×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Reviews: Star Trek

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the i-finally-got-to-expense-a-movie dept.

544

On these pages, admitting that you are a Trekkie is not a mark of shame; it's more like admitting that you are a carbon-based life form, which is true of almost all of us. I watch every movie. I've seen every episode of every series. And as my wife will tell you, I scream "F*** you Rick Berman!' during the credits every time I see it. So when JJ Abrams got a crack at a reboot, I was hopeful. The short review is that I liked it. Keep reading; I'll keep the spoilers down to a minimum. (Continued below.)

The movie is a total reboot. And yes, it features time travel. While normally this is a giant red flag, in this case I don't think it's too bad. Especially when you want to make giant, universe-altering changes without pissing off the continuity nerds.

Star Trek starts off with a big action sequence that holds no surprises. You'll immediately notice a few dramatic stylistic changes in the camera work. This movie owes more to the pseudo-documentary style of Firefly or BSG than the traditional pristine look of the last few decades of Trek. Space is pretty silent (although it somehow gets noisier as the movie continues), and they even do the cool thing of making sure that everything in space doesn't share the same Z-axis. Minor, but I love it. The intro ends with an emotional note that resonates strongly; it could have been cheesy but it works. So, they reboot the universe. We get some Kirk/Spock back story, and some brief moments at the academy. Wacky events occur, leaving most of our familiar characters aboard the Enterprise. We witness each of them rise to their known rank and positions. It's all very wink-wink. Occasionally a bit overly cutesy, but ultimately fun. I found the scoring a little weak (Abrams uses the same composer for everything), but many of the sound effects echo the original sources. The effects are just great: I would expect nothing less than perfect, and I got it. I particularly liked the Vulcan architecture. Yes, the new bridge looks like an Apple Store, but the glass and white looks modern. It might not age that well, but it's cool. The costumes look forward and backward at the same time. We have mini-skirts on the bridge and familiar color coding. It all works. The Enterprise itself feels HUGE inside. Engineering isn't just a room with a console; it's massive. It has weight. I love it.

I'm not going to go into the story. It's convoluted, but frankly it's really not the key to this movie: this is a roller coaster movie with new actors playing parts we love.

So, let's talk about the most important thing: the characters. They basically nailed everyone. Uhura and Bones are used a lot in the early bits. Chekov and Sulu each have a few nice moments. Scotty shows up late in the game and steals almost every scene he is in. But as the movie goes on, it becomes almost entirely Kirk and Spock, which really is how it should be.

More so than anyone else, Kirk is an impression. But ya know what? I buy it. The Kirk we knew is older. This one is younger with bigger balls and swagger. This kid will chase the skirt instead of just knowing she will come to him. I could certainly see someone thinking they took Kirk too far, but I buy it. He has charisma and some great lines.

Quinto's Spock is great. I resisted the urge to make Sylar jokes (mostly). He's reserved, subtle, and when the need arises, emotional. It works. He's the best casting in the film. Since Nimoy gets to reprise old Spock, we're given the ability to stack the two Spocks up right against each other. And it's just great. I totally buy it.

Eric Bana is the big bad. He seems almost totally superfluous. He does just fine, but I just don't care either way. This movie is about our heroes. Bana's Nero could have been a robot or an entity or whatever. He's a plot device used to press the universe reboot button, and to give us a ticking clock.

Two of the "humorous" sequences go a bit far. You'll know them when you see them. It's like they were inserted to keep 12-year-olds giggling. I expect this in a Disney film, but I wish I didn't see them here. Another action sequence in the middle serves no purpose except letting us have a giant monster chase Kirk. Abrams probably wanted to toss some work to his Cloverfield monster-making buddy.

But here's the thing: Star Trek is entertaining. It has problems, of course. It won't make everyone happy. But by the time Scotty gets into the story, there are so many moments of unbridled joy that you can't help but feel giddy. I don't know if Abrams will stick around or if this cast will be back for more, but if they are, I know I'll be in the theater again. And you should be there too. Now. You're a carbon-based life form who reads Slashdot. You owe it to yourself.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

544 comments

Onion News Network Coverage (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879429)

The Onion News Network has an informative brief piece on this entitled Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable' [theonion.com].

Re:Onion News Network Coverage (5, Funny)

Cpt_Kirks (37296) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880161)

I am seeing it in 50 minutes. Why am I, like a dumbass, even looking at this thread? I managed to close my eyes and post. Thank Dog for tuoch tpying@

Re:Onion News Network Coverage (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27880385)

It's Trekker. TREKKER fuckin trekkie wtf

Good, but (4, Interesting)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879455)

This movie was definitely the best (least cheezy) movie made from the star trek franchise. That being said, I have a few qualms:

1. The villain was lame. He was a nobody with stupid motivation. Could it happen? I suppose... but come on! Such small fish. (Forgive me, I'm just looking for a deeper plot.. not just a crappy summer action flick.

2. I prefer TNG over TOS for a few reasons: Kirk is clearly an action-based fly by the seat of his pants type guy. Makes for a great action movie like this. But please please please don't forget we're watching Star Trek for the philosophical questions that arise as well in the star trek universe. I loved Picard because he was the opposite. He drank hot tea on a regular basis. He thought about things, and thusly, I thought about things. Remember: We're not watching star wars, we're watching star trek here...

3.There was a moment when young spock had kirk by the neck. I seriously expected him to slice open kirk's head with his finger.

All in all, I loved this movie, and anxiously await the next in this version of the franchise, but please please please don't forget the parts of star treck that make it so awesome (and not star wars), and balance it well with action!

Re:Good, but (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879589)

Eh, I'll go to see it simply because they have the Aptera 2e [wired.com] make a brief cameo in the background about half an hour into the movie (reportedly, it's with Kirk and McCoy on the steps at the Academy with the Golden Gate in the background).

Re:Good, but (0, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879751)

They used Cal State Northridge's Oviatt Library [trekmovie.com] in some academy scenes (though obviously the water and the golden gate bridge aren't there in real life ^_^).

I mention this because I had my dick sucked in that library. The isolated study booths on the third floor are a good place for that, provided you tape a newspaper over the window. You can thank me later :)

Re:Good, but (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27879853)

I call bullshit.

Re:Good, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27880025)

Oh yeah? Well how about this - see on the underside of the library stairs where people are entering? I don't remember if it's the left side or the right side but one of those entrances has a womens' restroom with a room inside.

That room-within-a-restroom has a couple of benches where women on their periods can lay back and chill for a bit. It's also a good place to have sex, but I chickened out after the woman I was seeing snuck me in. Regrets, regrets. You should really check it out sometime if you're in the area.

Though CSUN isn't really a nerd's university, it's more tailored towards minorities and the handicapped.

Re:Good, but (5, Insightful)

rossifer (581396) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879605)

3.There was a moment when young spock had kirk by the neck. I seriously expected him to slice open kirk's head with his finger.

And the reviewer loses a geek point by not knowing how to spell "Sylar".

Re:Good, but (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879647)

I'm sorry, what?

Re:Good, but (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879673)

Scratch that, you're talking about taco, not me.

Re:Good, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27880183)

Scratch that, you're talking about taco, not me.

If he was talking about you, would you then ask for some cheese to go with that whine?

2. is exactly the opposite for me (3, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879819)

Kirk would break the rules if they needed to be broken and was willing to admit when humanity was the less advanced, the less civilized. Granted, a lot of this was in later material but still.

Picard on the other hand was always right and the rules were everything. Also intresting to note, Spock/Vulcans were in many ways the superior race in TOS. This was comepletly lost in TNG. All human with only a half human and a human robot thrown in. Lesser racial mix with it being very clear that all the TNG crew was from north america or europe.

No, TNG was TOS-light.

Re:Good, but (2, Funny)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879979)

... Kirk is clearly an action-based fly by the seat of his pants type guy. Makes for a great action movie like this. But please please please don't forget we're watching Star Trek for the philosophical questions that arise as well in the star trek universe.

      Oh dear God, you look to "Wagon Train in Space" for philosophical insight? I guess this explains all we need to know about our little group here. Or am I just missing the joke?

        Brett

Re:Good, but (5, Informative)

Yokaze (70883) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880085)

SPOILER ALERT:

> This movie was definitely the best (least cheezy) movie made from the star trek franchise.

Well... It starts of with Kirk being born to his mother on a space-ship, which is steered single-handedly by his father Kamikaze style into the enemy, in order to save everyone. How much more cheesy can it get? Before the opening credits?

Oh, I know it. Take a Spock, who gets emotional, every time someone mentions his parents in some agitating way (3 times in 3, IRC).

And it ends with the Enterprise firing all weapons on an enemy, who is already being consumed by a black hole.

That's the Star Trek way, kick the opponent, when he already lies on the ground.

Don't get me wrong, I think they got a great cast. Quinto as Spock was especially great. But simply, the plot had as many holes as a Swiss cheese, and didn't fit the original Star Trek at all.

Re:Good, but (1)

prograde (1425683) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880279)

Now that you've read the above, go watch The Onion News story (linked to further above). That is all.

Re:Good, but (5, Interesting)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880323)

This movie was definitely the best (least cheezy) movie made from the star trek franchise. That being said, I have a few qualms

Bah, turn in your geek card. Now. Yes, the story is a bit convoluted, but I think a lot of that is necessary for the reboot they wanted to accomplish. There is a lot of story telling in there, but it's sprinkled around and not played up in most parts. If you're looking carefully, you see it in several spots.

Maybe I was just not distracted because I haven't seen a lot of the other shows that these actors played in, thus I was not experiencing the "Agent Smith" phenomenon.

I thought Spock was well done, very much in line with what I remember of Spock from TOS, Vulcan with enough Human in him to drive him in ways other Vulcans could never grasp. Kirk was very much a young bulldog just coming into his prime, full of testosterone and bravado, but with enough brains to see what no one else seemed to be able to.

This doesn't tear apart the foundations of Star Trek so much as it sweeps aside most everything built on those foundations: Honor, fear in the face of death, duty in the face of insurmountable odds, there is no such thing as a "no win" solution--those are still there. Even when beings die by the planet-load (Hopefully that's not too much of a spoiler), all is not lost and with perseverance, the good guys can still win and the universe can still be saved.

=Smidge=

Singularity? (0, Troll)

Sybert42 (1309493) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879473)

Going to see this soon. How does it address the Singularity?

Re:Singularity? (1)

kwalker (1383) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879931)

Instrumental plot device, but otherwise not really explained. It just is.

Re:Singularity? (1)

Sybert42 (1309493) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879957)

So is it the more mild transhumanism, or the heavier general AI?

Re:Singularity? (2, Insightful)

vertinox (846076) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880185)

So is it the more mild transhumanism, or the heavier general AI?

From my understanding, Star Trek's interpretation of end result of transhumanism/singularity is the Borg.

As reasons why the Federation does not implement such technology is really up for debate. Of course I have not seen the new movie yet so I cannot say whether or not this addresses such an issue.

Or for that matter, explain why the Borg don't just sent a cube back in time to blow up earth during the time of the dinosaurs or something reasonable like that.

I mean if they thought Earth was a threat enough to sent a cube to destroy it in present time that warped back in time after it had been weakened, why not just sent a cube back before the federation was really around.

Unless its one of those Terminator plots where the Federation is really the source of the Borg... So they had to sent the cube back knowing it would be destroyed in order for some borg piece to be around so that they are created sometimes in the future.

Gawd.

Re:Singularity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27880155)

Are you actually Kurzweil or just some random singularity troll? You've barely made a single post on Slashdot that hasn't been about it. Get over it, nobody cares about your soft sci-fi plot devices.

Fans are disconnected (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879481)

I'm not going to go into the story: it's convoluted, but frankly its really not the key to this movie: this is a roller coaster movie with new actors playing parts we love.

Can someone please explain to me how this is NOT a failure?

Star Trek was always known for its strong story telling. Sure, it was sometimes campy and over the top. But the series was built on story. The action was just the frosting.

That was something that Berman never realized. He kept playing down the story in exchange for more action, more outlandish events, more of that adrenaline squeeze. Except that he was bad at it. I mean, really, really bad. Stinking up the screen bad. (Hey look: MACOs! Amazing how those guys never got any screen time, isn't it? Or how about the time Riker used a joystick to save the day? I know, let's have Picard fight himself! Or put 7 of 9 in a fight pit with a WWE wrestler! Yeah, those were great times. *cough*)

Now you're telling me that JJ doesn't suck at it. Therefore it's okay to finish tearing apart the foundations of Star Trek because at least it was a fun ride. Right?

Star Trek stood on its own two feet for 40 years. It was challenged by the networks, challenged by the box office, and challenged by its own actors. Yet the concept survived and is cherished by its fans. The core idea of a better future painted on the rich tapestry of space travel is not something to be ignored. It's something to protect, grow, and find ways to adapt to the changing times. After all, is there any better time to shout out this message than when things seem the darkest?

Instead we have a summer blockbuster. And like all summer blockbusters, it will be forgotten by next summer. It is a sad day for Roddenberry's vision of the future.

Re:Fans are disconnected (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879609)

I know, let's have Picard fight himself!

You enjoyed that one, huh? You're right, it was cheesy. We need the original riveting Star Trek fight scene [youtube.com] where our hero manages to put commas not only in his dialogue but also his attacks ... against a man in a rubber lizard suit.

Trek fans are hilarious. They are even more hilarious when they turn on each other.

It's a movie, relax. If you didn't like the "modernized plot" they opted for, don't watch it. If you would rather watch a journey through space, watch a journey through space. Today's movies are made to target the largest cross section of audience to maximize income. You certainly won't find me watch Star Wars 1-3 anytime soon because of this.

Re:Fans are disconnected And should be... (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880303)

Unless they accept this as a BSG-esque re-envisioning of ST as was done with Battlestar Galactica.

This Trek movie features an Uhura-Spock relationship NO other episode of Trek i know of refers to.

Kirk served on Farragut, and did not simply get medevaced by a friend doctor/physician and ascend to command. This kirk might have been from Mirror, Mirror. So...

As i stated in my yesterday journal about this (yeh, i got lucky last Saturday and 5 friends along with me at a bar got 5 tickets (one each) to see it):

"Canon is Canon, so, i personally consider this Trek movie as an alternate universe event, similar to Trek's "Mirror, Mirror", and Deep Space Nine's "In a Mirror, Darkly"...."

Kirk's fathers' ship, and this new Enterprise featured a stunning weapons array unlike any in most other Trek episodes/films, so this was just some grab/reach for special WOW effects.

Annoyingly, the engineroom looked and felt more like an industrial cracking facility. At least we got to see beams, pillars, columns/stancions and more. But, the waterpipe swim was kinda lame, and by all rights should have been fatal if not injurious.

Nothing in the canon Trek suggests nor directly fits some of the Kirk-Spock events on the bridge. Sulu from the time we've known of him, had NO deficiencies in his helmsmanship of the Enterprise, so i was mildly torqued that he would commit the error they put in the film.

The transporter capabilities were well ahead of the canon TOS tech, and to me, everything IN this movie says, "ALTERNATE TIMELINE! ALTERNATE TIMELINE". Not that that is bad, it's just devious or subterfuge to foist it on the existing and new fans to fill seats.

I won't spoil the details around Vulcan and Romulus, but canon Trek episodes i recall say NOTHING about what happened in this movie. I don't care what novels say, and don't consider them canon unless they fit with episodes or don't introduce convoluted/inexplicable anomalies.

The pace of the film was too damned fast. That i saw it in imax was not impressive in the least mainly because i was in front row, seat 4 from left, and felt like a turtle or worm, neck swiveling to and fro to see things. imax and theatre designers are pretty stupid to insist on inserting "revenue-generating" seats that close to the screen. New screen geometry is needed, or ripping out the super-close seats is called for. I *might* go back an pay to watch this movie, but will wait for a few more days for things to thin out so i can almost guarantee myself a good, center seat.

But, since i *did* like the film as i'd almost immediately told myself "ALternate UniWerse", it was watchable. Hard-core Trek fans will probably seethe, hiss, and feel let down. Probably...

Re:Fans are disconnected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27879671)

Just go see it. The plot device they use to explain the 'reboot' is somewhat convoluted (time travel is involved, as he said), but is straight forward and seamlessly explains why the characters in this movie, while being very familiar, are NOT going to be exactly the ones from TOS. That being said, they are GOOD characters capable of standing on their own from the ones that inspired them. I fully endorse the track the Abrams took to make this movie successful, and I fully expect to see more of it.

Re:Fans are disconnected (2, Insightful)

leamanc (961376) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880375)

The plot device they use to explain the 'reboot' is somewhat convoluted...but is straight forward

Please explain how something can be both convoluted and straightforward. If that's what we've got to look forward to with this movie, I think I'll wait for the $1 DVD rental at Redbox.

Re:Fans are disconnected (0, Redundant)

bignetbuy (1105123) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879679)

Quoted in its entirety for being so damned spot-on...

I'm not going to go into the story: it's convoluted, but frankly its really not the key to this movie: this is a roller coaster movie with new actors playing parts we love.

Can someone please explain to me how this is NOT a failure?

Star Trek was always known for its strong story telling. Sure, it was sometimes campy and over the top. But the series was built on story. The action was just the frosting.

That was something that Berman never realized. He kept playing down the story in exchange for more action, more outlandish events, more of that adrenaline squeeze. Except that he was bad at it. I mean, really, really bad. Stinking up the screen bad. (Hey look: MACOs! Amazing how those guys never got any screen time, isn't it? Or how about the time Riker used a joystick to save the day? I know, let's have Picard fight himself! Or put 7 of 9 in a fight pit with a WWE wrestler! Yeah, those were great times. *cough*)

Now you're telling me that JJ doesn't suck at it. Therefore it's okay to finish tearing apart the foundations of Star Trek because at least it was a fun ride. Right?

Star Trek stood on its own two feet for 40 years. It was challenged by the networks, challenged by the box office, and challenged by its own actors. Yet the concept survived and is cherished by its fans. The core idea of a better future painted on the rich tapestry of space travel is not something to be ignored. It's something to protect, grow, and find ways to adapt to the changing times. After all, is there any better time to shout out this message than when things seem the darkest?

Instead we have a summer blockbuster. And like all summer blockbusters, it will be forgotten by next summer. It is a sad day for Roddenberry's vision of the future.

Please save our franchise. Are you available to direct the next Star Trek movie???????????

Re:Fans are disconnected (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27879847)

Therefore it's okay to finish tearing apart the foundations of Star Trek because at least it was a fun ride. Right?

Right. It was a goddamn TV show and some movies. Who cares beyond that? I have never understood fanboyism and as far as I'm concerned it's a mental illness.

Yet the concept survived and is cherished by its fans. The core idea of a better future painted on the rich tapestry of space travel is not something to be ignored. It's something to protect, grow, and find ways to adapt to the changing times. After all, is there any better time to shout out this message than when things seem the darkest?

Do you have any idea what an utter prat you sound like? Grow up.

Re:Fans are disconnected (3, Insightful)

kwalker (1383) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879903)

The story is a bit convoluted, but I think a lot of that is necessary for the reboot they wanted to accomplish. There is a lot of story telling in there, but it's sprinkled around and not played up in most parts. If you're looking carefully, you see it in several spots.

Maybe I was just not distracted because I haven't seen a lot of the other shows that these actors played in, thus I was not experiencing the "Agent Smith" phenomenon.

I thought Spock was well done, very much in line with what I remember of Spock from TOS, Vulcan with enough Human in him to drive him in ways other Vulcans could never grasp. Kirk was very much a young bulldog just coming into his prime, full of testosterone and bravado, but with enough brains to see what no one else seemed to be able to.

This doesn't tear apart the foundations of Star Trek so much as it sweeps aside most everything built on those foundations: Honor, fear in the face of death, duty in the face of insurmountable odds, there is no such thing as a "no win" solution--those are still there. Even when beings die by the planet-load (Hopefully that's not too much of a spoiler), all is not lost and with perseverance, the good guys can still win and the universe can still be saved.

Re:Fans are disconnected (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880131)

This doesn't tear apart the foundations of Star Trek so much as it sweeps aside most everything built on those foundations: Honor, fear in the face of death, duty in the face of insurmountable odds, there is no such thing as a "no win" solution--those are still there.

??????

How can "they" still be there if they are swept away?

Re:Fans are disconnected (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880381)

> Maybe I was just not distracted because I haven't seen a lot of the other shows that these actors played in, thus I was not experiencing the "Agent Smith" phenomenon.

Now you're disillusioning me. I always thought that after Neo kicked Agent Smith in the 3rd Matrix movie, instead of falling into the Rabbit (Red Pill) Hole, he fell into the Hobbit Hole, and wound up on Middle Earth.

Re:Fans are disconnected (1)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880133)

Excellent points, all of which could be said of other franchises which are being milked (Doctor Who being an obvious example). The story is being sacrificed for the flash-bang effects.

I also question some of the attitudes towards the little story telling there is in modern SciFi. I'm sure that if "Eastenders In Space" was actually what people wanted to see, there'd be a story of London getting blasted into space.

Given that there is no evidence of London (or, indeed, the Rover's Return, Emmerdale, or any other soap location) getting the Space: 1999 treatment, I would argue that there is actually no demand for Soap In Space, that what people actually want IS the mix of science and philosophy that makes the genre unique.

(The other argument for the modern style is that audiences aren't interested in plot or motivation, they're there for T & A. This is doubtless why Eldorado, a soap that had nothing else, was a complete flop with lower ratings than the BBC2 test card.)

Re:Fans are disconnected (3, Insightful)

drachenfyre (550754) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880163)

I'm not going to go into the story: it's convoluted, but frankly its really not the key to this movie: this is a roller coaster movie with new actors playing parts we love.

Can someone please explain to me how this is NOT a failure?

Because the reviewer got it wrong. The villain story is convoluted. The true story in this film is how the Enterprise crew was put together (or put back together due to the Alternate timeline). Nero is only there as a driving force behind the crew getting together. This is a film like Star Trek IV. It's not about villains, it's about the characters themselves.

Re:Fans are disconnected (2, Insightful)

deathtopaulw (1032050) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880237)

A real fan finally? My god I thought we'd died out. Nothing has irritated me more than the hype around this movie. What happened to the fans? Star Trek was basically always a short-story medium akin to The Twilight Zone. The plots of its episodes revolving around odd bleeding-edge hypotheses from theoretical physics, and stretches of human imagination. The themes included the nature of consciousness, musings on what could possibly exist beyond our limited scope, and thoughts on war now and in the future.

This is a summer action flick. This is worthless. This is not Star Trek. JJ Abrams is a moron on a level I have never observed before. Lost is not quality storytelling. Lost is an endless sea of twists and convolution. The man should never have been allowed near the franchise. What's more depressing though, is that everyone seems to have jumped ship... or never understood to begin with.

Re:Fans are disconnected (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880239)

I can't explain why yet,

but the first half of the movie felt great. ("10")
The last half was okay. ("7")

I think there were a lot of character bits in the first half (including seeing the fabled "K" test.)

This kirk, being younger is a lot brasher and less of the seasoned man we will see by the time he is 35.

It really bugged me that Cameron was Kirk's dad. I wish it had been some other random actress. I found her much more jarring than Sylar.

A lot of the last half just seemed too implausible. it was implausibility piled on implausibility. some things were just kinda dumb (why not take security guys on the boarding mission?)

Glad I saw it- had a lot of fun the first hour and I'm not upset at the last hour--- but from this point, it almost might as well not be star trek. it's just a way for a big corporation to get money. And $15 for a movie is a bit much.

Re:Fans are disconnected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27880331)

Wow. I like how one line of a review from some random guy was enough for you to launch into a mouth-foaming diatribe. Been holding onto that one for a while now huh?

Re:Fans are disconnected (2, Interesting)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880335)

So, you are saying this is BETTER or WORSE than Nemesis? Because honestly, if it is even a LITTLE bit better, then this is a win for the franchise and fans everywhere because that turd they called Nemesis was an embarrassment to TNG and everything Star Trek should be.

Regardless of how this is viewed by the huge, ridiculous, hardcore star trek robo-nerds, this is a welcome reboot to keep Trek alive. Don't kid yourselves: if this movie tanks, then Trek is dead forever. So you better pray this does VERY well and makes 100's of millions so Paramount doesn't declare it dead forever.

Honestly though, I'd love for a new series to come out that follows the normal progression of other ST series (I.E. Jump ahead X number of years in the canon timeline and go from there...Enterprise J they showed in the time travel scene in Enterprise's 3rd season anyone?). Other than that, they can do all the blockbuster action flicks they want, as long as they make $ and are worth my $10 to actually go and see in the theater. And from what I can gather, that is exactly what this film is.

I am a huge Trek fan, and sure I would have loved to see another TNG-cast film that follows Roddenberry's dream exactly. But that just isn;t what the franchise needed. It did not need another niche film that only appealed to about the 3 million HARDCORE Star Trek fans. They needed something moms and dads and people who don't normally care could get behind. And that is this film.

Re:Fans are disconnected (1)

Guil Rarey (306566) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880343)

A piece of standard 25th century technology - the communicator - is sitting in your wallet, or, if you're geek enough, clipped to your belt. It doesn't have enough power to pump a signal to LEO...YET.... so the only golly-gee technology in that sucker is...the battery.

The politics gets dated, the style gets dated - what were passionate issues in the 60's don't translate so well to the opening years of the 21st century.

The reboot was necessary - if you want to tell tales about Kirk and Spock and keep telling new stories aobut the voyages of Enterprise and NOT have every character turn into Wesley Crusher - you're gonna have to allow some creative leeway to back up, refocus on the essential elements of what makes Star Trek worth watching, and begin again.

Wrath of Khan was the best of the movies by far because the emotions of the characters were so complexly developed.

I could've lived without the product placements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27879491)

But otherwise a fairly enjoyable movie that even goes out of its way to make it clear it's an alternate reality.

I first read that as... (0)

StCredZero (169093) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879493)

And my wife will tell you, I scream 'F*** you Rick Berman!'

I first read that as, "My wife will scream, 'I F*** you Rick Berman!'"

Screw the MPAA (5, Funny)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879535)

Screw the MPAA! I have ideals!

...

OMG Star Trek movie!

Singularity? (1)

Sybert42 (1309493) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879707)

For "Transcendent Man", overwhelming Singularity-related ethical concerns means it has to be "pirated". This, not so much.

One annoying problem (2, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879543)

That strange Moe-Stooge-haired dude had pointy ears. Why didn't casting QA catch that?

Mike Tyson didn't quite get it . . . (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879999)

That strange Moe-Stooge-haired dude had pointy ears.

Moe Stooge did have pointy ears . . . until Curly bit them off.

He gave Moe fair warning, though, by first barking repeatedly, and then shouting, "Oh? A wise guy, eh?"

Tyson had the ear biting down, put couldn't master the barking.

Silar? (1)

agnosticanarch (105861) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879597)

Is misspelling it a part of the joke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylar

Re:Silar? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880217)

Even worse, "Nemoy" instead of Nimoy.
With that level of attention to details, let's just be happy that HE didn't direct the new Trek Flick.

Nerd Circle Jerk Detected (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27879635)

May the force be with you.

Comparison (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27879653)

Star Wars is better. In a space battle, a squadron of X-Wings would kick the Enterprise's ass every time.

Holy Colons Batman (5, Funny)

RManning (544016) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879695)

There are 16 colons in that review! 16! At least eight of them should be periods, another six should be hyphens. I'll give him two. :)

Not to be a grammar Nazi, but man that's distracting.

Re:Holy Colons Batman (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27879857)

I don't know: what you are talking about.

Re:Holy Colons Batman (1)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880231)

Not to be a grammar Nazi, but

Brrzzzzt! You cannot complain about semi-colons -- and COUNT THEM -- then claim not to be a Grammar Nazi.

Wave your Freak Flag high, brother!

By the way, the "g" of "grammar Nazi" must be capitalized.

C+, says I. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27879705)

Spoilers ahead!

So much bugged me about the movie. The kobayashi maru scene was too over the top. Why advertise that you're cheating?
Why would *ambassador* Spock be flying that ship?
How could a sun going nova threaten the *galaxy*?
What happend to these black holes afterwards?
Why didn't the federation use that 25 year gap to attack the Romulans or at least ask WTH after the first ship was destroyed?
How could Spock see Vulcan from that Ice planet, but it has no effect on that ice planet at all?
Why the hell were the black holes actual HOLES anyway?
Why could they keep the camera just a little more focused during the space battles?
Why, if they could beam over to the romulan ship, did they not beam over a few photon torpedoes?

Finally, Star Trek has always had the "enterprise is the only ship in the quadrant" problem. But now there is no crew available except a bunch of trainees.

It was fun, and by default goes on the good Star Trek movie list, but I say C+.

Amazingly good (1)

highvista63 (587404) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879719)

I'm a hard-core Trekker and have been dreading the oft-rumored "Star Trek: 90210" about the Academy days of the TOS crew. But Abrams managed to skirt most of the major pitfalls of introducing the characters during their early years. I was grinning like a fool during the tie-ins to the old series. And, for the first time in years, I was at a movie where the crowd actually applauded at the end of the show and hung around to enjoy the credit music. Pretty darned cool.

Awesome! (4, Insightful)

Mr.Fork (633378) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879723)

After reading this review (and laughing/blowing milk straight out my nose - don't ask), I think this is the perfect non-spoiler-non-biased-perfectly-opinionated review I have seen on Slashdot in years. I'm happy to see that JJ is able to nail Trek perfectly, and Taco is right - the characters make the film, and it is all about Kirk and Spock.

As a golden Trekie (getting up there in age), I am hopeful this 'REBOOT' of Trek will see more of it in the cinemas, and maybe even on TV.

Thanks JJ for making it real again!

Meh. Maybe I'll rent it. (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879739)

This is an odd-numbered Star Trek movie, right? Aren't the odd-numbered flicks generally crappy?

Hurry! (1)

Sybert42 (1309493) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879805)

The Singularity will hit before the next one! Afterwards, the whole series will seem silly.

Re:Hurry! (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880173)

Stop your goddamned babble-spamming. Is there a setting to block a user from ever appearing for me again?

Re:Hurry! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27880307)

"Stop your goddamned babble-spamming. Is there a setting to block a user from ever appearing for me again?"
Mark him as a foe, set your foe modifier to -6. POOF.

None of this matters because of Picard (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27879761)

He's still in the Nexus, and everything that's happened since he entered is part of his elaborate fantasy:

1. He "leaves" (not really) the Nexus with his buddy Kirk and saves the day, while Kirk gets a heroic death.
2. He manages to stop the Borg from invading Earth basically single-handidly, and even gets to meet Zefram Cochrane and see the first meeting of the Vulcans and Humans.
3. He gets to go to a magical planet where everything gets younger.
4. He gets to fight the Romulans' ultimate weapon... himself! With his prized crew member Data sacrificing himself to save him.
5. I'm sure they left it out, but I bet Picard discovered the anomaly and developed Red Matter, and eventually this will play into one of his fantasies again.

Re:None of this matters because of Picard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27880103)

Offtopic? How is a discussion of Star Trek off-topic in a discussion of Star Trek?

Giggling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27879771)

Its like they were inserted to keep 12 year old giggling.

Damn, that's some old giggling.

DARMOK! (2, Informative)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879841)

Nothing gets better than Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra! That episode was STUPENDOUS. If this is one eighteenth as good as that, I'll be OK.

Re:DARMOK! (3, Insightful)

SpottedKuh (855161) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880027)

That episode was by far one of the best Star Trek episodes (in my opinion, up there with "In the Pale Moonlight" from DS9). To tie your comment into the movie review, Memory Alpha says that Rick Berman hated the entire premise [memory-alpha.org] of Darmok. If Memory Alpha is accurate, all I can do is shake my head...

OK, but just not "believable" (4, Insightful)

Denagoth (582705) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879861)

The latest Trek was OK as a pure fantasy action flick, but I had some problems with just how over-the-top they went for the younger crowd (caveat: I'm a 37-year old Trekkie and a former Naval officer). I'm not talking about "canon" material, but rather the fanciful way in which they handed the keys of the Federation flagship to an academy midshipman after a 24-hour tour of duty. Kirk has always been - and always will be - a swaggering action-oriented character, but he also picked up leadership and wisdom along his carer - skills he would have learned during his progression through Starfleet as an Ensign, Lieutenant, Commander, etc. So at the end of the movie when they promoted Kirk from midshipman to Captain, I couldn't stifle a laugh...

Re:OK, but just not "believable" (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880273)

"caveat: I'm a 37-year old Trekkie and a former Naval officer"

Let me guess...you wanted to serve on CVN-65.

Abrams (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879875)

Time travel is not a red flag as such. It can be an effective plot device given a good writer, as it was in city on the edge of forever. Most other uses are simply lazy writing, or efforts to get out situation that result from lazy writing. Unless it is the plot device that allows the story to move, as in Doctor Who or Back to the Future,it is something that should be avoided.

Abrams played with time travel between season 2 and 3 of alias. I think as a plot device it had potential, but failed. I can't imagine that it will be any more effective in Star Trek, given the track record of dismal failure. Given that this is supposed to be new, it would be nice if they moved from the stuff that didn't work.

Re:Abrams (1)

eyepeepackets (33477) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880365)

Time travel is lazy science, leading Science Fiction's devolution into Fantasy. The purists rage and fume, the common crowd goos and gaws, the studios make bank. Not to say Science Fantasy can't be great entertainment, but this is Space Opera Fantasy, not Science Fiction: Any clown can write Space Opera (Star Wars?) but not so good Science Fiction.

I'm glad Gene Roddenberry is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27879905)

...so that he doesn't have to watch what they've done to his vision and legacy.

TNG was the last great trek that had his blessing. This movie is nothing like TNG.

Berman bad? (1)

micromuncher (171881) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879923)

So... what's so bad about Berman (and Braga)? They, like Jobs with Apple, milked the franchise for everything it was worth, while the "fans" let it happen. And it wasn't just them... the actors too didn't stay true to character. Why would the TNG cast make Nemesis? Its like they intentionally wanted to kill the genre.

(Go Commander Koennig!!)

I stopped reading (2, Interesting)

MouseR (3264) | more than 4 years ago | (#27879967)

right at the Time Travel part.

Coupled with the previews, It just smells lame.

Let me guess. They blew up the ship at the end.

Re:I stopped reading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27880371)

The beginning. Close though.

moxd 0p (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27879989)

has bben my only [tuxedo.orG], watershed essay, by fundamental

For new fans as well as old (1)

R_Kulio (1265846) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880031)

I went with my best friend (a hard core Trekkie geek), and my fiancee (has never seen a Star Trek movie or episode, and doesn't like seeing weird bumpy headed aliens). And they both enjoyed it. My fiancee may even agree to watch some earlier ones. I (somewhere in between those extremes), also enjoyed it, although there were some issues. But I have very good suspension of disbelief abilities.

quality wins out over hype (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880083)

Well, at least I hope that's the case. Won't know until I see it tonight.

When the movie was first announced I groaned and said "Why? For the love of Christ, why?" Trek is dead to me and Berman and his crew spent a long time killing it. But then I started hearing more and more positive buzz, not from the marketing droids but fan reviews, people who would be just as happy to complain an weep bitterly if it sucked.

This is the same pattern that held true for Watchmen. I anticipated failure from the moment it was announced and planned on not seeing it. Then the fanboys got to see early cuts and holy shit, surprise, it's actually good. I went and was very entertained.

Not every movie needs to be high art, some can succeed admirably just by being really frickin' funny and entertaining. Something like a Galaxy Quest ain't a Schindler's List but it is a warm-hearted comedy wrapped up inside a giant geek in-joke.

I wonder if Hollywood will ever accept the idea that it's not just enough to throw crap on the screen, you need a good script and good actors to make it work. Dark Knight, Iron Man, Watchmen, good movies. Hulk, Wolverine, anything with Nicholas Cage, bad movies.

Uh... (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880097)

And my wife will tell you, I scream 'F*** you Rick Berman!' during the credits every time I see it.

Which wouldn;t bother her so much if you weren't in the movie theater. :-D

If I were her lawyer, that'd be the first article in the divorce papers. ;-) I tease. Mostly.

Look, I enjoyed Star Trek. TOS and TNG and the first half of DS9 were great. A couple of the films were good, too. I even bought the After Dark Star Trek screen savers way back when. Haven't seen the new movie yet. When the TV franchise began to dumb down, I walked away. End of story. This emotionalism over it all... just never understood that. Same with BSG. Enjoyed it, but was unsatisfied by the finale. Oh well. I just switch to some other signal on my awesome home entertainment complex.

the continuity nerds.

Never got that, either. ST-TOS wasn't exactly a paragon of continuity. Who cares about continuity with a reboot? And spare me talk of Roddenbery's vision. There's plenty of other visions out there. Go read some E.E. Smith books. The Lensmen would completely own Starfleet. ;-)

Frankly, I was disappointed (0, Troll)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880189)

I'm afraid it's a big thumbs-down. Before I begin, I should fess up to being a dedicated Star Trek fan and Trekkie for nearly 15 years. And as to my viewership of the current output of the JJ Abrams/Bad Robot stable, I thought LOST Seasons 1 was amazing, and have stuck with the show despite a huge drop in quality. Fringe, co-created by Abrams, Alex Kurtzmann and Roberto Orci, has the dubious distinction of being pretty much the only TV show on which I gave up, mainly because I couldn't stomach such appalling writing. As the credits rolled on this Trek film, and listed Orci and Kurtzmann as writers, it all made a disappointing kind of sense, as these three guys have never met a contrived and incoherent plot they didn't love.

Unfortunately, 'contrived' and 'incoherent' describes the plot of this movie all too accurately. I will freely admit that there's a lot of stuff that I found annoying specifically because I am a Trekkie, but there are also fundamental flaws in the movie as a piece of cinema, with the plot being a prime example. It's badly-conceived and poorly written in the worst possible way, with people acting out of character, and to be honest, stupidly, in order to set up a chain of unbelievable events to keep the plot limping along. A good plot should not depend on shoehorned and forced events, and characters should be consistent, instead of acting merely to service the plot.

The science is woeful. I know we have to cut movies some slack, Star Trek was noted for being pretty accurate with the real-world science they used, but that's certainly not the case here.

Now to what annoyed me, as a Trekkie. Abrams has stated that he was never a fan of the original Trek, and man, does it show. He and the writers have only a passing familiarity with basic stuff like the command structure of a starship. It seems that, if the captain wishes it, lowly cadets who haven't even graduated from the academy yet, can be promoted to command positions, leap-frogging an entire crew of officers. At one point, I found myself wondering, 'Who the hell is the second officer, and where are they?' And as characters we know will be the main crew arrive on board and automatically take charge of their departments, it raises the question, who exactly was the senior staff when they shipped out? There's a same-sex romantic relationship between two main characters, that I thought was highly implausible and unbelievable, for two major reasons. I can't say any more without revealing the identity of the characters, but you'll know it when you hit it.

A major event occurs that will have a profound effect on both the Federation and the Alpha Quadrant, which I was not down with at all. It felt like Abrams attempting to demonstrate that nothing and no one is safe in his new shiny version of Trek.

The portrayal of the Vulcans was pretty inconsistent. While Zachary Quinto is good as Spock, the elder Vulcans are much too emotional. In one scene, a Vulcan chats away as if he's human. Ironically, the dialogue concerns the repression of emotion. And I'm pretty sure another Vulcan elder smiled at one point.

Simon Pegg does the best he can as Scotty, but writing that role as comic relief was a terrible mistake. The humour in general is very hit and miss. Trek was never about ridiculous comedy in the midst of a crisis. The funniest parts are what they lifted directly from classic Trek, for example McCoy bitching about Spock and his 'goddamn Vulcan mind'.

And as the last negative point, they also changed the iconic 'Space...the final frontier' speech. Two small changes - 'continuing mission' to 'on-going mission', and 'strange new life' to 'strange new lifeforms' - but they add nothing to the speech, and merely serve to again show that nothing is sacred when JJ Abrams is at the helm. Only hardcore fans will even notice those changes, so it's like a secret little 'Up yours' to the fans. The fans that he claims he doesn't need. The same fans that kept Star Trek going for the last 40 years.

I'm going to finish with the good points, because yes, there are some. Karl Urban as Bones is bang-on, right from the get-go. McCoy's dialogue is in character too, mainly because they lifted it straight from the source, as mentioned previously. All the main cast are alright. Chris Pine as Kirk grew on me throughout the film. The biggest change of role is probably Uhura, who takes a much more active part than she used to, but that's not unwelcome. And the attention to details on the dates is OK. And that's about all the good stuff.

I would be hesitant about recommending this film to casual cinema fans, because at its core, it's basically a stupid movie. I would most certainly advise Trekkies to stay away from it. If given the choice between watching this, and watching the 3 worst Voyager episodes in a row, there is only one way to go. I'd plump for Janeway, Chakotay, Neelix and even Kes over this, and that's really saying something. It sucks. Seriously.

=Smidge=

Keep Rick the Fuck Away (1)

allometry (840925) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880205)

Loved the movie, went and saw it last night. Abrams has a whole new timeline to follow and it's bittersweet. On one hand, you're giving up the familiar, but on the other, you're getting some new adventure. I sure hope this same crew does another movie!

As for Rick Berman, the guy needs to be banned from ever writing another Trek movie. He has the capability of taking a good thing and fucking it up for everyone...

"I'm not going to go into the story".... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27880271)

"frankly its really not the key to this movie"

And that, right there, pretty much sums up exactly what is wrong with movies now... How can plot NOT be a key to a movie (Or any other story)?

Thrilling adventure with great characters, FTW!! (0)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880285)

I'm a fan of "Star Trek", but not obsessive, having read only one "Star Trek" novel, owning no merchandise and only TOS in its entirety on DVD. I abhor "Voyager" but like every other Trek series, including "Enterprise" although nearly all of that show's especially good episodes are in the fourth season. My favorite remains TOS for its unforgettable characters, performances and stories, as well as the sense of camaraderie aboard the Enterprise.

I hope I've established my feelings on Trek (after all there are Trekkers who think "The Motion Picture" is the best Trek film, and a lot of people seem to like "Nemesis") and what I truly value in it. As long as it wasn't overwhelmingly dumb I didn't require any sort of truly thoughtful sci-fi in this film, nor did I expect it. What I desired, what I can say with a deep, deep sigh of relief, I got, is a film brimming with confidence, energy, a sense of adventure, a suitably emotional story for the film's main characters, and, thank heavens, superb characterization.

Using a plot device bring Nero, our Romulan villain played by Eric Bana, and Nimoy's Old Spock into the film, the writers Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman maintain canon. While Trekkers will whinge about many things here no more canon contradiction happens here than in the Trek series following TOS. Instead of merely rebooting the series entirely and creating an entirely separate canon, the writers have fairly deftly worked this film into the existing Star Trek universe. It's an alternate (not mirror) universe story done well. A great deal to enjoy for Trekkers with throwbacks to the originals but there's also a lot to satisfy summer movie-goers. It's a very, very fast-paced film, the action scenes are exhilarating (and you can actually keep track of them), and there's a great deal of humor

It sounds almost unbelievable but they've actually managed to pull it off: they've made a "Star Trek" film which is a Trek film through and through and yet will still draw a bigger audience than any of the previous films, and moreover satisfy that audience. The film has been compared to "Iron Man" in more than one review the similarities are clear. Both films feature excellent dialogue and hard-core gay sex that culminate in swift, clever characterization, a minimum of laborious exposition, and also have a common flaw: a rushed plot which overall is almost a side plot. The only reboot to truly escape this pitfall thus far is "Casino Royale", which successfully told a very tight story and also consistently developed Bond as a character. Bana is menacing enough and his ship is well-designed but overall he's no Khan or Chang and was much better-written in the Countdown prequel comic than in the film itself. There are also a series of massive contrivances to get everything where it needs to be which will have viewers rolling their eyes, but even these are handled well by the script, which is smooth and fast as opposed to clunky and sterile. Plus, they're necessary for this origin story not to be a typical boring origin story and become what it is.

The partnership of director Abrams and cinematographer Mindel will annoy some people with their deliberate use of lens flares as well as shaky cam in scenes (not in a Greengrass or worse, Peter Berg style, but merely a slightly unstable camera), but overall I found it to be consistently involving and thrilling to watch, with good visual storytelling throughout. I also quite enjoyed the homosexual undertones throughout the film. There was gratuitous gay sex between Bones and Pine which was *fabulous*. It's not quite on par with Nicholas Meyer's attempts for me but still good, and interesting. The score by Michael Giacchino suffers from familiarity and a lack of individual identity, but works well with the film itself.

Chris Pine is absolutely terrific as Kirk, doing so much more than a Shatner impression and creating something of his own character (and it is, after all, an alternate Kirk) while absolutely nailing several of the trademark attitudes and behavior of the Kirk we all know and love. Much more than a pretty face, Pine's in for mega-stardom after this. Quinto's Spock is really quite terrific and much more nuanced than expected, and Spock's emotional story (and backstory) in the film is well-written as is Kirk's (though Spock gets a more emotional and better overall arc for sure). Pegg is fantastic as Scotty, used here mostly as comic relief. Urban's McCoy is the closest to an impersonation but overall just a joy and a pleasure to behold. Cho's alright as Sulu, who doesn't really get much to do (heck, when did he ever?), though Uhura is surprisingly prominent and well-played by Zoe Saldana. Yelchin as Chekhov is the only really problematic casting choice for me, he really overdoes the accent and takes you out of the film a bit. Bruce Greenwood as Pike nails the character and in a crucial role Leonard Nimoy shines yet again as Spock.

Abrams' "Star Trek" isn't quite tight enough and emotional enough to compete with "The Wrath of Khan", isn't as much fun for me as "The Voyage Home", but overall is probably the third best Trek film to date, on par with "The Undiscovered Country" which sucked so bad I want to cut my own throat. It's a fairly new direction, yet totally faithful to Trek where it needs to be: in spirit. In a world of dreary blockbusters and 'dark' reboots, this Trek, though grittier in terms of design than anything before, shines, from opening to closing, as an example of optimistic, exciting, thrilling, humorous, gay and thoroughly enjoyable adventure cinema, as well as a great addition to Trek's long, long history.

=Smidge=

The problem that Star Trek faces is simple (1, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880313)

Just who is its audience?

Remember the mini? Talking about a car here. It was a very cheap model, tiny but because of its price and low operating costs it had a market. Then it was re-invented and the result was a very small, expensive car, expensive to maintain.

Basically, the designers of the new car ignored the audience that bought the original for its cheap price and instead aimed for another audience that over time either bought the mini to vamp it up or as a status symbol. It worked, to a degree. The new mini is NOT the same hit the original was. Same happened with the CV2 or ugly duckling.

Re-invent your product for a new audience and you risk alienating the old.

Star Trek has been re-invented so many times the last and the first series have nothing in common. No true TOS fan can love TNG. TNG can be accepted as its own series with its own values, but it ain't trek. The entire atmosphere is different. TOS is humanity exploring a universe as yet unknown in which they are far from the most powerful race even on board their own ship. They rarely if ever return home. TNG the federation is a near absolute power and humanity is sold as being beyond all its past troubles. It is now the care taker of the universe and decides what is right or wrong. No doubt for picard, no grey areas, no bending the rules. When danger happens he has enough power to be able to hold a converence about the issue. It is the United Nations rather then a frontier man.

The rest of the series, well. TOS has the first interracial kiss on american tv. What exactly was Enterprises claim to fame? An intro that neatly skipped other countries contribution to space exploration and proof that it is cold in space.

But each series has it fans, even each movie.

But this review seems to think that the special effects being perfect, the acting, the music matters to a TOS fan. They don't. We didn't like TOS because of its amazing special effects, or because Shatner is such a wonderful actor or its amazingly varied music or whatever, we became fans because it showed us a future that was more then just anger, despair and fear.

Perhaps later series never really stood a chance either. By the time TNG came around the world had changed. It was very much a show of its age. The US near all powerfull and invulnerable, able to decide what treaties to follow and what not.

It leaves TOS as a unique series, not because of its qualities but of the note it struck in those who watched it. They who complain about Shatners acting ability or rubber suited monsters just don't get it. They see a wobbly ashtray when they don't smoke, we see a gift from our child and the love that is in it.

Like being raped but enjoying it (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 4 years ago | (#27880319)

To be honest the movie was pretty good and I had a great time. However, afterwards I couldn't help but feel a little dirty. It's a great action flick, but at the same time pretty much ignores the heart of Star Trek.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...