Star Trek discussion thread (spoilers)

[Martonimos]

Didn't see this one yet, so awaaaay we go!

I'll start out with the negatives.

1) What the hell is Red Matter? Where did it come from, how did Spock get so much of it, and how does it manage to become singularities when ignited?

2) Since when the hell are black holes magical time-travel devices? Even for Star Trek, that's a bit of a stretch. And why would the ships get transported through time, but Vulcan and the Romulan ship were just destroyed? If you're going to break the rules, at least break them consistently!

3) The big thing: setting it in an alternate timeline. I'm kind of on the fence about this; on the one hand, it paints a fairly dismal future for the normal Trek universe (which I will refer to as the Kirkverse), with Romulus destroyed and Spock stranded in the past. On the other hand, I can understand the need to re-invent the series, since Voyager and Enterprise had less-than-stellar receptions (although I liked them). And it's not like they've never done anything with alternate universes before.

Now that that's out of the way, the movie's positive points: EVERYTHING. This is definitely the best movie I've seen in recent memory, and, quite possibly, the best of the Trek series. Quinto did a great job as Spock, recalling Nimoy without replicating him. I was a little disappointed in Pine's Kirk, but considering the differences between his and Shatner's histories, it makes sense. The one that really struck me, though, was Karl Urban as Bones. He really took a lot of cues from the original actor; it was a great, smooth transition for the character. The only one who was disappointing was Chekov; he didn't really resemble the original character much in my eyes, not to slight the actor.

Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman did a great job with the script.

Spoiler

Why the hell couldn't they have done the same with Transformers? (Sorry, I know I keep ranting against that movie)

. The fistfights and firefights really helped evoke the older series for me, while the ship combat was as grandiose as ever.

Basically, aside from the three complaints I listed earlier, I can find nothing wrong with this movie. Well, there is one thing: the soundtrack was mostly original, drawing on nothing (that I recognized) from the older series. But that was made up for by the use of the original theme in the ending credits. "To boldly go where no one has gone before!"

 

[boop]

Didn't see this one yet, so awaaaay we go!

I'll start out with the negatives.

1) What the hell is Red Matter? Where did it come from, how did Spock get so much of it, and how does it manage to become singularities when ignited?

2) Since when the hell are black holes magical time-travel devices? Even for Star Trek, that's a bit of a stretch. And why would the ships get transported through time, but Vulcan and the Romulan ship were just destroyed? If you're going to break the rules, at least break them consistently!

The easiest way to explain these is: It's Star Trek. The science has always been iffy. This was no different. The ridiculous 'science' is part of its charm. As well as 'we have a badass weapon now, no need to explain too thoroughly.' Classic Star Trek.

3) The big thing: setting it in an alternate timeline. I'm kind of on the fence about this; on the one hand, it paints a fairly dismal future for the normal Trek universe (which I will refer to as the Kirkverse), with Romulus destroyed and Spock stranded in the past. On the other hand, I can understand the need to re-invent the series, since Voyager and Enterprise had less-than-stellar receptions (although I liked them). And it's not like they've never done anything with alternate universes before.

This is why Star Trek is perfect for a reboot. Changes to the core story can still be faithful to the source material because they can work with alternate realities and time travel. Since it is Star Trek, it works with the continuity of the original series, and no sane man will question it, less he incur the wrath of the Trekkies.

^Comments in bold^

Everything you said in praise of the film was spot on. Perfect Summer movie.

. . .Though I disagree on it being the 'best' of the series. For me, it is narrowly topped by Wrath of Khan.

I don't feel like rewriting my entire review, and condensing it to make it less of an eyesore. So if you'd like (but who would?) you can click below and read my review of Star Trek. (Shameless promotion FTW!)

 

[1337R34P3R]

a lot of the cornier things in the movie were added as a fan service, and to be true to the original series. red matter is something that was referenced much earlier in the franchise.

however, i must make note of two things

1. I'm pretty sure the enterprise is named after the US WWII Aircraft Carrier of the same name, but i'm not sure.

2. THERE WERE 4 WELL-KNOWN COMEDIANS IN THAT MOVIE! i was awed (in a good way). There was John Cho (American Pie and Sequels, Harold and Kumar and sequels) as Mr. Sulu, Kal Penn (House, MD [no longer on the show], Harold And Kumar, and National Lampoon's Van Wilder) as an extra on the bridge during the scene where Kirk is ordered away by Spock, Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and a lot of other hilarious british movies) as Scotty, and Tyler Perry (Tyler Perry's House of Payne, Diary of a Mad Black Woman) as the head of the Starfleet Academy board of directors.

 

[Shinx3000]

1) What the hell is Red Matter? Where did it come from, how did Spock get so much of it, and how does it manage to become singularities when ignited?

I was not sure what red matter was, but I was surprised that a tiny blob of it that size could be enough to stop a supernova star destroying everything.

2) Since when the hell are black holes magical time-travel devices? Even for Star Trek, that's a bit of a stretch. And why would the ships get transported through time, but Vulcan and the Romulan ship were just destroyed? If you're going to break the rules, at least break them consistently!

Nearest thing I have ever seen like this in Star Trek are quantum singularities.

This movie is why Star Trek could be revived. The people they got to play the younger characters actually looked like the younger characters, like the guy who played Spock actually looked very much like a younger Spock.

Is that how bones got his nickname because he said "All I got left is my bones"?

3) The big thing: setting it in an alternate timeline. I'm kind of on the fence about this; on the one hand, it paints a fairly dismal future for the normal Trek universe (which I will refer to as the Kirkverse), with Romulus destroyed and Spock stranded in the past. On the other hand, I can understand the need to re-invent the series, since Voyager and Enterprise had less-than-stellar receptions (although I liked them). And it's not like they've never done anything with alternate universes before.

Well, at least they did not do what Star Trek Enterprise did in the last few episodes. Have the show see an alternate timeline with "Flagship Enterprise" and them seeing the future "Defiant" ship from another timeline and steal it, then suddenly jump to the Enterprise where Riker has something on his mind and we end up seeing a holodeck playing of how Archers speech to start the federation went. What was up with that anyway?

As for the name "Enterprise" It says this on wikipedia about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Enterprise

The name Enterprise comes from a long series of ships. The first was the French frigate L'Entreprise, captured by the British in 1705. The British rechristened the ship HMS Enterprise for use by the Royal Navy. A further nine Royal Navy commissioned warships carried the name "Enterprise". The first United States ship to use the name USS Enterprise was a Revolutionary War-era sloop-of-war. The eighth American ship to bear this name was the world's first nuclear aircraft carrier. The term USS is used in the United States Navy to designate its sea-going vessels and is an acronym for "United States Ship".

If anything, I might actually like to see a new series of Star Trek if the movie timeline was used, since its alternate anyway. Best movie I have seen in a long time. Did not realise that was Simon Pegg as Scotty, but I knew I saw him before!

Just wondering if anyone else thought that the villan, Nero was a bit similar to the villan in Star trek Nemesis? Or that there was slight similarities to how they did both villans?

 

[1337R34P3R]

note to self: re-watch sean of the dead.

 

[Martonimos]

red matter is something that was referenced much earlier in the franchise.

I dunno about that. I looked it up on Memory Alpha, and it said Red Matter's only prior appearance was in the prequel comic. So it's basically a new creation for this movie.

Well, at least they did not do what Star Trek Enterprise did in the last few episodes. Have the show see an alternate timeline with "Flagship Enterprise" and them seeing the future "Defiant" ship from another timeline and steal it, then suddenly jump to the Enterprise where Riker has something on his mind and we end up seeing a holodeck playing of how Archers speech to start the federation went. What was up with that anyway?

The first thing you mention was the Mirror Universe, which has been a recurring Star Trek theme since the original series. That last one, I think was the series finale, which just pissed everybody off. Enterprise wasn't really given a chance to come into its own.

 

[The Big Al]

Abrams has a thing for red stuff.

This was a great movie. It's really what this franchise needed. Nero's motivations weren't solid, but it was clear he wasn't meant to be a being of logic.

 

[Shinx3000]

The first thing you mention was the Mirror Universe, which has been a recurring Star Trek theme since the original series. That last one, I think was the series finale, which just pissed everybody off. Enterprise wasn't really given a chance to come into its own.

Yeah it was the mirror universe I was talking about, but where did it come from? it seems they stuck that in out of nowhere or something after the Xindi trying to alter Earths history in WW2 and before the Riker episode (the last one).

The red matter, even if it was farfetched that a tiny molicule that size could stop a supernova destroying everything, looked pretty cool.

I liked the way McCoy gave Kirk that virus to get him on Enterprise. The numb tongue and swollen hands were funny.

In various episodes of Star Trek I have heard the reference "Kobiashy Maru" (Sp?) but never understood what it was until this episode. I remember once Tuvok saying "one day you may experience your own personal Kobiashy Maru" or something to that affect.

 

[DCM]

The machine gave off black smoke
Therefore in the future our giant drills are coal powered.

I loved that movie. Really. It rivaled the first time I watched star wars

 

[Jukain]

I think the Kobayashi Maru was first featured in The Wrath of Khan, and has been a part of Star Trek lore since. The name is Japanese and essentially means "little wooden ship". This movie essentially showed us what was explained in Khan that Kirk reprogrammed the simulator to make it possible to rescue the ship.

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and if you are a fan of old Trek, then you will not be disappointed. Compared to the old movies that I have seen, I agree, it is just under Wrath of Khan. Mind you, I haven't seen all the movies, just 1, 2, 4, Generations, and First Contact (that I remember anyway. I saw 5 and 6 once upon a time, but I do not clearly remember everything about them)

 

[Martonimos]

You're not missing much. 3, 9, and 10 were kind of forgettable, 5 was downright rotten, 6 was good, but not as good as 4 or 8. These are all my opinions, of course.

 

[Martonimos]

Apologies for the double post, but I remembered something when I went to see it again today. The light often reflected off what appeared to be the lens of the camera, making some of the scenes hard to see (mostly on the bridge; maybe it was supposed to be a glass screen or something). Was that a stylistic choice? If so, it was a pretty weird one. But nothing near a deal-breaker.

 

[boop]

Apologies for the double post, but I remembered something when I went to see it again today. The light often reflected off what appeared to be the lens of the camera, making some of the scenes hard to see (mostly on the bridge; maybe it was supposed to be a glass screen or something). Was that a stylistic choice? If so, it was a pretty weird one. But nothing near a deal-breaker.

I didn't notice anything, but if it is there I'm sure it was a stylistic choice. Mega-budget films like Star Trek almost never have problems like that, and if they do, they aren't a problem but an artistic choice.

 

[Shinx3000]

Apologies for the double post, but I remembered something when I went to see it again today. The light often reflected off what appeared to be the lens of the camera, making some of the scenes hard to see (mostly on the bridge; maybe it was supposed to be a glass screen or something). Was that a stylistic choice? If so, it was a pretty weird one. But nothing near a deal-breaker.

I think this was because the bridge and some areas were very white looking and its kinda hard not to have lights shine back of a white surface like those.