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

I understand the complaints.

That said, is it possible that any of this is just because we aren't as young as we once were?

When I was first introduced to Star Trek, I didn't know what a gaffer was. I didn't know about how actors, producers, directors, writers, and studio execs played politics in getting a movie or tv show made, or how they had personal animosities toward each other that (usually) never make it to the screen.

It all seemed real, or like something that I believed could be real, someday.

That hasn't been true for a long time, though, and that isn't the fault of this movie. Or even Voyager, or Enterprise. I'm just older and more cynical.

And maybe, in a way, that's what I like about this Trek - it's still optimistic, but it's a little cynical, too. Maybe a little more like something I can still believe could happen.

 

For me the problem is this: in this film the plot holes, inconsistencies and coincidences are both too large and too numerous to be dealt with simply by suspension of disbelief. I can't NOT think enough to not notice them. Maybe if I only saw the film drunk?

 

No, but one side is getting reinforcements while the other doesn't, so if it escalates into a full-blown war, the Canonites are not very likely to win.

 

It was an excellent 'first' movie.

Fresh, exciting, dramatic, emotional, with gorgeous visual effects, nice editing, good sound, countless homages and nods to previous Trek, wonderful characters/acting, and good (but not OTT) humour.

However, now that this set-up movie is out of the way, the sequel should be judged harsher.

 

Nope, but most of us who dislike it are ashamed to be on the same side of the debate as some of the crazier fans and keep quiet.

I'm not sure that calling things "ass backwards" can be classified as very articulate, but thanks for the plug.

I'll say it with a straight face, I don't think the dialogue was dumb but it was very humdrum and uninteresting. There is only one line in this movie which I found memorable that wasn't used in the trailers or stolen from previous Trek productions, and that was Sarek saying "I married her because I loved her." I could see it coming a mile away, but it was still a good line and the only thing which stood out for me.

This is an argument I've seen a lot and I just don't buy it; a foundation is no substitute for house. And the fact is that I don't believe this movie was a good foundation; I can't buy the reasoning behind Kirk being made a captain, I can't buy Scotty's background, I can't buy the reasoning behind what happened to Vulcan... I just don't consider this movie to be a solid foundation, it is a group of slightly slanted walls with no roof.

I don't think the movie was dumb, but I think it settled for mediocrity rather than striving for excellence. I want my entertainment to strive.

I was contemplating constantly while watching Star Trek, it completely failed to get me emotionally involved. I've said it before, but a good movie can turn your brain off without you realising it and a great movie doesn't need to turn it off at all, and this film needed to turn off its audience's brain to make them enjoy it. For me, it failed to achieve that goal.

 

It's my favorite Star Trek movie - closely followed only by TWOK, TMP and Galaxy Quest.

 

There is something to be said for the notion that the movie could not live up to all the hype. It's been three years of torturous anticipation and now that the movie has come and gone, how can it possibly measure up to all that expectation?

For my own part, I felt awe when I saw the Big E again for the first time. I loved that Kirk's brilliance was hampered by his impetuousness. I could see and feel Spock's inner conflict. I believed that McCoy cared about the people around him more than his demeanour would indicate.

The three of them felt right. They felt like they always have.

So, for me, the writers and JJ got the people of Star Trek right. The story was a mess and the science was even more slap-dash than usual. But the emotional core of Trek, the holy triumverate if you will, was intact and shining brightly at the heart of this film. Just as I thrilled to see Kirk at the end of his career in TUC: embittered by the loss of his son, it felt equally thrilling to see him at his prime with all of his adventures before him.

That's why I really dug this film. I hope that the next one does more with the story, but for right now it was more than enough that the people aboard the USS Enterprise had come back from the dead.

Edit: My favorite Star Trek movie is still TUC, but this new Star Trek is wrangling with TWoK for a close second. The third is Master and Commander.

 

Was Star Trek Citizen Kane? No. It's not on that level. It was a fun adventure flick with a lot of geewhiz stuff thrown in and maybe a message or two. That's how I remember Trek, fun with a message.

What was the message? Revenge is bad, a major Christian theme. Another message was that friends are good.

The Star Trek movie had to accomplish things very quickly. It had to introduce Kirk and Spock to people who didn't know them. It had to introduce the trek universe to people who didn't know it. I think it succeeded.

 

It's my first post so I'm sorry if its a bit long.

You can look at a story from the elements it contains: the characters, the plot, the telling of it (in the case of films, direction, performances, FX)...

You can look at a story from the message it carries - the point of it, its reason for being.

To me and I suspect many other trek fans the point of Star Trek (all the versions) was Roddenberry's idea: mankind becomes civilized. They explore space to understand, communicate and learn. They respect each other and other cultures. They try to do the right thing, even in the face of a challenge, an enemy or a no-win scenario. You know what I'm talking about if you have seen more than 3 episodes of any trek series.

None of that was there in XI. We got updated versions of the characters. Cool. New actors. Great. New FX. Fantastic. A new story. Could be OK in future, even though this plot was lame IMO.

What I didn't get was star trek. I didn't get exploration, I didn't get respect of others or other cultures, I didn't get "doing right in the face of adversity".

I got a Spock who has so little respect for others that he maroons someone he doesn't like on some random planet. I got a version of Kirk that orders the death of his enemies when they won't submit (even though they're doomed anyway it seems). I cringed when I saw that - I could name a dozen stories where Kirk and ST were defined by the exact opposite actions. And for this remarkable (?) performance he's promoted to Captain.

This isn't a civilized mankind, this is today's culture with all its ills, when we choose to go to war for convenience or to prove our might makes us right. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

XI was an exciting looking action story with the characters of the original series. It just wasn't Star Trek.

Sorry to anyone who disagrees, and feel free to flame me. So many fans of the movie have been so aggressive with anyone who disagrees with them, it kind of proves my point.

 

This is a better way of putting things than I have. I've said a lot will ride on the next movie, and your above point is why. Star Trek will lose some longterm fans, or at least the long term fans that didn't like Star Trek 2009 will not return for a sequel.

And if the sequel sucks, then the mass market fans will depart and how dead will Star Trek be then? Will anyone ever want to bring it back if that happens?

Exactly. This movie was a such a success with marketing. The next movie has to have more substance to succeed.

 

I must disagree.

While I applaud you for not just dissing the film and actually stating the facts why you disliked it instead of just jumping up the gun and nitpick about every little thing.

I actually liked the movie, because it was different, had plenty of action, and the characters were life-like and it was fun seeing the characters on-screen again even if they were portrayed by different actors. But-- everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

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

Well, by being aware of the hype beforehand and tempering one's expectations accordingly, of course.

"Hype" is fun to the extent that it engenders all this collective excitement and enthusiasm in the group. That said, folks throwing tailgate parties and Superbowl parties and the like do so knowing full well that there's usually a measurable chance they'll be disappointed by the play or the outcome of the game. You don't have to let one spoil the other - I mean, disliking the movie doesn't mean that Gep Malakai's had to turn in his sombrero.

 

Didnt like the film either, so you arent alone. That is not to say i HATED!!! the film with a capital "raped my childhood" or any such nonsense, just that after viewing it i was left underwhelmed. As i have said elsewhere and others have said in this thread, the things that the film got right were severely undercut by the numerous flaws in the film - the gaping plotholes, the poor casting of some characters, *cough*Simon Pegg*cough*.

I agree with Godben entirely when he said that the film didnt prevoke an emotional investment. The Final Frontier was by no means a good film, but scattered throughout it were scenes that did prevoke that response in me, McCoys pain for example. Same with Nemesis, cliched as it was, Data's death made me sad. The new film however, tried to do this, no doubt i was supposed to feel sad when Spock's mum fell off a cliff, or when Vulcan got sucked to death, but instead i was thinking i dont really care.

Part of my own dislike also relates to my distaste for J.J Abrams as a director. Sorry but lens flares get a tad irritating when they are in every scene, even when its just a character walking down a corridor, and shaky camera's do not automatically make your film gritty and realistic.

Another key flaw for me, is this Alternate Timeline crap. It added nothing to the film, if anything it hurt it - why should i care about this Spock and Kirk, when i know the Real Timeline version are fine and dandy? They should have had the guts to just flat out remake Star Trek. At least then perhaps Vulcan's demise would have left me gasping, rather than glad that the Real Version was ok. Sure many would have Hated the film, but surely an emotional response to a film is better than antipathy- better Grr! than Meh

I will watch sequel, afterall maybe they will learn from their mistakes and make a more coherent plot next time. But if the second film is riddled with the same flaws as this one, then i'll be bowing out 'til the next reboot.

And to prove, despite what some of the rabid fans who cant handle criticism of the new film insist, that a person can form an opinion of a film solely on it own merits, i will also list what i found good about the film:

Chris Pine, i went in wanting to hate him, instead i left glad he was the one cast. He made Kirk his own, far more than Quinto did with Spock.

Karl Urban, why this man is not recieving Oscar nominations and getting leading roles in triple-A films instead of crap like Doom i cannot understand. He stole every scene he was in. Sod a sequel, give me McCoy M.D the series. The Kirk/McCoy interaction was also far more satisfying than any Kirk had with Spock.

Chekov, again, excellent casting and a good new look at the character. I really liked his boyish enthusiasm and the fact he was actually rather intelligent, something the Original version didnt really display.

The special effects were also top class. Granted i am not fond of the designs used, but at least when the showy effects started, they looked good.

 

For a very few, such as yourself:

"After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true." - Spock (Amok Time)

 

I too left the theater confused and disappointed. I have posted quite a bit about the shortcomings of the movie. Overall I felt they wasted a lot of screen time on juvenile antics meant to appeal to a very young crowd. I do not like the whole alternate timeline thing. I do not understand why the felt the need to dump the canon and start over-there were plenty of ways to go forward while not slavishly paying attenting to every small detail, but that is just water under the bridge now. I also think that I will give it another try now that I have accepted the whole alternate timeline thing-I think I was fighting that during the film. So no, you are not alone.

 

It was the death of the old trek, and the birth of the new. I'm just not sure the old trek needed to die.

 

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

It's too late. It was dead already.

 

Not everyone would agree with that.