revisiting the new STAR TREK

[moonpie23]

i've got to admit, i don't go to the movie theater much any more. (except on opening day of each Bond movie)

not bragging but i've got a killer set up at the house.....65" lcd and y'all KNOW i've got the throw-down audio to go with it... :D


anyway, watched Star Trek on blu ray last night and i've got to admit.....the casting is excellent, on just about every main character. Good movies stand the test of repeated viewings and i've seen this one now 6 times...

Since they made so many spin offs for the original TV show, i've been a bit skeptical about anything more, but this movie was the exception.

great story, great re-introduction of those timeless characters, and all the wizardry of modern special efx.......hard to beat...

am i just a trekkie homer? or did y'all dig it this much?

[Heelkiller1]

It was a pretty good flick , I thought it was well done and stands up nice to the other movies with the original cast. But The Wrath of Khan is by far the best,maybe they will attempt to remake it with the new cast.

[bluebear]

i've got to admit, i don't go to the movie theater much any more. (except on opening day of each Bond movie)

not bragging but i've got a killer set up at the house.....65" lcd and y'all KNOW i've got the throw-down audio to go with it... :D


anyway, watched Star Trek on blu ray last night and i've got to admit.....the casting is excellent, on just about every main character. Good movies stand the test of repeated viewings and i've seen this one now 6 times...

Since they made so many spin offs for the original TV show, i've been a bit skeptical about anything more, but this movie was the exception.

great story, great re-introduction of those timeless characters, and all the wizardry of modern special efx.......hard to beat...

am i just a trekkie homer? or did y'all dig it this much?

Well, I have nowhere near that sort of set-up but I did re-watch Star Trek this week after seeing it in the theater and I enjoyed the repeat viewing..maybe even a bit more than the first time. It's a bit campy at times but so was the original..

[moonpie23]

good villain don't you think? we'll not be asking nero to dinner....

[Olympic Fan]

It was a pretty good flick , I thought it was well done and stands up nice to the other movies with the original cast. But The Wrath of Khan is by far the best,maybe they will attempt to remake it with the new cast.

Count me as one Trekkie who is absolutely opposed to a remake. What is there to gain? This series is at its best when it's driven by fresh new ideas ... at its worst when he just rehashes tired old stories.

Wrath of Kahn was great ... it doesn't need to be remade.

I saw the newest Star Trek in the theaters and plan on buying the DVD very soon. But somebody correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't the point of this movie that we have a re-start of the franchise -- an alternate time line in which we don't have to abide by the future of the Star Trek Universe that we all know from TV?

I think there is a lot of room for innovation there.

[bjornolf]

i've got to admit, i don't go to the movie theater much any more. (except on opening day of each Bond movie)

not bragging but i've got a killer set up at the house.....65" lcd and y'all KNOW i've got the throw-down audio to go with it... :D


anyway, watched Star Trek on blu ray last night and i've got to admit.....the casting is excellent, on just about every main character. Good movies stand the test of repeated viewings and i've seen this one now 6 times...

Since they made so many spin offs for the original TV show, i've been a bit skeptical about anything more, but this movie was the exception.

great story, great re-introduction of those timeless characters, and all the wizardry of modern special efx.......hard to beat...

am i just a trekkie homer? or did y'all dig it this much?

Yea, I'm waiting to see it on my friend's screen. He's got a 1080p projector with a 120" screen with a kicking sound setup in a windowless room. He just upgraded to whatever the new Dolby is. I can't wait. ;)

[moonpie23]

But isn't the point of this movie that we have a re-start of the franchise -- an alternate time line in which we don't have to abide by the future of the Star Trek Universe that we all know from TV?

I think there is a lot of room for innovation there.

totally agree...we've seen all that old stuff, loved it and just rehashing with new players doesn't really do much..


bring on the new stories graced with teaser "connection points" from past episodes and characters for spice...

[moonpie23]

Yea, I'm waiting to see it on my friend's screen. He's got a 1080p projector with a 120" screen with a kicking sound setup in a windowless room. He just upgraded to whatever the new Dolby is. I can't wait. ;)

1080p blu ray just flat ROCKS....

[ncexnyc]

I saw the newest Star Trek in the theaters and plan on buying the DVD very soon. But somebody correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't the point of this movie that we have a re-start of the franchise -- an alternate time line in which we don't have to abide by the future of the Star Trek Universe that we all know from TV?



You make an excellent point. I guess that is why all these time travel stories are always so confusing.

I guess a Khan remake is possible, but not likely. Khan exists prior to this current movie, so him and his group would have to be found like in the original series and then the events would have to playout in a similar fashion.

Being a crusty old 55 year old, I can truly say the technology for home movie viewing is off the charts. I just upgraded to a 37 inch, 1080P Panasonic LCD, along with their 7.1 Blue-Ray Surround System and the viewing experience is unreal. Hard to believe it was only yesterday when a 25" B&W console was something special.

[moonpie23]

I can truly say the technology for home movie viewing is off the charts.


and the bathroom is RIGHT there and the pause button may be the most amazing technical advancement :)

[Kim*]

Definitely agree that the casting was fantastic. I'm going to wait a few months to get the DVD because I already saw the movie once in the theater, once in IMAX, and then again on a flight last month.. so I'm set for a while!

[DukeUsul]

I've got the BluRay on my Xmas list. It will look good on my 60" LED-backlight 1080p screen.

***** SPOLIERS ******

I'm a Trekkie homer and I had some issues with the film. I never understood what those giant tubes of water were doing that Scotty got beamed into. What for giant turbines or something? WTF would turbines be doing on the enterprise? And clear tubing? That was just a gimmick for some physical comedy. I prefer when Star Trek tries to stick to at least go for some plausability.

And what's up with Spock abandoning Kirk on some ice planet? Since when would someone as logical as Spock violate all ethical, moral and Starfleet regulations in abandoning someone in such a situation? Totally unrealistic.

And where exactly is this ice planet/moon such that you could see the destruction of Vulcan so visibly in the sky? It would have to be DAMN close to be able to see it that large in the sky. And how ridiculously conincident was the meetup between Kirk and Spock on that planet? Like really unlikely?

I had some story issues. Most of the rest I liked.

[moonpie23]

I've got the BluRay on my Xmas list. It will look good on my 60" LED-backlight 1080p screen.

dood...that sounds sweet....what kind? lEd? awesome

***** SPOLIERS ******


What for giant turbines or something? WTF would turbines be doing on the enterprise? And clear tubing? That was just a gimmick for some physical comedy. I prefer when Star Trek tries to stick to at least go for some plausability.


don't you remember TRANSPARENT ALUMINUM? from the whales movie? scotty showed the guy back in 80's earth how to invent it, so it was definitely around for use on that enterprise. :)




And what's up with Spock abandoning Kirk on some ice planet? Since when would someone as logical as Spock violate all ethical, moral and Starfleet regulations in abandoning someone in such a situation? Totally unrealistic.


agreeed...out or place...didn't they have a brig onboard?

[DukeUsul]

dood...that sounds sweet....what kind? lEd? awesome

***** SPOLIERS ******




don't you remember TRANSPARENT ALUMINUM? from the whales movie? scotty showed the guy back in 80's earth how to invent it, so it was definitely around for use on that enterprise. :)






agreeed...out or place...

Yeah I remember transparent aluminum ... "Computer ... hello computer?" :D But it's there for what purpose?

It's a Samsung LED-backlit DLP. Two years old. Only 13" thick, so pretty thin for a DLP. It was half the price of a 60" plasma at the time.

[moonpie23]

Yeah I remember transparent aluminum ... "Computer ... hello computer?" :D But it's there for what purpose?

It's a Samsung LED-backlit DLP. Two years old. Only 13" thick, so pretty thin for a DLP. It was half the price of a 60" plasma at the time.

comic relief for the hot fuzz guy... :)

[JasonEvans]

He is the Shaun of the Dead guy, not the Hot Fuzz guy ;)

A full on remake of Wrath of Kahn is a bad idea. There were so many clever plot moments in Wrath that just made the film -- days being hours and hours being days; Kirk and Spock figuring out that Khan was not an experienced captain so he would not think in 3 dimensions in a starship fight; Checkov and the black cop from the Terminator being victims of Khan's mind control; Spock sacrificing himself to fix the warp engines. None of these would pack the same punch in a new film where we saw the plot twists coming in advance. Now, if we are talking about a remake where the story is radically changed and we just use Khan as a bad guy character again, I guess I can buy that. That is really a new movie just with a familiar bad guy. I am cool with that. But, a remake that pulls a lot of the same plot elements would suck a lot, IMO.

I think the many coincidences regarding Kirk, Spock, and even Scotty in the new movie were meant to show that these people were MEANT TO BE A TEAM. Even when their timelines got messed up, fate found a way to bring them together and have them help each other. That is how I saw the 2nd half of the movie. See if it works for those of you who found some of the plot twists a bit improbable.

Lastly, here is an article (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/11/17/jj-abrams-teases-star-trek-2-details-his-return-and-the-possibility-of-khan/) talking about possible Star Trek 2 stuff with JJ and Damon Lindelhoff. There is a lot of talk about Khan out there.

--Jason "the new Khan? ---> http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/lost/images/b/b3/NestorCarbonell.jpg" Evans

[DukeUsul]

I don't think he has the pecs for it. :D

[moonpie23]

He is the Shaun of the Dead guy, not the Hot Fuzz guy ;)


right....i saw SOTD about 4 or 5 times....my wife loved hot fuzz so i had to see it about 30 times...

[dukestheheat]

'....Listen all a y'all this is SABOTAGE, listen all a y'all this is SABOTAGE, listen all a y'all this SABOTAGE!!!!! Iiiiiii can't stand it, I know ya planned it......'

I love that Beastie Boys theme song for the movie, 'Sabotage'.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie as well. I didn't want it to end.

dth.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

I never cared for the original Star Trek (I prefer TNG), but I really enjoyed the movie. Good cast, good action, good villain. I'm looking forward to another.

My only nitpick was the weird alien friend of Simon Pegg. It was a bit Ewoky for my tastes.

[hc5duke]

I never cared for the original Star Trek (I prefer TNG), but I really enjoyed the movie. Good cast, good action, good villain. I'm looking forward to another.

My only nitpick was the weird alien friend of Simon Pegg. It was a bit Ewoky for my tastes.

Wow, I agree with every word in this post.

After watching the movie, I tried to watch TOS episodes on CBS online but just couldn't do it. Maybe I just need to get past the awful first season. Currently, I'm in the process of watching every episode of TNG (about 50-60% there I think?) - Season 1+2 were again dreadful, but IMO the ratio of good episodes to bad episodes is much higher in TNG than TOS.

[JBDuke]

Wow, I agree with every word in this post.

After watching the movie, I tried to watch TOS episodes on CBS online but just couldn't do it. Maybe I just need to get past the awful first season. Currently, I'm in the process of watching every episode of TNG (about 50-60% there I think?) - Season 1+2 were again dreadful, but IMO the ratio of good episodes to bad episodes is much higher in TNG than TOS.

I grew up with reruns of TOS, so I have a fondness for it, although when I watch episodes now, I realize that only 10-12 of the original 79 episodes are good ones - most of them are pretty lame TV. If you limit yourself to the best episodes, I think it's still compelling TV.

As for TNG, I think it didn't hit its stride until the third season. There are several episodes worth watching in those first two years, but several that are just painful. From the third season on, though, I think they're awfully good. Some of the later episodes are great TV.

[moonpie23]

i suppose it "in the eye of the beholder". If you were a young teenager when it came on, it didn't seem lame at all. (especially if you were a science fiction junkie).

By the time TNG came around (for me anyway) it seemed different and it didn't "get me".

i guess that's why this new Star Trek does it for me......it takes me back and forward at the same time...

[DukeUsul]

I grew up watching the TOS reruns - I was 7-10 years old in the mid-to late 80s - my parents had been fans, so we had them on in the house on Saturday afternoons. I loved them. The camp was great. I loved going to watch the ST moves in the 80s. I remember watching ST III in a friends house - probably the first one I saw. We had a 10 year birthday party for a friend in 1986 when ST IV came out. And the next year I was an ABSOLUTELY ELATED 10 year old with ST TNG started. I grew up with the camp of TOS and the first couple of seasons of TNG and still love it to this day.

[Olympic Fan]

Count me as a full-fledged and original Trekkie -- I know that the original series looks clunky by today's standards, but it was groundbreaking in its era.

I also agree that quite a few episodes were drek, probably the majority. But there was some real science fiction there and that's something we didn't get a lot of on TV in the 1960s. To have a sympathetic Russian character ... to have a strong, competent black woman (and the first black/white kiss in TV history) ... it was ahead of its time.

Like a lot of others, I prefer The Next Generation ... and I agree that it took a couple of seasons to hit its stride. But those last five years -- wow ... I think the percentage of interesting, thought-provoking, exciting shows went way up.

I also became a fan on Deep Space Nine -- another Trek series that took a while to get going. The science fiction quotient just kept going up.

I think the Trek franchise started to decline with Voyager. There were still some very good episodes and story lines, but the percentage of hits started to decline. By Enterprise, they had to really reach to avoid the same tired story lines ... I dont have a problem with taking a hiatus. I'm sure there are enough fans to bring a new Trek series back in the near future -- I really wish they would do the "Star Trek Academy" idea that has been floating around for years. I think there is a lot of potential there.

For those who don't get it, can I suggest "Trekkies" -- a great documentary that explores the obsession of Trek fans.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

For those who don't get it, can I suggest "Trekkies" -- a great documentary that explores the obsession of Trek fans.

"You called at the absolute WORST time!"

I love Trekkies, I was crying laughing at parts. Attending a Star Trek convention has always been a guilty pleasure dream of mine. OK, time to push my most dorky desires back into the closet before anyone sees them.

[Olympic Fan]

"You called at the absolute WORST time!"

I love Trekkies, I was crying laughing at parts. Attending a Star Trek convention has always been a guilty pleasure dream of mine. OK, time to push my most dorky desires back into the closet before anyone sees them.

If you liked Trekkies, may I suggest Trekkies II (if you didn't like the first one, you won't like the sequel).

Some of the stuff is pretty overwhelming -- like meeting a bunch of kids in war-torn Bosnia who have rallied around Star Trek ...

I was also blown away by the survey of Star Trek bands in (of all places) Sacremento -- including competing Klingon heavy metal bands (it makes a weird kind of sense). I even have a song on my Ipod from a group I heard there: "Everything I do, I do with William Shatner" by Red Alert.

I also love the comedy GalaxyQuest, which is not strictly a Trek film, but is clearly a response to the series and the fan fanaticism it has generated. I sometimes imagine GalaxyQuest with the Star Trek cast (Shatner instead of Tim Allen; Nimoy instead of Alan Rickman, etc.).

[alteran]

I've got the BluRay on my Xmas list. It will look good on my 60" LED-backlight 1080p screen.

***** SPOLIERS ******

I'm a Trekkie homer and I had some issues with the film. I never understood what those giant tubes of water were doing that Scotty got beamed into. What for giant turbines or something? WTF would turbines be doing on the enterprise? And clear tubing? That was just a gimmick for some physical comedy. I prefer when Star Trek tries to stick to at least go for some plausability.

And what's up with Spock abandoning Kirk on some ice planet? Since when would someone as logical as Spock violate all ethical, moral and Starfleet regulations in abandoning someone in such a situation? Totally unrealistic.

And where exactly is this ice planet/moon such that you could see the destruction of Vulcan so visibly in the sky? It would have to be DAMN close to be able to see it that large in the sky. And how ridiculously conincident was the meetup between Kirk and Spock on that planet? Like really unlikely?

I had some story issues. Most of the rest I liked.

Man, you totally nailed my feelings about the movie.

I'm a trekkie from way back, but I've never been a purist. I absolutely LOVED the casting for the movie. I thought the effects were amazing, and were used to enhance the story, not hide lack of same. I liked the breaks with established Star Trek "canon." (Spock plus Uhura? Bring it on. McKoy with issues? Serve it up.)

I could go on and on with what I loved about this movie.

But the things you mentioned were really groaners that put it squarely in the "B to B-" category for me. Worse, they were lazy, totally unnecessary groaners.

The water tubes cheesed me off, too. They went a long and ridiculous way to get a not-terribly-funny sight gag.

The worst for me was Spock just RANDOMLY being on the right planet, within a kilometer of where Kirk was randomly marooned, and Kirk just happened to stumble into his cave? Seriously, figure the odds. There's a million ways to make them meet each other that are "plausible," particularly since we're mucking around with time here. Not bothering to find one of them is insulting to the audience and just plain lazy.

[The Gordog]

The worst for me was Spock just RANDOMLY being on the right planet,...

Sorry, but this is just wrong. Spock was there because Nemo put him there to see the destruction of Vulcan. Kirk got dropped there because it was the nearest habitable planet/moon to Vulcan, where the ship already was.
...within a kilometer of where Kirk was randomly marooned, and Kirk just happened to stumble into his cave? Seriously, figure the odds. There's a million ways to make them meet each other that are "plausible," particularly since we're mucking around with time here. Not bothering to find one of them is insulting to the audience and just plain lazy.

Now, you can rightly ask how they ended up in the same part of a whole world, but perhaps that was the warmest part and the only place a person could survive. And that BTW is why the starfleet outpost was there as well. Likely? No. Impossible? No.

[JasonEvans]

So you guys just hate my "fate wanted these people to be together" answer, huh? I saw that as the whole point of the film. Muck with time all you want, but it is gonna take some major mucking to keep Spock, Kirk, McCoy, and Scotty from teaming up. If you give fate any kind of chance, it is gonna pull these folks into each others orbit.

Not to go off topic here, but I suspect this is how Flash Forward is operating-- you can change the future, but it takes a lot of work to do so.

--Jason "sit back and just enjoy it, dudes" Evans

[DukeUsul]

I can take fate in small doses when it impacts a story in an over-arching sense. Like bringing the crew of the Enterprise together. Ok. But fate brining future Spock and present Kirk together on this random ice planet? That's just a cop out.

[hc5duke]

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/celebrity-pictures-nimoy-shatner-kelley-good-movie1.jpg

more here (http://roflrazzi.com/tag/star-trek/)

[Olympic Fan]

I just watched the DVD and the director's commentary. Let me address some of the problems you have with the film:

(1) I buy the coincidence that Spock and Kirk were on the same moon. In fact, there was a line in the original script "Embrace the coincidence". There is a delated scene where the elderly Spock explains to Kirk pretty much what Jason suggested -- that fate brought them together ... that it was the time line's effort to repair itself.

(2) That said, I have a bigger problem with the younger Spock marooning Kirk on a dangerous planet, where he is likely to be killed (and almost is). The logical, by-the-book officer he is would have locked him in a cell in the brig, not thrown him off the ship.

(3) No problem with the see-through water tubes. I like the earlier suggesting that they are made of transparent aluminim.

(4) But I do have a problem with the "turbine" (as one of the characters calls the system). All we have is a gentle flow of water spinning a blade (and hitting it sideways, at that). That's about as efficient as an old mill by a stream. Turbines (even nucleur powered turbines) work by heating the water to steam and then using the steam to turn the turbine blades -- no human could survive that.

I wish they had not called it a turbine ... call it a water filtration system (even starships will use water to drink, bathe ...). That would have been a bit more plausible.

My biggest problem was the power of the Romulan mining ship that causes all the problems. Okay, it's from the future -- I get that. But Eric Bana tells us that it's just a mining ship, not a warship.

How does he capture Spock's ship -- which is from the same timeframe?

Again, according to the commentary, there's a long deleted scene that after the destruction of the Kelvin (and the death of Kirk's father) when Bana and his crew are captured by the Klingons and spend 27 years in a Klingon prison. They break out, recapture their ship, then capture Spock's ship as it emerges from the black hole. Then they defeat the entire Klingon battle fleet and defeat the portion of the Starfleet that is trying to defend Vulcan.

Where and when did they get so powerful? I understand that it was the capture of the red matter on Spock's ship that allowed them to destroy Vulcan. But how did the mining ship capture Spock's ship ... and defeat the entire Klingon fleet (after the same ship and crew were captured by the Klingons 27 years earlier)?

Reminds me of the big mistake in the last episode of TNG, when Picard initiates a certain particle probe in three time periods to create the time rift that is about to destroy all of humanity. Late in the show, Data discovers the problem and explains that all three particle streams are coming from the Enterprise in different eras -- the problem is that only two of the three probes came from the Enterprise (in the past and Picard's present). The future probe came from Beverly's medical ship, not the Enterprise.

Still, I can live with the problem. I very much enjoyed re-viewing the new Star Trek. I'm looking forward to the next installments in the series.

And, yes, they confirmed on screen (and in the commentary) that this is a re-boot of the franchise. They've created a new reality, so we can't be sure that what we know from the TV stories will be repeated.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Reminds me of the big mistake in the last episode of TNG, when Picard initiates a certain particle probe in three time periods to create the time rift that is about to destroy all of humanity. Late in the show, Data discovers the problem and explains that all three particle streams are coming from the Enterprise in different eras -- the problem is that only two of the three probes came from the Enterprise (in the past and Picard's present). The future probe came from Beverly's medical ship, not the Enterprise.

It's been a while since I've seen that show, so perhaps I'm getting the event order wrong, but wasn't Beverly's medical ship destroyed and everyone transported to Admiral Riker's Enterprise D?

[hc5duke]

It's been a while since I've seen that show, so perhaps I'm getting the event order wrong, but wasn't Beverly's medical ship destroyed and everyone transported to Admiral Riker's Enterprise D?

I believe Ozzie is correct. IIRC by the time Data says that, they were all on Riker's Enterprise.

wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Good_Things...)

As Picard arrives at the anomaly in all three time periods, he discovers that the anomaly is much larger in the past, but does not exist at all in the future. As the past and present Enterprises scan the anomaly with tachyon beams, the Pasteur is attacked by Klingon ships

The thing I had a problem with in that episode was, since the anomaly is growing inversely with time, Riker's Enterprise should not have detected the anomaly when they scanned for it the second time. They would have to travel back in time to see it grow

[DukeUsul]

Reminds me of the big mistake in the last episode of TNG, when Picard initiates a certain particle probe in three time periods to create the time rift that is about to destroy all of humanity. Late in the show, Data discovers the problem and explains that all three particle streams are coming from the Enterprise in different eras -- the problem is that only two of the three probes came from the Enterprise (in the past and Picard's present). The future probe came from Beverly's medical ship, not the Enterprise.


What bugged me about that episode was that that time rift was going backward in time.... in all three time periods, it was bigger in the past than in the future. So every observer in each period should have seen it getting smaller.... yet when future Picard and crew get to the neutral zone they don't see it. But if it started at some point in the future and is expanding as it moves backward in time, they should observe it getting smaller as they move forward in time until the point that it "started." But instead they don't see it until they create it.

Didn't make sense at all.

[BD80]

... I have a bigger problem with the younger Spock marooning Kirk on a dangerous planet, where he is likely to be killed

... I do have a problem with the "turbine" (as one of the characters calls the system). All we have is a gentle flow of water spinning a blade (and hitting it sideways, at that). That's about as efficient as an old mill by a stream. Turbines (even nuclear powered turbines) work by heating the water to steam and then using the steam to turn the turbine blades -- no human could survive that.

I wish they had not called it a turbine ... call it a water filtration system (even starships will use water to drink, bathe ...). That would have been a bit more plausible.

My biggest problem was the power of the Romulan mining ship that causes all the problems. Okay, it's from the future -- I get that. But Eric Bana tells us that it's just a mining ship, not a warship.

How does he capture Spock's ship -- which is from the same timeframe?
... Where and when did they get so powerful? I understand that it was the capture of the red matter on Spock's ship that allowed them to destroy Vulcan. But how did the mining ship capture Spock's ship ... and defeat the entire Klingon fleet ...

And, yes, they confirmed on screen (and in the commentary) that this is a re-boot of the franchise. They've created a new reality, so we can't be sure that what we know from the TV stories will be repeated.

Spock wouldn't have shot Kirk down to an abandoned planet to his death, he shot him to a spot near the Federation outpost where they met Scotty. That old Spock was put in the same spot by the bad guy is a bit too convenient.

The water tubes sooo bothered me. It is amazing how willing I am to suspend disbelief for some things but get aggravated over little things like the tubes. The layout was from an animated cartoon, and having an overhead "hatch" large enough to purge Scotty was like nails on a chalkboard to me. The water would be under pressure and would have flooded the room.

Room. That is another issue of sci-fi shows that bothers me tremendously. I understand the suggestion that space is a vacuum, but it isn't completely. The larger the ship, the more drag there will be and the more space particles will be hit. "Shields" may protect the hull, but they would increase drag. There is also the issue of maintaining pressurized atmosphere in these cavernous spaces and recycling the air to scrub CO2 and add O2. Spaceships will be much like submarines. It drives me crazy to see rooms with unlimited overheads. Rant over.

The bad guy's ship was a mining ship from far in the future (when Spock was very old), I don't think it was said in the movie, but it could be 100+ years, as Vulcans "live long". As a mining ship it had a lot of raw power. Having knowledge of futuristic weapons would give it a great advantage over the Klingons, Vulcans and humans when it is sent back to the time of the movie. It had 20+ years to develop technology and weapons while waiting for Spock. Spock's ship was a small craft with little weaponry and would have had little chance even if it hadn't been ambushed.

All in all, a great movie with a great cast. I really enjoyed the parallel-but-not-identical-universe of this effort, giving us the same characters but unfettered by the original show or movies. Captain Pike was a great shout out to the original pilot, losing Spock's mother was sad but a great source for future plots. Perhaps a bit less camp would be nice, but I am still looking forward to the next one.

[Olympic Fan]

What bugged me about that episode was that that time rift was going backward in time.... in all three time periods, it was bigger in the past than in the future. So every observer in each period should have seen it getting smaller.... yet when future Picard and crew get to the neutral zone they don't see it. But if it started at some point in the future and is expanding as it moves backward in time, they should observe it getting smaller as they move forward in time until the point that it "started." But instead they don't see it until they create it.

Didn't make sense at all.

I can understand why some of you are confused about the last episode of TNG, because they screwed it up so much.

First, the original tachyon beam comes from the Pasteur, not the Enterprise. They are probing for the anamoly (which doesn't exist, except that they are creating it) when they are attacked and saved by Riker and the Enterprise. As the Pasteur is destroyed, the crew is transferred to the new Enterprise -- but Riker refuses to investigate the anamoly and immediately leaves the neutral zone WITHOUT initiating a tachyon probe.

So, as I said, Data was wrong to say all three beams came from the Enterprise.

Meanwhile, Picard has gone back in time and initiated tachyon probles in the past (when he originally joined the Enterprise) and in the present (the moment when the last episode originates). So two of the beams did come from past Enterprises.

After getting the explanation from Q and Data about what the rift is, the elderly Picard convinces Admiral Riker to return to the Devron system -- where they find the small anamoly which his probes created.

But DukeUsul is absolutely right, the rift should not exist at that moment -- since it was created earlier and is traveling backwards in time. Then again, the Pasteur should have seen the rift as it approached earlier, since they created it later.

Dealing with time travel issues is tough, but Star Trek usually handled it fairly well. In this case, they fumbled it badly.

As for the new movie ... I still question the power of Eric Bana's mining ship. The one-man ship that looked like a gyroscope -- it came from the same timeframe as the mining ship. It was easy to capture when the older Spock, experienced at its controls, was flying it (I say easy, because they got it with no damage), but impossible to capture when the younger Spock, who had never been in the ship and expressed his doubts about his flying ability, escaped in it later -- I say impossible because Bana orders everything fired at it -- even though he knows that destroying it would release the red matter and destroy his ship and ruin his revenge.

Plus there is the (off screen) fact that when Bana first met the Klingons soon after destroying the Kelvin, he and his crew were captured by the Klingons. And 27 years later, they escape from prison, recapture their ship, then defeat the entire Klingon fleet??? How did their ship get so much more powerful in the time they were in prison?

That bothers me a lot more than the stupid sequence with the water turbine (which, I agree, was an implausible sight gag).

[BD80]

... It was easy to capture when the older Spock, experienced at its controls, was flying it (I say easy, because they got it with no damage), but impossible to capture when the younger Spock, who had never been in the ship and expressed his doubts about his flying ability, escaped in it later -- I say impossible because Bana orders everything fired at it -- ...

One of my pet peaves in action films. When necessary for chase-scene suspense, absolute marksmen cannot hit the broadside of a Tellarite freighter. These can be be highly trained assasins, snipers, special forces operatives, Imperial Stormtroopers, battle droids, Cylon Raiders, Cyberdyne T-800s, or any of a number of computer guided weaponry, or a Romulan mining ship with weaponry that can defeat the entire Klingon Empire. Doesn't matter. The best they can do is outline a path in the dirt (or sky) around the fleeing heroes. Drives me crazy.

And explosions that can lift our movie characters off the ground and hurl them 10 to 20 yards, into a conviently located wrecked vehicle, without causing a contusion or laceration or even a loss of hearing. Explosions would knock you DOWN unless you were standing on top of the explosion. The explosions might also separate you from certain parts of your body. Grrrr.

You would never guess that I just watched Terminator Salvation last night would you?

[alteran]

I just watched the DVD and the director's commentary. Let me address some of the problems you have with the film:

As a Trek fanboi, I sincerely appreciate the effort.



(1) I buy the coincidence that Spock and Kirk were on the same moon. In fact, there was a line in the original script "Embrace the coincidence". There is a delated scene where the elderly Spock explains to Kirk pretty much what Jason suggested -- that fate brought them together ... that it was the time line's effort to repair itself.

Too bad the time line didn't feel the same about repairing the loss of 7 billion Vulcans. :cool:

Seriously, "fate made it happen" is too deus ex machina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina#Modern_uses) for my taste. A lot of people don't know what DeM is, but they do hate it when they see it.

Saying it was done deliberately does not help AT ALL-- in fact, it makes it worse. They can explain it any way they want, it's still lazy and insulting to the audience. "Fate" can still be a factor without being implausible and internally inconsistent.

Obviously, a lot of people watching this movie either didn't care, didn't notice, or just rolled with it.



(2) That said, I have a bigger problem with the younger Spock marooning Kirk on a dangerous planet, where he is likely to be killed (and almost is). The logical, by-the-book officer he is would have locked him in a cell in the brig, not thrown him off the ship.


Totally agreed. There are an infinite number of ways to toss Kirk on that planet which do not include Spock acting in opposition to his personality and belief system. They just didn't bother to find one.



(3) No problem with the see-through water tubes. I like the earlier suggesting that they are made of transparent aluminim. (4) But I do have a problem with the "turbine" (as one of the characters calls the system). All we have is a gentle flow of water spinning a blade (and hitting it sideways, at that). That's about as efficient as an old mill by a stream. Turbines (even nucleur powered turbines) work by heating the water to steam and then using the steam to turn the turbine blades -- no human could survive that.


Exactly. It's clear to everyone that the tubes clearly serve one purpose and one purpose only: existing so that Scotty could get stuck in them to comedic effect. It was only slightly better than having a part of the Warp Drive that throws banana cream pies. Again, laziness.



My biggest problem was the power of the Romulan mining ship that causes all the problems. Okay, it's from the future -- I get that. But Eric Bana tells us that it's just a mining ship, not a warship.


Good call. Funny what ruffles my feathers, and not yours, and vice versa. I'm a little embarrassed that I just I rolled with this one.



Reminds me of the big mistake in the last episode of TNG, when Picard initiates a certain particle probe in three time periods to create the time rift that is about to destroy all of humanity. Late in the show, Data discovers the problem and explains that all three particle streams are coming from the Enterprise in different eras -- the problem is that only two of the three probes came from the Enterprise (in the past and Picard's present). The future probe came from Beverly's medical ship, not the Enterprise.

Still, I can live with the problem. I very much enjoyed re-viewing the new Star Trek. I'm looking forward to the next installments in the series.

That inconsistency falls under "typo" in my book. I'm willing to overlook those. The world ain't perfect and it happens.

Bottom line, except for an intern's oversight, the story still works-- that's a lot different than just not bothering to make something plausible.



And, yes, they confirmed on screen (and in the commentary) that this is a re-boot of the franchise. They've created a new reality, so we can't be sure that what we know from the TV stories will be repeated.

Thanks for posting all that.

I think that's a great idea. Jettisoning the "canon" and the associated baggage is a great idea. The characters and their friendship is really the heart of the show. Keep that and you still have a formula for success.

The stuff I've taken issue with above undercuts that I was 85% happy with how the movie turned out. I like the new takes on the characters, and updating them to modern times.

I think somewhere in this thread I said something like "B+."

Really, a B+ from a hard core maniac like me is pretty good.