My own review

[A.Q.]

Beware: spoilers may be involved for those who haven't seen it yet....



Link Oppressed ~ Rochey

Click on the link to see my review on Sistertrek.net... I did try uploading it on the review for the film on DITL, but it kept screwing up on me with the second part, so I'll put it here.


Sufficed to say, I hated it. Loathed it wouldn't be too strong a word. TMP and TFF have now moved from the bottom of the barrel.

[Sionnach Glic]

Gonna have to disagree with you big time on this.

I'll post your review here for you, so that it'll save others checking out other forums:

Please note that this is NOT my review. This is AQ's review. I am in no way attempting to take credit for it.

Finally saw the new movie tonight. Words cannot adequately convey the feelings I had when the film finished. However, I can confidently say that not a single thing that went through me was a positive. The overrall feeling was one of forboding, negatvitiy and disappointment.

As many of you know, I was very vocal about my cynicism towards this film. Was that justified. In my opinion, yes it was. For those of you who are unfamiliar with my review style, I break the following down into their own paragraphs and then rate each out of 100 and give an overrall mark. This time there will be two: One as a fan, and one as an 'average joe'.

But only the fan review will be expanded upon. The 'average joe' will just get scores.

Plot
Casting/Execution
Sets
VFX
Soundtrack
Themes

Plot: Star Trek XI, as we all know, is a reboot of a 43 year old franchise. Star Trek needed a boost in popularity, a breath of fresh air, but a prequel was not good idea. Especially a prequel that would essentially make the last 43 years meaningless.

The plot for this film is contrived in the extreme. The idea that a singularity can threaten the galaxy is border-line ridiculous, and the idea that little red blobs of stuff can create a blackhole to suck it up is ridiculous. Add to that, the fact that the two ships that go through it survive the trip makes the whole film irrelevent, since Plot Point A is improbable, Plot Point B is improbable and Plot Point C is impossible (since a singularity proceeds faster than light, the blackhole would have to be extremely massive to 'suck it up', not to mention fast. Also, for a blackhole to be that effective, it would destroy the galaxy they are trying to save. Kind of makes it redundant).

Also, does anyone find it odd that the Romulan sun is the one that goes nova? A supernova takes years and years to develop and come to a head, and Romulus/Remus would be rendered uninhabitable long before the explosion (try centuries). Yet in Nemesis, (set in 2379), Romulus is perfectly habitable and the sun is normal.

Now, assuming that a foreign agent was involved (trilithium, for instance), the Vulcan's would not have sufficient time to build a starship (on Vulcan) and get it to Romulus before the nova (see how long it took Amargosa in Generations). I also like it how the 'Red Matter' is just thrown in there, no explanation of what it does, how it works, and how it can create a blackhole without a sun. Trek has constantly been ridiculed for too much technobabble, but at least most of the time some background is given on the latest gizmo that will save (or ruin) the day... not so here.


But let's assume for a moment that all of the above is possible (when it isn't), we go back in time to the year 2233 to the vessel USS Kelvin (same dimensions as the Enterprise, but twice the crew??? Remember, the Kelvin existed in the 'real' Trek universe). Already question marks are raised when a lightning storm develops and then turns into a blackhole. Out comes a massive Romulan vessel with weaponry light-years ahead of the Scimitar (which preceeded it by less than a decade)... speaking of which, that mining vessel certainly was well armed.

I also like it how they shoot first and ask questions later (note: sarcasm will be prevelent). I also like how they have completely reinvented the stardate system in the real timeline: stardate 2233 means its the year 2233. It makes sense, and I would like it if the previous system hadn't been used for, oh, 43 years....

Anyhoo, they proceed to blow the Kelvin up- for the fun of it, apparently- along with George Kirk, who amazingly is in Starfleet when previous Trek had shown that Kirk was the only one of his family to serve in the fleet. At least Kirk Snr gets a heroic sendoff. (And how is it that a ship as massive as the Kelvin doesn't destroy Nero when his ship gets rammed, but Spock's puny shuttle thing can at the end of the film )

Anyway, 33 years later, we get some pretty decent character moments with Kirk and Spock in their childhood. Then we meet Uhura, Captain Pike (who I liked) and various assorted characters and move on to the Academy...

... sidetrack. Enterprise. Aside from the extreme hideousness of it, why is it being built planetside? Most starships are not designed for atmospheric flight, and the Enterprise is at least 800 meters long and grosses several hundred thousand tonnes (yes, to have a hangar that big, it would have to be bigger than 400, even though other shots show it to be a more reasonable 400). To move a rig that big would require tremendous power just getting it into orbit, not to mention the materials to withstand the pressure of an atmosphere would make it twice as heavy, which would require more power.... etc etc


Back on topic: So eventually we get to Vulcan, where a Federation fleet comprising mostly of cadets and new ships (because apparently the bulk of the fleet was staging elsewhere for an ungiven reason) ( ) is destroyed, except the Enterprise. As we know, Vulcan gets destroyed when 'Red Matter' is planted into its core.

Sidetrack: ok, assume for the moment this red stuff is the real deal... why do you have to drill to the core? Why not just plant the thing in space and let the blackhole suck the planet up? Also, at the end of the film, we see a blackhole develop within seconds, but at Vulcan, it takes minutes.

Just does not make sense.

After that, the film takes us to a very close Delta Vega (which is an ice planet, and not desert. Which is in the same system as Vulcan ((how else can Old Spock see Vulcan destroyed)) and not on the edge of Federation space as it was in "Where No One Has Gone Before") and we meet Scotty, an engineer who now eats far more than he drinks (no whiskey), and doesn't question that he can change the laws of physics (which he does).

We then use technobabble to get to a speeding Enterprise, use the same technobabble to get to Nero and, well, blow him up through... you guessed it: Technobabble. We then see Kirk offer to help Nero survive by saying that if he doesn't get help, he'll be destroyed. Nero refuses. Kirk than blows him up anyway... guess he didn't want the blackhole to get all the glory.

God, just writing that has made me mad again....



*cools down*
Anyhoo....

The plot was worse than any other film... I would rate it as bad as 'Spock's Brain' or 'Shades of Grey' or any generic DS9 episode. I would rather watch Broken Bow than sit through this story again. I would rather...

*cools down*

Moving on...


Casting: Casting was both good and bad in this film. Karl Urban as Bones was brilliant, and a thoroughly enjoyable experience watching him. Chris Pyne did a decent Kirk, but his performance didn't leap out. Zachary Quinto as Spock was also decent, but there were just moments in the film (a fault of the writing, not the performer) where I just couldn't picture Spock saying that. Scotty and Sulu were alright too, though the writing for Scotty was overdone (he was the 'comedic relief').

Chekov, however.... they couldn't lather Koenig in drag/makeup and get him to perform? I mean, seriously... and what's with having to give a code to use the intercom? We never saw that before... and why wouldn't the computer (that can translate alien dialects) decipher his deplorable accent?

Uhura was also well done, though she seemed to suffer from Travis Mayweather syndrome... the 'token' minority, thrown in just to prove that the producers weren't discriminating.

Pike was well played, and Eric Bana did the best he could with his material, but Nero just came across as a generic bad guy, a villian for the sake of being a villian. Decent, but not fleshed out enough for my tastes.

Leonard Nimoy: cameo. What more needs to be said?

Execution: jerky camera movements in 'serious' 'dramatic' scenes (the bar, anyone, between Kirk and Pike?) was a turn off. Aside from that, excellent directing. Got some nice, good angles in many scenes. Prop and ship design was... unique. Great makeup though. Wonder who did it...


Sets: Ugh... Engineering looks like Pipe City. The bridge of the ugly Enterprise is equally ugly (nice window where the viewscreen should be btw). Nero's ship didn't look remotely Romulan (mind you, neither did the actors. Were they a pirate band or something?) The bar looked interesting, but aside from that, the sets were nothing to write home about. Adequate for their task, but really just plain and ordinary... and in some places, not remotely futuristic.

VFX: The only winner in this film. Best. Effects. I. Have. Ever. Seen. Ever. Ever Ever Ever.

Soundtrack: many of you may not know, but I am a musician. I study theory and composition; I don't play. I compose. I study. I learn. And as a fan of James Horner and Jerry Goldsmith- particularly of their contribution to (combined) 7 of the first 10 films- I am appalled at the soundtrack for this film.

For starters, there is little thematic material in the film. A theme appears to be present at the end for either the Enterprise or the characters, but is so mishandled you can't tell if it stands for one or the other or both. The action sequences are nothing but bombastic brass with some underscoring strings and a timpini/bass drum pounding away at random points. There is no suspense. The film opens with a mundane and lifeless brass, and when the title Star Trek appears, the timpani is given another bashing while the brass compete for both volume and measure.

For Vulcan, the strings section plays chords as the planet disintergrates. No rythym. No theme. Just whole notes being played, getting progressively louder as the planet is destroyed. This would have been the perfect time for a majestic chior to come in. Even more fitting, a rendition/variation of Horner's beautiful Vulcan theme from TWOK or TSFS. Instead, we get a solemn treatment for a symbolic, mind-boggling act.

If there was ever a time to symbolically connect with previous efforts of Trek, the music should have been it. The film should have opened with Alexander Courage's 'Space, the final frontier' (instead, the film ends with a borderline acceptable rendition of it)- and TWOK's version of it, with the solo harp and horn/trombone duet-, or Jerry Goldsmith's excellent fanfare (or a variation thereof). For the Enterprise, either Goldsmith or Horner's (preferably Horner's given, the dark theme of the film) theme from TMP or TWOK would have been good, a nice throwback to the previous generation.

Better still, Horner or even Clif Eidelmen should have been given the job (Goldsmith died in 2004). They would have done a spectacular job on this film. Instead we get *insert name at later date* to do a Leonard Rosenman/Dennis McCarthy effort. Music with no style, no substance, no grace and no place in a science-fiction film- little lone a Star Trek film!

Nice choir work though. Too bad you only see it at the end of the film.


Themes: Um, yes. Star Trek has normally managed to incorporate themes into its films to engage the audience. This film is lacking; no moral questions; no futuristic portrayals of current events. Just technobable. Indeed, did anyone notice the trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy was absent in this film? Friendship wasn't even a theme in this film. I suppose, if one wanted to clutch straws (and in this film, that's all you have to go on), you could say that destiny is a theme.


So, move over The Final Frontier and The Motion Picture. You are removed from the Worst of Trek listings for movies. XI has taken that... honor...


Everything that made Star Trek 'Star Trek' is noticably lacking in this film. We barely see space. We don't see much in the way of 'science fiction' or 'fantasy'. Instead, we get a slap in the face. We get a film made by non-believers and told its 'what we wanted'. Some of us like, some of us don't.

Maybe on a second viewing I will be kinder to this film. But it will never, ever measure up to the likes of The Wrath of Khan (which was the first piece of Trek I ever saw) or The Undiscovered Country or First Contact, or Nemesis. Or any of the others. Never.

Perhaps, instead of reinventing, they should have tried surpassing. Alternate timelines are the result of sloppy, lazy thinking, a way to 'reboot' something and start afresh.

Fan:
Plot: "Threshold" ridiculous, but with some decent touches. 25%
Casting/Execution: 75%
Sets: 50%
VFX: 100%
Soundtrack: Ugh. Yuck. Rosenman did better with IV, and that was mediocre. 25%
Themes: would have to be present to rate a score, wouldn't it? :0%

Overall: 45.83%

As I recall, when I previously scored TMP and TFF, there scores, respectively, were 48 and 53 percent.

Average Joe
Plot: 75% Even to a lay man (who my companions were, found some of it difficult to swallow)
Casting/Execution: 75%
Sets: One said the bridge was "corny": 75%
VFX: who couldn't be impressed by this: 100%
Soundtrack: One said they loved it, the other is tone deaf 66%
Themes: Even they couldn't find any 0%

Overall: 65.16%



What I wanted from this film? I wanted a film with either Picard, Sisko or Janeway (preferably Picard or Janeway), or, failing that, a new set of characters altogether. I wanted it set post-Nemesis, with no time travel. I wanted to see my favorite classes: Galaxy, Sovereign, Akira, Nebula in it. I wanted to see tremendous action sequences- not the brief affairs in this film. I wanted to see wonderful character moments.

I wanted a James Horner soundtrack.



Despite what I think, this film (with its 150 million dollar budget) is set to do extremely well in terms of money, making Star Trek XII all the more likely.

Congratulations, Mr. Abrams. You have just saved Star Trek.

But the cost was its soul.

[Sionnach Glic]

And my rebuttal:

The plot for this film is contrived in the extreme. The idea that a singularity can threaten the galaxy is border-line ridiculous, and the idea that little red blobs of stuff can create a blackhole to suck it up is ridiculous. Add to that, the fact that the two ships that go through it survive the trip makes the whole film irrelevent, since Plot Point A is improbable, Plot Point B is improbable and Plot Point C is impossible (since a singularity proceeds faster than light, the blackhole would have to be extremely massive to 'suck it up', not to mention fast. Also, for a blackhole to be that effective, it would destroy the galaxy they are trying to save. Kind of makes it redundant).

Here's where your criticisms start to lose credibility in my eyes.

You are attacking Star Trek of all things for not being scientificaly plausable? Nothing in any Trek film or episode is plausable. The entire show is based on bullshit science. This film is as well, but it's hardly unusual for Trek.
To criticise it for having globs of stuff that make blackholes is rather pointless. Yes, we know it's complete BS. So is a faster than light drive. Are you also going to attack Trek for having ships travel FTL?

Yes, the science is dumb. But unlike VOY and ENT, the film realised that the science is not what it's supposed to be about. The film is about the characters. The science is merely a plot device to get things rolling.

Also, does anyone find it odd that the Romulan sun is the one that goes nova? A supernova takes years and years to develop and come to a head, and Romulus/Remus would be rendered uninhabitable long before the explosion (try centuries). Yet in Nemesis, (set in 2379), Romulus is perfectly habitable and the sun is normal.

So? We've no idea how long after NEM the sun went nova. More importantly, it was described as not being a normal supernova, instead being some Anomaly Of The Week that caused it to go up. Also, the fact that the Vulcans were able to refit a ship and get it to Romulus would suggest that they had some sort of warnings.

Now, assuming that a foreign agent was involved (trilithium, for instance), the Vulcan's would not have sufficient time to build a starship (on Vulcan) and get it to Romulus before the nova (see how long it took Amargosa in Generations).

Interesting. First you complain that they should have had plenty of warning about the impending supernova....then you complain that they had plenty of warning about the impending supernova. Exactly which one are you complaining about?

I also like it how the 'Red Matter' is just thrown in there, no explanation of what it does, how it works, and how it can create a blackhole without a sun. Trek has constantly been ridiculed for too much technobabble, but at least most of the time some background is given on the latest gizmo that will save (or ruin) the day... not so here.

Not explaining it is a much better idea. If they were to explain it, it'd be a heap of complete bullshit of the kind you just earlier on attacked it for being. No explaination could make it even remotely plausable.

More importantly, no explaination was needed. All we needed to know was what it did, not how it worked. And they covered that perfectly. They told us simply that it creates black holes, and moved on with the film. Would you have preffered they take 5 minutes to exposit on in technobbale terms the BS way the stuff works?

Trek became unpopular for exactly that reason. It got too full of itself and spent way too much time trying to explain stuff that not only made no sense, but we didn't need to know in the first place.

Imagine if, in Star Wars, Darth Vader had rambled on about exactly how the superlaser on the Death Star worked, or Han told Luke the specifics of how a hyperdrive runs. Exactly what does that add to the film? Nothing. It just wastes screen time.

So why do you want it in Trek? Not only would an explaination of their BS science be utterly pointless, but it would drive audiences away.

But let's assume for a moment that all of the above is possible (when it isn't), we go back in time to the year 2233 to the vessel USS Kelvin (same dimensions as the Enterprise, but twice the crew??? Remember, the Kelvin existed in the 'real' Trek universe)

What's strange about it having twice the crew? Do you have any idea just how crammed in the crew of ships were just a century ago? Why's it hard to imagine that in the 25 years between the Kelvin's destruction and the nEnterprise's construction they created better automated systems, allowing less crew to be present?

Already question marks are raised when a lightning storm develops and then turns into a blackhole. Out comes a massive Romulan vessel with weaponry light-years ahead of the Scimitar (which preceeded it by less than a decade)... speaking of which, that mining vessel certainly was well armed.

Exactly where are you pulling this from? I see nothing to suggest its guns were on a par with the Scimitar, let alone stronger.
Also, the ship was centuries ahead of the Kelvin, so even minor defensive weapons should be enough to take it on.

I also like it how they shoot first and ask questions later (note: sarcasm will be prevelent).

Yeah, it's not like they tried to capture the captain of the ship, or anything.


Oh, wait....

I also like how they have completely reinvented the stardate system in the real timeline: stardate 2233 means its the year 2233. It makes sense, and I would like it if the previous system hadn't been used for, oh, 43 years....

So your complaint is basicaly that Abrams made a dating system that made sense, rather than use the BS one that the creators admitted they just made up on the fly and had no clue how it worked?

Oh no! Abrams changed something so that it made sense!

Anyhoo, they proceed to blow the Kelvin up- for the fun of it, apparently-

Did you miss the part where they were trying to prevent their existance being reported?

along with George Kirk, who amazingly is in Starfleet when previous Trek had shown that Kirk was the only one of his family to serve in the fleet.

So?

You know, so far your criticisms seem to basicaly be "this isn't exactly like the old Trek!"

At least Kirk Snr gets a heroic sendoff. (And how is it that a ship as massive as the Kelvin doesn't destroy Nero when his ship gets rammed, but Spock's puny shuttle thing can at the end of the film )

Try watching the film with your eyes open next time. The Kelvin's impact crippled the Narada, allowing the shuttles to get away. Spock's ship, carrying god knows how much volatile stuff on board, did the same thing.

... sidetrack. Enterprise. Aside from the extreme hideousness of it, why is it being built planetside?

Aye, that bit was dumb.

[...]even though other shots show it to be a more reasonable 400)

Why is 400 metres "more reasonable"?

Sidetrack: ok, assume for the moment this red stuff is the real deal... why do you have to drill to the core? Why not just plant the thing in space and let the blackhole suck the planet up?

Given that the black hole was just barely pulling the Enterprise in at the end, I'm guessing that it wouldn't be strong enough to destroy the planet if you just set it off in space next to it. Setting it off inside, though, would pretty much ensure that it would implode.

Also, at the end of the film, we see a blackhole develop within seconds, but at Vulcan, it takes minutes.

Gee, could that perhaps be the fact that a planet is freaking massive? Of course it'd take minutes for the effects to become noticable.

Just does not make sense.

Just why do you watch Trek at all? Nothing makes sense in it. It's not supposed to. The tech is just background stuff.

After that, the film takes us to a very close Delta Vega (which is an ice planet, and not desert. Which is in the same system as Vulcan ((how else can Old Spock see Vulcan destroyed)) and not on the edge of Federation space as it was in "Where No One Has Gone Before")

That it's in the same system does not mean that it will have the same climate.
And even more "it's not the same as before!"

and we meet Scotty, an engineer who now eats far more than he drinks (no whiskey), and doesn't question that he can change the laws of physics (which he does).

And? Trek engineers change the laws of physics every second day or so. Need I bring up the infamous "probability generator"?

So, again, more "it's not the same as before!"

We then use technobabble to get to a speeding Enterprise, use the same technobabble to get to Nero and, well, blow him up through... you guessed it: Technobabble.

That technobabble is basicaly just a transporter on steroids. Nothing new there.
And the Narada was crippled by Spock ramming it, further wrecked by the nEnterprise's guns and then finaly destroyed as it was pulled into the black hole. That's not technobabble.

Technobabble would be Scotty remodulating the nEnterprise's impulse drives to generate a quantum pulse across the sub-atomic wavelengths using anti-solitron waves to disrupt the molecular make-up of the Narada's hull. Nero would see the danger, and order his crew to reverse the polarity of the tri-axial distributors. Spock would remind Scotty that they can get around this by reconfinguring the subspace manifold array to emit a subspace pulse. This would cause a resonance cascade throughout the Narada, causing the ship to enter a state of quantum flux and going boom.

Now that, my friend, is a technobabble ending. (I think I missed my calling, I should have been a VOY writer )

Kirk than blows him up anyway... guess he didn't want the blackhole to get all the glory

No, he did that because the Narada had already survived being sucked through one of the black holes. If the Narada survived another passage, who could tell where it'd end up? Kirk couldn't risk Nero surviving to wreack more havock on the timeline, and destroyed the ship before it was sucked in.

Chekov, however.... they couldn't lather Koenig in drag/makeup and get him to perform? I mean, seriously... and what's with having to give a code to use the intercom? We never saw that before... and why wouldn't the computer (that can translate alien dialects) decipher his deplorable accent?

Yeah, I had a problem with Chekov too. The accent was seriously over-done. "Woolcan" was mildly amusing, but that was about it.

Uhura was also well done, though she seemed to suffer from Travis Mayweather syndrome... the 'token' minority, thrown in just to prove that the producers weren't discriminating.

Um, no. She was there because she was a part of the original crew. And she actualy had a larger role in this film than in TOS.

Pike was well played, and Eric Bana did the best he could with his material, but Nero just came across as a generic bad guy, a villian for the sake of being a villian. Decent, but not fleshed out enough for my tastes.

Really? I thought his motivations were plenty clear.

Leonard Nimoy: cameo. What more needs to be said?

What's wrong with a cameo? He could hardly go back to playing young-Spock.

Execution: jerky camera movements in 'serious' 'dramatic' scenes (the bar, anyone, between Kirk and Pike?) was a turn off. Aside from that, excellent directing. Got some nice, good angles in many scenes. Prop and ship design was... unique. Great makeup though. Wonder who did it...

Agreed.
The shaky-cam effect can be very good if done right. In this instance, however, it sucked. During the battle scenes it seemed as though the cameraman was having a seizure or something.

Sets: Ugh... Engineering looks like Pipe City.

And? That's how it should look.

. The bridge of the ugly Enterprise is equally ugly (nice window where the viewscreen should be btw).

Personaly, I thought the bridge was quite nice, though I guess that's down more to personal opinion.
Yes, the window was stupid. I sighed irritably when I saw it.

Nero's ship didn't look remotely Romulan (mind you, neither did the actors. Were they a pirate band or something?)

Maybe the Narada was built by a different company than the ones that make the Warbirds? After all, there's nothing saying they have to follow the same design.

The bar looked interesting, but aside from that, the sets were nothing to write home about. Adequate for their task, but really just plain and ordinary... and in some places, not remotely futuristic.

What do you mean by "not remotely futuristic"? That's good. Putting crap in simply because it's the future is stupid. Form follows function. If it works, run with it.

The only winner in this film. Best. Effects. I. Have. Ever. Seen. Ever. Ever Ever Ever.

Aye, some beautiful shots. Too bad we couldn't see half of them because of that fucking camera, though.

Soundtrack:[snip]

Again, this comes down more to personal opinion. I thought the music worked. Nothing great, but it performed its task.

Themes: Um, yes. Star Trek has normally managed to incorporate themes into its films to engage the audience. This film is lacking; no moral questions; no futuristic portrayals of current events.

And that's a problem.....why? Does a sci-fi movie have to have some sort of Great Lesson we must all walk away from the film having learned? No, it doesn't. ST:XI was an action movie. There was no overbearing moral bit that we get whacked over the head with at the end, like what happened in INS. And that's for the better. I'm fed up with sci-fi trying to shove lessons down my throat. I go to see sci-fi movies because I like seeing spaceships blow up and cool aliens killing people, not to be preached at. That's exactly the sort of thing that dragged Trek down to the state it's in now.

Indeed, did anyone notice the trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy was absent in this film? Friendship wasn't even a theme in this film. I suppose, if one wanted to clutch straws (and in this film, that's all you have to go on), you could say that destiny is a theme.

Um, perhaps because this is the first time they've met? The film was about how the three of them met, and became friends.

Everything that made Star Trek 'Star Trek' is noticably lacking in this film. We barely see space. We don't see much in the way of 'science fiction' or 'fantasy'. Instead, we get a slap in the face. We get a film made by non-believers and told its 'what we wanted'. Some of us like, some of us don't.

And exactly what makes Trek Trek? Mindless technobabble explainations of BS science? Moral preaching? Reset buttons at the end so there are no consequences?

Maybe on a second viewing I will be kinder to this film. But it will never, ever measure up to the likes of The Wrath of Khan (which was the first piece of Trek I ever saw) or The Undiscovered Country or First Contact, or Nemesis. Or any of the others. Never.

Well, if you considered Nemesis a good movie then you've pretty much lost all credibility when it comes to criticising this one.

Perhaps, instead of reinventing, they should have tried surpassing. Alternate timelines are the result of sloppy, lazy thinking, a way to 'reboot' something and start afresh.

And just what would you have done instead? Kirk is the most famous Trek character there is. Most people wouldn't even know who Picard is if you asked them. To revive the franchise, a film with Kirk is the best possible method.

What I wanted from this film? I wanted a film with either Picard, Sisko or Janeway (preferably Picard or Janeway), or, failing that, a new set of characters altogether. I wanted it set post-Nemesis, with no time travel. I wanted to see my favorite classes: Galaxy, Sovereign, Akira, Nebula in it. I wanted to see tremendous action sequences- not the brief affairs in this film. I wanted to see wonderful character moments.

So, in short, you didn't like this movie because it wasn't exactly what you wanted?

Congratulations, Mr. Abrams. You have just saved Star Trek.

But the cost was its soul.

And you, of course, are the one who knows what Trek's soul is?

Trek doesn't have a soul. It hasn't for a long time. TOS was basicaly cowboys in space, with the occasional moral question. TNG was exploring humanity, with a lot of moral preaching. DS9 was effectively a war. VOY was technobabble BS. ENT was an attempt to combine all of the above.

So, in short, I find most of your criticisms BS.

[Sionnach Glic]

Bloody double-posting.

[Aaron]

So the "hardcore fans" have learned nothing from the demise of ENT and the poor showings of both INS and NEM, that's hardly a surprise given what I've seen on Ex Astris Scientia.

Finally saw the new movie tonight. Words cannot adequately convey the feelings I had when the film finished. However, I can confidently say that not a single thing that went through me was a positive. The overrall feeling was one of forboding, negatvitiy and disappointment.

I find that quite interesting given the massive box office numbers that are popping up, the favorable reviews on RT (90%+) and the average fan (like me) who gave up on ST a long time ago being excited for once.

As many of you know, I was very vocal about my cynicism towards this film. Was that justified. In my opinion, yes it was. For those of you who are unfamiliar with my review style, I break the following down into their own paragraphs and then rate each out of 100 and give an overrall mark. This time there will be two: One as a fan, and one as an 'average joe'.

No, I don't know. I've never heard of you or your site.

But only the fan review will be expanded upon. The 'average joe' will just get scores.

Plot
Casting/Execution
Sets
VFX
Soundtrack
Themes

Plot: Star Trek XI, as we all know, is a reboot of a 43 year old franchise. Star Trek needed a boost in popularity, a breath of fresh air, but a prequel was not good idea. Especially a prequel that would essentially make the last 43 years meaningless.

This right here proves that you are a goddamn moron. This isn't a prequel or anything in that regard. This is a reboot and takes place in an entirely different universe, it doesn't negate anything that came before, it is a separate continuity.

The plot for this film is contrived in the extreme. The idea that a singularity can threaten the galaxy is border-line ridiculous, and the idea that little red blobs of stuff can create a black hole to suck it up is ridiculous. Add to that, the fact that the two ships that go through it survive the trip makes the whole film irrelevant, since Plot Point A is improbable, Plot Point B is improbable and Plot Point C is impossible (since a singularity proceeds faster than light, the black hole would have to be extremely massive to 'suck it up', not to mention fast. Also, for a blackhole to be that effective, it would destroy the galaxy they are trying to save. Kind of makes it redundant).

Yes this is silly and no black holes don't work that way but who gives two shits? The science, the ships, the tech is all a background vehicle to help tell a story. I realize that fat nerds on the Internet are all about realistic science but shit science doesn't make a story worse unless the plot is already so bad it's distracting. And frankly if you bought into the "scientific realism" trash that Trek fans have been espousing since TOS, then you need your brain examined. Trek never had real science, it had pseudoscience.

Also, does anyone find it odd that the Romulan sun is the one that goes nova? A supernova takes years and years to develop and come to a head, and Romulus/Remus would be rendered uninhabitable long before the explosion (try centuries). Yet in Nemesis, (set in 2379), Romulus is perfectly habitable and the sun is normal.

No, because it wasn't a supernova. If it doesn't behave in that manner, then it isn't one but it's not a big deal because it's just back drop for the tale.

Now, assuming that a foreign agent was involved (trilithium, for instance), the Vulcan's would not have sufficient time to build a starship (on Vulcan) and get it to Romulus before the nova (see how long it took Amargosa in Generations). I also like it how the 'Red Matter' is just thrown in there, no explanation of what it does, how it works, and how it can create a blackhole without a sun. Trek has constantly been ridiculed for too much technobabble, but at least most of the time some background is given on the latest gizmo that will save (or ruin) the day... not so here.

Show...don't tell. There is no requirement to tell us how red matter works, where it comes from or how it's made. All that is required is that it works.

But let's assume for a moment that all of the above is possible (when it isn't), we go back in time to the year 2233 to the vessel USS Kelvin (same dimensions as the Enterprise, but twice the crew??? Remember, the Kelvin existed in the 'real' Trek universe). Already question marks are raised when a lightning storm develops and then turns into a blackhole. Out comes a massive Romulan vessel with weaponry light-years ahead of the Scimitar (which preceeded it by less than a decade)... speaking of which, that mining vessel certainly was well armed.

You do realize that this is a different universe, right. Obviously you don't because it's painfully obvious even to someone who has never seen the movie (me) that even if the timelines where different and not a totally different universe, that the timeliness diverged long before Nero showed up. And honestly, the size of the Kelvin is refreshing, Trek has long been plagued by minimalism.

I also like it how they shoot first and ask questions later (note: sarcasm will be prevelent). I also like how they have completely reinvented the stardate system in the real timeline: stardate 2233 means its the year 2233. It makes sense, and I would like it if the previous system hadn't been used for, oh, 43 years....

Different universe...I feel like I will be saying this a lot in the next decade.

Anyhoo, they proceed to blow the Kelvin up- for the fun of it, apparently- along with George Kirk, who amazingly is in Starfleet when previous Trek had shown that Kirk was the only one of his family to serve in the fleet. At least Kirk Snr gets a heroic sendoff. (And how is it that a ship as massive as the Kelvin doesn't destroy Nero when his ship gets rammed, but Spock's puny shuttle thing can at the end of the film )

Wait...wait, you bitch about this Trek being different but never noticed that in Trek, ramming has always been a powerful tactic? Or that according to backstage info Nero's ship was crippled by the attack and he spent a bunch of time in a Klingon prison because of it?

Anyway, 33 years later, we get some pretty decent character moments with Kirk and Spock in their childhood. Then we meet Uhura, Captain Pike (who I liked) and various assorted characters and move on to the Academy...

... sidetrack. Enterprise. Aside from the extreme hideousness of it, why is it being built planetside? Most starships are not designed for atmospheric flight, and the Enterprise is at least 800 meters long and grosses several hundred thousand tonnes (yes, to have a hangar that big, it would have to be bigger than 400, even though other shots show it to be a more reasonable 400). To move a rig that big would require tremendous power just getting it into orbit, not to mention the materials to withstand the pressure of an atmosphere would make it twice as heavy, which would require more power.... etc etc

Because it looks cool, why do we need another reason?

Back on topic: So eventually we get to Vulcan, where a Federation fleet comprising mostly of cadets and new ships (because apparently the bulk of the fleet was staging elsewhere for an ungiven reason) ( ) is destroyed, except the Enterprise. As we know, Vulcan gets destroyed when 'Red Matter' is planted into its core.

Sidetrack: ok, assume for the moment this red stuff is the real deal... why do you have to drill to the core? Why not just plant the thing in space and let the blackhole suck the planet up? Also, at the end of the film, we see a blackhole develop within seconds, but at Vulcan, it takes minutes.

Just does not make sense.

Don't look for consistency or realism from Trek, that's your problem.

After that, the film takes us to a very close Delta Vega (which is an ice planet, and not desert. Which is in the same system as Vulcan ((how else can Old Spock see Vulcan destroyed)) and not on the edge of Federation space as it was in "Where No One Has Gone Before") and we meet Scotty, an engineer who now eats far more than he drinks (no whiskey), and doesn't question that he can change the laws of physics (which he does).

Jee, you think Nero might have left a hologram for him to watch. Hence why it was outside.

We then use technobabble to get to a speeding Enterprise, use the same technobabble to get to Nero and, well, blow him up through... you guessed it: Technobabble. We then see Kirk offer to help Nero survive by saying that if he doesn't get help, he'll be destroyed. Nero refuses. Kirk than blows him up anyway... guess he didn't want the blackhole to get all the glory.

God, just writing that has made me mad again....

You've got way to much invested in Trek.

*cools down*
Anyhoo....

The plot was worse than any other film... I would rate it as bad as 'Spock's Brain' or 'Shades of Grey' or any generic DS9 episode. I would rather watch Broken Bow than sit through this story again. I would rather...

*cools down*

Hahaha! Honestly, the plot elements are no worse then Trek V, NEM or INS.

Moving on...

Thank fuck.

Casting: Casting was both good and bad in this film. Karl Urban as Bones was brilliant, and a thoroughly enjoyable experience watching him. Chris Pyne did a decent Kirk, but his performance didn't leap out. Zachary Quinto as Spock was also decent, but there were just moments in the film (a fault of the writing, not the performer) where I just couldn't picture Spock saying that. Scotty and Sulu were alright too, though the writing for Scotty was overdone (he was the 'comedic relief').

Yeah...cause in a different universe you should totally expect the characters to be the same. Though if you think Scotty wasn't comedic relief in TOS, then you need to watch it again.

Chekov, however.... they couldn't lather Koenig in drag/makeup and get him to perform? I mean, seriously... and what's with having to give a code to use the intercom? We never saw that before... and why wouldn't the computer (that can translate alien dialects) decipher his deplorable accent?

Why wouldn't you have a code to use the intercom? It's called basic security.

Uhura was also well done, though she seemed to suffer from Travis Mayweather syndrome... the 'token' minority, thrown in just to prove that the producers weren't discriminating.

That's why this Uhura could translate a tonne of different languages rather then sit on her ass with a q-tip in her ear...right?

Pike was well played, and Eric Bana did the best he could with his material, but Nero just came across as a generic bad guy, a villain for the sake of being a villain. Decent, but not fleshed out enough for my tastes.

Everything I've heard pegs Nero as a sympathetic villain and I trust the denizens of this forums opinion far more then some guy who signed up to cross-post a bitch fest.

Leonard Nimoy: cameo. What more needs to be said?

Is this a complaint, a favourite, what?

Execution: jerky camera movements in 'serious' 'dramatic' scenes (the bar, anyone, between Kirk and Pike?) was a turn off. Aside from that, excellent directing. Got some nice, good angles in many scenes. Prop and ship design was... unique. Great makeup though. Wonder who did it...

I bet you IMDB could tell you.

Sets: Ugh... Engineering looks like Pipe City. The bridge of the ugly Enterprise is equally ugly (nice window where the viewscreen should be btw). Nero's ship didn't look remotely Romulan (mind you, neither did the actors. Were they a pirate band or something?) The bar looked interesting, but aside from that, the sets were nothing to write home about. Adequate for their task, but really just plain and ordinary... and in some places, not remotely futuristic.

Nero's crew and appearance are explained in the prequel comic, maybe you should go read it. It sets up a fair bit and even shows you your favourite pet characters.

VFX: The only winner in this film. Best. Effects. I. Have. Ever. Seen. Ever. Ever Ever Ever.

Good.

Soundtrack: many of you may not know, but I am a musician. I study theory and composition; I don't play. I compose. I study. I learn. And as a fan of James Horner and Jerry Goldsmith- particularly of their contribution to (combined) 7 of the first 10 films- I am appalled at the soundtrack for this film.

That explains everything actually, you should have just posted that at the start and saved us the trouble of reading this.

For starters, there is little thematic material in the film. A theme appears to be present at the end for either the Enterprise or the characters, but is so mishandled you can't tell if it stands for one or the other or both. The action sequences are nothing but bombastic brass with some underscoring strings and a timpini/bass drum pounding away at random points. There is no suspense. The film opens with a mundane and lifeless brass, and when the title Star Trek appears, the timpani is given another bashing while the brass compete for both volume and measure.

And this is bad, how?

For Vulcan, the strings section plays chords as the planet disintergrates. No rythym. No theme. Just whole notes being played, getting progressively louder as the planet is destroyed. This would have been the perfect time for a majestic chior to come in. Even more fitting, a rendition/variation of Horner's beautiful Vulcan theme from TWOK or TSFS. Instead, we get a solemn treatment for a symbolic, mind-boggling act.

Why, because you say so?

If there was ever a time to symbolically connect with previous efforts of Trek, the music should have been it. The film should have opened with Alexander Courage's 'Space, the final frontier' (instead, the film ends with a borderline acceptable rendition of it)- and TWOK's version of it, with the solo harp and horn/trombone duet-, or Jerry Goldsmith's excellent fanfare (or a variation thereof). For the Enterprise, either Goldsmith or Horner's (preferably Horner's given, the dark theme of the film) theme from TMP or TWOK would have been good, a nice throwback to the previous generation.

I agree, it would be a nice a touch. Except Abrams made this for movie fans, not to satisfy your nerdgasm.

Better still, Horner or even Clif Eidelmen should have been given the job (Goldsmith died in 2004). They would have done a spectacular job on this film. Instead we get *insert name at later date* to do a Leonard Rosenman/Dennis McCarthy effort. Music with no style, no substance, no grace and no place in a science-fiction film- little lone a Star Trek film!

This is actually hideously ironic, given that for the last 20+ years of Trek it's had shite for music. TNG in later seasons had incredibly bland music.

Nice choir work though. Too bad you only see it at the end of the film.

Right...

Themes: Um, yes. Star Trek has normally managed to incorporate themes into its films to engage the audience. This film is lacking; no moral questions; no futuristic portrayals of current events. Just technobable. Indeed, did anyone notice the trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy was absent in this film? Friendship wasn't even a theme in this film. I suppose, if one wanted to clutch straws (and in this film, that's all you have to go on), you could say that destiny is a theme.

The film is supposed to explain how they came to be a crew and friends. Not show us a rehash of what we had in TOS. And frankly, you need to watch TOS again, there was morality, yes but it took a back seat to action and comedy. TOS didn't take it self seriously until the films.

So, move over The Final Frontier and The Motion Picture. You are removed from the Worst of Trek listings for movies. XI has taken that... honour...

Really, the numbers disagree with you. Face it, your upset because it didn't fulfil your fantasies. Abrams himself said that your type should just stay home because you wouldn't like it.

Everything that made Star Trek 'Star Trek' is noticably lacking in this film. We barely see space. We don't see much in the way of 'science fiction' or 'fantasy'. Instead, we get a slap in the face. We get a film made by non-believers and told its 'what we wanted'. Some of us like, some of us don't.

Star Trek, especially TOS was never about that, it was about coming together as a species, making things better, embracing technology and learning from our mistakes. Say it with me; "the setting is a venue to tell a story". You culd have set TOS in the Old West, Eastern Europe or Mars, it makes no difference.

Maybe on a second viewing I will be kinder to this film. But it will never, ever measure up to the likes of The Wrath of Khan (which was the first piece of Trek I ever saw) or The Undiscovered Country or First Contact, or Nemesis. Or any of the others. Never.

You have way to much invested in Trek, get a life.

Perhaps, instead of reinventing, they should have tried surpassing. Alternate timelines are the result of sloppy, lazy thinking, a way to 'reboot' something and start afresh.

Once again, the numbers disagree with you. But keep up that it's STINO, it's funny. Hey, at least Bones wasn't a chick!

Fan:
Plot: "Threshold" ridiculous, but with some decent touches. 25%
Casting/Execution: 75%
Sets: 50%
VFX: 100%
Soundtrack: Ugh. Yuck. Rosenman did better with IV, and that was mediocre. 25%
Themes: would have to be present to rate a score, wouldn't it? :0%

Overall: 45.83%

As I recall, when I previously scored TMP and TFF, there scores, respectively, were 48 and 53 percent.

Average Joe
Plot: 75% Even to a lay man (who my companions were, found some of it difficult to swallow)
Casting/Execution: 75%
Sets: One said the bridge was "corny": 75%
VFX: who couldn't be impressed by this: 100%
Soundtrack: One said they loved it, the other is tone deaf 66%
Themes: Even they couldn't find any 0%

Overall: 65.16%

Ok...

What I wanted from this film? I wanted a film with either Picard, Sisko or Janeway (preferably Picard or Janeway), or, failing that, a new set of characters altogether. I wanted it set post-Nemesis, with no time travel. I wanted to see my favorite classes: Galaxy, Sovereign, Akira, Nebula in it. I wanted to see tremendous action sequences- not the brief affairs in this film. I wanted to see wonderful character moments.

I wanted a James Horner soundtrack.

Haha, you wanted Janeway or PIcard? The same guys who the fans where tired of! The same character (Janeway) that helped sink the franchise? Whip together a fan project then, there's a tonne on the net. Maybe you can even get her to do a cameo.

"I dare you to do better."

Despite what I think, this film (with its 150 million dollar budget) is set to do extremely well in terms of money, making Star Trek XII all the more likely.

Congratulations, Mr. Abrams. You have just saved Star Trek.

But the cost was its soul.

What soul? Roddenberry created Trek to get rich and bang hot chicks, what does that tell you?

[Sionnach Glic]

Heh, and now Kendall gives you the "angry" version of my rebuttal.

Once again, I feel compelled to post this.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

In short: was there loads of BS in this? OF COURSE!!! Never mind the phrase "Star Trek;" it's a bloody action/Adventure sci-fi film! But, here's the kicker: I did not care when I was watching it! This is precisely the goal of makers of such movies: SOD. I watched a movie based on complete BS in many ways, and didn't give a flying shit because I was having so much fun watching it - I was so "into" the film. That signals to me that the film succeeded, that it really was well done.

The only possible way to criticize this film is from the truly anal Trek purist POV (which btw, killed trek as was elucidated above) - which is ALL I see there.

Was Checkov's accent overdone? Yes, I'll agree to that.

Otherwise, the characters were great IMO. Were they exactly the same characters we knew? Should they have been? After all, this film is precisely about how they came together and how they became the heroes they grew into.

Theme? Actually, I did fine one: how the characters in a broad sense, and more specifically, Kirk and Spock, came together. I thought it was a classic story of two men who couldn't work without the other, but needed to get over themselves before they realized it (if I explained that properly?).

Bottom line: I loved every minute of it.

-----

And, yes, those f/x were mind blowing!

[Aaron]

I don't often agree with Mike Wong on SDN but I think he said it best when he compared hardcore Trek fans to religious zealots, they just can't get past their precious canon. Comic fans are some of the most fanatical I've met but they manage to embrace reboots all the time, what is it about Trek? I think Fry from Futurama said it best:

Leela: You can't go to Omega 3. It's forbidden. I forbid you.
Fry: But we have to. The world needs Star Trek to give people hope for the future.
Leela: But it's set 800 years in the past.
Bender: Yeah, why is it so important you?
Fry: Because it... it taught me so much. Like, how you should accept people, whether they be black, white, Klingon or even female... But most importantly, when I had no friends, it made me feel like maybe I did.
Leela: Well, that is touchingly pathetic. I guess I can't let you go alone.
Bender: I guess I'll go too, with Leonard's permission.

[Sionnach Glic]

That's the problem with the hardcore fans. They seem to think that Trek must have some sort of Great Message to preach at us during the movie.
This movie was an action movie set in the Trekverse. There was no Great Message, and there shouldn't have been.

[Atekimogus]

And here was I, thinking Kirk banging a green alien chick from planet Orion was really just a great message of peaceful coexistance, universal love and tolerance.

But maybe it was a bit too subtle .

[Aaron]

Mmmm...green hottie.

[Nickswitz]

I never found odd colored species attractive, I find it more odd than anything, but I guess that's just me.

[Aaron]

I never found odd colored species attractive, I find it more odd than anything, but I guess that's just me.

It's just a novelty, considering their basically humans painted green.

[thelordharry]

Mmmm...green hottie.

Kendall and Princess Fiona, sittin' in a tree

[Aaron]