I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

in the words of Sybok “have faith my friends, there are more of us than you know”.

 

Honestly, my biggest problem with it was how just... dumb it was. It honestly felt more like a gussied-up version of Galaxy Quest to me. And it's bothering me how the media and the obnoxious people who've hated Star Trek (because it wasn't cool) are now using this Star Trek movie as a new excuse to bash Trek fans. If I hear one more joke about how Trek fans are complaining because it's "entertaining," I'm going to vomit!

In all honesty, the thing that gets me the most is that from this point forward, this is what Star Trek is. And I don't like it, mainly because, with all the other shows and movies (including Nemesis), that was a universe I would have loved to live in. The Abrams Trek-i-verse, not at all.

 

hear hear

 

Excellent criticism. I do hope there will be room on this board for critical discussion of the film. Perhaps later, when the excitement of seeing any new Trek in a while has died down a little. At the moment, it seems all critical discussion bogs down to canon fight (not interesting, and not very relevant) or a "who's a real fan" pissing contest. There have been good critical reviews as well, but they're somewhere in threads that already have dozens of pages of that other stuff...

 

I sympathize with you, but I don't agree. Most of us found the film to be very good, the beginning of a new life for the Trek franchise. Is it perfect? No but my issues are al of the little nitpicky variety, things I can let slide, things that can be improved upon or (like TFF) forgotten. Those who express some deeper dissatisfaction, well I can't say I get it. We saw something in the movie you didn't. I don't mean to belittle or insult you by that statement. All art is subjective, and the only way we can agree on what is good art and what is bad art is by general consensus. The consensus is, this was good stuff.

I could come up with a long list of statements about why the emotional content worked for me, why the destruction of Vulcan is a allegory of tragic destruction that will resonate with the modern audience, why the characters were far more relate-able to me than the perfect classical-music listening humans of earlier films, or how the scope and technical execution of the thing was the best we have ever seen in Trek. But there would be no point, because you either don't see what I'm seeing, or it doesn't weigh as much for you in term s of the final judgment.

I gotta say this, though - this is Trek now. Paramount is not going back, not after the biggest opening in franchise history. I'm sorry if that isn't to your liking, and I'm really hoping this won't cause a nasty rift in the fan community.

Besides, maybe you will like the next one better.

 

this is exactly why this film will always been known as the death of trek as we know it.

And if someone try to push that alternate timeline crap down my throat again i'm gonna scream

 

I agree here. Honestly, I thought this movie was a lot of fun, and it certainly attracted new people. That said, it definitely wasn't perfect, and there are a lot of things that could have made it better.

However, I felt the same way about "Batman Begins." It wasn't perfect, but it did a good job of re-establishing the universe, and it paved the way for "The Dark Knight" to be made, which I thought was amazing.

If this movie can pave the way for that kind of sequel, then I think the imperfections will have been totally worth it.

 

I find most of the criticisms spot on, yet I truly enjoyed the film for all that it got right. The only thing that really, really bothered me was Spock-1's baffling laziness--which should be a truly murderous plothole, but somehow managed not to be fatal to the movie.

Maybe my dopamine levels were elevated. -> ?

 

???? How could this NOT create a nasty rift in the fan community? The movie is basically a giant f' you to the 40-year old idea that all Trek stories exists in one contiguous universe. You are never going to be able to reconcile the differences between those who care that this has occurred and those that don't.

Essentially it comes down to whether people felt Trek was still a viable franchise without wiping the slate clean. Those that didn't are happy because they probably already considered Trek dead and a reboot feels new and fresh to them, and they like that. Those that did are appalled that 40 years of Trek history was wiped out in a matter of a few hours, and probably wonder what the point of any sci-fi story is if you can just write a new chapter where people come back in time, inexorably alter the universe, and then never repair it. They probably feel that huge timeline changes are far better used as disasters needing to be fixed, not plot devices used to cheaply escape having to stick to a series' established history.

Considering the depth of Star Trek fandom, this will likely be a bitter, ugly rift that will probably cause Star Trek, as it moves forward with this alternate universe, to lose quite a few long term fans. I know of a few friends that have been consistent convention goers for years that pretty much detest the new film and want nothing to do with it. You can call them geeks or losers or whatever you want, but the truth is they supported Trek for a long, long time, even when it wasn't very cool to do so, and to lose them as fans is a sad thing.

But, realistically, Paramount doesn't care about those fans. Paramount wants the mass market fans, and this movie is getting them. So this is the path they will take, and if they lose some long-term supporters? Well too bad, but they don't really care.

Personally, I still think the whole thing is stupid and lazy. We shouldn't even be having this discussion. They didn't have to jettison the entire Trek story-line in order to reinvigorate the franchise and pull in new fans. The Star Trek universe was diverse enough that they could have told some great, compelling stories, even with the old characters, that would have fit right in. But they didn't choose that path--they chose to throw out the baby with the bathwater and give themselves carte blanche to do anything without having to fit in because that was a lot easier. You can point to box office numbers and claim they did the right thing, but I think you can also argue that ANY well-made movie bringing back Kirk and Spock to the big screen would have done well.

 

I pretty much agree with everything you said. I liked the movie but there were things with the plot that troubled me. What I find funny is that if the plot of this movie was an episode of Voyager or Enterprise, it would have been bashed to death by most fans. Yet I'm finding that most fans are saying, "oh well, it's science fiction, there's bound to be plot holes!" Star Trek and science fiction fans in general want some sort of answer. We want it to sort of make sense. It IS the future so make stuff up.

Star Trek for me is duty, honour, friendship, cooperation, exploration, scientific discovery, etc. That's what the Federation is all about - everyone working together for the common good. I didn't get a lot of that from this film. I think if you asked people after watching this film (who knew nothing about Star Trek before) about what the Federation stands for, I don't think they'd have a clue. We didn't see any Vulcan ambassadors on Earth or various worlds working together to take down Nero.

I hope the sequel gives us some true emotional dialogue between the cast so that they don't just become comic relief. I hope they show us a little of how brilliant and honourable these people are. They're Starfleet officers so we should get a sense that they want to uphold the principles of the Federation and do what's right.

Let me reiterate that I really enjoyed the movie as a popcorn blockbuster. It was action packed and funny. I really did love it for that. I have no problem with a new look and reboot and all that. It just missed on some of the basic themes of Star Trek which I hope they'll reintroduce once they can start with Kirk in the Captain's chair!

 

Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

Look, feel free to not like a film. Whatever. I refused to see Mama Mia because I felt it would emasculate me somehow, but you have to realise that describing this film as dumb against the 40 odd years of Trek makes you sound like an idiot.

So, apart from the absence of Vulcan, what so different about the new universe/timeline that you wouldn't want to live in it? We probably won't see men in skirts again but is that such a bad thing?

Why you'd want to live in a universe where women can't captain a starship and Earth is under constant threat from invasion or destruction is beyond me.

 

What? Galaxy Quest was brilliant!

 

I welcomed Spock and Uhura's romance. It made sense that there was something actually happening based off of the random shots we saw of Uhura caring for Spock back in the original series. If it wasn't acceptable for Uhura and Kirk to kiss back in the 60s, of course Uhura and Spock couldn't have. Now they can... and I love it.

Canon, canon, canon... just forget the damn word. We have 11 separate movies, 6 different tv shows, novels, etc... Trek can't be tied down to tiny details from the 60s show. It's ridiculous to "have to" show Finegan or Gary Mitchell to appease a few of us if we still get Star Trek... and now, we've got it. We may get them, we may not. It's a whole new world for them to explore... and for us to go along with it. No one can take away our DVDs and merch... and I can't understand why anyone wouldn't like their Star Trek produced before 2000 anymore... just because of this movie.

Who cares about this being a new timeline or an alternate universe. It's Star Trek... hasn't changed. We're getting new Star Trek in a few years and we've still got Star Trek from the past. This movie hasn't changed that.

Regarding cadets to officers and some of the senior officers so quickly... suspension of belief. The movie had to tell a story fast... and it did an excellent job.

 

Gep Malakai: (Without reading the whole thread)

I loved the movie. There were plotholes as large as that black hole that swallowed Vulcan, sure. But it was fascinating and entertaining. I'm sorry you didn't get the same excitement out of the movie I did. I hope the next installment of the franchise (whether that be a movie, a series or books) do give you the excitement you deserve.

That being said, I do appreciate your way of presenting things. You analyze what you didn't like, and while you might not be able to articulate every aspect you didn't like, at least you didn't assume everybody else would need to have the same viewpoint as you. It's very refreshing after that stubborn little group (you know who you are) who wanted everything to stay the same and can't take the fact that Star Trek is changing.

You, my dear sir, have manners. And I commend you for it.

Here, have a little borg head: It's fluffy.

 

Your puzzlement contains its own answer. Contiguous. As in no more space to expand.

No, Star Trek was already dead. Like 4 years ago or so.