Not everyone liked the new Trek movie

If you are a fan of the old Star Trek DO NO GO SEE THIS MOVIE! It is NOT Star Trek! As a matter of fact, they ruined Star Trek in the first five minutes. If they make another (and they will) they MUST fix the errors that they created, or I will not go to see it. When it comes out, I will wait to hear if the original plot line has been repaired, and if it is not, I will write off Star Trek forever! I can't believe that they were so disrespectful to the integrity of such a beloved series.

Finally got to see the movie yesterday. The many positive reviews really piqued my interest and I was all set for a great movie. But while it certainly is a good movie, it not that great a movie. While the story is interesting enough, with plenty of in-jokes, and enough of a 'classic' feel to it (while adding good amount of change at the same time), I could name a number of better genre films that surpass it. I think the over-hype may have had a large impact on my enjoyment factor. 

So consider it a sucky movie, and then go enjoy it (or not).

~ Lazarus ~

Sure, it is a whiz bang, youthful romp of a movie with a ton of interesting ideas...ultimately though, leading to one Non-Trek film.  It is no longer Star Trek...it just has the props.  Spock is a love sick wimp....chekov is a smart baffoon of a character...and all of the movie is thrown together for an audience who cannot concentrate more than 5 seconds of dialogue.  So, hats off to JJ for producing a flick that tons and tons of teens will love, great, but a true to form, philosophically sound Star Trek film.  No way.  He's struck a blow at the heart of Star Trek.   Anyone who likes the underlying story of Star Trek should stay away from the film.  I'll be trying to drink away this modern Star Trek and making a petition to the United Nations to end such human rights abuses in the future.

to do this:

look at what it spawned.
you should see this...spock would be so ashamed..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50qSWTkYgEg

Just saw the movie on Monday,

I really liked it, it was the first Star Trek in a long time that made me interested in the genre (Cause I consider Trek a genre all its own), I had had my fill of Star Trek for years after all that stuff all over the place, you could not turn on a TV for a while there without there being some Trek show playing.

I'm especially glad they destroyed the entire Trek history with this movie, no more do they have to bend to the history book to make something, itMs all new now, and hopefully they will take their time filling up the rule by NOT stating facts and time and stardates every seconds. 

Andre Vandal

This movie sucked all together.  The story was weak, the action was barely entertaining.  The only scene I liked was the space dive.  But has anyone wondered if a young teen would understand that the air is not quite breathable at such a high altitude?  Gee, I though perhaps there'd be a little common sense in this movie, but it was geared totally at air-heads and high school Diplomas.  No thought or common sense is required.  I never thought we'd reach the day where a sensable story line and great acting would no longer be required.  Must be easy to make movies these days.  Science Fiction (by today's JJ standards) only needs to look good, blow crap up, and toss in a few curse words.  Horror flims no longer have to be mysterious.  All you need is someone cutting their leg off, with lots of blood, gut, and gore, and PRESTO!  You've got yourself a modern day Horror film.  Romantic films?  Gee, no longer required.  Just throw in a few topless scenes, and two air-heads going at it, as we seem to see floating around YouTube video's, and PRESTO!  You've got yourself a romance movie. 

This movie had absolutely no imagination.  It was to easy, pointless, and the ending was very weak and quick.  And how does a Starship escape a massive black hole that's strong enough to destroy an entire galaxy WITHOUT a Warp Drive?  That ugly excuse of a ship supposedly escapes the gravitional pull of black hole using impusle power?  Geez, how lame can you get?

Yepp!  This movies was made for teens allright.  I wonder when Star Trek will return.  Forget about J-Trek.

Joseph

If you are a fan of the old Star Trek DO NO GO SEE THIS MOVIE! It is NOT Star Trek! As a matter of fact, they ruined Star Trek in the first five minutes. If they make another (and they will) they MUST fix the errors that they created, or I will not go to see it. When it comes out, I will wait to hear if the original plot line has been repaired, and if it is not, I will write off Star Trek forever! I can't believe that they were so disrespectful to the integrity of such a beloved series.

This movie did not deliver.Kirk goes from academy graduate to captain. This looks more like a star wars movie where all the characters are made generals. So does this mean that none of the stuff from TOS to Voyager to Nemisis never happened? No Dominion War? No Borg? As far as I am concerned, J.J. Abrams screwed the pooch royally and we are owed a movie that  restores what we have all come to know as " Star Trek" over the past 40 plus years. Who cares if Leonard Nimoy put his blessing on this movie by appearing in it. He just got a paycheck.

When is the new episode coming ?

Every dissenting voice blathering “opinion” as fact should be expunged before you bore me to death! The Star Trek franchise needed a “main-stream” shot in the arm and this film delivered that, introducing the genre to a whole new generation of viewers. If you feel there are gargantuan plot holes that your mind can’t accept, then you probably have a problem with most cinema produced over the past 10-15 years (and you should stick with your video games). However critical you are of the new Star Trek movie, it was well accepted by the critics: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/ and it should be stated that if you aren’t familiar with the Rotten Tomatoes website and still consider yourself a film buff, you should rethink your existence.

The problem that most superfans have is their close-minded approach to a remake or rebirth of a film genre they loved (I’m no exception, sincerely hating George Lucas for ruining my affair with Star Wars, but that’s another subject). That being said, even Roger Ebert who can be considered to be one of the most famous film critics of our time didn’t see the film for what it really was:

“Anyone with the slightest notion of what a black hole is, or how it behaves, will find the black holes in “Star Trek” hilarious. The logic is also a little puzzling when Scotty can beam people into another ship in outer space, but they have to physically parachute to land on a platform in the air from which the Romulans are drilling a hole to the Earth’s core. After they land there, they fight with two Romulan guards, using ... fists and swords?“ excerpt from Roger Eberts review of said movie on his website.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997

Within the confines of the movie Spock explains why they can’t transport down to the “drilling platform” and why Captain Pike orders a space jump from his shuttle craft. Also, it’s not explained how far down the platform has been lowered into the atmosphere as pertaining to the comment made by Joseph. Maybe it’s lower than Mount Everest which has an altitude of 29,035 ft. (or 8850m), which is climbable without oxygen assistance by the way; the first of which was made by Reinhold Messner, an Italian in 1979. Although, we like to tout Star Trek “history” as cannon, the truth is: there is no race of Vulcans, there is no such thing as warp drive, and red matter- if it did exist, can’t effectively be contained in clear liquid gel in a steel-like structure. And despite Roger Eberts critiquing expertise, I doubt he’s read much about black holes or the new thoughts put forth in the scientific community based on physics, string theory and the like. To my knowledge no human nor probe from human society has every experienced a black hole or produced readings from one… but evidently we ALL KNOW how they work.

“This movie had absolutely no imagination. It was to easy, pointless, and the ending was very weak and quick. And how does a Starship escape a massive black hole that's strong enough to destroy an entire galaxy WITHOUT a Warp Drive?” –Quoted from ‘Joseph’

Joseph you sound like a geek that waits in line for a highly anticipated film so you can rag on it first, giving us your uninspired opinions that lack ANY examples to support your claims. The truth is you couldn’t write better if your life depended on it, and I challenge any of you to produce a film with the emotional weight of millions of dollars resting on your shoulders, as well as having to endure fanatical sycophants like you virtual hipsters! He was paid to take an old concept and make it new and different but still pay homage to its memory. You all should actually watch the special features on the new DVD/Blue Ray and witness Leonard Nimoy’s speech on his last day of shooting. I realize this is a late response to a series of posts made in the “heat of the moment” and replying to losers like you guys is a waste of my time. Most of you won’t even be able to comprehend what I’m writing because it wasn’t composed with emoticons and hacker-speak word replacements.

Live long, and shut up please.

In the past couple of months I saw both the new Star Trek film and Terminator Salvation. Being a detail-oriented, long-time fan of both franchises I was excited to see both films. Each one was entertaining in it's own way, however I much preferred Terminator over Trek when it comes down to the writing.

Terminator Salvation for me was a dark, reinterpretation of the original storyline. The Arnie flicks were campy and silly at times whereas the new Terminator Salvation brought an intensity and despair that only a post-apoloclyptic, robot-dominated future could provide. Christian Bale brings a seriousness and introspection to the role of John Connor that was lacking in previous versions.

I think of this new Terminator film as an analog to what Dark Knight did for Batman.

WARNING! TERMINATOR SALVATION SPOILERS BELOW:

I particularly appreciated the "man versus machine" concept that was portrayed on multiple levels; the obvious physical battling between the two but also the subtle exploration of how mankind in some ways was becoming machine-like in some of the charater's single-minded approach to the war. The human submarine commander willing to kill innocent human captives in order to destroy the machines. Also the obvious struggle of Marcus who believed he was human but actually also partly machine. When does a man stop being a human and become a machine? The poetry of Marcus finding his own personal salvation (for killing his family) by sacrificing his life (giving his heart) to keep John Connor alive was also not lost on me. John Connor's own struggle with his identity as the prophesized "saviour of mankind" and his self-doubt was well-written and acted.

I also enjoyed the ensemble of characters presented in Terminator Salvation; John, his wife, Marcus, the woman who helped Marcus escape, Kyle Reese, and his young, mute friend (who reminded me of the grunting wild-child who accompanied Mel Gibson's character in the Road Warrior). All were well acted and their motivations felt real.

WARNING! STAR TREK SPOILERS BELOW:

My main problem with Star Trek was the whole "creating a new Trek universe and thumbing our noses at 40 years of previous trek history". To me, this represents lazy writing. A dedicated writing team could have told the trek pre-history in an enlightening and entertaining way without having to eradicate the entire Star Trek history displayed in the previous movies, television shows and such. The major exception for me was the great character development of Spock and the illustration of his struggles with his identity as half-human and half-Vulcan. Nyota Uhura's character was also refreshing.

If I were to start nit-picking, I would point out the ridiculousness of the transporters inability to beam up Spock's mom when the rock she was standing on moved a few inches; the transporter was otherwise able to beam people across incredible space (granted with Future Spock's help) onto a moving starship and it also was able to lock on and beam up a pair of sky-diving Kirk and Sulu.

Was it also a coincidence that Kirk happened to be jettisoned in the escape pod and land within walking distance of Future Spock's ice cave? Also, Future Spock stayed behind on the ice planet (Delta Vega) but somehow hitch-hiked his way to Earth and appeared to meet young Spock.

I guess Vulcan doesn't have any planetary defenses at the time of the Romulan attack. This seemed unbelievable to me.

Also, when young Spock entered the "future ship" and learned it was from the future, why didn't he make any attempt (or reflect on the possibility) to use it to travel back in time a day to save his homeworld of Vulcan and his mother? Instead, he set it on a collision course with Nero's ship; a short-sighted plot development.

The movie also insufficiently explained the motivation of the Romulan crew to want to destroy Vulcan and Earth. The story suggests that Romulus' sun was determined to go supernovae and Future Spock stepped up and said he could at least "capture/collapse" the expanding sun before it engulfed Romulus. Apparently the sun went supernovae before it was planned to. Even if this whole create-a-black-hole-to-contain-the-sun plan had worked, the Romulan homeworld still would not have been habitable for long without a sun. So why did Nero and the other Romulans go from being simple miners to galactic mass-murderers? The motivation for a nemesis must be clearly understood and perhaps even empathized with by the audience to make their actions believable. At best, the Romulans' motivation was confusing. Also hard to believe they spent 25 years wandering the galaxy looking for spock.

J.J. Abrams said he was never a fan of the original show; it shows. It seems to me that this new movie was more about Abram's ego-trip than an honest homage to the origins of the original Star Trek Enterprise crew. The movie was fun at times however and it was great to see young actors take on the well-established roles and bring new life and background. The special effects were good, however the Enterprise sets were a bit hokey othwerise; especially shots of Scotty in "Engineering"...showing him standing in front of a bunch of pipes and valves that could have been in any meat packing facility or water treatment plant in southern california.

In summary, a major challenge in writing content for long-lived and expansive franchises such as Star Trek and Terminator is keeping the story "in-line" and "true" to the larger universe that has been previously presented. Terminator Salvation projected forward into the Terminator Universe while Star Trek projected to the origins. All in all, Terminator did a good job of bringing together previous bits of history and characters (Judgment Day, Kyle Reese, the origins of the T-800 (the fleshy, Arnie model of robot) and weaving these parts into a fairly coherent story. With regards to the new Star Trek, I felt that the writers didn't even make an attempt to weave a story that included all the bits and pieces that were hinted at or described in other Trek movies or television shows. Instead, they created a story that does not fit into the pre-existing Star Trek history that has been unfolding for 40 years now. For me, this was akin to taking the "easy way out" and I believe is ultimately unsatisfying to long-time fans.