Poll: Star Trek: Yes, Another One

Recommended Videos

RyVal

New member
May 19, 2009
156
0
0
(I know there has been a literal proliferation of reviews of the new Star Trek film, so by this time, I'm essentially beating a near-dead horse here.
However - even though they have not been entirely positive - I still think that the reviewers gave the new film a lot more credit than it deserves.)

(Contains spoilers)

Before the release of his Star Trek prequel, J.J. Abrams told the Star Trek purists to "stay at home". Apparently, his definition of purists is "anyone who has ever watched five minutes from a Star Trek film or episode", as his latest misadventure panders to the mainstream; substituting spectacle for intelligence.

Since there has often been a rivalry of sorts between Star Trek and Star Wars, it only makes sense that - having seen the bloated, special-effects laden Star Wars prequels - people decided that Star Trek needed some itself.

When I went to see the film-in-question a few days ago, I was expecting the worst. Having recently watched Abram's Cloverfield, and having seen the metrosexual, infantile cast who would replace Shatner and co., I had prepared myself for disappointment. And so, after watching the film, it is in this way only that I can truly say that I got my money's worth.

Omens occur from the very beginning, as the USS Kelvin investigates a spatial lightning storm - the film remaining faithful to the Starfleet code of never attempting to avoid dangerous anomalies - and is ravaged for its troubles by a Romulan doomship, which we know must be evil because it is painted black and accompanied by an orchestral swell. In this single excerpt alone, we are introduced to the films greatest weaknesses: melodrama, action over story and Eric Bana's Nero. Being an ever-valiant Starfleet officer, the Captain of the USS Kelvin surrenders himself over to the doomship, and is promptly harpooned through the chest by Nero. Taking command, James' T. Kirk's father - a bland Chris Hemsworth - heroically sacrifices himself to save his crew, a la every other sci-fi captain in history. Of course, his duties do not distract him from having a cringey and predictable "I love you!" speech with his wife, who is - of course - giving birth, while the camera veers between scenes drunkingly like an intoxicated F1 driver, swinging around obstacles like Cloverfield only wish it could.

The Star Trek graphic appears, before the first of many time jumps occurs, and we are shifted several years in the future to Iowa and treated to possibly the most short-lived and redundant car chase ever recorded. A young, blonde James Kirk joyrides in a Corvette while blasting "Sabotage" by the Beastie Middle-Aged Men - in the 23rd century. The pointless scene is brought to an abrupt halt when Kirk jumps from the vehicle before it plunges down one of those pesky Iowa canyons. The narrative then swaps over to Vulcan, where a young Spock is bullied because of his human mother, with dialogue so blunt and unrefined it makes High School Musical sound sophisticated by comparison. Responding with violence in lieu of wit, Spock then proceeds to assault one of his classmates, before being treated to some philosophical reassurance from his Vulcan father. We then do the time-warp again and return to Iowa, where troubled child Kirk has grown up to become obnoxious prick Kirk, who promptly picks a fight with Starfleet cadets and - instead of being prosecuted - is asked to join up by the original series' Captain Pike.

The entire cast is at Starfleet Academy for all of 5 minutes, before being rushed into battle after a distress call is received from Vulcan, boarding the iconic USS Enterprise. Nero's doomship Narada, despite apparently being a mining vessel, manages to wipe out the entire fleet, sans Enterprise. Nero - unaged despite 25 years of inactivity - requests Pike to come aboard via shuttle. At the same time, Kirk, a Korean Hikaru Sulu and an entirely expendable Chief Engineer Olsen skydive down onto a giant platform that is drilling into Vulcan. Olsen - being a jingoistic retard and pointless extra - belatedly deploys his parachute and flies straight into the drill, while Kirk and Sulu land (mostly) safely. They are promptly attacked by two Romulans, causing Sulu to remove his futuristic katana because - as we all know - Asians are martial artists from birth. Cue two minutes of hand-to-hand combat (apparently, in the future, our bones will be made out of adamantium, as every time a character punches another it sounds like a sledgehammer slamming against steel plate). Once this altercation is finished, the duo then somehow disables the armour-plated drill with phasers and are beamed to safety, while Nero shoves a slug down Pike's throat (apparently to obtain Starfleet defence codes, but since these are never actually used, a far more simpler explanation is that Nero is a sadistic twat).

However, they are too late, and Nero deploys Red Matter (some sort of apocalyptic jelly) into the centre of Vulcan, causing a black hole that quickly devours the planet. Spock evacuates the Vulcan Council, but - in the latest sci-fi cliche - is unable to save his mother (Winona Ryder, smothered in a wrap to attempt to hide the fact that she is only six years older than her son).

In the aftermath, the Acting Captain Spock somewhat disproportionally maroons Kirk on a Hoth-like ice world for criticising his orders. After being chased by a cameo appearance of Abram's Cloverfield monster into a cave, he encounters another cameo in the form of Leonard Nimoy's older Spock, whose presence is explained via the tried-and-true Star Trek convention of time travel. One brief exposition scene later, and we learn that Spock closed a supernova using Red Matter, but was unable to do so before it erased Romulus from existence, hence explaining Nero's motivations. However, any sympathy the viewer could hold with Nero is dispelled by the fact that he is an unambiguously evil asshole who likes shoving invertebrate animals down other people's throats. One wonders why Nero, being sucked into the black hole along with Spock and sent back in time, didn't just use the opportunity to warn Romulus about the future catastrophe. However, since poking holes in Roberto Oci and Alex Kurtzman's script is akin to outrunning a quadriplegic, it is simply unfair to scrutinise it too deeply.

Spock Prime and Kirk then waltz over to a nearby Starfleet outpost, populated by some unknown malcontent called Montgomery Scott (Simon Pegg). Utilising an as-yet-undiscovered method of beaming onto spaceships in warp, Kirk and Scott arrive back on board Enterprise, with a superfluous scene of the latter materialising in a reactant pipe (for the sole reason that, yes, Scotty is comic relief). On Spock Prime's earlier advice, Kirk convinces Spock the Younger to throw a hissy fit and resign his command, leaving Kirk as Captain. The Enterprise then moves to confront the Narada as it attacks Earth, which eventually culminates in an ending that basically plays like the final scenes of The Wrath of Khan - only with a boring villain and no main characters dying. Needless to say, the Red Matter container is damaged and - despite the fact that a single drop was enough to produce a black hole strong enough to suck in both Nero and Spock Elder's ship - the entire vat only produces a marginally large singularity, which the crew valiantly defeat by throwing their warp drive at it. One Leonard Nimoy monologue and Gene Roddenberry's original score later, and its all over.



Despite sounding short in summary, the film is padded out with a myriad of useless scenes that add nothing but minutes to the total running time. One character I have not mentioned much is Nero himself; partly because he has so few scenes, and partly because Bana's weak, unimaginative performance is entirely forgettable. Star Trek films were often defined by their villains, and so to have one who is so wholly unmemorable is a major blow at the very starting block. Nero is not the only character marred by acting; the interpretations of the famous Enterprise crew range from brilliant to bearable. Zachary Quentin is a passable, if somewhat personality-less, Spock, and is entirely eclipsed by the arrival of Leonard Nimoy. James T. Kirk is reduced to a cliche; a poorly-developed maverick who inspires amusement and loathing in equal measures. Karl Urban turns out a decent performance as Doctor "Bones" McCoy but Zoe Saldana demotes Uhura to an entirely background role and love interest, playing foil to Kirk's dickish behaviour. Simon Pegg as Scotty is entirely comic relief filler, while Anton Yelchin plays Pavel Chekov as a Red Alert extra.



The utmost regret is that such a great opportunity to revitalise the franchise was squandered. An impressive budget put to waste on epic spatial warfare rather than style and content. Star Trek is a dumb, fast-paced film that substitutes plot and character development for melodrama and action sequences resembling an LSD trip. Every sci-fi cliche is present here - from planet-destroying devices to time travel. Kirk's childhood is just another generic "troubled kid with nothing to lose" affair, and Captain Nero could be the most insipidly uninspiring nemesis in the franchise's history. There were one-shot villains from the TV shows that were more interesting to watch. Combined with the rest of the cast doing caricatures of the original crew, you are left with a hollow sci-fi blockbuster, with little of the spirit and wit of its source material; Star Trek as "bubblegum pop", if you will. Regardless, the film will continue to reap in revenue, and a sequel is already in the works. In an ideal world, they would scrap the current hacks in charge of script-writing and replace Abrams with someone capable of elevating the franchise to its full potential, and finally - just finally - we might have a good Star Trek film not directed by Nicholas Meyer.

The implausibly high ratings from critics (no doubt too intoxicated by nostalgia to ponder tiny details such as the film actually being any good) and hype told us that this was going to be Star Trek's Batman Begins. Instead, we got Batman & Robin.
 

D_987

New member
Jun 15, 2008
4,839
0
0
Well you have the length sorted, and the spelling and grammar - but this isn't a review...its an overly detailed plot synopsis with a conclusion tacked on the end...

RyVal said:
The entire cast is at Starfleet Academy for all of 5 minutes, before being rushed into battle after a distress call is received from Vulcan, boarding the iconic USS Enterprise. Nero's doomship Narada, despite apparently being a mining vessel, manages to wipe out the entire fleet, sans Enterprise. Nero - unaged despite 25 years of inactivity - requests Pike to come aboard via shuttle.
For example, why did we need to know this happened - its just ruining the film for those that haven't seen it. Just try and give your opinions on the film as opposed to writing down everything that happens.
 

McClaud

New member
Nov 2, 2007
923
0
0
Uh, Nero is Romulan.

If you know anything about Star Trek, Romulans and Vulcans share ancestory, and they both live way longer and age better than humans. They are also stronger, with better reflexes and a greater tendency to intellectual pursuits than humans.

The utmost regret is that such a great opportunity to revitalise the franchise was squandered. An impressive budget put to waste on epic spatial warfare rather than style and content. Star Trek is a dumb, fast-paced film that substitutes plot and character development for melodrama and action sequences resembling an LSD trip. Every sci-fi cliche is present here - from planet-destroying devices to time travel. Kirk's childhood is just another generic "troubled kid with nothing to lose" affair, and Captain Nero could be the most insipidly uninspiring nemesis in the franchise's history. There were one-shot villains from the TV shows that were more interesting to watch. Combined with the rest of the cast doing caricatures of the original crew, you are left with a hollow sci-fi blockbuster, with little of the spirit and wit of its source material; Star Trek as "bubblegum pop", if you will. Regardless, the film will continue to reap in revenue, and a sequel is already in the works. In an ideal world, they would scrap the current hacks in charge of script-writing and replace Abrams with someone capable of elevating the franchise to its full potential, and finally - just finally - we might have a good Star Trek film not directed by Nicholas Meyer.
Nice opinion with absolutely very little to back it up. If you really watched Star Trek like I did as a kid of the 70's, you'll realize that Star Trek has always been about the current trend of social, political and sci-fi interests. And they went as campy as all Hell with little to no substance. That's what made Star Trek great - it was the common man's science fiction that didn't need tons of over-explained theoretical science so as to make sense. It was all about cowboys in space running around overcoming the impossible and doing it with style. While trying to stay ahead of the present "special effects" of the time (although with low budgets, it was pretty funny to watch).
 

RyVal

New member
May 19, 2009
156
0
0
D_987 said:
Well you have the length sorted, and the spelling and grammar - but this isn't a review...its an overly detailed plot synopsis with a conclusion tacked on the end...

For example, why did we need to know this happened - its just ruining the film for those that haven't seen it. Just try and give your opinions on the film as opposed to writing down everything that happens.
Fair enough.
Personally, I wrote a semi-detailed account of the plot because I felt that was the most effective way to display how - when it is boiled down to its base parts - Star Trek is just a dumb, cliched sci-fi actioner, entirely staffed with generic and predictable scenes.

In response to the second paragraph, I don't see how that's "ruining for the film for those who haven't seen it".
I highly doubt people were gasping with shock at the revelation that, yes, there is a spaceship battle in this film.
I certainly wouldn't consider that scene a spoiler; no more so than revealing that people shoot stuff in Starship Troopers, or there is a scene where aliens arrive in War of the Worlds.

McClaud said:
Uh, Nero is Romulan.

If you know anything about Star Trek, Romulans and Vulcans share ancestory, and they both live way longer and age better than humans.
Yes, I am aware of this.
Rather, I was indicating the fact that, after a quarter of a century he spent waiting, he still physically looks the exact same.
I don't purely mean that he hasn't gotten older; rather, that his features are entirely unaltered.
Call it nit-picky if you will, but I'm sure that at least one thing might have happened in that time span to change his appearance, and it just looked like lazy costuming to me.

If you really watched Star Trek like I did as a kid of the 70's, you'll realize that Star Trek has always been about the current trend of social, political and sci-fi interests. And they went as campy as all Hell with little to no substance. That's what made Star Trek great - it was the common man's science fiction that didn't need tons of over-explained theoretical science so as to make sense. It was all about cowboys in space running around overcoming the impossible and doing it with style. While trying to stay ahead of the present "special effects" of the time (although with low budgets, it was pretty funny to watch).
Gene Roddenberry intended Star Trek to be a socio-political commentary on what mankind could achieve if it dealt with its current issues. In this way, there was an 'intelligence' behind the programme, which was crippled by studio executives, who were only interested in marketing and revenue.
However, the new Star Trek film completely abandons all pretenses of commentary and discussion, in favour of mass firefights, CGI and cheap action.
Compare the first Star Trek film, which Roddenberry mainly influenced; despite its shortcomings, not a single phaser is fired once in the duration of that film. And as such, we finally had a sci-fi film that wasn't concerned purely about mindless action, even if the film itself was relatively poor.
 

D_987

New member
Jun 15, 2008
4,839
0
0
RyVal said:
D_987 said:
Well you have the length sorted, and the spelling and grammar - but this isn't a review...its an overly detailed plot synopsis with a conclusion tacked on the end...

For example, why did we need to know this happened - its just ruining the film for those that haven't seen it. Just try and give your opinions on the film as opposed to writing down everything that happens.
Fair enough.
Personally, I wrote a semi-detailed account of the plot because I felt that was the most effective way to display how - when it is boiled down to its base parts - Star Trek is just a dumb, cliched sci-fi actioner, entirely staffed with generic and predictable scenes.

In response to the second paragraph, I don't see how that's "ruining for the film for those who haven't seen it".
I highly doubt people were gasping with shock at the revelation that, yes, there is a spaceship battle in this film.
I certainly wouldn't consider that scene a spoiler; no more so than revealing that people shoot stuff in Starship Troopers, or there is a scene where aliens arrive in War of the Worlds.
Seriously...do I really have to explain that that was just an example? If you want me to go into mote detail as to just how poor a "review" this is I can do, I was merely offering constructive criticism but this reply appears overly sarcastic.
 

RyVal

New member
May 19, 2009
156
0
0
Mazty said:
I have to say that the OP just shows a lack of understanding about Star Trek.
Firstly, 25 years is enough for a mining ship to smash an entire fleet of older ships. Need I remind you of the Voyager Finale?
Uh...
I don't see where you got the 25 years figure.
The ship is in fact from much further in the future than that.
Even still, since it appears to be using the exact same weaponry as the past Starfleet ships, I doubt that it would really decimate an entire fleet.
Furthermore, why was a simple mining vessel augmented with such numerous and high-calibre weaponry?

Secondly, time travel is very, very Star Trek, and not cliche. First Contact (the best ST, not cheesy bulls***), and numerous episodes from almost (if not every) series has involved time travel somewhere. To write it off as cliche would be like writing off Nazi's in a WW2 movie as cliche.
I pointed out earlier that time travel is "the tried-and-true Star Trek convention".
Even so, just because it was frequently used in the TV series as a cheap plot device, doesn't mean you should have an entire film revolve around it.
After simply watching the entiriety of Star Trek: Voyager, time travel started to become boring for me, since it was used so frequently and was often predictable.
Furthermore, people who are new to the franchise will not understand the ubiquity of time travel in Star Trek, and it will simply appear cliched to them.

Thirdly, the original Star Trek, as McClaud points out, was about social attitudes of the time, hence Uhura & Chekov. However it went down the drains, with cheesy effects etc, something which it never recovered from, as well as not being helped by the hardcore nerds.
Because of this, liking sci-fi was seen as a symbol for oddness, like D&D etc. The new movie wasn't a political or social commentary, but about introducing the old characters in a new form, making it so that the actual genre no longer had a stigma against it. Which it has done. Now you can say "I like Star Trek" without people thinking you live in your mum's basement, while having seen an unquestionably entertaining movie.
I don't see how you can complain that Star Trek "went down the drains, with cheesy effects" and then go on to defend Abram's Star Trek film.
If anything, its the final step of that phase; every last remnant of character and personality stripped and replaced with shiny CGI and action-packed space fights.
In addition, as a thread in The Escapist Off-Topic Forums details, when things become mainstream, they generally do so at the sacrifice of what made them unique and good in the first place.

D_987 said:
Seriously...do I really have to explain that that was just an example? If you want me to go into mote detail as to just how poor a "review" this is I can do, I was merely offering constructive criticism but this reply appears overly sarcastic.
I hardly see how a single line of sarcasm is "overly sarcastic".
So yes, go into more detail.
I was merely responding to your criticism, and if it appeared sardonic, then that was unintentional.
 

RyVal

New member
May 19, 2009
156
0
0
Mazty said:
You should well be aware that even a mining ship would need to be able to defend itself, and in the future, those "heavy weapons" would be piss poor compared to say, quantum torpedoes. And as you are very well aware, but choosing to ignore, say 100 years, is more than enough to give a ship the leading edge against everything. Example, Voyager finale, where the Captain comes back from the future, so only about 25 years, allowing the crew to go from average ship, to being able to defeat the most hostile aliens in the galaxy.
The difference being, however, that Star Trek: Voyager itself is a set a lot further in the future than Star Trek.
As such, if we say that Nero is from, perhaps, 100 years in the future, that does not necessarily mean there were massive improvements, and to be honest - if you compare Voyager and the original ships - there doesn't even seem to be major revolutions.

2)You're saying it would appear cliche to audiences. Everyone, other than the old school fanboys, loved the movie. So you clearly are wrong there.
A majority of the reviewers were so blinded by nostalgia at simply seeing a Star Trek film that it completely escaped their mind as to whether it was a good Star Trek film.

3)The original Star Trek was low budget and somewhat riding entirely on Shattners shoulders. Not Kirk, Shattner. Big difference. With his ego out the way, it opens up the screen, and again, the point wasn't to once again nerd-ify Star Trek, but make it socially acceptable to like.
Provided by "nerd-ify" you mean "make it intelligent" and by "socially acceptable to like" you mean "strip out all the brain and replace it with bubblegum sci-fi cliches", then yes, you're absolutely correct.

Plus, what has it really sacrificed? It was having to reintroduce all the old characters, and I'm sure that most people didn't want a in-depth drama in space, which is what you seem to be wanting.
What I simply wanted was a film that was worthy of the 80s and 90s it was getting from reviewers.
Instead, it is just a crappy, overrated, underwhelming sci-fi film that would have been rapidly panned by critics if it hadn't had "Star Trek" stencilled to the front.
 

joystickjunki3

New member
Nov 2, 2008
1,887
0
0
Personally, I liked the movie, but I completely agree that it stripped Star Trek of all the meaningful commentary.

It's somewhat disappointing seeing as how I loved the original series and Next Generation (and even Enterprise, if it weren't for that godawful opening theme), but maybe it was necessary so that Star Trek might become popular and then include the commentary once people want to watch it.
 

McClaud

New member
Nov 2, 2007
923
0
0
RyVal said:
Gene Roddenberry intended Star Trek to be a socio-political commentary on what mankind could achieve if it dealt with its current issues. In this way, there was an 'intelligence' behind the programme, which was crippled by studio executives, who were only interested in marketing and revenue.
Holy shit are you wrong.

Roddenberry himself said, "The best message is the most subtle one." He was having issues in the 80's around Star Trek 4 when the message overshadowed the character development and cowboys in space motiff. He absolutely disliked The Final Frontier and Undiscovered Country, as did a majority of older Trekkies. But his intellectual property had been hijacked by Paramount to the point that they were doing what a majority of sci-fi films at the time were - trying to beat us over the head with touchy-feely messages.

As Roddenberry himself noted, the entire show was about the characters, their relationships and their ability to adapt. He included so many nationalities in Star Trek because he envisioned a time when the human race would look past race and background, and instead focus on the strength of character and skill. He also liked putting them in constant conflict with the unknown. Time travel is one of the major avenues of exploration in Star Trek because it allows the characters a chance for introspection and gives other authors of Star Trek novels a chance to change things up. Over-explaining things has made Star Trek only accessable to a niche crowd, which isn't what Gene envisioned at all.

I'm kinda sick of these sudden "purists" that pop up telling me how Star Trek should be. Trekkies are a diverse group, and they all have their likes and dislikes. This movie appealed to a large audience, a lot of Trekkies and brought new people into the fold. They made it accessible along the baseline of Star Trek all over again. It hinged on being the common man's science fiction - not some nerdfest, over-explained parody with an environmental or social message. Being accessable to everyone is what the very first Star Trek was about.
 

Zer_

Rocket Scientist
Feb 7, 2008
2,682
0
0
I think the only good thing he said about the movie is that it was "Worth the money" but then proceeded to try and convince us that it really wasn't...

I'm a Sci-Fi fan in general, I don't just like Trek but I like Aliens, I like Star Wars and I like Serenity. The new Star Trek was a good film. it wasn't just another Star Trek and that's what it wanted to be. I'm not going to fault it because the Kirk in the movie is just as dick-ish as the original series.
 

cleverlymadeup

New member
Mar 7, 2008
5,256
0
0
RyVal said:
The difference being, however, that Star Trek: Voyager itself is a set a lot further in the future than Star Trek.
As such, if we say that Nero is from, perhaps, 100 years in the future, that does not necessarily mean there were massive improvements, and to be honest - if you compare Voyager and the original ships - there doesn't even seem to be major revolutions.
actually Voyager is set about 80 years, at the very most, after the end of the original series

ok now let's look at how you have NO clue about Star Trek

1) first off Chief Engineer Olsen, aka Ensign Red Shirt, Ensign Expendable, Ensign Ricky and so forth, this is probly one of the most used TOS cliches ever, the Red Shirt ALWAYS DIES and almost right away after the team lands, which he does

2) Sulu fought with a sword because in TOS he WAS a fencer, they even mention it in the movie too

3) there's TONS of references to TOS, such as the green chick Kirk sleeps with, the cliff that Spock's mom falls from is in at least 10 TOS episodes AND in almost every parody of Star Trek

4) almost every crew member says their key phrases they are known for, personally Bones was my favorite and he had that role down pretty good

5) 25 years to a Romulan is nothing, they live to be over 300 years old, so 25 years is like 7 years to us, which is not much

6) the fact that Spock is emotional and has an emotional reaction is because he's a young half-vulcan and half-human, which if you watched ANY Star Trek you'd know that young vulcans can be very emotional and difficult until they go through training, Spock was different because he was half-vulcan

seriously you should go watch some actual Star Trek and then go watch the movie again, it was really well done, they did change facts and such from the original HOWEVER they even mention that in the movie itself and that's due to the time travelling at the beginning
 

RyVal

New member
May 19, 2009
156
0
0
cleverlymadeup said:
actually Voyager is set about 80 years, at the very most, after the end of the original series

ok now let's look at how you have NO clue about Star Trek

1) first off Chief Engineer Olsen, aka Ensign Red Shirt, Ensign Expendable, Ensign Ricky and so forth, this is probly one of the most used TOS cliches ever, the Red Shirt ALWAYS DIES and almost right away after the team lands, which he does
Sigh.
Yes, I know that Olsen was intended to be a joke on the expendability of Ensigns in Star Trek.
However, they could have done it in a less over-the-top way.
His jingoistic "GET SOME!" rant when he was flying towards the drill made it obvious he was going to die, and the ensuing death majorly ruined the immersion of that scene, especially considering it was a joke that only seasoned Star Trek fans - an audience that Abrams was not catering for - would have understood the significance.

2) Sulu fought with a sword because in TOS he WAS a fencer, they even mention it in the movie too
Indeed.
However, I've personally done fencing, and looks nothing like Sulu's Neo-esque, pseudo-Bruce Lee swordfight in the film.

3) there's TONS of references to TOS, such as the green chick Kirk sleeps with, the cliff that Spock's mom falls from is in at least 10 TOS episodes AND in almost every parody of Star Trek

4) almost every crew member says their key phrases they are known for, personally Bones was my favorite and he had that role down pretty good
You don't stay loyal to the franchise by throwing in cameo performances and catchphrases - the Star Wars prequels proved that.
Still similar to Star Wars, if the new film had retained the spirit and character of the original films, it would have benefitted immensely and felt less like a soulless extravaganza.

5) 25 years to a Romulan is nothing, they live to be over 300 years old, so 25 years is like 7 years to us, which is not much
As previously stated, I meant more that environmental factors could have altered his appearance - even minorly - but since this point seems to cause so much consternation, I'll drop it.

6) the fact that Spock is emotional and has an emotional reaction is because he's a young half-vulcan and half-human, which if you watched ANY Star Trek you'd know that young vulcans can be very emotional and difficult until they go through training, Spock was different because he was half-vulcan
Cheap jibe at my apparant Star Trek knowledge aside, I don't recall ever mentioning this scene more than "Spock throws a hissy fit", nor using it as a point of criticism, which makes this point rather redundant.

seriously you should go watch some actual Star Trek and then go watch the movie again, it was really well done, they did change facts and such from the original HOWEVER they even mention that in the movie itself and that's due to the time travelling at the beginning
Abram's Star Trek is to the decent Star Trek films (which, unfortunately, are few) as Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor is to Tora! Tora! Tora!
If anything, comparing it to the source material damages this version, rather than complementing it.
I'm not saying it's a bad film and wholly without merit.
Rather, I'm proposing that people should stop building it up from what it really is - an average Summer blockbuster.
The characters are just as wooden and two-dimensional as in the aforementioned Pearl Harbor, the action is just as spectacular, the romantic sub-plot is just as tacked on, and the plot is just as basic.
Really, I wouldn't have disliked this film so much if it wasn't for the fact that critics were lauding this as Star Trek's return to form, when it was just another decreasing return to scale.
 

arc101

New member
May 24, 2009
1,173
0
0
i believe the film did kinda ruin the WHOLE original series, with pike only captaining the enterprise for one mission other than the years he is meant to, and that volkan is gone already... they messed up the time scale a wee bit
 

blackcherry

New member
Apr 9, 2008
706
0
0
arc101 said:
i believe the film did kinda ruin the WHOLE original series, with pike only captaining the enterprise for one mission other than the years he is meant to, and that volkan is gone already... they messed up the time scale a wee bit
That was the point. By introducing radical changes in the new film, the writers could then take a few liberties with the scripts of the future films without purists getting up in arms about it.