Vulcan was one of the ballsiest things they could have done. It actually in some ways brings the series back to "true science fiction" (i.e. depicting what the results of a particular science or technology would have on the world). Except instead of seeing how Warp Drive or transporters or whatever affected human civilization, we are seeing how a single event - the destruction of Vulcan - may impact the original Star Trek universe we are familiar with. I'm hoping they continue to show the echoes of that change.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Part of the intent of the movie was to reboot Trek with an open future so that new fans could enjoy it without having to cram 40 years of backstory.

I saw the first series. I saw a lot of TNG. I saw a few DS9s, and the tribble episode. And I watched the first 4 Enterprises hoping to see something good and gave up, bored. The only Trek I've been interested in at all for 10 years is Peter David's "New Frontier" series of books.

This Trek brought me back, and reminded me why I liked it in the first place.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Just got back from the movie.
I took my father out to it since the first movie I remember going out to see (with my rather bad memory) was one of the original series Star Trek movies.

I liked it. It went by like a flash despite being long. The only thing is there was so much happening on-screen and so much lens flaring that my eyes kinda feel like exploding (which must mean I must be getting old). Hopefully the next movie might have a few more slow scenes between the bridge crew.

Of the big three, I knew I liked the new Spock beforehand, the McCoy I wasn't too sure of but on-screen he looks great, but I'm still yet to be sold on the new Kirk. I watched for the end scene and it might look promising though.

I do like Chris' point about consequences. The most annoying thing about the old series was that you had so many inventions that should have substantively changed human culture and so many events that should have had far reaching consequences. So at least they're setting up the Vulcan-destruction as something that will be interesting.

Man... my eyes hurt.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
The screenwriters and producer are both on the record that as far as they're concerned, the "Prime" Trekverse timeline still exists. The timeline seen in the new film splits off from it, but does not replace it.

Though I doubt they'll be doing a Crisis of Infinite Treks story.

(Well, other than the classic TNG episode where Worf is married to Troi and Riker is a borg-fearin' lunatic.)
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
I'm simply very tired of the idea of an evil alien (often romulan or borg) setting out towards the Earth with a doomsday weapon, and the intent of destroying human civilization (often because they are themselves from the future). This basic plot has been a part of at least, oh, 6 of the 11 Star Trek movies, and several episodes of various series as well. Go down to the convenient store, and buy yourself a new plot.

---

quote:

---

Also, why must the Golden Gate be in the vicinity of every alien attack on Earth in Star Trek lore (and most other movies that feature San Francisco)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puffy Treat:

On their first adventure together, which outside of the novels was a bit of unexplored territory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puffy Treat:

On their first adventure together, which outside of the novels was a bit of unexplored territory.

---

Yeah but, is no one off-put by the fact that this movie erases the events of all the other star trek shows and movies except Enterprise? Those things now didn't happen- right?

---

quote:

---

- The complete and total absence of any defense of the Earth whatsoever. Or orbiting ships. Or anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Saving Romulus in this new, revised timeline will not bring anything back. Vulcan is already gone. Although if the Enterprise can zip through time to pick up some whale take-out, I'm not sure why they can't go back to, you know, save a few billion Vulcans.

---

quote:

---

The Directive was later amended, prohibiting Starfleet officers from intervening even if non-intervention would result in the extinction of an entire species or the end of all life on a planet or star system. By the 24th century the Federation had begun applying the Prime Directive to warp-capable species, refusing to interfere in internal matters such as the Klingon Civil War.

---

quote:

---

Some Starfleet Captains, including James T. Kirk, Jean-Luc Picard and Kathryn Janeway have noted that the Prime Directive only applies to living growing civilizations and have overlooked the directive where it has been more convenient to do so...

---

Learn something new every day.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
They apply, or don't apply, the PD when the plot makes it convenient to make that choice.
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
I really enjoyed it. I was really amazed at Chris Pine's Kirk. I know he purposely avoided emulating Kirk. But I had been on a TOS-watching marathon a month ago, getting know the originals all over again. And it struck me how every once in a while, Pine-as-Kirk would smirk, turn, smile or just capture the essense of vintage Kirk.

I think having seen William Shatner age, chew up the scenery, become and unintentional parody of himself (and then an intentional one), I had lost sight of/not realized how very charismatic and charming he was as TOS Kirk. Very (American)James Bond/Horatio Hornblower/Cowboy. He had this internal/external dichotomy that played very well against even incredibly thin stories (and manifested these inner struggles in conversations with his other halves: Spock and McCoy). Iconic is the word I am looking for.

And Chris Pine captured that, albeit in youth with a lifetime ahead of him and without the wieght responsibility that he would shoulder. In fact, I saw him shoulder it and realized that this was the youth that would become Shatner's Kirk. I was just impressed.

Spock's first make-out with Uhura was natural, I thought. She was trying to comfort him any way she could and he was emotionally compromised enough to respond. Perhaps this Spock is more accepting of his human half than TOS Spock. He certainly told the Vulcan High Counsel where they could go. Either way, I await more characterization to see where this goes.

Two negatives:

1) how does a supernova destory a galaxy exactly? I don't think that's possible. Maybe renders nearby star systems uninhabitable. But that's not destroying an entire galaxy, which sees novas and supernovas not infrequently.

2) The alternate timeline: does this erase the TOS and TNG, etc universe? I hope not. That part truly made me a bit sad, I think. But on the plus side, I wonder if Spock-prime really WILL warn them of incoming problems: like the Borg, or the Probe, etc. Might as well. Temporal prime directive has been broken. Unless those Temporal Cops from the 29th Century show up and fix everything like they did in DS9 an VOY.

All in all, a great film. Look forward to more.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Saw it last night. Loved it. Urban's McCoy was my favorite surprise but we needed more Scotty!

I liked Kirk. Remember this is a different Kirk, a totally different man. This man never knew his father, and though many things will be the same, he had a totally different childhood. Obviously somethings don't change - the Kobayashi Maru (sp?) and the head turning every time a beautiful woman walks by.

My biggest complaint is the opening scenes, with Kirk's father. It felt really cliche ("It's the only way I can keep you safe!"). I had the feeling I had seen that many times before. The only sweet thing was the look on his father's face when he heard the baby's cry. The rest of it didn't really touch me emotionally at all.

In contrast, what did get me and the only time in the movie where I felt emotional was Spock Prime's response to Kirk's query "Who are you?"

"I have been, and always shall be, your friend."
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
There was a 4-issue Star Trek comic called "Countdown," from IDW comics, that tells the story of Nero, Spock, and the destruction of Romulus that answers a lot of the apparent plot deficiencies.

- Exactly how a supernova could threaten anything beyond its immediate scope
- Where the red stuff came from
- Why Nero is so peeved at Spock personally and the entire Vulcan race in particular (he's got reason)
- Why the Romulans look so different from other ones we've seen, bald and tattooed
- When this happens in Star Trek chronology (8 years after Star Trek: Nemesis)
- Where Spock's ship (the "Jellyfish") came from
- Where and how Nero got such a powerful ship (his own mining ship, outfitted with Borg technology)

Some of this really should have been in the movie. We needed more on Nero, exactly why he felt so betrayed and why the destruction of an entire race makes perfect sense to him.
 

---

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
I was willing to chalk Nero's reasons up to "he's a crazy megalomaniac." I didn't really need a better reason. The only REAL problem I had with the movie was Kirk landing on the planet within a few miles of Spock and Scotty.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Quick Countdown recap (spoilers for the comic):

Spock is now a nationalized Romulan, still working for unification. Now publicly on Romulus, but still distrusted by the ruling class. He discovers the impending supernova and warns them, only to be ignored as a Vulcan schemer. Nero speaks up for him, and leaves his pregnant wife to go with Spock to Vulcan to enlist their aid. Vulcan also now distrusts Spock and they stall, but some Starfleet friends from TNG help out. Spock is outfitted with a ship and the red stuff (created from the stuff that Nero was mining for) and takes off, but he's too late. Nero watches Romulus blow up. He starts lashing out at Federation rescue ships, shaves his head and tattoes himself in mourning for his people, gets contacted by some Romulans with access to Borg tech, and his new badass ship goes after Spock, with the results you see.

The fact that Nero supported Spock and now feels betrayed by just about everybody adds a large amount of emotion to his character, I think. He's crazy, but you can easily see how he got there.
 

---

Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
 
my biggest complaint about the movie was the constant lens flare. That really irritated me.

My second biggest complaint I can now put into words: all that stuff in Countdown should have been in the movie. Red Matter, Nero's history, Spock's role in all of this was badly explained. I really hate it when movies/tv shows put important information in other media.
 

---

Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
I don't think it was all that important to the average movie goer. The trek fans can just pick up the comics.
 

---

Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
 
If it makes me feel as though things haven't been sufficiently explained, it's definitely important to me - but I may not be an average movie goer.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Does anyone know if there is a novelization based on the movie script? It might explain things better, bring in some info from the comics, etc.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
I loved the nod to "Enterprise":

Scotty got sent to that outpost for losing Admiral Archer's prized beagle.

Poor Porthos.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I think it's great it wasn't in the movie - it would have weighed it down.

Instead, bad guy whose wife died blames and has a grudge against Spock, Vulcan, and the Federation, in that order, uses phlobotinum to try and destroy the world.

That was all that was necessary. Leaving out the backstory is part of what made it great. This is the best-paced Star Trek movie ever made.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
There's a novelization coming out next Tuesday, by Alan Dean Foster.

Which is interesting... didn't he ghost the first Star Trek movie novelization?

Edited to add: Nope, just checked Wikipedia. He did co-write the Star Wars novelization, though.
 

---

Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 

quote:

---

I loved the nod to "Enterprise":

Scotty got sent to that outpost for losing Admiral Archer's prized beagle.

Poor Porthos.

---

I missed the Admiral's name and that reference... I loved that dog!!!
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
In case it wasn't clear: I loved it. That was a ripping good movie, and I hope they make sequels in this alternative universe. I'm fine with that - it's time for a reboot, and this is perfect.

I loved TNG and read a few TOS novels, but the only bit of the orginal cast I've seen are IV (which was great), V (which blew so hard its ears popped), and VI (which was also great). So, this is perfect.

And hot dang, who knew pointy ears, a bad haircut, and waxed eyebrows could be so hot. I wanted to snog him on the transporter pad along with Uhuru. Chris Pine is also gorgeous. More movies with these men, please. That was fantastic.
 

---

Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
I doubt it was the same dog - aren't we about 90 years after Enterprise?
I can believe Archer's still alive (probably too annoying to die) but his pet must have been a descendant.

Which is good, as Porthos was just about the only character in that show that I didn't want to see die horribly.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bella Bee:
I doubt it was the same dog - aren't we about 90 years after Enterprise?
I can believe Archer's still alive (probably too annoying to die) but his pet must have been a descendant.

Which is good, as Porthos was just about the only character in that show that I didn't want to see die horribly.

---

According to what I've read, if still alive, Archer would have been 140 and Porthos would have been 108. Within the Star Trek universe, that's just possible for it to be Archer. But no way it's the same beagle.

It's also possible that the mystery admiral is the son or grandson of Scott Bakula's character, and the owning of a beagle was just a tradition in the family.

And yes, I am over-thinking it. It's Star Trek!
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Chris, thanks. I'll be looking for the novelization. Alan Dean Foster is a pretty good writer. I think we can count on him to add a lot of depth to the story.

Katharina, you said you "wanted to snog him on the transporter pad along with Uhuru." You wanted to snog both of them?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
What do you think, Barney?
 

---

Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
[QUOTEAccording to what I've read, if still alive, Archer would have been 140 and Porthos would have been 108. Within the Star Trek universe, that's just possible for it to be Archer. But no way it's the same beagle.

It's also possible that the mystery admiral is the son or grandson of Scott Bakula's character, and the owning of a beagle was just a tradition in the family.

And yes, I am over-thinking it. It's Star Trek! [/QB][/QUOTE]

Maybe it was just a funny line to bring up memories of Archer and his hatred of transporters? Doesn't have to be literally *that* Admiral Archer - Archer is a pretty common name.

What is the maximum human lifespan in Star Trek? It seems to be somewhere around 150-200, but most characters typically die of something other than old age before that. It seems to be a pretty natural progression of technology, though... 100 years ago, the average life expectancy was 50 years, now it's 80, might be 110 or 120 by 2100, 150 or more by 2200. (assuming the cure of certain diseases and cancers, organ replacement/regrowth, and better medicine in general)
 

---

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
Actually, the red matter was wicked cool, because now we know what happened to the red Rambaldi spheres from Alias.
 

---

Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
 
Great movie. Loved it.

I'm curious about how this new timeline is "parallel" to the primary one though. Nero changed the past, and previous examples of this in Trek continuity have established that changing history doesn't just create a parallel world and leave the original unaltered. For instance, the borg in "First Contact" were attempted to change history by going to the past, not just make a parallel history. In DS9, Sisko went back in time and changed history so that he was in fact the historical figure Gabriel Bell. That wasn't just true of that particular timeline. The change was apparent in his own timeline when he returned. Not to mention Tasha Yar's half Romulan daughter who couldn't exist in the primary timeline if time travel just created parallel ones without changing the original.

So if you want to get technical, all Trek history after Nero's appearance in the past should now be overwritten. But the fans don't want that, so the writers call it it "parallel" and everyone is happy.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I wouldn't mind if they overwrote Voyager.
 

---

Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
Who's Archer?
 

---

Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbie:
Who's Archer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon Boy:
I wouldn't mind if they overwrote Voyager.

---

quote:

---

-Sulu's sword seemed perfectly fine though I havent saw TOS so I dont know if he ever had a sword, I thought he knew Karate?

---

quote:

---

That wasn't just true of that particular timeline. The change was apparent in his own timeline when he returned.

---

But hang on. As Terry Pratchett would say, it’s all about the different legs of the trousers of time.
It’s the old grandfather paradox issue - if the events of the film all happened in the same leg of the trouser, or ‘universe’, old Spock would have cancelled out his own existence as the events of the film destroy the possibility of old Spock living the life he has led.

If you go back in time in the same universe and kill your grandfather, you cannot be born - therefore you cannot kill your grandfather.
The many universes theory suggests that every action or choice creates a universe where that action takes place, and also a universe where it does not, and others where it pans out differently.

With this theory when you leave your universe, it carries on without you. Nothing about the past changes. The future from this point is different, because you are not in it.
Time travel creates a new universe, just as deciding whether to have pancakes or eggs or neither for breakfast creates different universes where one or other is true.

This means that when you travel in time, you can go to a universe where you have not yet been born. If you have a change of heart and do not kill your grandfather, you can still be born into this universe and supposing original you survives until this point, there will be two of you.
The other you in this universe will not necessarily travel back in time, as you can persuade them not to.
If you do decide to kill Granddad, you will continue to exist, because you were born in a different universe where he never died. But in the universe you are now living in, your grandmother marries someone else and you are never born. So there is only one of you.

If you then travel to the future, you leave this universe again and it carries on without you. But you can only arrive in a future universe reflecting the events which you caused to unfold in the past. So if you killed Granddad, you still haven’t been born and you look just like the photo of the guy who killed him.
If you don’t kill Granddad, you still won’t end up in a universe with more than one other copy of you (unless you also clone yourself) because you have left the past.

You can’t ever travel back to your original universe again - so Sisko does not return to his original universe, but to a new one created on the basis that he is Gabriel Bell.
In the future universe Sisko ‘returns’ to, Gabriel Bell has always looked like Ben Sisko.

Got a headache yet?
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nighthawk:
There is one thing that got my attention... How far is Vulcan from Earth anyway? Didn't it seem like it's right next door and it took mere minutes to get there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
-Sulu's sword seemed perfectly fine though I havent saw TOS so I dont know if he ever had a sword, I thought he knew Karate?

---

quote:

---

Chekov was awesome.

---

quote:

---

Now Enterprise gave me the impression that the Vulcans had spread out a little bit with a few colonies here and there certainly there's more then 10,000 Vulcans.

---

quote:

---

There is one thing that got my attention... How far is Vulcan from Earth anyway? Didn't it seem like it's right next door and it took mere minutes to get there? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bella Bee:
[QUOTE]

Got a headache yet?

---

Please! I've been well versed in the popular theories of time travel dynamics since I was a kid. I've always been a sci-fi geek.

I get what you're saying, but I still think it's a bit iffy. Star Trek has always worked on the premise that history can be overwritten by way of time travel. Isn't there even a branch of Starfleet dedicated to protecting the timeline from such events? The Temporal Prime Directive and all that?

I'm not trying to criticize or anything. I think this movie is pretty awesome, and I'm not keen on decades of continuity getting flushed down the toilet. So if they want to say that this time, unlike other instances, time travel didn't change history, but just made an alternate one then I'm willing to let it slide.
 

---

Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I was so nerded out at first look at Sylar-Spock but I quickly was like "Yeah, thats Spock" I liked McCoy, Scotty was awesome and I wish they had the Doctor from Stargate Atlantis but the guy they had for him was awesome.

---

They did. Just not as a doctor.
 

---

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dogbreath:

quote:

---

There is one thing that got my attention... How far is Vulcan from Earth anyway? Didn't it seem like it's right next door and it took mere minutes to get there?

---

It orbits 40 Eridani A, 16 light years from Earth. Right next door, relatively speaking. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Also, canonically Admiral Archer dies one day after the launching/commisioning of the USS Enterprise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dogbreath:

quote:

---

There is one thing that got my attention... How far is Vulcan from Earth anyway? Didn't it seem like it's right next door and it took mere minutes to get there?

---

It orbits 40 Eridani A, 16 light years from Earth. Right next door, relatively speaking.

---

I thought it was Epsilon Eridani. Did they change that? [/QB]

---

Actually that would be Reach.

ETA
 

---

Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Also, canonically Admiral Archer dies one day after the launching/commisioning of the USS Enterprise.

---

No such person. The first captain of the Enterprise was Robert April.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Also, canonically Admiral Archer dies one day after the launching/commisioning of the USS Enterprise.

---

No such person. The first captain of the Enterprise was Robert April.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by T:man:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dogbreath:

quote:

---

There is one thing that got my attention... How far is Vulcan from Earth anyway? Didn't it seem like it's right next door and it took mere minutes to get there?

---

It orbits 40 Eridani A, 16 light years from Earth. Right next door, relatively speaking.

---

I thought it was Epsilon Eridani. Did they change that?

---

Actually that would be Reach.

ETA [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Paramount is NOT going to continue the current franchise they don;t feel it is financially feasible.

---

quote:

---

I don't see what the big deal is with "investing" in a new timeline.

---

quote:

---

What other storylines have you enjoyed in your life? Which of those have been taken and completely rewritten?

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure what you're implication is supposed to be.

---

No implication, just an unconsciously-expressed desire to find out more about your views, here. Obviously, I don't know your tastes in movies or your interest in the original Star Trek series. You answered the question, but I'm sorry if you feel implicated against.

quote:

---

I dunno. I'm just used to seeing the same story told by multiple people for multiple reasons for multiple audiences. It doesn't bother me at all.

---

I'm thinking that you have the right approach. I'll be a grumpy old man with regards to Hollywood, if I don't start learning to expect this.

###

While I don't normally read movie reviews on a regular basis, I found Roger Ebert's diagnosis of the Star Trek movie fairly accurate:

The Franchise on the Edge of Forever (rogerebert.suntimes.com)
 

---

Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
My verdict after stewing it over for a few hours: Good, but not great.

I'm a long-time Trek fan, but I don't mind the "alternate universe" thing one bit. If they wanted to restart the franchise using the TOS characters, they needed to find some way to disregard the bloated mess that Star Trek's canon has become (and I'm speaking here as a hardcore fan of DS9). If they don't, you end up with "Enterprise."

In fact, I would've been fine with a straight-up reboot that ignored canon entirely once the basic characters were established. Seeing Nimoy back in character was a lovely treat, but his presence over-complicated the story in (IMO) an unnecessary way. I'm loathe to use the word "shoehorning" for something as purely wonderful as getting to see the original Spock one last time, but it did feel that way at times.

But that's sort of a running problem throughout the movie - the plotting is just plain bad. And I don't mean the bad science (although there is plenty of that), I mean in terms of storytelling mechanics. Telling rather than showing. Towering leaps in (il)logic. Plot holes you could drive a Warbird through. And some of the craziest coincidences I've ever seen anyone attempt to pass off as story progression - Kirk randomly running into both OldSpock and Scotty, the exact two people he needed to meet in order to move the plot forward, being the most egregious. The black hole-generating goo was another in a long line of ludicrous hand-wavey Treknobabble. Several of the action sequences could've been cut from the movie in their entirety without affecting the story one bit. The ice monster, in particular, felt like a cut scene from the Star Wars prequels, while Scotty's Wild Ride through the pipes in Engineering felt like a level from the admittedly-nonexistent video game adaptation.

Another issue I had was with the villain. Nero was well-played by Bana, and has one of the funniest moments in the movie ("Hello, Christopher! I'm Nero."), but the character is appallingly underwritten. Yes, I know there's a comic that explains his backstory in some detail, but if you want an audience to react emotionally to backstory, you had better work it into your movie somehow. "It's too complicated" is no excuse - either find a way to explain it simply and coherently, or rewrite the damn thing so it doesn't require 30 pages of exposition to understand. Khan's origin is no less complex than Nero's, but we're given enough explanation (and Khan is given enough screentime) in Star Trek II that his motivations are crystal clear, even if you've never seen "Space Seed."

So that's a lot of stuff I felt didn't work in the movie. And yet, I think overall it was very much a success. So what did work?

Well, they nailed the single most important factor: the main characters were spot-on. Although Abrams et al apparently can't plot their way out of a paper bag, they can write some darn good dialogue. They were ably assisted by the talented cast, who thoroughly embody their characters without aping their predecessors. Most importantly of all, the "core trio" crackled with energy and showed striking chemistry from the moment they began sharing screentime. I can't wait to see the Kirk/Spock/Bones relationship developed further in the inevitable sequels.

The supporting players were generally great as well. Chekov and Scotty were both entertaining without being annoying, although they'll need to take care not to Wesley Crusherize Chekov in the sequels. Saldana's Uhura is a much more assertive and interesting character than the original. I have a feeling she's not going to settle for endless repetitions of "Hailing frequencies open," and good for her!

Although he got off a few good one-liners, Harold's Sulu made less of an impression. I mean, he was fine, he just didn't "fit" quite as well as the others. I admit some of this may be just me - it somehow doesn't seem like Sulu to me without Takei's voice. I can't really imagine this new guy snapping, "Fly her apart then!"

The special effects were, for the most part, fantastic. I still think the new Enterprise design looks remarkably silly - it's great until you get to the engineering section, and then the whole thing kind of devolves into Steve Jobs's worst nightmare. But the space battle sequences were very effective, particularly the opening with Kirk's father. I especially liked how the sound abruptly cut out whenever the camera began following crewmembers in space, starting with the hull breach in that opening battle sequence.

The hand-to-hand combat fared less well, mostly due to some questionable directorial decisions. Sulu's "Wesley from Angel did it first" sword was silly enough. But falling prey to the Star Warsian giant chasms of doom in fight scenes aboard the Romulan ship? Oy.

Final thoughts: Star Trek 90210 was witty, well-acted, and (to borrow Scotty's phrasing) ex-CIT-ing, but whoever came up the plot should... ah... probably be replaced. I'll have to see it again to be sure, but right now I'd rank it after Star Treks II, IV, VI, and First Contact - in other words, in the upper-middle of the Quality Continuum (TM). The most important thing in my mind right now is that, for the first time in a long, long time, I'm excited to see the next adventure of the Starship Enterprise. If they can maintain what worked, and tweak the stuff that didn't, we should be in for quite a ride in those inevitable (but not in a bad way!) sequels.

Edit: One thing I forgot to mention - I hated the score. The main theme was insipid at best, which wouldn't have been such a big deal except that the composer apparently couldn't be bothered to write any other melodic ideas. He repeats that one crappy theme for every single moment in the movie. Action sequence? Brassy rendition of the theme. Sexy sequence? Slinky rendition of the theme. Sad sequence? Solemn, string-led version of the theme!

That's something you can get away with if your main theme is as good as the one in "The Dark Knight," but when it's a generic bit of "Adventure... in SPAAAAAACE!!!" fanfare, all you're doing is making my hackles rise during what should be emotional or exciting moments. Bad, Composer. Very bad!

[ May 11, 2009, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Tarrsk ]
 

---

Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
 
I'll second the score complaint. For a movie they dumped millions into + the extra post time they had when they moved the release back, they should have a much better score.

Bottom line, though: It was fun, and I'll be seeing the next one.
 

---

Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tstorm:

quote:

---

I don't see what the big deal is with "investing" in a new timeline.

---

What other storylines have you enjoyed in your life? Which of those have been taken and completely rewritten? [/QB]

---

I don't really see what the big deal is either. I understand why they're taking the safe road and calling this an "alternate reality" rather than a full out reboot, but even if the powers that be wanted to steamroll continuity it's not like they can erase it from your mind, or your DVD collection, or bookshelf, etc.

After all, "all the stories are fiction. What matters is what fiction you believe."
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
That especially includes history; ie ya hafta be high to believe such obvious fiction thinly veiled by true names&dates&locations written by sycophants out to amuse their patrons.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I don't mind rewrites, retreads, retcons, and bad adaptations for precisely that reason - it isn't like all the copies of the original material have been destroyed.
 

---

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I see your one of those people who handwaved Enterprise out of existence.

According to paramount anything on screen is canon no matter what we the fans think of the matter.

---

No, I'm one of those people who refuses to accept TAS being handwaved out of existence. And since Robert April as the first captain of the Enterprise appeared in The Animated Series, I'm afraid it's canon as well.

Enterprise was a poorly written historical novel authored by someone in the 25th century.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I won't go as far as Lisa with my indignation. There is definitely a fun element to the new movie that has been missing over the years from what I have read about and seen. However, as a Star Trek fan that goes back to the original and animated series (even if in syndication before ST:TNG), this "reboot" is very troublesome. Much of it for the same reason that Enterprise was hard to watch; unbelievable incongruities. As Lisa said, "I'm one of those people who refuses to accept TAS (and ST:TNG and ST:DS9 for that matter) being handwaved out of existence."

I can understand how people who are NOT "invested" in the Star Trek universe can ignore the gaping chasms of storytelling. A good story is just that. However, for those of us who have enjoyed the show for vast amounts of years to suddenly see it all ignored (a la Enterprise and this new Star Trek) is preposterous. It simply is NOT my Star Trek any more than a step mother is a biological relative after having grown up with the original. The biological mother isn't going to be easily forgotten just because someone took her place. You can have the new Star Trek and I won't have a problem with it; and I might even watch it for what is good. But, it will forever be a tainted product of lesser value.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That's the point - I think the orginal Star Trek universe is done. There was the original series, the next generation, the outpost, the space station, the prequel...it's been sucked dry.

The original team had a fantastic dynamic, but that story is finished. It's all been told.

I have no problem with starting with something new, an alternate timeline. The choice isn't between an alternate timeline and more stories in the same timeline - the choice is between an alternate timeline and oblivion. The show is over completely.

All good things must end. The original Star Trek universe is over, and the original Kirk/Spock teams et. al. is DEFINITELY over. This is, in fact, something new, and that's fine. It's been two generations - it's time.

To continue Occ's distasteful analogy, the original didn't die in its prime, too soon - it creaked to death after a good, long life and after months on life support until it finally expired over the age of 100. In other word's, this isn't made for you, Occ. It's made for other people who don't want their dashing adventurers to be senior citizens with spoken word albums.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
"In other word's, this isn't made for you, Occ"

. . . As I have acknowledged. Just don't expect me to want to participate in the new world. If the old one is dead then I will live with its memories.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Two points about the general scientific constraints on time travel.

(1) There can be no "Grandfather Paradox," because that would, at some point, require future cause to produce effects in the past. i.e. the effects of killing your own grandfather would move forward in time to the point when you travelled back in time, but then the effects would have to follow you back through time. The flow of cause and effect can never be reversed like that. The crucial consideration here is that when you travel into the past, you first have to step outside of the timeline, and when you do that, you become cut off from the cause and effect of your previous timeline, and basically become independent; i.e., your own original cause.

(2) There can be no parallel or alternative universes, because too much energy would be required to create an entirely new universe. In fact, the mere fact that it requires INSTANTANEOUS CREATION of a whole new universe is prohibitive. Theoretical physicists will just have to come up with some other explanations for certain curious quantum effects.

This is all just my own opinion, of course. But I think it would be very hard for anyone to discount the reasonableness of these points.
 

---

Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
 
Yeah, I have no problem seeing other people enjoy Star Trek. Go ahead and enjoy this new adventure. The action and special effects are good, the characters are great, the dialogue is witty. I hope the sequel is just as good for everyone.

But it's not my Star Trek.
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 

quote:

---

Fans are clingy complaining ******** who will never ever be grateful for any concession you make. The moment you shut out their shrill, tremulous voices the happier you will be for it.

---

quote:

---

This is all just my own opinion, of course. But I think it would be very hard for anyone to discount the reasonableness of these points.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I see your one of those people who handwaved Enterprise out of existence.

According to paramount anything on screen is canon no matter what we the fans think of the matter.

---

No, I'm one of those people who refuses to accept TAS being handwaved out of existence. And since Robert April as the first captain of the Enterprise appeared in The Animated Series, I'm afraid it's canon as well.

Enterprise was a poorly written historical novel authored by someone in the 25th century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:
Canon schmanon. We're not dismissing Enterprise because it didn't adhere well to established canon. We're dismissing it because it was poorly-written shite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by paigereader:
what did scotty release so they didn't get sucked into the black hole? rudy mcrude people behind me were talking and I didn't hear the explaination. thanks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Two points about the general scientific constraints on time travel.

(1) There can be no "Grandfather Paradox," because that would, at some point, require future cause to produce effects in the past. i.e. the effects of killing your own grandfather would move forward in time to the point when you travelled back in time, but then the effects would have to follow you back through time. The flow of cause and effect can never be reversed like that. The crucial consideration here is that when you travel into the past, you first have to step outside of the timeline, and when you do that, you become cut off from the cause and effect of your previous timeline, and basically become independent; i.e., your own original cause.

(2) There can be no parallel or alternative universes, because too much energy would be required to create an entirely new universe. In fact, the mere fact that it requires INSTANTANEOUS CREATION of a whole new universe is prohibitive. Theoretical physicists will just have to come up with some other explanations for certain curious quantum effects.

This is all just my own opinion, of course. But I think it would be very hard for anyone to discount the reasonableness of these points.

---

I think both of these points could be addressed by the idea that there are infinite parallel universes existing at every point in time, and traveling to another universe (which in this case was traveling "back" in time) allows you to change events such that they play out differently in that universe than they did in the one you came from. If that makes sense.
 

---

Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
Also, it's a Star Trek movie. Conservation of energy is the least of its problems, scientifically.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Tarrsk, good point.

BryanP, if there are "infinite parallel universes existing at every point in time," as you suggest, then you are saying every finite point is infinite. Maybe it's only semantics, but that is too much of a contradiction to sound very likely to me.

You appear to be implying that the universe was created with infinite alternatives at the very beginning. Sort of a universe squared. If you wish to postulate that God can create this one universe out of nothing, then I suppose you can postulate that He did not stop there, but created a universe squared. But it sounds to much to me like postulating that God could not make up His mind. It would be more fun to allow there to be true freedom of choice.

Some people might wish to leave God out of the equation. But then we are left with this one universe just somehow creating itself out of nothing, which in turn implies that a universe squared just created itself out of nothing. How that could come about is another exercise in impossibility. You cannot appeal to the operation of random chance, because random chance cannot operate without time. You cannot say something might happen if you give to it ten billion years for it to happen--if there is no time at all. Those ten billion years do not pass by, so nothing can happen, ever.

My main objection to the multiple (and especially to the infinite) universe theory(ies), is that they do away with moral responsibility. There can be no right and wrong, good and evil, because every possible choice exists in some universe.

Rabbit, the fact that the multiple universe theory is not presently claimed to contradict known laws of physics, does nothing for it to prove the theory is correct. I am aware of the scientific experiments that have been claimed to suggest that multiple universes exist. But this is only a theoretical explanation. What I am saying is that some other explanation should be sought, because the multiple universe theory is so obnoxious.
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Dude wheres your degree, at some point your just gonna have to take someone word for it.
 

---

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:

quote:

---

Originally posted by paigereader:
what did scotty release so they didn't get sucked into the black hole? rudy mcrude people behind me were talking and I didn't hear the explaination. thanks

---

Standard Trek last Resort #97:

EJECT THE WARP CORE

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:

quote:

---

Originally posted by paigereader:
what did scotty release so they didn't get sucked into the black hole? rudy mcrude people behind me were talking and I didn't hear the explaination. thanks

---

Standard Trek last Resort #97:

EJECT THE WARP CORE

---

I never go anywhere without a few extra warp cores, just in case I find myself getting trapped by a singularity or a tractor beam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:

quote:

---

Originally posted by paigereader:
what did scotty release so they didn't get sucked into the black hole? rudy mcrude people behind me were talking and I didn't hear the explaination. thanks

---

Standard Trek last Resort #97:

EJECT THE WARP CORE

---

quote:

---

I think both of these points could be addressed by the idea that there are infinite parallel universes existing at every point in time, and traveling to another universe (which in this case was traveling "back" in time) allows you to change events such that they play out differently in that universe than they did in the one you came from. If that makes sense.

---

quote:

---

Rabbit, the fact that the multiple universe theory is not presently claimed to contradict known laws of physics, does nothing for it to prove the theory is correct. I am aware of the scientific experiments that have been claimed to suggest that multiple universes exist. But this is only a theoretical explanation. What I am saying is that some other explanation should be sought, because the multiple universe theory is so obnoxious.

---

quote:

---

But that's sort of a running problem throughout the movie - the plotting is just plain bad.

---

Yes.

My Review

Feel free to ignore me . If you really liked the film, don't read my review, because you will get mad . I just want to balance out the positive reviews.

Interestingly, most of what Chris Bridges liked about the film, I don't have that much of a quibble over. I thought McCoy was the best "newbie", for example. It's just the things that were bad far outweighed the things that were good for me.


 

---

Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:
Edit: One thing I forgot to mention - I hated the score. The main theme was insipid at best, which wouldn't have been such a big deal except that the composer apparently couldn't be bothered to write any other melodic ideas. He repeats that one crappy theme for every single moment in the movie. Action sequence? Brassy rendition of the theme. Sexy sequence? Slinky rendition of the theme. Sad sequence? Solemn, string-led version of the theme!

That's something you can get away with if your main theme is as good as the one in "The Dark Knight," but when it's a generic bit of "Adventure... in SPAAAAAACE!!!" fanfare, all you're doing is making my hackles rise during what should be emotional or exciting moments. Bad, Composer. Very bad!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carrie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:
Edit: One thing I forgot to mention - I hated the score. The main theme was insipid at best, which wouldn't have been such a big deal except that the composer apparently couldn't be bothered to write any other melodic ideas. He repeats that one crappy theme for every single moment in the movie. Action sequence? Brassy rendition of the theme. Sexy sequence? Slinky rendition of the theme. Sad sequence? Solemn, string-led version of the theme!

That's something you can get away with if your main theme is as good as the one in "The Dark Knight," but when it's a generic bit of "Adventure... in SPAAAAAACE!!!" fanfare, all you're doing is making my hackles rise during what should be emotional or exciting moments. Bad, Composer. Very bad!

---

Yes. This times a million. It was the very first thing I found jarringly wrong with the film.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Tarrsk, good point.

BryanP, if there are "infinite parallel universes existing at every point in time," as you suggest, then you are saying every finite point is infinite. Maybe it's only semantics, but that is too much of a contradiction to sound very likely to me.

You appear to be implying that the universe was created with infinite alternatives at the very beginning. Sort of a universe squared. If you wish to postulate that God can create this one universe out of nothing, then I suppose you can postulate that He did not stop there, but created a universe squared. But it sounds to much to me like postulating that God could not make up His mind. It would be more fun to allow there to be true freedom of choice.

Some people might wish to leave God out of the equation. But then we are left with this one universe just somehow creating itself out of nothing, which in turn implies that a universe squared just created itself out of nothing. How that could come about is another exercise in impossibility. You cannot appeal to the operation of random chance, because random chance cannot operate without time. You cannot say something might happen if you give to it ten billion years for it to happen--if there is no time at all. Those ten billion years do not pass by, so nothing can happen, ever.

My main objection to the multiple (and especially to the infinite) universe theory(ies), is that they do away with moral responsibility. There can be no right and wrong, good and evil, because every possible choice exists in some universe.

Rabbit, the fact that the multiple universe theory is not presently claimed to contradict known laws of physics, does nothing for it to prove the theory is correct. I am aware of the scientific experiments that have been claimed to suggest that multiple universes exist. But this is only a theoretical explanation. What I am saying is that some other explanation should be sought, because the multiple universe theory is so obnoxious.

---

I don't know how "likely" it is for a multiverse or infinite universes to exist, but it sounds hardly more fantastic to me than the universe we already live in, so, like, whatever. From a philosophical/moral standpoint I don't see how it does away with free will or morality since each universe is, in a way, a different choice made by each possible chooser. Or something. But why that should do with away with right or wrong, good and evil I don't understand, maybe some universes are objectively more "good" than others.

Rabbit, I don't know exactly what you're referring to by saying "That's really not necessary from a quantum mechanics perspective." At any rate, I'm not trying to devise a solution that jives with quantum mechanics (which I understand not in the slightest), but something in which the time travel in the film makes some amount of sense. And since I like the idea of a multiverse, my theory sounds good to me
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carrie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:
Edit: One thing I forgot to mention - I hated the score. The main theme was insipid at best, which wouldn't have been such a big deal except that the composer apparently couldn't be bothered to write any other melodic ideas. He repeats that one crappy theme for every single moment in the movie. Action sequence? Brassy rendition of the theme. Sexy sequence? Slinky rendition of the theme. Sad sequence? Solemn, string-led version of the theme!

That's something you can get away with if your main theme is as good as the one in "The Dark Knight," but when it's a generic bit of "Adventure... in SPAAAAAACE!!!" fanfare, all you're doing is making my hackles rise during what should be emotional or exciting moments. Bad, Composer. Very bad!

---

Yes. This times a million. It was the very first thing I found jarringly wrong with the film.

---

In retrospect, it really annoyed me how the underlying chord progression doesn't even change. I mean, how hard is it to switch from a major to a minor key underscore the difference between an exciting action sequence and a sad character beat?

---

Not very hard at all? Is that what you were going for?

When I listened to the music as the Title Screen appeared I immediately thought, "Sad, I won't be able to recall the theme at all after this point." Star Trek is usually so good about main themes.
 

---

Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
 
Where's Jerry Goldsmith when you need him?

*tear*
 

---

Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carrie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:
Edit: One thing I forgot to mention - I hated the score. The main theme was insipid at best, which wouldn't have been such a big deal except that the composer apparently couldn't be bothered to write any other melodic ideas. He repeats that one crappy theme for every single moment in the movie. Action sequence? Brassy rendition of the theme. Sexy sequence? Slinky rendition of the theme. Sad sequence? Solemn, string-led version of the theme!

That's something you can get away with if your main theme is as good as the one in "The Dark Knight," but when it's a generic bit of "Adventure... in SPAAAAAACE!!!" fanfare, all you're doing is making my hackles rise during what should be emotional or exciting moments. Bad, Composer. Very bad!

---

Yes. This times a million. It was the very first thing I found jarringly wrong with the film.

---

In retrospect, it really annoyed me how the underlying chord progression doesn't even change. I mean, how hard is it to switch from a major to a minor key underscore the difference between an exciting action sequence and a sad character beat?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BandoCommando:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carrie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:
Edit: One thing I forgot to mention - I hated the score. The main theme was insipid at best, which wouldn't have been such a big deal except that the composer apparently couldn't be bothered to write any other melodic ideas. He repeats that one crappy theme for every single moment in the movie. Action sequence? Brassy rendition of the theme. Sexy sequence? Slinky rendition of the theme. Sad sequence? Solemn, string-led version of the theme!

That's something you can get away with if your main theme is as good as the one in "The Dark Knight," but when it's a generic bit of "Adventure... in SPAAAAAACE!!!" fanfare, all you're doing is making my hackles rise during what should be emotional or exciting moments. Bad, Composer. Very bad!

---

Yes. This times a million. It was the very first thing I found jarringly wrong with the film.

---

In retrospect, it really annoyed me how the underlying chord progression doesn't even change. I mean, how hard is it to switch from a major to a minor key underscore the difference between an exciting action sequence and a sad character beat?

---

Actually, I recall reading some research somewhere that indicates that one's perception of the mood of music is altered more by tempo (speed) than by mode (major/minor/other). On the other hand, discord definitely has a correlation with tension.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:


Let me make a quantum mechanical analogy. Suppose you flip a coin and catch it on your arm covered by the opposite hand. What quantum mechanics would say is that until you lift your hand to observe whether it is heads or tails, the coin is neither. It's heads-or-tails-ness is a wave function representing the probability that it is in one of those two states. Once you lift your hand and look at the coin, the wave function collapses and becomes either heads or tails. The point is that it is not simply that you don't know whether or not its heads or tails until you lift your hand, it isn't either one until you look. This is very counterintuitive. One of the most rational ways to understand how this can possibly be is the parallel universe theory. Essentially it says that both heads and tails happen but in parallel universes.

---

But what if you can tell which way the coin is facing by touch?
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
"What quantum mechanics would say is that until you lift your hand to observe whether it is heads or tails, the coin is neither."

I don't think that is what quantum mechanics would say.
 

---

Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BandoCommando:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carrie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:
Edit: One thing I forgot to mention - I hated the score. The main theme was insipid at best, which wouldn't have been such a big deal except that the composer apparently couldn't be bothered to write any other melodic ideas. He repeats that one crappy theme for every single moment in the movie. Action sequence? Brassy rendition of the theme. Sexy sequence? Slinky rendition of the theme. Sad sequence? Solemn, string-led version of the theme!

That's something you can get away with if your main theme is as good as the one in "The Dark Knight," but when it's a generic bit of "Adventure... in SPAAAAAACE!!!" fanfare, all you're doing is making my hackles rise during what should be emotional or exciting moments. Bad, Composer. Very bad!

---

Yes. This times a million. It was the very first thing I found jarringly wrong with the film.

---

In retrospect, it really annoyed me how the underlying chord progression doesn't even change. I mean, how hard is it to switch from a major to a minor key underscore the difference between an exciting action sequence and a sad character beat?

---

Actually, I recall reading some research somewhere that indicates that one's perception of the mood of music is altered more by tempo (speed) than by mode (major/minor/other). On the other hand, discord definitely has a correlation with tension.

---

quote:

---

Rabbit, I don't know exactly what you're referring to by saying "That's really not necessary from a quantum mechanics perspective."

---

Thinking that an infinite number of parallel universes were created by the big bang is a simple way to think about it but it isn't quite accurate (at least as I understand it). Just as the electron in the experiment I described above doesn't have a position until it strikes the screen, the other universes don't exist until some event occurs that causes them to be distinctly different from some other Universe.
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Hey I understood all that.
 

---

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
Well that sounds simple enough! Why don't we just tell people that instead of nonsense about dead cats?

Seriously, I think if you're trying to explain quantum mechanics to someone who wouldn't understand the above explanation, you're better off just saying "trust me, the world is just freakishly weird" than giving them the cat example. Their understanding of reality is probably gonna be about the same, and they won't have misconceptions about actually seeing things.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
"The thread then mutated into Rabbit trying to explain string theory to Ron Lambert, who was suggesting that parallel universes destroy good and evil, and Raymond Arnold kept asking 'and what about the talking dog?'"
 

---

Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
 
J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous"

Star Trek:TOS, new and improved.
 

---

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
wait... now I'm confused. Is there actually a talking dog somewhere or was that just Samprimary being silly? (Presumably Samprimary is being silly either way, except there might actually be a talking dog reference I'm missing)
 

---

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
But here is the rub, it isn't just electrons that have wave particle duality. All matter is both particle and wave. The uncertainty associated with the wave part of that is negligible for nearly all macroscopic events. So we can usually ignore it, but its still there. The implications of quantum mechanics apply to everything. I don't have an exact location, I have only a probability density function, until there is some event in the universe that depends on my location and then I instantly have a location. Its true for everything. The metaphysical implications are enormous and really mind boggling, most notably quantum mechanics eliminates the possibility of deterministic behavior which kind of screws up all sorts of things in physics. The parallel universe theory is one of the most common ways of trying to conceptualize the metaphysical implication of quantum mechanics. The idea is that when there is a quantum mechanical event with more than one possible outcome, all the outcomes occur but in parallel universes. So if you flip a coin and there is a 50/50 probability that it will come up heads and a 50/50 probability that it will come up tales, flipping the coin essentially generates two different universes a heads universe and a tails universe.

---

quote:

---

Why don't we just tell people that instead of nonsense about dead cats?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Thinking that an infinite number of parallel universes were created by the big bang is a simple way to think about it but it isn't quite accurate (at least as I understand it). Just as the electron in the experiment I described above doesn't have a position until it strikes the screen, the other universes don't exist until some event occurs that causes them to be distinctly different from some other Universe.

---

quote:

---

As for collapsing the wave function, the following consideration arises: If God as the Intelligent Designer exists (which seems to be the most reasonable explanation for the existence of an ordered universe), and if God is omniscient, then God must necessarily be the one who first collapses the probability wave for the whole universe and everything in it.

If the coin flip analogy is used, is it really our own observation of the coin that collapses the probability wave? God already knows what it is before we uncover the coin with our hand and see which side is facing up. Perhaps any contribution we might make to the collapsing of any probability waves is just an illusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I hope that in a future movie they will find some way to undo the destruction of Vulcan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I hope that in a future movie they will find some way to undo the destruction of Vulcan.

---

No. No reset buttons. If you're going to portray a planetary cataclysm for shock effect, you better have the balls to deal with (and show) the consequences afterward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
Ron Lambert on Theological Implications of Star Trek Paradoxical Time-Chain Metaphysic: A Study of Post as Abstract Art

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Godric 2.0:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Thinking that an infinite number of parallel universes were created by the big bang is a simple way to think about it but it isn't quite accurate (at least as I understand it). Just as the electron in the experiment I described above doesn't have a position until it strikes the screen, the other universes don't exist until some event occurs that causes them to be distinctly different from some other Universe.

---

Wouldn't that have happened instantly? And then, wouldn't there be some sort of "feedback" loop? I mean, there would be an infinite number of infinite events at any given moment to spin off other universes, no?

For example, flipping a coin isn't really an event that would spin off only 2 universes. An infinite amount of universes could spring from that moment, right? It could be heads, it could be tails, it could drop to the floor, I could drop dead the moment it hits my arm, etc.

But once you account for an infinite amount of variances in that example... At the exact same moment, a fly on the wall lifts off to fly across the room.

Now, there are an infinite number of variances to that moment: the fly stays on the wall, the fly heads up toward the ceiling, the fly heads down toward the floor, etc.

So you wind up with an infinite number of parallel universes diverging from an infinite number of possibilities x an infinite number of possibilities from just 2 simultaneous events. Multiply that again by every simultaneous event in the universe (is this infinite too?).

It seems to me the framework of existence ought to implode or something if that were the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:
Orincoro, that was neither funny nor appropriate.

---

quote:

---

As of May 14:
Domestic: $104,610,837
Foreign: $49,264,668
Worldwide total: $153,875,505

---

Link: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm

This was said to be "the biggest Trek opening yet, soaring past the previous high of Star Trek: First Contact, which started at $30.7 million or the equivalent of over $50 million adjusted for ticket price inflation."
It was also noted that the total "was the biggest-grossing weekend ever in IMAX history"
Link: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2585&p=.htm
 

---

Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
 
I've already seen it more than once. I think it is a really good movie, and it reset the series in a way that is consistent with time travel and alternate universes (at least within the Star Trek universe). The actors did a good job of portraying the characters without mocking the originals. I was particularly impressed with Chris Pine's portrayal of Kirk, he managed to capture some of Shatner's mannerisms without mocking the often stiff acting that accompanied Shatner's performances (particularly in later movies). Certain of his gestures were almost identical, and the way he sits in the chair at the end is exactly the way Shatner used to sit on the original series.

I found it refreshing, and fear it may draw me back into the world of Star Trek fandom in a way I hadn't participated since high school. It was surprising, since I didn't expect to like the reboot when I first heard of it.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
andi330, I agree with what you said there, except about the time travel. But despite the many logical flaws in the use made of time travel in the story line, the movie still is really superior within the Star Trek franchise. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were great.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
My husband and son are camping with their Cub Scout troop so I'm taking my three girls today. So I'll get to see it again with a 16, 11, and almost-9 year old.
 

---

Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
 
Belle, I have to go see it again myself now. I missed Kirk's meeting w/ Spock Prime due to ill-timed consumption of beverages -- I thought maybe he'd be fighting that ice monster for longer! Anyway, I got tears in my eyes when I read what you wrote back on the first page, I think! I will take my mom to see it one of these days.

I thought the swollen hand thing was seriously stupid. Other than that, I enjoyed it immensely.
 

---

Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
 
I hate it when I have to duck out in the middle of the movie because of ill-timed beverage consumption. I actually thought that swollen hand thing was really funny. It was something they never would have done with the original cast.

I love that review buy the Onion that I posted too. Particularly the fan who asks, "Where was the heavy handed message of tolerance, where was the stilted acting? It just didn't seem like Star Trek to me."
 

---

Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
 
Just saw it tonight. I LOVED it. My first impression is Star Trek + Serenity. Which equals win of course.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I enjoyed it the second time through...but the lens flare was much more obnoxious this time.

My girls thought the opening section with Kirk's dad was really sweet and touching, once again I was underwhelmed. Quinto impressed me more the second time through. He really did do an excellent job.

I still say we needed more Scotty!
 

---

Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by andi330:


I love that review buy the Onion that I posted too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
andi330, I agree with what you said there, except about the time travel. But despite the many logical flaws in the use made of time travel in the story line, the movie still is really superior within the Star Trek franchise. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were great.

---

quote:

---

WHO THE CRAP CARES!?

---

My guess is the guy that's using all the CAPS in his post.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
 
My take is that this set up the premise pretty well, and it'll be nice to see the actual movie someday.

My single biggest criticism is that Spock Prime has but one motivation: forcing the characters and plot onto the track J.J. Abrams wants. He's not really a character, but a plot device. A Vulcan ex machina, if you will. (And one who ignores the Temporal Prime Directive entirely, I might have added, if he were a character and not a plot device.) Otherwise, nobody in the movie really gets to make any decisions; the ride is locked onto the rails conveying them to the outcome of the reboot. I would have preferred it if Kirk and Spock had come to an understanding all on their own, rather than being railroaded into it via the ambulatory force of predestination.

With that said, if this is a one-time thing, a convenient evil to get the ball rolling down a new track, I'm okay with it. The casting was perfect across the boards. I kept marking off things that rung true on my internal checklist, and that was satisfying.

...I might note that one of those things was Sulu's sword. Dude. He's a member of the military, selected for a mission specifically to engage in hand-to-hand combat, and he's a trained fencer. How could he not have a sword on him? And given wind resistance, how could it not be a fancy collapsible 23rd-Century one? To me, it would have seemed ridiculous if he'd gone down without one.

My concern is that future films will continue to deal with both the original Trek universe and the new alternate one, muddying both timelines and pretty much destroying the benefits of starting from scratch. I would be happiest if Spock Prime disappeared or died immediately after this film, removing him from play, and if there were no further contact with his universe. I'd rather see the alternate version of the crew go on their own voyages, seeking out strange new worlds and civilizations, boldly going where no one in their universe has gone before.

Whether that'll happen remains to be seen.
 

---

Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shmuel:
I would be happiest if Spock Prime disappeared or died immediately after this film, removing him from play, and if there were no further contact with his universe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shmuel:
My single biggest criticism is that Spock Prime has but one motivation: forcing the characters and plot onto the track J.J. Abrams wants. He's not really a character, but a plot device. A Vulcan ex machina, if you will. (And one who ignores the Temporal Prime Directive entirely, I might have added, if he were a character and not a plot device.)

---

quote:

---

Also, I still think it's awful that the Kirk and Spock didn't beam the Romulans on board as prisoners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
It was a bit of a hagiography of Kirk. In the penultimate scene, when Kirk is being cheered by a room full of cadets, I kept thinking, is there really no one in that room brighter, more capable than this brash kid.

Also, I still think it's awful that the Kirk and Spock didn't beam the Romulans on board as prisoners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andi330:
The temporal prime directive was not created until the 29th century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
Also, I still think it's awful that the Kirk and Spock didn't beam the Romulans on board as prisoners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uprooted:
I missed Kirk's meeting w/ Spock Prime due to ill-timed consumption of beverages -- I thought maybe he'd be fighting that ice monster for longer!

---