Star Trek (2009) Stardate 2258: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
I am of several minds about the Star Trek reboot, some positive and some not. I suppose I should start with what my inner nerd didn't like, then what my inner storyteller didn't like, and finally what I did like about the film. And to be clear, I did like this film and plan on seeing it again at a brew-pub second run theater, but it is not without its flaws.
Here's what got my inner nerd honked off. The science was terrible, even by Star Trek standards. I don't like how it completely disregarded canon, especially in ways that made no sense at all. Why are the characters the wrong age relative to each other? Why is the Enterprise new when it is supposed to be around 15 years old at the time of the film? How big is this new Enterprise? Why does all the tech look and act differently? How does a military support ship from 130 years in the future defeat 40+ Klingon war ships? Why does Spock act like the one from the films rather than the uptight one from season 1? Why is the Enterprise being built on the ground? What is up with the new Enterprise design, it looks like the unholy fusion of a Constitution and Sovereign class ships?
My inner storyteller got mad at things in Star Trek too. Nero doesn't seem to have a legitimate gripe, he just acts crazy, but not believably crazy like Kahn. While he does a better job of having goals and working towards them then Trek's previous big screen "Romulan" bad guy, his goal still doesn't make much sense. He seems to be more interested in taking revenge on Spock for failing to be a hero, than preventing the the destruction of Romulus in the first place. Also, this felt hollow for a Star Trek film, lacking anything truly thought provoking. The nonsensical set design on both ships made me cringe. I was actually disappointed with the action. There was enough of it, perhaps a little too much, but there was no definitive space battle like that has been three of the four good Trek films of old. The one at the start was alright, but watching an elephant step on a beetle just isn't compelling. I also couldn't tell if this was supposed to be a fun action adventure film, or a darker drama. It doesn't walk that line very well, so it would have been better to choose one path or the other. I guess The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly does that the best.
Now for what I liked about Star Trek. This movie was fun. The acting was good, with no one standing out as being bad. Of the three well established characters, only Spock stood out as being a little off. This was because, as I mentioned earlier, he acts like a later Spock, one who has assimilated a little into terrestrial culture. Uhura was the only main character to change significantly, which was actually a good thing, since she didn't have much of a character before. She went form a telephone operator to the sonar technician in Hunt for Red October. There are many references to running gags from the series. The visuals were good, and not overly busy. Most of the action felt good and intense, without being frantic and hectic.
Conclusion: When I think of Star Trek as an entertaining adventure flick, I like it. When I put my storytelling glasses on, it's a better than average summer blockbuster. My Trek glasses must be bifocals, because I didn't like the irreverence for the established lore and canon, but I did like the portrayal of the characters and the light hearted mood of the original series. As much as I may complain about its abandonment of 40+ years of Trek, I recognize that a major change was necessary. Voyager, Enterprise, a mediocre, and a bad film left fans wanting better. And we got it. It's not perfect, but it's a much better starting point than The Motion Picture. Here's hoping Star Trek XII follows in the footsteps Star Trek II. And J.J. Abrams, if for some bizarre reason you read this, I got three words for you regarding the next one: Kahn versus Tribbles!
Comparisons: A better prequel than the three Star Wars movies. Not as good a remake as Battlestar Galactica. Fifth best Star Trek film, between First Contact and The Search for Spock.
Familiar Themes: Time travel, crazy bad guy, Enterprise vs uber ship, anonymous red shirt ensign dies on away mission, the Enterprise is all that stands between Earth and annihilation.
Story: 4/10
Action: 9/10
Immersion: 7/10
Rating: 7 (Stephen Hitchcock)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate 2258.42: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
After having watched the movie three times I finally feel I get the movie enough to write a review about it. Star Trek is a good movie and it’s even a good Star Trek movie. It’s still not Wrath of Khan (TWOK) but it has beaten First Contact for the #2 spot. Still it’s not a perfect (Star Trek) movie and that’s what I’ll try to explain in the next few paragraphs.
The most noticeable thing that any Trekkie will spot immediately is that it completely reimagines the original Star Trek. There’s no getting around it, it’s a BSG-style reimagining (although it doesn’t go as far as to make Spock a woman) and you have to except that or else you’re going to be bummed out for the entire movie. They bring in a time travel plot to explain this change but that just doesn’t work when you think about it. But at least they tried and it would’ve been worse if they just jumped into the new universe without connecting it with the old one.
The first few minutes of the movie you’ll be on the edge of your seat, even more so if you watch it in a movie theatre where Michael Giacchino’s music (more about the music later) really helps elevate the experience to an epic scale. That ten minute intro is perhaps the finest scene in the entirety of Star Trek’s movies and TV series. It’s gripping and breathtaking. Even the title screen is a tearjerker. You have to see it to experience it.
After that the movie goes off in the wrong direction. The whole cop chase feels a bit too contrived. It does succeed in it’s goal to show off that Kirk’s a rebel but it does it in a wrong way. Also what’s with that Nokia product placement? Luckily it picks up after that and the quality goes up in a straight line until the end. Especially Kirk’s scenes are fun to watch and Pine does an excellent job to show us some of Kirk’s characteristics.
From there on out the main plot unfolds and while it never reaches the same heights as the intro it’s still a great ride. There are a few moments when Abrams drops the ball but those do not outweigh the good scenes. Especially the ending is very well done and it’s only beaten by TWOK’s ending.
Now that I’ve briefly gone through the movie I want to delve a bit deeper into the various aspects of the movie and point out the things I liked and disliked.
Cast: The recast characters are all very well done. Zachary Quinto (Spock) and Karl Urban (McCoy) really nail the essence of the characters from TOS. Even though the Spock in this movie might seem emotional and erratic at times this is very well explained in the movie. It lends greatly upon Nimoy’s character after TOS who grew more in touch with his human side an almost undeveloped something in TOS. When he is being logic, he’s almost exactly like a (albeit younger) version of Nimoy in TOS. Urban does a great job but since the Kirk-Spock relationship is paramount in the movie he doesn’t get to add much to the character. I want to see more of him in the sequel. Zoe Saldana’s Uhura is perhaps the most reimagined character of the crew of the Enterprise something I praise the writers for. A pretty standard character in TOS she is transformed into someone who can hold her ground and can compete with the best man around. That is truly something that fits in with Roddenberry’s utopian vision.
Chris Pine as Kirk is good but not the best. I think this mostly has to do with him not being the character he is in TOS and beyond. Unlike the others (except Chekov, but he’s always been a kid) he’s still not mature enough. I’m confident this will change in the sequel as during the moments he was the captain he was very convincing.
The rest of the characters get very little screen time and thus cannot reach the same depth as the other characters. Yet when they do appear on screen they do their best. Anton Yelchin does a better job as Chekov then I thought. The real let down is Scotty. He’s not a clown, but for some reason Pegg seems to think so. Perhaps it’s the writers fault as well. He’s a bit too much comic relief. The miracle worker attitude and the few serious lines he gets hold promise though.
Another letdown is Nero. Eric Bana does a great job but his character is given very little depth. There was one moment when he could’ve explained a lot of his motivation and origin but for some reason the writers and director let that opportunity slide. Luckily I read the Star Trek: Countdown comic books which explain a lot of the plot holes in the movie. Nero is a much better character in those comics and it’s a shame that they didn’t follow through on that.
Bruce Greenwood as Pike is arguably my favourite character. While Pike is nothing like it in "The Cage" Greenwood and the writers make Pike into a character that feels natural. It feels as if always was to be this way. The characters of George Kirk, Winona Kirk and Captain Robau are also very well done. I wish I could see more of them.
In the end I almost always forgot I was watching new actors play my favourite characters. And that’s what it’s about.
Design: The most striking difference between old Star Trek and new Star Trek is the look. Almost everything was redesigned. The starships I have no problem with. With the exception of the Enterprise’s huge nacelles everything looks great and not too farfetched. The interior designs I’m not so happy with. Especially the Enterprise’s bridge and engineering are just awful. While the Kelvin’s interiors have the same basic design as the Enterprise’s (as they are redresses) on the former it feels more like a whole. On the Enterprise you have the iPod-white bridge versus the grimy engineering section (which is too big by the way). It just doesn’t work. Hopefully they’ll tone it down a bit for the sequels. It’s great for Abrams that he saved money by making a brewery into an engineering section but it just doesn’t work. The more futuristic looking concept art of engineering was much more appealing. Industrial doesn’t work with Trek.
Luckily the design is not as important as it is mostly about the story and the characters. So only during a few scenes it bothers a bit.
Sound & music: For this aspect of the movie I have nothing but praise. The sounds either sound like TOS or are pulled straight from it. The music is probably one of the highlights of the movie. Michael Giacchino did a great job. When you can’t imagine the movie without the music then you know you done a good job as a composer. The new Star Trek tune fits the movie much better than the old one. It really captures that Star Trek feel. Overall the soundtrack is among the greatest in the Star Trek pantheon. It’s right up there with Horner and Goldsmith.
My only gripe is that they did not put music under the Kirk-taking-command scene. That was such an awesome moment in the trailer but in the movie it was pretty dull even though it was such a life-changing moment for Kirk.
Continuity: Star Trek’s biggest problems are the continuity issues. Some can be excused. But some are just blatant errors that Abrams didn’t have to make. Especially the Delta Vega thing annoyed me. It’s just unnecessary name dropping.
About the whole Vulcan-getting-destroyed thing, I think it’s the best thing Abrams could’ve done. It shows that he’s willing to do things. Old Trek was safe. In the end everything was still the same which made it often lack excitement. Abrams basically kills off a character (Vulcan). That’s always a hard thing to do but sometimes it can be the right thing to do. First of all it offers great storytelling ideas for novels and such. The Vulcan race and culture still survive so nothing of that is lost. I don’t see what the problem is.
The future: What excites me the most about the movie is its possibilities. I like to compare Star Trek to Batman: Begins. Both are very good movies, they made about the same money on the same budget and they both rebooted/reimagined a popular universe. If one can see what can grow out of Batman: Begins (The Dark Knight) than imagine what’s possible with Star Trek II. I also like how it opens up a whole new universe for us fans. It’s pretty much like after Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Fans were shown a whole new universe (new characters, a new Enterprise, Klingons with ridges!) and nothing was certain. With TNG you kinda knew what could happen because the universe was fleshed out by three series and four movies. It’s a good time to be a Trekkie.
Rating: 8 (Robau)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate 2258.42: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
I went into the theater for the first time fully prepared, if need be, to think it was the best movie I saw, yet consider it no more canon the The Empire Strikes Back. It was an awesome movie, and once it was over, the whole theater, an audience which knew their Star Trek well enough that Sulu's admission that his hand-to-combat was fencing drew huge laughs, stood up and applauded. The interest I've seen it create in the rest of the franchise, especially TOS, should not be underestimated - my teenage sister, who I don't think had ever seen a full episode (she saw TMP at 4 and V'Ger creeped her out), saw it the first weekend, borrowed Season 2 on DVD, and returned it months later, asking along with questions ("Is Commodore Decker the '7th Heaven' guy's dad?", "Did the Nazi planet people really have to have such blatantly Jewish names?", "Is that why evil twins always have goatees?", etc.) which left absolutely no question that the episodes had been watched. I can certainly see why some fans would be less reverential then I am, and I have the utmost respect for that opinion. But when all is said and done, I never doubted that a great number of the people who made this movie loved "Star Trek" and had a mission to do right by it - something you don't always see in films like this.
Some of my feelings...
The Ship - I'd describe it as, what it might've looked like had the TMP refit made more of an effort to keep the TOS shape - I do wish they'd done the red nacelle lights like in the drawing, but for a spacecraft created for a less than high-budget TV show in 1964, I thought it was pretty damn faithful.
Designs - They took it too far, especially engineering, but I kind of like the idea of the somewhat more "industrial", lived-in quality (the dented, weather-beaten, paint-chipped look for the shuttles was a definite plus).
Uniforms - I liked the variety, and that Starfleet personnel didn't wear the exact same thing all the time, that the red-blue-gold was the specific shipboard uniform, not the only thing in your wardrobe. I loved that they managed to take the TOS design and make it look like something you'd actually see a military officer wearing.
The Cast - A big plus. I liked the type of people used - no real "stars", but I recognized all of them, and they got people who knew this was not just any film role. And while I believed all of them in the role, Kirk will always be William Shatner, Uhura will always be Nichelle Nichols, etc. The only one I visualize as "the" character is Bruce Greenwood as Pike - the transporter room scene is Sarek's finest hour, but I still and always will see Mark Lenard when I hear the name.
Shatner - The sad truth is, I'm glad he wasn't in the movie, because accepting William Shatner in his current physical state as Kirk would require a greater suspension of disbelief than any continuity violation.
Vulcan Youth - I regard the scenes of young Spock's ass-whooping of the school bully and joining Starfleet once he realizes that the Science Academy elders regard him as someone who overcame the "disability" of of not being fully Vulcan as the "prime" canon story as much as if they were a flashback in "Journey to Babel".
Known Romulans - Realistically, I think that, with our own advances in fiber-optics since 1966, the idea that there was no visual contact during the Romulan War, and therefore the Romulan-Vulcan similarity known to the Federation, is obsolete (there are a few other things, like the Ferengi raiding NX-01, where I think the "error" is more likely than the continuity it violates), but that doesn't mean they should've done it.
Klingon Warbirds - Should've been called battle cruisers (I'm actually OK with the term in "Broken Bow", since it was used by one of the Vulcans - I don't see anything inconsistent with Starfleet and the High Command having different names for various ship), but at least they were D7/K't'ingas and not some completely new ship.
What's She Doing There? - Orci and Kurtzman said Winona was a Starfleet officer (which also explains why she was off-world for the 'Vette scene), but I don't really buy that, since must not have been much of one if just having one Starfleet parent instead of two was the difference between raising Shatner/Kirk and Pine/Kirk.
He Can Drive? - I'm glad they got rid of the Uncle Frank scene, since it would've established that the Corvette was George Kirk's, and assuming he's the good father Nimoy/Spock implied he was, I can't imagine he wouldn't have Jimmy how to drive it, which would spit in the face of "A Piece of the Action". At least as it was shown, the stepfather could've easily been the real owner.
Bar Drinks - I have no problem whatsoever with of "Budweiser Classic" - I'm a little biased because it's my beer of choice, but one of my favorite things about Star Trek is the idea that a Humanity which has not only reached the stars but welcomed their inhabitants to Earth with open arms still loves riding motorcycles and takes undue pride in the athletic successes of their alma maters - and my slight objection to "Cardassian Sunrise" has to do with the second word, not the first; whether the Cardassians had been encountered in 2255 or not, I assume the idea was to take part of the name of a human cocktail, like tequila sunrise, and add an alien race to the name, and such a drink would probably not be named after a miserable swamp-hell like Cardassia Prime.
All that aside, there are plenty of inconsistencies...
- Regardless of whether she was built in space or on the ground, the Enterprise that James Dean Kirk gazed upon from his motorcycle looks pretty damn complete for a ship that's three years from service, especially knowing that her "prime" counterpart was effectively disassembled and rebuilt from the ground up in two-and-a-half.
- His obvious role as Kirk's sidekick requires the two of them to stick together, but since Starfleet Academy is supposed to be like West Point or Annapolis, there's no reason for McCoy, who had already finished med school, much less college, to be there.
- God knows Kirk must've been pretty damn cocky at the Academy, but that was just a little too obvious.
- My respect for Tyler Perry, and the gravitas he brought to the role, doesn't make it any more believable that the commandant of the military academy serving and interstellar government which includes species with lifespans of centuries would be a 40-year-old Human.
- Even if near-complete gender-equality (I can't really say there's full equality when Crusher and Troi's uniforms are about four sizes tighter than Picard and Riker's) wasn't one of the staples of the "better" future Trek is beloved for, regarding Kirk's behavior toward Uhura, (who, given her appearance and intelligence, probably gets worse than than 9 times out of 10 when she goes to a bar - after they got back to San Francisco, probably took a swing at them for making her look like a damsel in distress) if that lame, harmless pass drove those cadets to pick a fight with Kirk, I don't see how they lasted a year at the academy, much less "Cupcake" quite possibly being Security Chief on the Enterprise.
- If ramming the Kelvin into it did as much damage to the Narada as you're led to believe, you'd think someone (if Starfleet, evacuating anyone you could, if Klingon - and I'm half-convinced there was a cloaked battle cruiser or two watching the opening scene - an easy ticket to Sto-vo-kor) in the other battles would've thought to ram it.
- The smile on my face when I heard Scotty say whose pet he lost doesn't change the fact that, even if Human lifespans have started to increase, Archer being not only alive but at least somewhat active in Starfleet at 146 is quite a stretch.
All in all, though, one of the things I really liked about the movie is the fact that it acknowledged "Enterprise" (and no offense to the rest of the crew, but the fact that it is Kirk himself who is aware of Archer and his dog strikes me as about as a huge compliment). I do kinda wish they'd had a quick cameo of one of the cast, but as the movie was, the two ideas I had (T'Pol as a Vulcan Elder, one of them or their child on the Academy panel) wouldn't have worked; in T'Pol's case, I can't imagine someone who fell in love with Charles Tucker III silently accepting the comments that drove Spock to Starfleet, while if she was aboard the Enterprise, I assume she could've assumed command if Spock was "compromised" (I think she would've taken the ship to Earth, but that doesn't let Kirk become Kirk) - as for the other, I'd figured days, not minutes, would pass the test and the hearing, during which time Kirk would've learned everything he could about those on the panel, finding various "no-win" situations where they emerged victorious, and confronted them, reminding, say, Admiral Phlox of Starfleet Medical that, had he and Archer just accepted Trip's condition, and not made the clone, in "Similitude", Earth would be an asteroid field today. Granted, I am a sucker for setimentality, and definitely would've had a lot of things like that (had Robert Duncan McNeil on the panel as an Admiral Paris, thrown in a line to McCoy's shuttle rant implying that Emony Dax might have something to do with his divorce, had Jose Tyler be the guy with lungworms).
If I Were Spock, I'd Be Pissed - So would I, but -
1) We're not Spock
2) If my future self told me it was for the best, I'd take me seriously
3) In many ways Spock's own conduct is a can of worms best left unopened
- If someone really, really wanted to nitpick, you could probably say that Spock's placing of Starfleet duty over Sarek's life to the point that Amanda isn't sure she can even reach him is inconsistent with the idea that Spock's decision to choose Starfleet over the Vulcan Science Academy was essentially a "Fuck you" to those who he feels disrespected her, the claim that he never loved her is what makes him lose it, and Sarek's admission that he did love her is really how he gets it back.
- I was a little disappointed that Nimoy's "Space, the final frontier..." said "where no one has gone before" - especially since TATV reverted to "no man". ENT I think clearly made the old version make more sense, because pretty much everywhere they went was somewhere that no (Hu)man had gone before, but someone almost certainly had.
- Nero talks about a safer Romulus free of the Federation. Without the Federation, the Romulus lost to the supernova is a Dominion slave-world.
Comic nitpick: When Kirk, Spock and Pike are beamed back from the Narada, if I was deaf and hadn't seen the rest of the movie, I would've thought the other transporter guy was Scotty.
Remarkable scene: Sarek's finest hour, knowing when the logical action is to throw logic out the window when his half-Human son needs his father.
Remarkable dialogue: Uhura's Dumb Redneck line to Kirk - I can't decide if it's a slap in the face to Roddenberry's vision or, being said by an African to a white American, a sign of just how far Humanity has come.
Future: I hope they don't do Khan, mostly because I think Spock Prime told Starfleet Command something to the effect of, "If any starship encounters about 70 people on an old derelict sleeper called the Botany Bay, don't revive them - trust me on this one."
Rating: 10 (Ten-Pint)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: The best film since "The Undiscovered Country".
   
I am a big fan of Star Trek having seen all the episodes and many documentaries. I thought this film was fantastic.
I can accept this timeline exists as an alternative reality, whilst the timeline we watched the last 40 years exists still. I accept this because neither of them exist at all! It is not real!
Once people accept that they can enjoy the film, it looks different because special effects have improved. It was a nice touch for them to include some original sound effects. I liked the bridge I believe its white decor is a nod to the bright optimistic look of the original series. Most films have much darker lighting these days.
The film achieved a lot and gained the praise of Leonard Nimoy (a man who turned down a part in "Generations" as he saw his role as insignificant.) and Majel Barrett. These two are well qualified to know what makes good Star Trek. It's far better than Enterprise or Voyager. Neither of which I believe deserve to be called Star Trek.
The biggest compliment I can give it is that it took me back to my childhood. I felt like I was watching the original series again. It gave me the fun and excitement of watching the original cast as a kid which is no small feat to accomplish.
Remarkable scene: McCoy risking his career to get Kirk aboard the Enterprise.
Remarkable quote: "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Remarkable ship: The Enterprise. New yet respectful of the original.
Remarkably unremarkable tech: The transporters. Nice to see they have risk and aren't used constantly.
Rating: 10 (Nathan G)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: An abysmal assassination of 40 years of Star Trek!
   
I don't even know where to begin... But I suppose I should start with my initial impression. When I heard of the new Star Trek movie being shown in the theatres, like every Star Trek fan, I was ecstatic! Then, unfortunately, I went to actually SEE it... and the torture began.
I won't write any extended rants on all the innumerable abominations in this movie, I will simply list the most glaring ones below, explain why I was almost tempted to grace this piece of thrash with 1 point, and express my sincere hope that *someone* will pay back that Abrams cretin (I promise I would if I could find him) for assassinating Star Trek!
Torture 1: Special effects: For the first 15-20 minutes of the movie, my eyes began to hurt from all the lens-flare effects every 5 seconds, strobing at all imaginable and unimaginable frequencies almost as if intended for the viewers to go blind! To say that the special effects were overdone is an understatement: glow, glow, glow. Glowing panels, glowing screens, glowing status displays, glowing ships, glowing interiors (the "Enterprise" bridge being a prime example -in quotes because that ship is NOT the Enterprise, no matter what anyone says. Half the time the lens-flare effects and various blurs kept me from even seeing clearly what was going on... but I seriously doubt I was missing much! Still, regarding special effects, therein lies the one reason I almost give this abomination 1 point...almost: The destruction of Vulcan! 6 billion of those smug, condescending, arrogant bastards with a superiority complex dead! Something I have been wishing forever, and especially since DS9 episode "Take me out to the Holosuite". Finally!
Torture 2: Characters: Oh my... Kirk - immature irritating idiot with a penchant for starting brawls. I really liked that bar scene where those five cadets beat the hell out of him! And still less than he deserves! Spock - ironically, the only character who even remotely resembles Nimoy's performance in the Original Series. I admit, he even gained my approval when his character (as a boy, different actor, obviously, but still) attacked that Vulcan boy calling his mother a wh**e. I only wish he pressed the attack further... Still, as an adult, he definitely IS Spock, hiding his thinly veiled contempt for humans beneath his veneer of "logic". Well, at least now that his world is gone, that insufferable superior attitude should change. Old Spock - Leonard Nimoy's cameo appearance was nothing more than a form of "blessing" for this movie. For him even to agree to take part in something like this shows than Nimoy's standards have lowered in his old age, for I can't imagine his younger self ever appearing in this! I never liked his character, true, but he always did play Spock with absolute conviction and believability! Not anymore. Uhura - I really liked Nichelle Nichols as the original Uhura. She had style, character, attitude and intelligence AND a pretty face! The new one... all that is left is a pretty face. Admittedly, a VERY pretty face (and the rest is not bad, either), but Star Trek was never about characters as shallow as that! She is supposed to be a prodigy with languages (speaking "all three Romulan dialects"), but I wish she had a chance to demonstrate her skills somewhere in the movie! But as it was, with Romulans speaking in English all the time, her role was reduced to playing hard-to-get flirt with Kirk, and having a crush on Spock. Well, at least she gave me something nice to look at! Sulu - At least one consistency with the Original Series, they remembered that Sulu is supposed to be an expert at fencing. And that skirmish on the beam emitter with the Romulans proved his more than passing knowledge of some karate moves as well! Now, if the actor (whose name I don't know or want to know) only looked and sounded REMOTELY like the original Sulu, another of my favourite Original Series characters, I would be as happy as a dog with four legs! But obviously, I expect too much. Chekov - From a small driven chief of security with a BIG attitude and courage as he was in the Original Series, my favourite Star Trek character of ALL time was reduced to an insecure skinny boy with a talent for science and transporter operations. At least he had some role in the plot... Conclusion: to cut this short, because it would go another 20 sentences at least, the only two characters who even halfway met my expectations were Spock and Bones (I can imagine Bones like that when he was young).
Torture 3: Sets: Aagh! "Enterprise" engineering - a water treatment facility! "Enterprise" bridge - a white-ish-silvery-bluish strobing lightshow! I don't understand how anyone can stand being there for more than 5 minutes without going crazy! Kelvin interiors - a mess of girders, welded walkways and steaming ducts! Filthy, disorganized, chaotic. More like a malfunctioning oil platform or a refinery building site than an interior of a starship! I actually liked the Kelvin bridge, however: Subdued lighting, efficient, militaristic feel! If only the "Enterprise" bridge was like that... Ships: "Enterprise" - once again, I don't care what anyone says, THAT is not the Enterprise! What an eyesore! Ugly, oversized nacelles, with massive impulse thrusters at their ends, the "neck section" over three times as wide as that of the original Enterprise, backward-swept primary saucer hull...sheer horror! What a far cry from the simple and austere, but elegant design of the original. Warp sounds and effects: That irritating "pop" sound when entering warp, and the white-ish streaked blur that is meant to represent warp travel? I don't think so!
Remarkable scene: The destruction of Vulcan. Long time have I waited for that... A shame it never happened, for this is NOT a Star Trek movie...
Glaring errors and absurdities: If I tried to list all the errors, absurdities, and inconsistencies of this movie, I would be writing a novel, so here are just the few: Romulans! THOSE ARE ROMULANS?!? (inspiration: that line by Bashir in "Trials and Tribble-ations" - "Those are Klingons?!") My reaction when, halfway through the movie, I finally realized those primitives and their abomination of a ship are supposed to be Romulans. The mysterious, suave, arrogant, unpredictable, devious and sophisticated Romulans being reduced to a rabble of primitive bald tatooed thugs?! If these were Middle Ages, Abrams would be burned on a stake for this sacrilege by the Inquisition! And I would be the first to light the fire! And, of course, let's not forget the Narada: A "simple mining vessel", the size of 20 D'deridex class Warbirds, and about 5 times their firepower, hideous, misshapen, without ANY features remotely identifying it as a design of the Romulans, whose ships are renowned for their stylishness and elegance (the beautiful Norexan class warbird Valdore from "Star Trek Nemesis" being a prime example). Simply abominable! Red matter: It creates black holes. How? Why? Not even a flimsy explanation how a single drop of... something... can possibly rupture the fabric of subspace and create a singularity! Enough said. Old Spock's line: "a star went supernova, and threatened to destroy the galaxy" is simply absurd! How can the explosion of one star destroy the GALAXY?!? Idiot!
The plot: No structure, no reasons, no logic of any kind. Why did the supernova that destroyed Romulus occur? Exactly when did this happen, in relation to the events of Star Trek Nemesis and all the events since, as described in the many books written by many brilliant authors about post-Shinzon developments in the galaxy? It doesn't. It NEVER HAPPENS! This is NOT STAR TREK! This is a twisted perversion of one man! Abrams. Who had the AUDACITY to kill 40 years of Star Trek! I'll waste no more time on this!
Rating: 0 (Darko)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
There is little that can be said that wasn't said by the reviews before this. But there is still some.
Generally the biggest flaw in the film is that it's riddled with logic flaws. A whole lot of them are already listed on this site, but there are some more: very obvious one is that you only need a small fraction of Red Matter to destroy a planet and to stop a supernova from expanding. Now how much of it was ignited when Spock hit Narada? That's right, it was the *whole tank*! Not only should that destroy both Narada and Enterprise in a second, but also the whole solar system and probably the whole quadrant!
Another logic error that wasn't mentioned is the viewscreen. Even current day software can keep the correct aspect ratio on any screen, so why is the transmission on the viewscreen stretched so horribly?!
And I'll mention some of the noted errors as well. For one, anyone who have ever seen a single Star Trek episode knows that phasers are hitscan beams, not projectiles! In fact, even those who haven't watched any can tell that, because it's in its name, phaser - phase laser/phase maser, and lasers are beams of light, not projectiles! So to me the scene when Sulu-alternate was ordered to fire all phasers looked like if he was thinking "I don't know how to fire phasers, so to compensate, I'll fire more photon torpedoes!"
The characters - they are not the same as those from TOS. They are like something between them and the Mirror universe, although that might have been the whole idea. Still, those characters are not the ones I know!
The graphics is good, though. That's something to be expected. I don't even mind the Apple bridge - it might be confusing just because we were never shown it long enough to see what panel does what. Talking about that, the pace of the film was way too fast. There were dramatic moments in TOS, such as TOS: "The Doomsday Machine" and TOS: "The Immunity Syndrome", but they were never rushed and there was always enough time to think over what we know. While here there is nothing but action, action that we don't understand because we were never given enough time to realise what was going on. And even the action was chaotic, people running around the bridge in a dangerous situation instead of concentrating on their task!
The sound is probably the best part of the film. There are a lot of original sound effects used, and you could see the difference between outside and inside space. And I liked the funny sound the Jellyfish made. Also, I don't think that space scenes should be all silent, since sound is where we can get quite a lot of information from. Talking about music, I didn't notice it that much, but it didn't stand out as bad so it was probably good.
About the whole reboot thing - I'm being optimistic and hope that all future films and TV (internet?) series will return to the prime universe. It was never destroyed and Abramsverse is officially regarded as an alternative one. So, just like there never was a film or series where everything takes place in the Mirror universe, neither should there be anything in the Abramsverse.
To sum it all up, the film is nothing special, has huge logic flaws and generally not very worth watching. The best part of the whole film was the end credits with Nimoy's speech, original music and planets. Hence I give it 3/10.
Remarkable prop: Sulu's sword. That was a nice touch, although I'd prefer an extending rapier instead.
Rating: 3 (GreatEmerald)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
There are things I like about the J.J. Abrams version, and some huge problems. I will start with the problems because I would like to finish my review in a positive tone.
The first I came across this "reboot" (since when does rebooting a computer change everything unless you install a new operating system?) as we have taken to calling this, was in a graphic novel which explains much of the omitted information in the movie. Such as the cranial/facial tattoos being a symbol of mourning for the Romulans; or that Data has been 'rebuilt' since Nemesis and assisted in the mission which sends Spock into the 'parallel' universe. (This may actually have been more interesting than some of the standard Hollywood clichés we were fed as part of the string of coincidences in this offering.)
This is the BIG issue. You can't say that the 'parallel universes' exists now when two planets and almost their entire populations were removed from the 'Prime Universe' this far in the past. What happened to the temporal prime directive or those who seek to preserve it? It is spurious reasoning to assume that because 'Prime Spock' told Kirk to take over the captaincy of the ship in order to preserve the timeline all will work out as we know it did. It is almost impossible to accept that a Vulcan of his scientific acumen would actually believe this is all it takes to rectify the loss of so many Vulcan and Romulan lives; all of whom have some interconnection in everything that follows no matter how minor. The logic is flawed in this premise. What happens to Tuvok in Voyager? What of the Romulan fleet which helps to hold off the Dominion fleet in DS9? These things can no longer exist as there are not enough people to rebuild those cultures in under 100 years. (Unless they genetically engineer new people or breed like flies.) Perhaps Mr Abrams should have made a movie of Andromeda instead.
This does have the potential to be rectified, given that Ark episodes have been used by writers such as Robert Hewitt Wolfe to great effect in the past we may be able to assume that this is a sneeky 'alternative universe trilogy' as there is the possibility of a set up for this, but as stated in the main review, that is starting to become a bit Star Wars, but hey, that was a great movie too. Perhaps 'New Spock' will remember what occurs and complete the loop in the timeline. It's been used as a continuity device before. As long as 'Prime Spock' remains in this timeline then all others are fundamentally changed because of it. I think the rest of the issues I have with this installment are well covered by the first review. I won't labour the point by rehashing them further here. I'll move on to what I did enjoy about this movie.
Some of the backstory worked well for me, some didn't. I found young Kirk self centred, opportunistic and annoying. 'Prime Kirk' was some of these things, but the underlying philosophy of the Star Trek universe seemed to be missing in him, more so than just because he lost his father (which only slightly explained his ridiculous behaviour).
I enjoyed all the actors, I thought they were well cast and did a great job with the material they had to work with. Any problems were script related in my opinion.
I enjoyed seeing the construction of the Enterprise, I thought it was interesting to build it in the desert and I am sure there would be some way to get it into space (eventually) so I won't begin on the physics of such an endeavour. I even liked the redesigned lines of the ship, I would wonder if budgets were bigger for TOS if Gene Roddenberry wouldn't have approved it way back when. The interior left me cold though.
As an introduction for movie goers who have no previous experience with Star Trek it is a great action packed story; though too Hollywood Blockbuster with very thin plot structure which belies the depth of the Trekaverse those of us who have grown up with it know it to be. I am interested to see where it leads but will have to reserve full judgement until it is completed and we understand the full vision (or lack of same) of the writers producers and directors. Let's just hope it's not a lame glossy rehash of a great story dragged down to the lowest common denominator like 'Batman Returns' was.
Rating: 0 (D-Druid)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
I have just watched the film for the first time. I had been avoiding it as I dismissed it as non-canon and a teenage action flick. I was wary when I first heard about the movie, because of the basic synopsis- the TOS crew basically all meet up just after they're old enough to vote and hop on board Capt Pike's Enterprise. As you know the TOS ensemble came together in batches over the 2 pilots and "Corbomite Maneuver", with Chekov not appearing until Season 2. That to me remains the biggest inconsistency to add to the ones listed elsewhere. But I'm a sucker for (another) alternate timeline story so I watched out of interest. I didn't initially realise that the entire film was an alternate timeline, but Vulcan blowing up was a slight hint. I assumed that the rest of the film would be about the crew correcting this small change in history à la First Contact and COEOF- when they didn't I understood the nature of this "reboot". I'm partly reassured about its canon status, as I can see that the alternate timeline plot is a device to (try to) explain the differences from TOS, and this demonstrates that this was written by someone who cares about the overall Trek narrative. To me any debate about multiverses, while interesting in itself, is here less important than trying to understand how Nemo's intervention causes all the inconsistencies, because only that would settle any doubt about how seriously to take this and future films.
Rating: 5 (David Lake)

 

Back to Star Trek (2009) index

Home   Top
	Last modified: 05.01.12
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/episodes/trekxi_g4.htm