I love the theme of a common person suddenly catapulted into importance. My favorite scene was when Kirk discovered the trap and forced Captain Pike to acknowledge it.

I loved Kirk's decisiveness. No hesitation, trusting his instints and getting the job done.

It was very satisfying that he got to keep his command at the end. They could have demoted him based on inexperience, but I can't see him going back.

And oh, the possibilities they opened up with the new timeline!

The movie had its faults, but I'm not inclined to nit-pick (for once)!

 

Loved it, loved it, loved it.

(And I'm old enough to have watched the original series as a teenager when it first showed on television--Spock got me through adolescence.)
 

I wouldn't consider it my favorite, but it is kind of like how one compares the original series with the Next Generation (series). Both were very good, but also very different. I think it was a worthy addition to the Star Trek canon.

Wrath of Khan is still the best!

Robert, I can't believe you stopped with First Contact, which I actually liked. If I had decided to stop, it would have been with Star Trek V: "The Search for God". That one was even worse that Star Trek IX: "The Search for a Good Plastic Surgeon".

I thought "First Contact" was vile and disgusting, and even more unsympathetic to the fate of any Red Shirt crewmen than usual in the Star Trek Universe. (It seemed only the bald guy who was captain was entitled to have himself removed from incorporation into the Borg.) Besides that, I prefer the adventures of the Original Series crew.
 

http://www.marcelduchamp.net/L.H.O.O.Q.php

[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited May 19, 2009).]
 

Great characterization, story, humor, etc.

I know some Trek purists object to the reboot. I'm a huge Trek fan, and I was worried about this aspect before I saw the movie. Now that I've seen it I think it was a great move. It doesn't negate the old timeline, and it allows for new stories and possibilities.

Can I say it again? Loved it.

[This message has been edited by Tani (edited May 20, 2009).]
 

Boy, no wonder they hired somebody new to reboot it...
 

I really enjoyed it. A real highlight for me was starting us off with the tried and true Trekkie plot of intervention from the future, but NOT returning everything to its original time-line. Wow. I was SO glad - those trek movies/episodes were immensely annoying; stories where despite all the drama, in the end, nothing happened.

The biggest letdown for me was that, unlike the original StarTrek, which I could count on to bring me a new adventure and a new world each week, when this one finished I had to go home considering I might not see these characters (and with the actors that brought them to life) continue their adventures.

[This message has been edited by BenM (edited May 21, 2009).]
 

It was refreshing to have an alternate timeline without the "fix" to return everything to normal.

That's one of the things I liked about the movie - it broke with so many of the norms I've grown to expect with Star Trek. I loved Spock's line about letting Kirk believe something cataclysmic would happen if he let it slip that he'd met future Spock....
 

One of the reviews told me, this time around, they blew up a planet important to that continuity. I dunno...
 

quote:

---

A real highlight for me was starting us off with the tried and true Trekkie plot of intervention from the future, but NOT returning everything to its original time-line. Wow. I was SO glad - those trek movies/episodes were immensely annoying; stories where despite all the drama, in the end, nothing happened.

---

There are actually no episodes of ST:TOS (the original series) involving intervention from the future, unless you consider Gary Seven from "Assignment: Earth", and very few episodes of ST:TNG (the Next Generation) with this theme. Almost all time travel was from the show's present into the past. Same with the two movies that involved time travel. Most TNG episodes ivolving time travel had real and lasting effects on the timeline.

ST:E (Enterprise) is a different story, where much of the ongoing convoluted plot-line dealt with a future society that was trying to manipulate the present.

In reference to the comment that "nothing happened", I would like to politely beg to differ. Star Trek has always been about discovery, regardless of whether that discovery involves new races of beings, new understandings of science, or new awarenesses of ourselves (most stories are about all three). It has never simply been about the story - boy goes on journey and becomes a man through having adventures - but instead it is about the "why", "how", and "what if".

Star Trek has also always had a strong literary foundation - many of the episodes and movies borrowed heavily from classic literature.

As a child, I was a fan of both of the two big "Star" franchises. The first two "-Wars" movies rocked! As an adult, I grew to appreciate Trek more due to its endeavor for scientific integrity.

[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited May 22, 2009).]
 

You know, Philocinemas I never thought about it before, but you're right. Very few of the "future intervention" TNG episodes had any lasting effects. There was future Picard, and even "Yesterday's Enterprise" (okay, this wasn't future intervention, but it still mucked around with the timeline), but the core story line remained.

I also disagree that nothing ever happens. On one hand, yes, the series was bound by the convention that most TV shows face - there is the preconception that you can't change too much or people won't come back - i.e. Data has to remain Data. Data with emotions is too different for people to accept. DS9 broke with this convention some, and that is probably why it rates so highly for me. The series was about the characters (Kirk and Spock in TOS) and exploring the "what ifs".

Admittedly, I'm unbiased. I've been a Star Trek fan for too long to look at it objectively. It's like the early fantasy sci-fi I read. I've gone back and read some of it now, and while I know some of it is (really) bad, I still like it. There's too much nostalgia and sense of wonder for me to be objective.

Even so... loved the movie.
 

I'm inclined to a theory of Star Trek that I pieced together awhile ago and have posted before here. Gene Roddenberry once said, way back in the Original Series days, that Star Trek would run as long as Gunsmoke.

Gunsmoke ran twenty years. Adding up all the different Star Trek series, I figure Star Trek ran about six seasons too long.

(It didn't help things that the creative crew of these things---Roddenberry till his death, then Rick Berman and the others---sat together too long doing this. Most shows don't run as long as they were together. There comes a time in a creative person's life when you just need to do something other than what you've slaved over for some years. Their failure to recognize this weakened their later productions.)

[edited 'cause somewhere, a couple o' words dropped out]

[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited May 24, 2009).]
 

George Lucas
 

STRONG OPINION ALERT: Berman, Braga, and others largely failed with the "Next Generation" stuff and a lot of what came after it. I understand Roddenberry worked on the original TNG concept as well, but, if so, it just might demonstrate that he didn't quite get the appeal of the show either. I mean come on. If the human race has so lifted itself up by its bootstraps that everyone is imminently wise and reasonable, where's the story? Suddenly you have to rely on the coarser qualities of bad guys to provide interest, then spice things up with pseudoscientific concepts here and there.

The idea of the progress of civilization to a more egalitarian, utopian state was NOT the right emphasis. I stuck with it for a while, but it got to the point where, if Picard made one more speech including "You see, mankind left that behind centuries ago..." I was going to pop an aneurism. But most of the time it was just plain boring.

To be fair, there were notable exceptions across episodes of the various series. I especially liked the Voyager episode "Timeless," for example, and highly recommend it. The science (as always in Star Trek) requires a lot of suspension of disbelief, but the story is interesting, and nicely put together.

But anyway, kudos to Abrams for getting it. :-)

[This message has been edited by DWD (edited June 05, 2009).]
 

I'm sorry, but that wasn't what appealed to me at all, and, I suspect to many, many, many of its fans.

What STAR TREK did for me was say: "It's OKAY to be different." And not only did it say that, but it said, "If you are different, you can contribute things that maybe someone who is the same could not contribute. Different people are NEEDED."

I love that about STAR TREK, and I submit that that is a much better possible reason for why it has appealed to so many "different" people over the years.

(It also provides plenty of story tension as characters who are different from each other learn how to work together and to make something positively synergistic about each of their different contributions.)
 

Well said. I agree completely.
 

What I though detracted from it was the goofy plot, and the goofy physics.

But what really REALLY killed the movie for me was: Where in the h*** did Spock get the firewood on that ice planet??? Seriously. Bugged me long after the credits rolled.

Overall, if you're not a fan, wait for the DVD, or catch the matinee.
 

I had lost interest with the franchise after DS9) started and movies 5 and on were kind of disappointments after 4 (which was the best movie they ever did IMO).

My brother summed up their problems during the last 10 years or so with the phrase 'they discovered their target audience, and its 15-17 year old boys'.

I never had a problem with the optomistic or utopian view of the future. As long as they emphasize humanity's continuing struggle with those flaws that make us human, our perpensity to judge things based on difference or fear (those things are hardwired into our biological fight-or-flight response so I believe they'll always be with us). I'm sure our century would have looked perfect or utopian to someone from the Middle Ages.
 

Loved it, loved it, loved it.
 

Voyager actually had a lot of time traveling changes in it.

I love the casting of Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto. They are great actors and did a very good job. For not really watching the original series, it made me curious and my friend who never had scene anything startrek loved it. It really did do what it wanted to which is introduce startrek to a new base but still work for those who grew up with it.

[This message has been edited by thayeller (edited August 17, 2009).]
 

That's the problem with a "sci-fi" flick. There may be a great actor in it, but it'll be overlooked by the Academy members just simply because it's a big "sci-fi" blockbuster. Shame, too, 'cause Quinto ranks right up there with anything performed on celluloid this year.

 

Then there are the plot holes you could fly a starship through.

I am a fan of the original series but my complaints are not with how it did or didn't match up. And I can certainly laugh at the show's foibles. It's been presented as an alternate time line. That's fine. If this weren't a Star Trek movie at all I would have the same complaints.

My problem is with the endless mindless action, the total lack of any sense of military training and having the characters do really stupid things just to set up a joke.

Sorry, there were a few funny gags but I just can't hang with this one. The flaws were too distracting for me to forgive.

I agree with philocinemas. Star Trek 2, Wrath of Khan is by far the best.
 

Tracy
 

Haven't seen it. Tell me why I should?
 

Even if you'd told me more, such as what the solid science fiction element is and why the protagonist is conflicted, and at least hinted at the excellent story line, I haven't really had time to get the DVD.

Also, there's the old controversy about "sci-fi" tending to indicate slick, movie-type science fiction (aka "exploitation of science fiction") as opposed to "science fiction" or "SF" being used to indicate written science fiction.

Is it "sci-fi" or "science fiction?"