Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Alexandra DuPont
Boldly Appraises
Abrams’ STAR TREK!!

Star Trek: FAQ (by Alexandra DuPont) ____
"Excuse me while I climb the lofty slopes of Mt. Obvious and write that 'Voyager' and 'Insurrection' are where 'Star Trek' really, genuinely lost it -- where 'Trek' started looking like it was set in a Sheraton hotel lobby and the series became obsessed with maintaining its "universe" and the story editors started piling on temporal anomalies and other ass-forged deus ex machina in a blatant underestimation of their audience and nobody ever got their shirt ripped during a fight or got dirty or drunk or laid. The series, which had started out glorying in all that was human and raw and sexy, confined its "sexuality" to icy bondage queens like Seven of Nine and T'Pol.... Bring back the bright colors, the curvy women in big hair and boots, the beefy men who profess Jeffersonian ideals while punching their enemies and arguing with their friends and drinking to excess. For God's sake, put the Hemingway back into 'Star Trek.'" -- From my December 2002 review of "Star Trek: Nemesis" for this site
Q. What's the upshot? Tasked with making "Star Trek" fun and profitable again, J.J. Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman did something kind of insane: They took the most worn-out "Star Trek" device of all -- a problem created by time-travel -- and then, for maybe the first time in "Trek" history, failed to fix that problem by the end of the movie. In fact, Abrams just up and breaks a bunch of fundamental stuff "Trek" geeks have always taken for granted, and he leaves it broken, for good. On paper, it sounds like a fan-alienating nightmare. In the theater, it entertained the living shit out of me. Because at the same time Abrams is rewriting history, he's also injecting all the fun, humanity, sex, optimism, comedy and bold drama (if not necessarily the Big Ideas) of '60s "Trek" right back into the movie series -- and he's ramping up the scale so it feels almost "Star Wars" epic. Basically, Abrams has booted a "'Trek' Universe B" in which he can mercilessly screw with anyone and anything from the classic two-fisted '60s go-go boots era -- only without that boring sense of inevitability that can make "prequels" feel like Catholic Mass. If you care about these classic characters, it raises the dramatic stakes in the same way killing Wash raised the stakes in "Serenity." Thwacking the time-travel reset button is a bold move, but it's also dispensed with in a brisk, low-technobabble manner, because Abrams really just wants to get on with the crowd-pleasing-confection part. He tells the story of James T. Kirk's journey to the captain's chair of the U.S.S. Enterprise as a hugely entertaining (if maybe kind of surface-y) hero's-quest adventure -- an adventure that borrows a ridiculous number of story beats from "A New Hope" and adds the notion of capital-F Fate to the "Trek" universe. And the fact that Abrams pulls all this off with new actors playing the iconic TOS characters is almost mind-boggling. He basically does the cinematic equivalent of entertaining you by blowing up your house, only to have the splinters fall together in the shape of another, bigger house. It's not perfect by any means, but it's a fascinating magic trick -- one I've been picking apart in my head ever since I saw the movie. Spoilers from here (though I won't wreck the most shocking stuff -- the massive game-changers that surprised even spoiler-happy me and should really be experienced for the first time in IMAX).

Q. What's the story? Well, basically it's "Star Wars" with James Tiberius Kirk as Luke Skywalker -- or, as my pal V.Q. told me yesterday, "He's Kirk playing Han playing Luke." Let me know if any of this sounds in any way familiar: "Star Trek" opens with one spaceship getting smacked around by a much-larger spaceship from a large empire. The main villain on the much-larger ship is looking for someone associated with a device that can destroy planets. Cut to a farmboy (Kirk) who lost his warrior father and loves fast vehicles. He doesn't get along with the man who raised him, and dreams of a better life in outer space. An older mentor inspires the boy to leave home -- where he gathers an ad-hoc family of vivid, bickering characters who bond under pressure in a really fast spaceship as they try to (a) rescue someone from the aforementioned much-larger spaceship and (b) prevent the villain from blowing up planets. There might even be an awards ceremony, a retractable sword, and a bar full of aliens in there somewhere. I'd bet good money that all of the above was totally intentional, but it doesn't feel like a ripoff while you're watching it, and to be fair there's quite a bit more to the story than that. First, there's the whole time-travel wrinkle -- an Abrams specialty -- but there's also a second hero's-quest character (Spock) who's sort of living out Luke's journey in "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi." In this movie, Spock is an emerging logic-Jedi, struggling with anger and grief and daddy issues as he chooses between two distinct philosophical life-paths; he also learns about the secret existence of an older, um, relative who may have made some mistakes. Oh, and Montgomery Scott has a little alien sidekick. Maybe that's supposed to be the Ewok. What's interesting here is that the film is a sort of thematic bookend to "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." As Harcourt Fenton Knowles put it a while back, "Khan" is "one of the greatest B movies ever made," in part because Nick Meyer added a layer of middle-aged regret to his big space revenge opera: He took these formerly indestructible TV characters and lets all their youthful indiscretions catch up with them at once. Abrams' "Trek," on the other hand, is a very much film about youth -- a movie in which all the characters are still ascendant and James T. Kirk still believes he can beat the no-win scenario, and does. Even though some painful, apocalyptic stuff happens in Abrams' film -- much of it to Leonard Nimoy's elderly Spock, who gets saddled with an Atlas-load of woe -- none of it hurts quite as badly as Kirk realizing he's an aging lothario whose estranged son hates him. Q. What's great? 1. The cast is a damned miracle. Really, "Star Trek"'s biggest revelation is that these iconic characters -- like James Bond or Sherlock Holmes or Doctor Who -- are open to interpretation; they're no longer bound to the actors who originated the roles. Good Lord: They're all Kirstie Alley now.

Chris Pine is good enough that I'm already worried about the sequel, if that makes any sense. Without doing a Shatner impression, he nails the callow young hot-rod Kirk, playing him as Luke and Han rolled into Will Hunting at a kegger. Most crucially, Pine has natural comic timing that allows him to take stuff that reads anvil-subtle on the page (like the barn-broad dialogue in that bar scene with Uhura) and make it charming -- and he pulls it all off using a tone of voice I'd describe as "likeably grating." It's a tone works perfectly for the aspirant, reckless, cocksure, mutiny-prone James T. Kirk. But (spoiler alert) in a move that will surprise no one, Kirk gets the gold jersey and the captain's chair by the end of the movie, and in the sequel, Pine's going to have to modulate that tone of voice, or I'm going to have trouble believing him as the womanizing leader of a heavily armed flying skyscraper. I have no idea if that sort of modulation is in Pine's bag of tricks. I hope it is. I suspect it is.

But really, it's Spock's movie. Zachary Quinto plays the pointy-eared hobgoblin somewhere between the Nimoy of the TV series and the far more emotional Nimoy of "The Cage" -- only with the actual stone-faced Nimoy of the movies wandering around in the background as a living comparison, which can't have been anything but terrifying. Nimoy was the best thing about the original series, for the simple reason that repression is fun to watch, and Quinto plays this up on a hormonal level, adding a real undercurrent of rage and defiance to Spock. One of my favorite acting moments in the film is Quinto's: a single eye-twitch when the Vulcan high council admits Spock to its science academy and praises the perfect grades he's gotten despite his human "disadvantage." Quinto's Spock feels rejected by Vulcan racists and superior to the human company he keeps, except when he's keeping it with Uhura -- in a out-of-nowhere romance that's already making things a little, uh, moist over at io9).

Simon Pegg plays Scotty as Simon Pegg with a brogue, which is exactly what I wanted to see. Zoe Saldana may have more lines as Uhura than Nichelle Nichols had during the entire run of the series. Anton Yelchin goes broad with Chekov's accent, but also (like everyone in the cast) gets a neat little moment to show off his nerd skillset. John Cho, well, he gets to hold a sword. And I'll proudly join the throng geeking out on Karl Urban's freakishly dead-on homage to DeForest Kelley. It's jaw-dropping: Urban is like Gary Cole deconstructing Mike Brady, only without the irony. Drew Moriarty nailed it in his review: "It's basically like someone stuck DeForest Kelley in a time machine and we got the 40 year old version playing scenes opposite this all-new cast." 2. And that all-new cast is funny. "Star Trek"'s biggest sin over the past decade was that it started confusing "grim" with "authentic" -- and when it tried for jokes, those jokes often as not were grounded in chilly Asperger-y sci-fi concepts like "alien culture clashes" and "robots who don't understand how to behave like people." Abrams has put an end to that nonsense rather definitively. His characters, like the actual flesh-and-blood sexpots in '60s "Trek," get sick and laid and drunk and angry and find the comedy in that. Even when the movie goes all pomo and throws in a classic "Trek" line like "Dammit, Jim," it usually feels organic to the situation.

3. The movie updates '60s "Trek" sets, designs and fashions just enough to remove the camp factor, then adds a crucial layer of lived-in detail. I loved that starship engineering levels and hangar bays were clearly filmed in oily, redressed factory sets, and I loved that transporters and assorted buttons still made the old '60s noises, even if the Enterprise bridge now looks like the set from those Progressive car-insurance ads and the ship's nacelles are now giant 1950s hair-dryers.

I think what I loved the most was that I didn't spend much time dwelling on the costumes and sets during the movie itself -- which suggests a scary amount of concealed effort by the filmmakers. That's really one of the chief appeals of this movie: It didn't dwell on anything like "The Motionless Picture" did, yet it accumulates so much detail, it retains "The Motionless Picture"'s sense of awe.

4 I'm slightly embarrassed to admit I kind of got a lump in my throat a few times during the film's first half. It happened during the opening battle where Abrams drops out the sound effects during a suicide run, letting a quiet passage from Michael Giacchino's score dominate the soundtrack; it happened during Bruce Greenwood's steady recruiting speech to Kirk after the bar fight and the Luke-stares-at-the-sunset moments that followed; and it happened during a few key moments of Spock turmoil I won't spoil here. All these moments were manipulative as hell, I know they were manipulative as hell, and they got me anyway. 5 Michael Giacchino's score took a few listens to grow on me, but at the moment I think it's only an artistic rung or two below the classic "Trek" movie soundtracks by Goldsmith and Horner, and it might even pull up alongside Horner's in my mind in the coming weeks. (It would be nice if more than 45 minutes had been released on CD; what is this, the '80s?). Giacchino comes up with a solid theme for Kirk and uses it early and often, and he does a nice job cherry-picking general tones from the series' musical legacy --you hear Goldsmith in the big flybys and Horner in the action cues -- and during the end credits, Giacchino just up and pulls a full-orchestral Desilu and blasts that '60s Alexander Courage theme like it's "Carmina Burana." I think I even heard bongos in there somewhere.
Q. What's not-so-great? My opinions about what doesn't quite fly in "Star Trek" are almost exactly the same as Herc's. Unlike cowardly Hercules, I will not be hiding my criticisms in inviso-text!

1. Eric Bana does a perfectly solid job as the time-traveling, revenge-craving villain Nero -- particularly when he flouts custom and refers to Starfleet officers by their first names as a show of deadpan disrespect. But as written, Nero is frankly more of a story device than a developed character. To be fair, the main conflicts in the film are Kirk vs. Spock, Kirk vs. Himself, Spock vs. Himself, and Everybody vs. Fate, and don't get me wrong -- Bana isn't F. Murray Abraham shrieking through his space-facelift or anything. It's just that I probably shouldn't have to read a (surprisingly entertaining) comic-book prequel to care about a movie's chief antagonist. 2. Also, as Herc asked: Where the hell did Nero go for a quarter-century? 3. A handful of friends/writers I respect, among them Andre Dellamorte, have expressed some ambivalence over the shape of the story -- specifically, over the way it exists more as a setup than as its own contained film narrative. Dellamorte in particular told me he felt like he was watching a big-budget TV pilot, saying at one point, "It's not a movie -- it's a first act." (Why, our own Mr. Beaks suggested something along these lines in his Twitter feed.) While I guess I can sort of see Andre's point, Abrams' occasionally self-conscious, ctrl-alt-del-meets-Joseph Campbell story structure didn't lessen my enjoyment. In part because maybe it needed to happen. 4. That said: It did lessen my enjoyment a little. Almost everything else that bothers me about "Star Trek" is tied to the film's occasionally ridiculous embrace of coincidence -- Kirk and his father run afoul of Nero in space battles, once at the exact moment of Kirk's birth; Kirk runs into old-Spock on an ice planet after being chased by a couple of monsters to a precise set of coordinates; Kirk and old-Spock then run into Montgomery Scott, who works a couple of miles down the road; &tc. Most of this head-scratching stuff happens during the 10-minute stretch of movie devoted to explaining the whole time-travel/reboot premise -- and not coincidentally, it's only part of the movie that feels a bit sluggish. I guess you could argue that this is J.J. Abrams exploring the idea of fate in the "Trek" universe (i.e., exploring the idea that this crew was destined to be together). But that's a major philosophical break with a lot of the humanist/agnostic "Trek" material that's come before; Roddenberry's whole deal was that mankind was capable of solving its own problems without the help of God or Fate (see especially: "Who Mourns for Adonais?"). I found the larger story so charming and thrilling that this wasn't even close to a deal-breaker for me. But I'm not sure how someone who isn't a fan -- who isn't on the bus already, basically -- will react to the coincidence-fest. Finally: Please enjoy this "Star Trek" fan art by Canadian cartoonist Kate Beaton. Warmest, Alexandra DuPont.
Arm yourself to attack my critical judgment! It's easy and fun! Visit The (recently updated) DuPont Bibliography!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 8, 2009, 3:37 a.m. CST


    by chuffsterUK

    Is this a double post??

  • May 8, 2009, 3:37 a.m. CST


    by chuffsterUK


  • May 8, 2009, 3:37 a.m. CST

    what heppened?

    by Iron-kong

  • May 8, 2009, 3:38 a.m. CST


    by chuffsterUK

    Etc etc

  • May 8, 2009, 3:38 a.m. CST

    meant happened- the talkback sort of rebooted

    by Iron-kong

  • May 8, 2009, 3:38 a.m. CST


    by chuffsterUK

    4th then!

  • May 8, 2009, 3:39 a.m. CST

    I need attention

    by AlexandraDupontsBellyButton

    Who will tend to me?

  • May 8, 2009, 3:39 a.m. CST

    Light Glare & Shakey Cam = Shit.

    by scriptgirl_nipples


  • May 8, 2009, 3:42 a.m. CST

    anyone else notice that the one guy that died...

    by Iron-kong

    on the skydiving scene was wearing red? An homage to all the red shirt deaths?

  • May 8, 2009, 3:43 a.m. CST

    Check out the new 4 min Terminator Salvation trailer

    by scriptgirl_nipples

    It's going to fucking TERMINATE Star Trek.

  • May 8, 2009, 3:45 a.m. CST


    by darthSaul666

  • May 8, 2009, 3:47 a.m. CST


    by blakindigo

    Did you have any issues on the Imax screen? Was it overwhelming? Did you have any problems directing your focus? I'll see it again this weekend, but I'm not sure about Imax (it's a cost and seat availability issue).

  • May 8, 2009, 3:51 a.m. CST

    i love this frakken movie

    by deanbarry

    it gave me a warm glow in my tummy, like The DarK Knight and Spider-Man 2 did. Sigh. happy thoughts....

  • May 8, 2009, 3:52 a.m. CST

    Seen it twice for free. Wouldn't pay to see it though.

    by scriptgirl_nipples

  • May 8, 2009, 3:55 a.m. CST

    What a load of crap!

    by CeejayNightwing

    Nearly 40 years of Trek wiped out because writers no longer can step up to the challenge of progressing the standards set by their predecessors. So like some grade school plot we simply go back in time and cause another reality where we can do it all over agin and make everything happen the way we want to contrive by coincidence and fate and everyone is instantly happy with a easily made,sugar coated nostalgia trip instead of challenging science fiction. Truly Star Trek is dead, and this summerflick nostalgic formula will soon wear thin after a few movies and the actors growing tired of wearing someone elses boots no matter how much they pay 'em!

  • May 8, 2009, 3:58 a.m. CST

    Alexandra, your reviews are getting worse (if that's possible)

    by jedimast3r

    Past couple reviews you haven't really offered any unique criticisms or even creative lingual stylings which usually set your writing apart from the other reviewers (if you can call them that) on this site. Methinks your passion for your articles is dwindling, but who knows, who cares. <p>This site is about the talkbacks, really. After years of coming here I finally realize that. Can we just get dedicated talkbacks instead of 1000 reviews from you guys which say nothing worth reading 1000 times?

  • May 8, 2009, 4 a.m. CST

    Decent. Not NEARLY as good as all this hype

    by IndustryKiller!

    I absolutely LOVED Chris Pine. Finally a fucking young actor who isnt a pussy, who has charisma and masculinity to burn. The guy works, and I hope he doesnt pidgeonhole himself. In fact the whole cast is great. But how can anyone ignore the ridiculous plot holes. So I guess SPock just miscalculated when that supernova was going to destroy Romulan? I mean seriously what the fuck, the impetus of all of this is that Spock just somehow missed the boat on a fairly simple calculation? And I swear Kurtzman and Orci just fucking hate the character of Spock because they didnt write him into this film. Whatever Quinto was, it wasnt Spock. And no it wasnt younger more naive Spock either. There is a difference between being emotional and being WAY MORE emotional than any other character in the film. Seriously this SPock was character from Guiding Light melodramatic. I could go on and on but whats the point, most of you people liked WOlverine.

  • May 8, 2009, 4 a.m. CST


    by noncents

    Score - great. Special EFFECTS - Aight. Writing - Good. CHEMISTRY - awesome. OVERALL - SOLID. Coincidence factor - GET OVER IT. It is a movie and we only have so much time, so give us a break.

  • May 8, 2009, 4 a.m. CST

    Oh yeah, about Terminator...

    by jedimast3r

    ...SG nipples can you stop trying to usurp people's love for Star Trek? I'll be amazed if Terminator makes more than 75 mil at the BO. The TV show pwns any of the movies (yes, even T2) and noone could even support that.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:04 a.m. CST

    ONCE AGAIN - Horrible movie!!

    by Professor_Monster

    Seeing how my bash against AICN's newest flavor of the month has been mysteriously erased (taking lessons from JJ's sloppy storytelling no doubt) I will post a few shots as to why this film is bad. 1. Lens Flare and Shaky Cam - NO BULLSHIT - there was a Lens Flare that lasted through 6 different shots. SIX cuts and the image was divided in the middle by a band of flexing light. Also - JJ really needs to buy a steady-cam, there is not one clear fight scene throughout the entire film. 2. Nimoy can't do the Spoke lines like he used to - not only that, he spouts off every "famous" Spock line there is -"I have been and always shall be --" and the rest. If you are going to erase Star Trek - then fucking erase it and don't ride the coat tails of something you feel needs to be rebooted - Superman Returns pulled the same shit. 3. The score - IT SUCKED. Non thrilling and totally empty. 4. People will NOT listen to the Beastie Boys in 200 years. I'll post more tomorrow - I'm pooped.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:04 a.m. CST

    BEST PART - It didn't take from my SCI-FI epic.

    by noncents

    That is the best part. I just wanted to make sure it didn't take any of my conventions, though GIJOE is hatching some of my stuff or trying to poorly, but the LANE IS open. SCI-FI will be reborn again. You have my word.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:08 a.m. CST

    I called the SHAKY CAM on facebook 30 minutes ago.

    by noncents

    So, you are late on that one, Prof. The whole ERASE Star Trek issue doesn't work because then this would be called Star Jog and the characters would all wear jogging suits, so that argument fails. The score worked, and I'm not talking about applied music that is not the score, you newb.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:11 a.m. CST

    The script was INARGUABLY awful

    by IndustryKiller!

    And yeah there were things about this that worked. And I could see things working so much for some that they can get over the script. But don't defend the script, it was utter shit. If you are going to defend the film, and you have plenty of ammunition, DON'T even attempt to defend the script.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:18 a.m. CST

    Script was shit.

    by V'Shael

    But you'll be pretty much flamed by the hypernova of the fanboys rage, if you try to point that out. <p> Personally, I thought it was worse than even Trek 5. <p> The really sad part? After not bothering to watch the last 2 Trek movies, and thinking i'd finally put all things Trek behind me, this one actually got me psyched to see the movie.<p> Stupid "hope". Never have hope. Cause fate just uses it to kick you in the happysack.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:20 a.m. CST

    Kate Beaton's Trek Cartoon...

    by Daytripper69

    ... put a big, dopey grin on my face. Thanks for the link, Alexandra.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:24 a.m. CST

    The SCRIPT was fine and it wasn't about the script.

    by noncents

    You obviously aren't getting what Star Trek is. It's not about the transitions or plot devices or macguffins. It is about the characters. You can forgive the script when the actors on screen give you something worthwhile, which are the performances. Star Trek is B-movie. End of story. Everything coming out in the summer is a B-movie. Terminator, Transformers. All Star Trek movies have BAD SCRIPTS. It's not about the script. This script was FINE.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:28 a.m. CST

    Beastie Boys will be around...

    by Joely_Boy

    ...til the end of time! They may be heads in jars a thousand years from now, but hey, at least we'll get another album from 'em!

  • May 8, 2009, 4:29 a.m. CST

    Why are they B movies?

    by noncents

    SCI-FI with integrity doesn't let you bullshit. The only problem with writing sci-fi with factual-ity at it's core is that it forces you into corners. Depraved, inscrutable corners of paradox and struggle. Bullshitting in SCI-FI is what makes it B-material. Those are just the facts. Once you mix reality with these kinds of movies or any movies for that matter, you take away the FUNBAG and you really don't want that. If writers can't pull from the FUNBAG, BSG never takes off and deals with characters. Everything is a device to deal with characters which represent humanity which is the point of the exercise of film. We are exploring ourselves, so stop hating on the FUNBAG, but if you want something that is SCI-FI and not B-material; just wait. It is coming.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:29 a.m. CST

    So its ok the script sucked?

    by IndustryKiller!

    Bullshit. And what made this great wasnt how the characters were written, its how they were acted. Kirk, for instance is given some absolutely fucking awful lines, but Pine sells it or makes it easy to ignore. Same goes for Karl Urban, who is a performance of amazing mannerisms in between horrible in jokey lines. He's fantastic, the script is piss poor. Quinto isnt so lucky. Spock in this film isnt Spock, period. Its not even that hes emotional hes so much MORE emotional than EVERYONE ELSE. Hes an outright fuckin drama queen. We do agree that all summer films are B-Movies, but they dont have to be.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:31 a.m. CST

    Wow. For the 1st time my posts got deleted!

    by DerLanghaarige

    Should I be proud or pissed? I pick tired. *goes back to bed*

  • May 8, 2009, 4:35 a.m. CST


    by noncents

    You are restating what I said and taking as if you said it, but didn't. Don't be a an online-hack. Again, the script was FINE. You obviously don't understand screenwriting, because if you did, you would appreciate a script that let the characters blossom, rather than a script that made sure plot holes were filled with ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZs. And as an INDUSTRY KILLER, which I highly doubt, considering your scope, TRY HARDER. Send me your script. I want to read it, and I'll be objective, but I know it will be shit, because they always are. And if you don't have a script to offer, then shut the F#$K up.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:41 a.m. CST

    You almost wrote a review!

    by The Dark Shite

    Almost.<p> "Abrams' occasionally self-conscious, ctrl-alt-del-meets-Joseph Campbell story structure didn't lessen my enjoyment."<p> "That said: It did lessen my enjoyment a little." <p> Which is it? If it lessened your enjoyment "a little", then your enjoyment was lessened, surely? <p> And why does EVERY writer on this site use the word "An" instead of "A". As in "an precise set of coordinates". A precise set. A. Not "An". An comes before a vowel. Like "An elephant" or "An unsettling upsurge in illiteracy among Americans."

  • May 8, 2009, 4:46 a.m. CST

    Grammatical integrity in the English language is absurd.

    by noncents

    It is a mongrel type language corroded by hundreds of years of bastardization. Get over it and move on to something worth the effort. Self-dissect and flip a switch inside your head. Regain consciousness in a sea of sameness. Internet mavericks come out and play the same tired ass game of change 'em up and switch a roo, all must cry to the lion king of the zoo.

  • May 8, 2009, 6:06 a.m. CST


    by Sal_Bando

    -not- Sounds like a good, fun movie. I'm happy to check it out. Let the Harold and co. JJ-fapathon-continue....

  • May 8, 2009, 6:10 a.m. CST

    Nonce nts..

    by The Dark Shite

    Don't be a silly boy now. <p> The "bastardization" you refer to is like me spelling that word with an S while you spell it with a Z. That's fine. The stuff I mentioned is applicable in all types of English & can only be right or wrong. You're confusing difference in spellings with intelligence.<p> I'm pissed off because her last review (wolverine) had her using a fancy word & linking us to the definition on wikipedia, because we mere mortals obviously can't understand her mighty highness.That was fucking patronising & too many people on this site have high opinions of themselves.<p> They really DO use the word "an" a lot too, in places where it doesn't belong, ALL THE TIME. The irony being, that in normal conversations they would say "A", but deliberately change it to "An" here, because they think it's correct & makes them look smart. It's a basic thing you learn in high school for crying out loud! It annoys the fuck out of me. <p> Also, it's impossible for something to not lessen your enjoyment (as in "at all") & lessen it a little. <p> That's like a fat chick turning up at weight watchers & saying "I didn't eat any pies. I only ate two."

  • May 8, 2009, 6:47 a.m. CST

    For 25 years Nero might have been...

    by JThomasC

    off repairing the damage to his ship caused by a big honking starship that crashed into it which took part of his right ear and scarred up his head. I dunno, suspending disbelief.

  • May 8, 2009, 6:49 a.m. CST

    ass-forged. ha.

    by iwasredempted

    i rather enjoy alexandra's reviews and i agree, bring the hemingway back to star trek. who doesn't want to be a magnificent bastard like hemingway or quietly envy someone like him. personally i prefer f scott fitzgerald but damn if i could live like hemingway did.

  • May 8, 2009, 7:33 a.m. CST

    It's not hard to top any of the previous TREK movies.

    by Bob Cryptonight

    They were all pretty bad. Even KHAN. They were mostly t.v. episodes filled with in-jokes for the fans. Not to mention that they cranked them out WAY WAY past the prime of the actors. But as long as RICK BERMAN is not involved, I'll give it a shot.

  • May 8, 2009, 7:41 a.m. CST

    The script was fine.

    by rev_skarekroe

    Some of you just decided way in advance that it sucked because you don't like what the writers did in the past. The only thing that struck me as Transformers-esque in anyway was Scotty's little sidekick.<p>As for the rest of the film, I thought it was great. Not perfect. Lens flare was really irritating. Something about Nero didn't quite click with me, but I'm not sure I can explain exactly what. I thought Karl Urban was kind of hammy. And the physics and science frequently failed. But overall, it was a thumbs up. Looking forward to the continuation of the series.

  • May 8, 2009, 7:43 a.m. CST


    by whitty

    This Spock is the Spock of "The Cage," who was very emotional. This isn't the same guy we get to know later in his life, when he's playing the "cold Vulcan" role. This is a Spcok who IS emotional--a Spock who would smile with glee at the sight of singing flowers, or yell "The women!!" after a transport gone awry, or look gravely concerned while asking Number One to go down to Talos IV "to be certain." This is not a Spock who would later lie about not recognizing "one of your Earth emotions," who would show an almost psychotic, self-delusionary need to deny what he was. This Spock is how he SHOULD be at this point in the timeline.

  • May 8, 2009, 7:48 a.m. CST

    And with that last post...

    by whitty

    ...I completely revealed my inner geekery.

  • May 8, 2009, 7:54 a.m. CST

    and yeah......with the reviews on here, T4

    by southafricanguy

    sounds quite dissapointing. Makes me dread McG's hair brained schemes for future sequals...

  • May 8, 2009, 8:18 a.m. CST

    "What is this...the 80's?"

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    Any soundtrack that's less than 60 minutes these days is a fucking rip-off.

  • May 8, 2009, 8:31 a.m. CST

    Enjoyable read

    by Arteska

    Nice review and I agree on casting - it's really amazing how great everyone was at channeling and not mimicking but still giving their own performance. The nitpicks are coming from reliable and predictable points of view (hate the screenwriters, ergo they are incapable of entertaining me ever, etc. etc. etc.).

  • May 8, 2009, 8:44 a.m. CST

    Didn't Ms Dupont retire from this site at one point?

    by orcus

  • May 8, 2009, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Red Matter from Alias...Slusho Reference

    by kenjinattix

    Anyone heard them mention JJ Abrams Red Apple Cigarettes-like product Slusho in the bar scene in Trek. Slusho was just on the last episode of Fringe and I had a feeling it would be in here somewhere. When Uhura is ordering drinks the bartender mentions Slusho. ALSO...more obvious was the Red Matter which to me looks EXACTLY like that Rembaldi creation Sydney Bristow was trying to steal in the first season of Alias...I'm I the only one who saw this???

  • May 8, 2009, 8:52 a.m. CST

    Alexandra DuPont go the fuck away.

    by JarJar25

    Your reviews are shit! Wolverine was good! Superman Returns was good too! This fanboys worship you like a goddess, but not me. You act like only you can write about these film and no else can. You only come here, because no else will hire you and to make yourself superior to everyone else here!

  • May 8, 2009, 8:57 a.m. CST

    Nero is one badass mutha. (Sarcasm.)

    by kabong

    Calling them Starfleet guys by their first names. <P> Yeah, that's badass for a twelve-year-old. Hence, the problem of the movie.

  • May 8, 2009, 9:08 a.m. CST

    Dumb place to put a spoiler warning...

    by DC Films

    ...After you tell us that 'by the end of the movie the time-travel problem doesn't get fixed...' Might be obvious when you think about that, considering it then nature of the reboot, but i'd still prefer to have not been told. Guess i just have to be sure not to read your reviews anymore!

  • May 8, 2009, 9:13 a.m. CST

    **Spoilers** 25 years.

    by the_beard_of_Chuck_Norris

    "2. Also, as Herc asked: Where the hell did Nero go for a quarter-century?" Spock (Nimoy) answers this. Why anyone would even ask this question is beyond me. The answer --- Nero knew Spock was coming through the Blackhole. But what was an instant to Spock was 25 years to Nero. Nero was waiting there in space for Spock to arrive. Nero never left that spot for 25 years.

  • May 8, 2009, 9:16 a.m. CST

    I loved it - BUT...

    by Mr Gorilla

    This is as good a Trek relaunch as we could possibly have hoped for. But I do think it was all a bit unrelentingly LOUD. The filmmakers blow you away with the opening sequence, but then don't trust you enough to take their foot off the gas - at ANY point in the film. There's loads of good action - but no action is quite as brilliant as the set-pieces in Mission Impossible 3 - I'm particularly thinking of the Vatican break-in and the bridge scene. All that being said, this is a wonderful film and the guys and gals behind it really should be applauded.

  • May 8, 2009, 9:18 a.m. CST

    Beard of chuck.

    by V'Shael

    That's kind of the point. He sat in the one spot, never moving for 25 years? And no one found him? Even though they were responsible for the destruction of the Kelvin? They never left the scene of the crime? No one ever came across them? <p> Bullshit says I. Crap writing, that they hope no one thinks about.

  • May 8, 2009, 9:25 a.m. CST

    I totally agree with Alexandra

    by oisin5199

    as usual. Her reviews have been consistently right on. All the things she loved and all her quibbles I share and for the same reasons. Marry me, Alexandra! Oh, wait. I'm already married. Ok, be my third in a sexy triad!

  • May 8, 2009, 9:33 a.m. CST

    I totally agree with ScriptGirl_Nipples

    by WriteFromLeft

    I won't see a film that looks like Michael J. Fox was the DP. There's this thing called a tripod.

  • May 8, 2009, 9:52 a.m. CST

    I like Star Trek and I don't like "Star Trek". [SPOILERS]

    by LordVonPS3

    The 2009 movie has too much wrong with it to ignore. [SPOILERS] It started in typical Trek fashion and I thought the first ten minutes were great. I don't think we needed the scene with Kirk as a child. That should have been cut completely. The scene at the end where the Enterprise is holding its position against the gravitational pull of a giant black hole by using warp power was also fundamentally flawed. How did they escape? Eject the warp core into the black hole and detonate it like a bomb. Surely if the Enterprise needs warp power to hold its position against a black hole, the act of ejecting the warp core would see the Enterprise "fall into" the black hole with "even light cannot escape" immediacy. Who could believe a cracked & damaged Enterprise wouldn't be ripped apart by a black hole? Even "Space: Above and Beyond" got that one right. How about the "illogical" manner in which James T Kirk becomes Captain of the Enterprise? Kirk can get beaten up (several times), humiliated (several times), rejected (by women, Spock & even Star Fleet)... Yet he is "given" the Captaincy. What the fuck? Did Kirk show some incredible stroke of genius? An amazing display of courage? A natural authoritative air and style of leadership? Fuck that... Kirk earned his Captaincy by simply making it through the movie without dying, then logically convincing Spock that he was too emotive to remain as acting Captain. If Spock were so emotionally wound up by a baiting Kirk, surely the last thing he would do is give Kirk the Captain's chair. Particularly when Kirk had earlier been relieved from his position as 1st officer by Spock for being too emotionally invested (the way his dad died)! I'd like to say you couldn't make this stuff up, but unfortunately someone did. This movie should be gutted, panned and slated in every journal and mag. How dare these idiots say it is good? Star Trek has never been about assembling crews except in every drawn out season pilot that "knowing fans" only watch when they're having a marathon sit-and-watch session. Star Trek is supposed to be about exploring, meeting new races, technology, negotiating & fixing interstellar problems, fighting and blowing stuff up. I couldn't care less if the new Kirk is a dick head or a diplomat like Picard, but the dialogue sucked, the script sucked and the (mostly) immature characters sucked. Yet again the doctor was the best character. ST:TNG was a success in part thanks to the mostly mature characters in the show and DS9 showed that cadets can't run a star ship. The new Enterprise is destined to crash and burn, but not before making a lot of cash. Well done Paramount.

  • May 8, 2009, 10:06 a.m. CST


    by unclebusu

    great thoughts. I appreciate good dialogue about this movie rather than random fan boy attacks. Just enjoy yourselves fools.

  • May 8, 2009, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Shakey-Cam issue

    by Mr Gorilla

    Yes, it really IS an issue. These shakey-cam films - Bourne, Quantum of Solace, Trek - look fantastic on the small screen. But on the big screen they are JUST TERRIBLE! These directors should be forced to edit in front of a giant movie screen, rather than a small Avid monitor. Then they would mend their ways.

  • May 8, 2009, 10:24 a.m. CST


    by Friendo

    hahahhahahahaha . . . you're a cute little sad fucker aren't you . . . hahahahahahahahah

  • May 8, 2009, 10:38 a.m. CST

    Clarification please - does this site like this movie

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    Frankly I am still waiting for Yoko's review

  • May 8, 2009, 10:40 a.m. CST

    Oh and Fuck you Paramount

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    29th of fucking May, is that allowed in theGeneva convention

  • May 8, 2009, 10:46 a.m. CST

    They killed Wash in Serenity?!?!?!

    by D.Vader

    NOOOOOOOOOO! I'm still in the middle of watching the series!

  • May 8, 2009, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Vulcan and Amanda?

    by OptimusValdez

    Question for all of you. How do we reconcile the death of Spock’s mother Amanda in the context of “Journey to Babel” and ST IV? Also, the destruction of the Vulcan planet to “Amok TIme,” ST IV, etc?

  • May 8, 2009, 11:07 a.m. CST

    It's all gone, OptimusValdez.

    by kabong

    Only the world of JarJar Abrams exists.

  • May 8, 2009, 11:09 a.m. CST

    I love DuPont

    by DennisMM

    I hate the rigid structure of her reviews, but I love the research she brings to them and the light humor she employs. And she (he?) is downright charming, charm being an uncommon trait in this site's writers.

  • May 8, 2009, 11:28 a.m. CST

    Great review, Ms. DuPont

    by bravogolfhotel

    You got to the heart of why this movie works so well: its infectious passion.

  • May 8, 2009, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Jeez. Is there anybody left

    by StarWarsRedux

    who HASN'T sucked this movie's dick yet? Christ. I would've expected at least one reviewer on this site who would've at least given it a slightly less hyperbolic level of praise.

  • May 8, 2009, 11:58 a.m. CST

    29th of May..

    by The Dark Shite

    Racists! Racists I say!!! Damn you.<p> 29th of fucking May?

  • May 8, 2009, 12:01 p.m. CST


    by blhotz

    Pwned. Only second to TNG. Hated Deep Space Nine but to each their own. Otherwise nice review, DuPont!!

  • May 8, 2009, 12:02 p.m. CST

    J.J. Abrams raped my childhood!

    by yeah i'm a jerk!

    seriously, this movie has none of the sense of wonder and fun of the original Star Trek. I can only think that Gene Roddenberry would appalled at what has been done to his creation.

  • May 8, 2009, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Pay Attention

    by MoPo

    Optimus, in case you weren't paying attention for the 2nd half of the movie, this movie establishes an alternate timeline. The events of the original series and STIV still happen in the "prime" timeline, but obviosuly won't in JJ's new timeline.

  • May 8, 2009, 12:22 p.m. CST

    "I'm feeling terribly disapointed."

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    "About what, i really can't tell."<P>That's because you wanted her to hate it. That way, you can feel better about your hatred of Abrams and then feel justified in hating on this film even though you haven't even seen it yet.<P>Pathetic.

  • May 8, 2009, 12:37 p.m. CST

    The details

    by Embeedeuce

    The negative parts of this film, that are getting glossed over in reviews, are the ones I fear most. (And I admit I haven't seen the film yet, but have read every review and spoiler). If Kirk just gets into the captain's chair, calling "dibs" or whatev, and never climbs the officer ladder, that's huge! I would love him being Acting Captain in this one, then getting rewarded w/ Lieutenant rank or something. Then there's a whole story to explore in the sequel about how he becomes Captain. Resurrect the Gary Mitchell story line. Anything. Pine still has plenty of years to embody Starfleet's youngest captain. In one of the trailers, and I'm guessing it's an audio edit, Pike says "I'm leaving you in command," and Kirk says, "You got it." Really?

  • May 8, 2009, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Forget everything you know..

    by The Dark Shite

    That's the tagline. Sums it up. It's essentially saying "We know you think Star Trek is shit, but try this one."<p> That's bullshit. It's condescending to the fans. It's basically saying newcomers are more important than the people who really care about it, because we can make more money that way. <p> I'm not saying the movie's shit. I hope it's great! I really wanna see it. But as a fan, that tagline pisses me off.

  • May 8, 2009, 1:23 p.m. CST

    It's hit the torrents already.

    by scriptgirl_nipples

  • May 8, 2009, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Any clues as to where?

    by The Dark Shite

  • May 8, 2009, 1:24 p.m. CST

    CeeJay Nightwing left a douchie post

    by Joker Gordon Levitt

    I'm telling...

  • May 8, 2009, 1:32 p.m. CST

    But I DO think Star Trek is shit--

    by Pompoulus

    And I DO want to try this one. So there you have it. Oh, and Alexandra Dupont is the best writer on this site, and anybody who thinks otherwise cannot or does not read.

  • May 8, 2009, 1:37 p.m. CST

    by scriptgirl_nipples

  • May 8, 2009, 1:51 p.m. CST

    One thing's for sure about Vulcans

    by GeorgieBoy

    They sure do have BIG honkers!

  • May 8, 2009, 2:08 p.m. CST

    ridiculous embrace of coincidence?

    by jofex

    It only feels like coincidence because we know what comes after, that these guys have a whole "history" ahead of them. If we didn't know anything, these would just be new characters we're meeting, who become important as the story progresses.

  • May 8, 2009, 2:14 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives is so desperate to hate this movie.

    by rev_skarekroe

    It's comical. Really, I recommend you don't see it AsimovLives. You've already decided that you don't want to like it. Just save yourself some money.

  • May 8, 2009, 2:18 p.m. CST

    thanks mrs dupont

    by Six Demon Bag

    see you in 2 weeks for your T4 review...hint hint

  • May 8, 2009, 2:19 p.m. CST

    I wasnt going to read another Trek review!!!

    by DOGSOUP

    But goddamn it I have to read everything ADP writes. She nails films in a way few can and will. In conclusion she should tell Andre Dellamorte that Portland misses him. It's Keeping it Weird without him but a visit would be nice.

  • May 8, 2009, 2:20 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    That's all anyone wants from a reviewer = an honest opinion. What you have accused Dupont of doing is exactly the opposite. And what proof do you have of this?! None.<P>You tend to project an AWFUL LOT onto the various writers/editors of AICN. And a lot of it is really bizarre and unfounded (i.e. the Jay Jay cocksuck conspiracy, etc.).<P>I'm heartened to read that you're actually going to SEE the movie and then offer your then INFORMED opinion on its merits or lack thereof. It certainly makes more sense than the accusations and pre-hate you've been throwing around.<P>Enjoy the show.

  • May 8, 2009, 2:26 p.m. CST

    The Dark Shite: Please

    by noncents

    The "bastardization" I refer to is the ever changing fuzzy logic of human beings that seek conformity in rules and ethics when their are no such things. WE MAKE IT UP CONTINUOUSLY. Just because a percentage of human beings believe something to be so, doesn't make it so. So, get over it, and suck up the "bastardization" of the language. AN or a. Yes, everyone understands what we were taught as children, but if you want to go after this review because of that then please TRY HARDER. Sheesh. That is all the fire power you are bringing. Pick something that better teeth, son.

  • May 8, 2009, 2:43 p.m. CST

    A message from Vader to Kirk

    by codymr


  • May 8, 2009, 2:52 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    So, what you're really saying is that if a contributor to AICN has written a positive review of STAR TREK (a movie written and directed by people that you admittedly hate), then they have "sold out". No ifs, ands, or buts.<P>Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?! What pretzel-styled logic are you basing this on?!<P>And if you're so hot for Vern's review, why don't you go and check out his own website? Because, now that Moriarty is gone, AICN doesn't seem to run Vern's stuff anymore.

  • May 8, 2009, 3:06 p.m. CST


    by DOGSOUP

    Tom Tykwer is a Man-God. And I hate to tell you guys but ANYONE who ISN'T a hermit living off the land and contributing to our capitalist system in ANY way is a sell-out. We're all whores so let's just enjoy the frequent orgasms that come with the territory. "I've got some Advice for you, little buddy Before you point the finger You should know that I'm the man,And if I'm the man, Then you're the man, and He's the man as well so you can Point that fuckin' finger up your ass"

  • May 8, 2009, 3:08 p.m. CST

    You don't 'trust' opinions, buddy.

    by Pompoulus

    Opinions are only ever to be 'trusted' in that they can be trusted to accurately convey a person's subjective view. Because they're opinions. You know. Opinions.

  • May 8, 2009, 3:20 p.m. CST

    sequel should have Gary Mitchell from classic pilot

    by Drath

    He develops super powers and becomes a villain Tetsuo style. That'd be cool to see. Save Khan for the third movie. No Klingons until the fourth!

  • May 8, 2009, 3:21 p.m. CST


    by Six Demon Bag

    so anyone on this site who gives a positive review "sells out" .. bullshit. there has been many times where harry and mori and ms dupont have ripped a new one into a film that did not meet their expectations. i especially like those rants (mostly yours dupont). gonna let you in a little secret asimovlives, its okay to like things with theyre know good? join the rest of us itll be okay. you've yet to see the film and youre calling it shit? sad fact, as ive stated before, the haters after they've actually seen the film, will still publicly hate on it but buy it quickly when it comes home. jackass. enjoy the show.

  • May 8, 2009, 3:24 p.m. CST

    another thing asimov...

    by Six Demon Bag

    you complained that reviews look scripted. its called coherency. otherwise it would look like a fucking TB rant. im sure any reviewer has some kinda notes before sitting at the laptop..this GOLD doesnt just flow from the fingertips (ms dupont excluded) its gotta be drafted.

  • May 8, 2009, 3:28 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius

    by LordVonPS3

    The only thing we can hope for here is an honest review. If we get one - fine. Just accept that everyone can have their own opinion on a movie. For me, it isn't a bad movie, it's just not a Star Trek movie - and that's what I was expecting, so I didn't like it. It is also not as good as everyone seems to be making out. 5 / 5? No way... More like 3.5 / 5. Star Trek (TOS/ TNG / DS9 / VOY / ENT) fans who are just looking for some more of the same will watch this and keep looking.

  • May 8, 2009, 3:30 p.m. CST

    DouchePot: Shut. The. Fuck. Up!

    by KosherWookie

    Why do you keep returning, like that little piece of turd that refuses to flush? Wassamatter, your slacker co-workers at Burger King refuse to listen to you whine on and on about movies? For a woman who is allegedly incredibly well-read and well-spoken, does the meaning of the word "RESIGN" somehow slip your mind? Now stay gone... or come back only after you apologize for the bitchy 'greener pastures' tone of your exit... Oh, and don't forget to refill the napkin dispensers at the end of the shift.

  • May 8, 2009, 3:34 p.m. CST

    Well, Asimov, hope you like it.

    by rev_skarekroe

    But even if you don't I hope you don't continue to believe that there's some kind of conspiracy by AICN reviewers to give the film more praise than it's worth.

  • May 8, 2009, 3:38 p.m. CST

    And here we go...

    by trojanwilliams

    Like clockwork the "fans" start turning on it because it got great reviews. Just like they did for Dark Knight and for Iron Man. I'm so sur-fucking-prised. <br><br> You guys are so fucking predictable and pathetic! OMG shaky-cam, lens-flares, Beastie Boys, insert cliched childhood-raping statement here! <br><br> "I haven't seen it yet but the 93% good ratings tells me I'm gonna probably hate it because it's officially popular to like it and now I just want to act like a little bitch because internet anonymity allows me to." WAAAAH! Bring back the Rocketeer!! (which just might be the worst "good" film example ever given on this site by any poster not named Harry - the Rocketeer was total trash) <br><br> You're all a bunch of bitches. The film's the most fun I've had in the theater (opening frame to end credits) in years and yes I also accept that it's far from perfect. Guess what? Very few, if any, films are. It's not like it's a totally loud piece of bombastic nonsense like Transformers was. It tries extremely hard to entertain and it succeeds 90% of the time. I wish I could say that about 90% of movies made today. I could only imagine the backlash a film like Star Wars would get today.

  • May 8, 2009, 3:39 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I can totally respect the fact that you didn't like it. You saw the film and gave your opinion. That makes sense. The difference here is that AsimovLives HASN'T seen the film. Even more, he's been piling the hate upon it simply because he doesn't like the folks involved with the its production.<P>Now, here's the kicker. AsimovLives thinks that the AICN staff has "sold out" because they've enjoyed the movie and written positive reviews. (Keep in mind that I have not seen one person call it a "perfect" movie.) What's even more bizarre is that he thinks the reviews are "scripted" and disingenuous. How anyone could read Merrick's review and not find it "genuine"...well, it truly boggles the mind.<P>Do you see my overall point and the bizarre disconnect being advocated by AsimovLives?

  • May 8, 2009, 3:49 p.m. CST

    It's good, but not as good as it's hyped.

    by Azlam Orlandu

    I just can't accept Pine as Kirk. I don't dislike him, in fact he's quite entertaining in the film, but he needed to interject just a tad more Shatner for my taste. I know there's a fear of him going overboard and perhaps this is my problem because of my love for Shat, but it was an issue for me.

  • May 8, 2009, 3:58 p.m. CST

    See, that's what I'm talking about.

    by rev_skarekroe

    Nobody's selling out. They just all LIKE THE MOVIE. Sheesh.

  • May 8, 2009, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Memo From Harry to all AICN staff writers

    by Glory_Fades_ImMaxFischer

    "Ok team..we have alot riding on this..after that wolverine embarrassment I mainly caused, well me and Moriarty, we really have to pull together tight for JJ here. He gave us toys, and models, and set visits and pictures and let me rub his feet for him a couple times and the studio is paying us ALOT OF MONEY to place those ads on the site. So here's the deal..EVERY story must mention JJ abrams awesomeness, at least 4 times. ABSOLUTELY NO LESS THAN 2. Also I want every review to be plastered with posters and shots from the film..I'm talking chocolate covered pussy juice here people.. ALSO..NO NEGATIVE WORDS WHATSOEVER..just say something like 'but the negatives pale in comparison'..or some stupid shit like that. Everyone got that? Good..I don't want to fuck this up like I did Star Wars..Thanks Team..Harry"

  • May 8, 2009, 4:03 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    FYI - Moriarty doesn't work here anymore.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:07 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Wow. Intentionally stubborn till the very end, eh? And it's interesting to note how you use THE DARK KNIGHT as your gold standard for everything. Granted, it's a killer movie. But that film could not have been more hyped nor receive more unanimous acclaim. Even still, it's NOT flawless nor above criticism. But then again, you are in love with Chris Nolan. So there you go.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:08 p.m. CST

    I agree with you AsimovLives

    by DOGSOUP

    Overkill Kills Anything. This is why radio sucks ass, the same 12 songs over and over. I don't care how good the song is if I hear twice an hour by the fifth hour I want to kill everyone involved with it. I understand that. As for this movie I have no opinion. I haven't seen it yet and until I do I have no real right to an opinion. So I guess all of these reviews that have the exact same beats to them are more entitled to exist then anything I can say about it. In conclusion I did see The Battle for Terra in 3D and I was the only one in the theater. Nobody gives a shit about the plight of the floating sperm people.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:09 p.m. CST

    AT LEAST I can see why people liked this

    by IndustryKiller!

    It's a very likeable film and its so refreshing to see such spirited performances from most of the cast. People who seemed to do their research and homage without commenting on the absurdity of it all. If there was a casting option Abrhams and his casting director would certainly win it. It's just that GOD DAMNED SCRIPT. I'm sorry but I cannot ignore plot holes, many plot hoels in fact, so large that it literally takes zero thought to unravel the entire story. It robs the film of any organic sense and becomes an excuse to get these, admittedly wonderful characters together. Which you know, is ALOT more than we get from most summer fare. But it's not deserving of such effusive praise. But still, Chris Pine, awesome. Im happy this guy is on the scene because there is literally no one carrying that loveable scoundrel card around these days.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:10 p.m. CST


    by Jawa 007

    is the best reviewer on this site. Vern's great too, but for different reasons.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:11 p.m. CST

    And I think you've got the hype-thing backwards.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    There were a TON of people ready, willing and able to sandbag this movie at their first opportunity. Well, judging by the reactions of critics and's taken people by surprise.<P>You know what other movie did that?<P>TRANSFORMERS!

  • May 8, 2009, 4:14 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Interesting points. If you've read Devin Faraci's review at CHUD (fuck CHUD!), he basically says the same thing about the script. It's an abomination. Yet, Abrams was able to make it work somehow. If that's truly the case, then it's a worthwhile to note his ability to make lemonade out of shite.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:14 p.m. CST

    You kids are so cute

    by Scorpio

    with all your hate over this film. No, really, it's cute. And it must be a tough job to have to stake out your position on this, of all things, simply because the majority of viewers loved this film. It's cute.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:16 p.m. CST

    I'll Second That

    by DOGSOUP

    FUCK CHUD! They tried to have user comments for a while and couldn't handle it. PUSSIES!

  • May 8, 2009, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Asimovlives, I can tell you this

    by IndustryKiller!

    And hopefully you can read this and get some entertainment out of the film if you know what you are up against. What people are saying about the cast is true. They are just uniformly good, and moreover, in the scripts ONE triumph, the film lets them be a complete ensemble, everyone getting their moment. It juggles hte characters very very well and this is mostly where all the praise is coming from. Abrhams also colors a very interesting palette, it's a beautiful film and never anything less than completely engrossing to look at and organic. With that said if you arent a fan of Kurtzman and Orci, and what reason minded individual could possibly be, the script is CLASSIC them. It's full of plot holes, more than any recent summer movie I've seen in a long time (like fucking seriously NOTHING about the plot holds up) the dialogue can be painful, PAINFUL, at times (most of the actors are playing it so straight and real or are so in tune with the characters that they gloss over it nicely though), and the themes are so heavy handed that even the most simplistic filmgoer will have no trouble seeing them. Also Kurtzman and Orci hate Spock, or they think he's a boring killjoy because not only is Spock outright emotional, he shows emotion in EVERY SINGLE SCENE. This is not a guy who would ever become Nimoy's Spock, he's a downright rage-a-holic who is constantly battling to keep himself in check. Also Abrhams can't direct action. the camera moves constantly especially in melee combat scenes and makes it Batman Begins incomprehensible.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:29 p.m. CST


    by tallsy

    This movie didn't condescend to me about "big ideas." I feel cheated. I needed moral posturing. <p> Oh, yes, I also believe there's a conspiracy because the reviews do not match my preconceived beliefs.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Let me just say...

    by Sithtastic

    Nice review Alexdra, all very logical and flowing. I think though that a common thread I'm seeing is criticism of "Nero as plot device" and thus far--changes and all--it's the only thing that gives me pause before seeing this. Other than that, I'm in.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:31 p.m. CST

    It's true Nice Gaius

    by IndustryKiller!

    The film is undeniably likeable without necessarily being good. And I think that has a lot to do with Abrams decisions. And you know what I think we should cut Abrams even more slack because the great tragedy here is the film shot during the writers strike when NOTHING about the script that wasnt improved by the actors could be changed. I would kill to know what this movie would have been if Abrams gave it a script polish.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:41 p.m. CST

    No, the movie wasn't good. It's cute that so many

    by Snake Foreskin

    on here feel the need to fawn all over it. Have you no frame of reference? Of course you do. Multiple seasons of the TV show and 6 movies. How can you say this Trek movie was fantastic? It rates somewhere between ST 3 and ST5.<p> JJ Abrams' Star Trek was a sloppy, disjointed, largely soulless romp in space. The mere fact that you are defending it so forcefully and arrogantly bespeaks either a lack of taste and judgment or pure stubborness on your part.<p> The story was confusing and purposely upsetting at times. It's Abrams way of letting us know who's in charge. We get it, JJ. You da man now. So destroy Vulcan and 6 billions Vulcans along with it. Pull an Alderaan. People will just have to choke on it.<p> The cinematography was poor, sir. What's "cute" is that some of you dolts are professing it to be brilliant. Really? All those faked lens flares with lights in almost every scene was brilliant? No, it was sophomoric. The scenes were dull. Almost every one. The set design, the costumes, the makeup... little of it managed to inspire awe or feelings of glee. And the audience reacted accordingly. Not one person clapped during or at the end of the movie. And I went to the very first showing yesterday: 7 PM, IMAX. True Trekkie time, right?<p> The music was one-note, unlike Goldsmith and Horner's far superior scores. While it boasted its epic-ness, it lacked any subtlety or finesse - something both Horner and Goldsmith achieved beautifully. It made Alexander Courage's theme sound positively brilliant by comparison.<p> The acting was a poor substitute for the brilliantly portrayed characters of the original cast. The chemistry was simply missing, once again, from a new Star Trek cast. No subsequent cast has been equal to the original cast, and frankly it seems doubtful this group of actors will be either.<p> Urban's McCoy wasn't spot-on as some have claimed. He wasn't nearly intense and crotchety enough. Sylar, I mean Spock, was but a poor imitation of Nimoy's legendary rendition. Chris Pine as Kirk was grating for most of the movie. He was unlikable and hard to watch due to his horrible skin and JJ Abrams' penchant for close-ups. Really, HD IMAX is not a good thing for that Pine kid. It just shows he HAS no "good side".<p> Eric Bana was wasted. His character was a mess and didn't even rate proper exposition. Where the hell was he for 25 years? He was an afterthought, like much of Abrams' production. Scotty, anyone?<p> No, there are myriad reasons for Trek fans to be disappointed by Abrams' foray into Trekdom. Much like Singer's puzzling take on Superman.<p> Well, with any luck Abrams won't decide to make a sequel. Or if he does, let's just hope he doesn't decide to reveal that James T. Kirk is really a Klingon. Or gay. Or worse, a gay Klingon.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:45 p.m. CST

    I was waiting for Spock to slice into Kirk's skull...

    by Snake Foreskin

    or throw him across the bridge with a wave of his hand. He was absolutely no different in this movie than when he is playing Sylar. Okay, except his eyebrows are more controlled. Freaking caterpillars, those.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:47 p.m. CST

    I thought Pine's huge facial mole was going to be

    by Snake Foreskin

    a singularity that swallowed up Nero's ship. Really. I thought that was Abrams' plan all along. Get Kirk onboard the enemy vessel and then let the mole devour the whole damn thing.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Smells like Paramount has a flop.

    by kabong

    $ 7 million for Thursday night. <P> They won't get 80 mill for the whole weekend. <P> She's going down, Jim. <P> Engage.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:53 p.m. CST

    For a movie with an almost $200 million production budget

    by Snake Foreskin

    it sure as hell didn't show up onscreen. Yet another reason the original films are far superior. They worked off meager budgets and achieved a far greater level of emotional impact. More bang for your buck, if you will.<p> Star Trek movies haven't earned much bank as of late. Apparently Paramount and Abrams' answer was to just throw money at the franchise. Well, much like the Obama administration and Congress need to learn, there's more to problem solving than spending huge piles of money. Quantity does not necessarily equal quality.<p> I will say one thing: This Star Trek movie gives me a better appreciation for the original movies. Especially Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

  • May 8, 2009, 4:55 p.m. CST

    Seriously? Only $7 million? My theater was damn full

    by Snake Foreskin

    And these were $13.50 IMAX tickets. And 3 or more showings on multiple screens. How is it possible to only get $7 million? That just can't be right.

  • May 8, 2009, 5 p.m. CST

    Im surprised to see the reactions so decidedly mixed

    by IndustryKiller!

    I thought it would have been a slam dunk in favor of this film. It's by no means great due to Kurtzman & Orci but its better than a lot of what we get. Which I don't mean as a defense as much as a point of fact, because if WOlverine, which was, and Im not being hyperbolic here, nigh UNWATCHABLE, and that still managed to attract people, I thought this would for sure. I mean this is a website where people routinely defend crap like Transformers. Hmmmm.

  • May 8, 2009, 5:03 p.m. CST

    by Bladernner79

    whats movie do you fucking loser's like? must be terrible to have a life like that. im sure most of you faggot's think serenity is a good movie and joss whedon is god.

  • May 8, 2009, 5:20 p.m. CST

    Bitch, moan, whine, blah blah blah

    by seagrass

    God, I hate fanboys. Get out of the theater and go back to your momma's tit. It's a solid, solid flick.

  • May 8, 2009, 5:22 p.m. CST

    $7 million for Thursday

    by kabong

  • May 8, 2009, 5:27 p.m. CST

    This Movie Is Horrible!!! Serenity Is A Much Better Film

    by Media Messiah

    There is nothing charming about this movie, nothing at all. The film is slow moving...and there is nothing weighty about it, no substance??? They turn a planet into a black hole with 6 billon people on it, and you feel nothing emotionally? However, when Princess Leia's planet was blown up in Star Wars, you felt a sense of awe and sadness...and we didn't even know Princess Leia yet as a character? When Star Wars first debuted, we were just getting acquainted with Leia, but we felt her horror, and her people scream out in pain and in voice through the force, however---we have known Spock, and his parents for years, the lore is substantial--and we have come to know and love the Vulcan people, and when Vulcan is destroyed, you are made to feel nothing? Let's look at a similar event in another movie to better examine my point, and that film would be Superman. When Kal-El (Superman) lost his planet in the opening scene of the original Superman, you felt it. You felt the horror and the pain of the dying Krytonian race, and the violent separation of a family. Somehow Richard Donner, within the first 10 minutes of the movie, was able to establish great empathy for these people...and George Lucas delivered similar results in the original Star Wars from early on in the epic, perhaps 45 minutes into the film...but here, in the new Star Trek, you felt much of nothing, there was no real sense of empathy...and this is just one of the problems for this movie. <BR><BR>I think of Firefly, a show that was only on the air for about 11 episodes, and a additional two having gone unaired, episodes which later, fortunately for the fans of the show, appeared on the subsequent DVD Box Set release--and when I ponder that show, I think how rich its lore is, a lore that was mined for story gold in the film version of Firefly, which was dubbed Serenity. Serenity towers over the new Trek film with a smart economcally driven and emotional script which is about something of major import. It is about one's freedom of will, freedom of mind, and freedom of spirit, and the willingness to live and or die for it, to protect and guarantee its continuance. Serenty had a voice, a well informed opinion, a mission statement that said to its audience, "Stand for something, or fall for nothing" least, with regard to the latter, nothing that you can use, at the hands of others, who would scheme to control you for their own devices. This new Trek, unlike Serenity, has no voice, we were just delivered an uninteresting stock villain with a ridiculous motive for mass holocaust...and a small crew willing to follow a mad, and maddening fool? Serenity, however gave us a smart villain and an equally smart hero, and when the two square off in battle, their tactical brilliance as displayed on screen, serves to "wow" the audience, but in the neo Star Trek...Kirk does not prove himself as a tactical genius, nor does his enemy? Kirk stumbles into a position of prominence thanks to his cheating, but not as a smart cheat, just as an average cheat, one who got caught. Nothing special is shown that informs you, save for character references, that this guy should be in command of anything short of a donut, and certainly not a star ship, and yet, he is instantly thrust into the role of first officer aboard the Enterprise by Captain Christopher Pike? Sure young Kirk warned of an attack in advance, but that would not logically (ironic isn't it?) net you the position of first officer aboard a vessel during a battle engagement, at least, not in the fashion i was presented? Story wise, that was a cheat, like much of this movie (more irony, speaking of cheating...and lack of logic)?<BR><BR>Why didn't the Federation, young Kirk, and or Spock of the future...and Spock of the past, and crew...just time travel to the past and undo Nero's attacks? Why didn't they travel to Nero's future to kill or arrest him and his crew before they could wreak havoc and destroy Vulcan? And why didn't they simply go to the future and save Romulas before its destruction, or prevent future Spock from creating the black hole device, in the first place...all in order to protect and fix the time-line? Time travel is the norm in the original Star Trek TV series as well as subsequent Star Trek series...and in several Trek movies...thusly, it makes no sense that time travel was not used to affect repairs to the original time-line??? This fact fully negates the logic of the entire storyline of the film, and exposes it as nothing but bad writing, from beginning to end. There are so many holes in this film, and its plotline, that even swiss cheese would be proud!<BR><BR>So how is it that Joss Whedon's Serenity, knew how to touch its audience emotionally, and effectively, and JJ Abram's missed the boat entirely here with the new Star Trek? Well, for starters, JJ Abrams doesn't like Star Trek, a fact that he has openly admitted to the press...and it shows dramatically. This guy is well out of his element here as he lacks understanding of story within this genre. And the writers of the new Trek clearly don't understand science fiction as well, save for serving us cliched scenes from much, much better films...and tv shows in the genre. If they had been well versed in science fiction and fantasy, they would not have made so many mistakes in dealing with the time travel issues, and that goes directly to their collective incompetence.<BR><BR>In regard to tone, the film feels like a mesh-mash of Star Trek: Insurrection, Star Trek: Nemesis, and to a lesser degree, Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. It also feels very long, and often stalls with long boring stetches that fail to effectively advance the film. You want to root for these characters, but there is little to root for as you sense that this film is from a connect the dots script...and written by the numbers. It's all formula, no heart, all forced heroism, but nothing that feels authentic? <BR><BR>Don't believe the phony reviews that are praising this film, as they are false. I would be interested in seeing what the Saturday box office numbers are for the new Trek, as I suspect that they will not improve on the Friday numbers of the movie...and should that occur, that will inform us that word of mouth has hit this film in form of a brewing backlash, as Saturday box office numbers should always inprove on Friday opening numbers. That said, I also suspect that this film will tank in its 2nd and 3rd weekend, as fans fail to come back for repeat viewings of the film...and fail to recommend it to their acquaintences, loved ones, and strangers, alike. This film will make money, yes, but it does not deserve to live long...or prosper--and hopefully it won't, or we will receive more of the same--brainless simpleton trash.

  • May 8, 2009, 5:32 p.m. CST

    So can anyone explain how Old Spock miscalculated...

    by IndustryKiller!

    the whole supernova thing? First of all it's a supernova, it takes like, literally a billion years of slow build up to occur. You think that problem would have been taken care of on Romulus as soon as limitless space travel was discovered. But I digress. What I gathered was that Spock is put in charge of launching the red matter to build a black hole that would suck in the supernova from inside out, thus saving Romulus. As Spock is explaining this it is showing him with the Romulans getting on the ship and going off to do just that, then the next thing you know Romulus is destroyed by the fucking supernova Spock just took off presumably to take care of immediately. How the hell did the Supernova hit Romulus before Spock got to it with the red matter? Did he like take a fucking detour to Starbucks? This is the event the ENTIRE FILM hinges around so ignoring it as a plot hole is totally impossible.

  • May 8, 2009, 5:34 p.m. CST

    You guys are right about Karl Urban

    by jawsfan

    His take on Bones is perfect!! The bit at the beginning where the Kelvin crew is wheeling out Papa Kirk's pregnant wife just as she is giving birth to J.T., all while Daddy is on a suicide mission... lots of lovey-dovey "I love you"s being exchanged.... Can't SOMEONE in Hollywood find a way to AVOID this oft-used cliche???

  • May 8, 2009, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Oh yah, the Firefly/Whedon/Serenity thing...

    by Scorpio

    That's cute too. It was so good the first time, it was definitely worth re-posting. Fortunately, the haters have their Transformers and Terminator sequels to look forward to. I bet those stories will be *excellent*. Sadly, though, the Browncoats have nothing to which to look forward. Their only hope is to smash their heads repeatedly into a wall and induce amnesia so they can re-live those glorious 13 episodes again and again!

  • May 8, 2009, 5:54 p.m. CST


    by genrefanboy

    Yeah I can explain it!! </p> The screenplay is shockingly poor and logic gaps like this are why it makes no sense. </p> You know Spock Prime must really be an OAP by now as he not only botched that up but would not use his time travel forumla from ST4 to save his home planet & Mother yet he was fine with saving Earth & the Whales. Makes perfect sense I suppose to the level of audience this film is aimed at.....

  • May 8, 2009, 5:58 p.m. CST

    Media Messiah

    by genrefanboy

    Much of what you say is right on the money. </p> But Paramount have done such a strong job on the marketing & bribery for phony reviews they will get a reasonable opening then watch it hopefully drop off very quickly next week and do a Watchmen. </p> I'm shellshocked at how poor this movie is and even now how many people are saying it's great. Perhaps IQ's dropped overnight or something!!!

  • May 8, 2009, 6 p.m. CST

    Abrams is a douche. But Khan of Borg for a sequel.

    by scriptgirl_nipples

    Carry on the Enterprise story of then they found the Borg on Earth from First Contact. Since then, the Borg have been on route to Earth. They discover Khan on the Botany Bay. When assimilated, Khan & his group add their genetically modified superhuman substance to the Borg. <br> <br> Have this new Borg, wipe out the Federation and assimilate Earth. Leaving the Enterprise as flagship of a rag-tag fleet.

  • May 8, 2009, 6:07 p.m. CST

    GenreFanboy: Thank You. Most People Are Sheep

    by Media Messiah

    They eagerly buy into fads...and fail to think for themselves. I have loved my share of Trek through the years, and blasted it when it was bad...and this is a time to blast it, as this is not a good movie. Seriously, I want my money back...and the 2 hours of my life which I lost while watching it.

  • May 8, 2009, 6:14 p.m. CST

    Media Messiah

    by genrefanboy

    I hear you man but they have our money already. </p> Least I could do is return the favour and let people on here & many other sites know that its a bogus con of a movie!! </p> Even Berman would never have stooped this low (and I hated a lot of what he did but he still knew what not to mess with). </p> Do you think the mainstream audiences outside of the internet crowd are dumb enough to embrace this movie?? (I hope not otherwise they will spoon feed us more of this trash!!).

  • May 8, 2009, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Media Mess

    by Spamgelus

    So, if I liked this movie, I'm a sheep? Or is it that if I have a different opinion than you I'm a sheep?

  • May 8, 2009, 6:41 p.m. CST

    Media Messiah is a FUCKING PLANT!

    by trojanwilliams


  • May 8, 2009, 6:47 p.m. CST

    Wow are you all a whiney lot.

    by JediWuddayaknow

    So much venomous hate toward a MOVIE? Je-sus. Someone here mentioned that the Talkbacks are what this site is about, and it's really a shame that that's true. It's a bunch of overblown ego's by everyone who thinks they're an expert shouting their opinions as if they're god and shooting down and then insulting incessantly anyone who dare oppose them. The internet is full of ass holes, but this seems to breed the largest amount of them. Nothing worse than a filmmaker who could never make it pushing his or her insecurities on the more talented. The movie is fun, at the least, but most of you people going off so angrily and violently really just come off as totally pathetic and unable to enjoy anything. Seriously, people here have the nerve to critique a review? Jesus, pot calling the kettle black. And any time the reviewer has a positive opinion of a movie they must be "sucking (insert name here)'s cock"? Christ, grow up you self absorbed know-it-all assholes.

  • May 8, 2009, 6:48 p.m. CST


    by Spamgelus

    ...and why are people STILL whining about Serenity? Look, I think Firefly was probably the best show to ever hit television. Ever. I think Whedon's got more talent in his fingernails than most writer/directors have in their entire bodies. But let's face it, the movie was about half as exciting as the best episode, and it treated half of the core characters like glorified extras. And why even compare it to Trek? Because it's SPACE? WOW! YOU MADE THE CONNECTION! You are my new hero, you leaf on the wind, you.

  • May 8, 2009, 6:50 p.m. CST


    by Spamgelus

    I think I love you. I mean,

  • May 8, 2009, 6:50 p.m. CST


    by JediWuddayaknow

    I would only compare it to Serenity in the space battles. The effects were reminiscent.

  • May 8, 2009, 6:51 p.m. CST


    by doubleARon

    Haters on AICN! SHOCKING!<p> My wife and I were extremely entertained. Script was bad? Dialogue is always subjective and might have an issue here and there, the story was pretty simple, but given the task at hand the script was a minor miracle, imo.<p> I really want more of these movies with this cast and new timeline immediately.<p> I did read the coincidence as a sort of fate, or at least the theory of time that says that events tend to settle back into their grooves when they've been disrupted (rather than cause giant change.) The writers had Spock call it out on purpose when he asked "How did you find me?" They wanted the audience to think about it. <p> Just sayin'

  • May 8, 2009, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Loved nearly everything about this movie...

    by Hugh G Rekshun

    ...except 2 things: 1) The music was FUCKING HORRIBLE! 2) Some of the scenes and dialogue seemed just a bit too contemporary.

  • May 8, 2009, 7:05 p.m. CST

    No one mentions how horrid Nimoy's voice over was....


    ...during the time travel explanation scene. It sounded like a fucking temp track. Why was he so jolly sounding? <p>And agreed. Serenity is a far better film.

  • May 8, 2009, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius -- glad to see you still pop up to suck cock...

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD and then. You are AICN'S JackNance. A spineless cheerleader.

  • May 8, 2009, 7:12 p.m. CST

    No, the script is not "subjectively" bad

    by IndustryKiller!

    It's fucking OBJECTIVELY terrible. I just explained in my last post how the plot makes ZERO sense. It's an inarguable plot hole that renders the entire plot bullshit. Want another one? Nero supposedly waited outside the black hole for Spock to come through for 25 years. Now this is the same black hole that Nero just tore a federation ship apart outside of. So you are telling me that a ship that just destroyed, unprovoked, a federation ship sat outside of a spontaneous black hole, a universal phenomenon if there ever was one, for 25 YEARS and the federation NEVER did anything about it? They never, in 25 years, investigated a foreign marauding ship??? NOTHING about the plot makes any sense. I repeat, this is a fact, not conjecture. If you can ignore it fine, but dont pretend it isnt there.

  • May 8, 2009, 7:15 p.m. CST


    by genrefanboy

    Because Nimoy is getting old and his voice is breaking up. Plus he wears a hearing aid nowadays. Check out the Bluray of him on the new ST1-6 set where he talks with Shatner, Stewart, Frakes & Godlberg about the ST movies. It was filmed last year but Nimoy looks like he is getting really old & frail.

  • May 8, 2009, 7:18 p.m. CST


    by JediWuddayaknow

    Wasn't that kind of the problem with Star Trek? That it wasn't contemporary enough? The trekkies seem to love that elevated style of speech they always used like theater people love shakespeare, regardless of the fact that most people don't relate well to it. It sounds pretentious. There are few Star Trek movies I've enjoyed, the most being First Contact, followed by Wrath of Khan, which was just under the too cheesy bar for me until the famous Shatner yelling scene. Everything else has been goofy, boring, or just plain horrible (Star Trek V) in my opinion. My biggest gripe with this movie was that the little sidekick really didn't add much to the proceedings and that lens flare thing. Once or twice is fine, but it seemed like the special effect dept just figured out how to do it and wanted it in every shot. To make someone like me, who is in no way a Star Trek fan enjoy a Star Trek movie is something. I think making things more contemporary and relatable than the nigh perfect society where the only time we see a character drunk it has hilarious results (Cochrane?) helps the movie. It's eliciting the response I really was hoping it would. It's pissing off the uber nerds that EVERYONE else seems to be liking it, so they can sit on their pedestals and look down on them saying "Well, it's dumbed down for the mouth breathers!" so they can pretend they're somehow enlightened. I love that there are so many people who are upset about this movie, and I hope it continues to do well and your little worlds are just ruined by a Star Trek even non-geeks can appreciate.

  • May 8, 2009, 7:43 p.m. CST

    Abrams Star Trek is more fun in the Russian CamRip

    by scriptgirl_nipples

    Also it would be funny if they made Chekov speak english in the leaked cam-rip.

  • May 8, 2009, 7:47 p.m. CST

    LordVonPS3 - Couldn't agree more.

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    The plot holes are hard to ignore and how Kirk made captain was just plain jarring (and nuts!). However, have to point out that STII - the fan favorite and the only Trek movie I REALLY liked - did have a pretty jarring plot hole of its own. Are you telling me that the captain and chief science officer of a Star Fleet science vessel could beam down to the wrong planet because they didn't know that another one in the system had exploded!? Seriously!!!?

  • May 8, 2009, 7:47 p.m. CST

    overrated : the black holes are literally in the script

    by lastchimp

    (spoiler) ok: watchable, enjoyable character, humor but damn... the story is incredibly bad (almost worst than my english) a simple miner become totally berserk and want to destroy 2 planets because... because ONE man, spock, tried to save his planet but failed Super grudge man... the guy who will destroy a world if a guy from it is not good enough at helping him even for me, a french (so born ungrateful and arrogant) this Nero is simply the worst person in the universe or the dumbest "arrrg! Spock failed to save my planet and all the people i love died... aaarg! if only we can go back in time or something like that" wait... nero he's now in the past, he's got "red matter" he can save his own planet or make his people evacuate long before the disaster happen but no it make more sense for him to... destroy the core worlds of the federation because a former member of it will not be able to save his planet 150 year later (suck on that grand Moff Tarkin) sure after that, the coincidence "kirk meet old spock and they meet scotty" is easy to swallow ^^

  • May 8, 2009, 7:54 p.m. CST

    The plot of Abrams Star Trek is a total mess & clunky.

    by scriptgirl_nipples

  • May 8, 2009, 8:19 p.m. CST

    Ms. DuPont

    by amadeus781

    Another great review. Love you and love your work!

  • May 8, 2009, 8:19 p.m. CST

    lastchimp...yeah, man...

    by StarWarsRedux

    Why would Nero want revenge for something that hasn't even happened yet? He's just travelled through time! He can try preventing it from ever happening in the first place! <p>Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, this movie's plot has more holes in it than a cheese grater from Switzerland. And yet the accolades just keep on comin'...

  • May 8, 2009, 8:43 p.m. CST

    MrGeyser enjoyed da movie!

    by Sal_Bando

    Wondering where your partner in Grime, The PaZoozoo hath hidden hisself. He must on his way to the Svedish Meatballs(TM) convention or something--<p> Not much of a TrekaZoid here myself, but sure I'll check this out. Even w/ the gaping plotholes Akiva here keeps yappin' about. Gimme a break. It's a fuckin' Sci-Fi flick, it's GONNA have huge holes in it ala Megan Fox in 7 years, okay-? comes w/ the territory.

  • May 8, 2009, 9:02 p.m. CST

    Messiah and genrefanboy Get a room! Some thought on the movie..

    by TallScott

    Geeze you two act like gay lovers who just walked out of a bad production of Cats! Ok that was my snark of the day. Sorry guys could not resist. Anyway I said id respond to your post so I will. You love serenity. Hey so did I. I still harbor a big time grudge against Fox for canceling firefly. But lets face facts the movie was the TV show with a larger special effects budget. Not saying it was a bad movie. But it catered to only the ones who watched the show as well. Really didnt let anyone who was not a fan in. And also killing off Book and Wash put a big time sour taste in my mouth. It really didnt lend the chance for a sequel. The new Star Trek movie was MUCH better then Serenity. It lets new fans in and gives old fans much meat to chew on. It accomplishes what it sets out to do and is an entertaining 2 hour film that lays the foundation to a whole new Trek universe without some of the barnacles that have attached itself to the Enterprise's hull. They kinda painted themselves in a corner with the whole peace all over the universe and seen everything done everything thing. If anything utopia is boring. This one brings back the stakes are high and the universe is a very scary place vibe. And I liked that it was kinda goofy. One thing that will kill a Trek dead in the water is when it loses it seance of humor and takes itself too seriously. I hope this new universe never gets bogged down in being a killjoy. Im sorry you guys didnt like it. Im getting the idea that some people hate that the new Star Trek is universally appealing. That something thats just theirs and special to few will be now loved by the unwashed masses. Saw the same type of thing when Lord of the Rings came out. Id think any Star Trek fan would be stoked that the movie did so well with critics and young audiences and brought in millions of new fans. I didnt mind that it was a young cast hey at least they wont be looking like a bunch of old guys by the time the sixth movie comes out like in ST6. ( before you flame I LOVED VI but comon..the wrinkles were there ) Well there you go Im sorry that you and some of the other didnt like the movie even if you didnt it would be a shame to call yourself a trek fan and not be happy about the glowing reviews new fans. If thats the case just stop now..and never say your a fan of Star Trek agian. Just think Lucas loves you and stick with Star Wars. Oh and Messiah I saw how you were waxing poetic over a New hope..You are in total denial if you overlook the flaws in that movie.

  • May 8, 2009, 9:24 p.m. CST

    All the haters

    by shran

    sure do exert a lot of energy trying to take the legs out from under this movie. To what end? Your opinions don't make a difference to the movie-going public. And you won't change the minds of those of us who liked it. Are you all plants from compeing studios?

  • May 8, 2009, 9:32 p.m. CST

    Your inarticulate passion has inspired me, chimpy

    by Rocco Curioso

    Saw this movie last night in IMAX Digital. Decent FX, some interesting character interpretation(particularly the guy who played McCoy), enough humor in the right places... but fuckit if the plot wasn't as substantial as cotton candy. It's one thing to take liberties with established Star Trek canon; people were expecting as much (as a non-Trekkie, I could've cared less). It's another thing to have the machinations of the entire plot dumped in your lap during a brief bit of exposition from elderly Spock. Not only is it lazy screenwriting, it's an insult to the audience. Added to which, the entire tone of the movie was borderline silly. One got the sense that nothing of importance was at stake.

  • May 8, 2009, 9:37 p.m. CST

    @ KnowItAllFromCali

    by LordVonPS3

    That one from ST2 I could make up an excuse for? For example: Ceti Alpha 6's original orbit could have been known and expected to be out of sensor range - perhaps on the other side of the Sun from Ceti Alpha 5 as the Reliant entered the system. Khan said that Ceti Alpha 5 was knocked into a similar orbit as Ceti Alpha 6 when Ceti Alpha 6 exploded, so it stands to reason that the ships computer could have interpreted the planet to be Ceti Alpha 6 given that ecologically the planet was now barren (as Ceti Alpha 6 would have been). If the computer says it is Ceti Alpha 6 and it looks like Ceti Alpha 6, maybe it is Ceti Alpha 6? Then again... Anyway, I am not here to quibble over ST2 plot holes. Wrath of Khan was (and still is) a great movie. Star Trek (2009) is not - in my opinion. On the topic of plot holes... The way I see it is you are on the other side of the street with an empty mini gun. I am unarmed, but clearly about to be entertained. Choose an option... 1. Point the gun at me & hope I'm too scared to notice it's empty. 2. Point at a nearby ammo belt & expect me to see reason. 3. Make an effort to grab the ammo belt, load up and start shooting. Show me the pain! --------------- If you chose Options 2 or 3, you won this time. If you chose Option 1, you probably liked Star Trek (2009).

  • May 8, 2009, 9:46 p.m. CST

    Bad Plot is the least of our problems.

    by eyeofoden

    Someone should get some of this "red matter", go back in time before good old JJ had time to create such a Swiss cheese, homage to Star wars botch of a script, smack him in the face and wright a good one. First off, the opening scene was pretty cool I do have to admit, but the odds of the time rip appearing at the same point in time when the kelvin was orbiting a sun (what sun was that by the way?) and after destroying (oh yeah that,s right the Romulan ship didn't destroy the kelvin did it, it wasted all of those other more advanced ships 25 some odd years in the future pretty nonchalantly but it couldn't even destroy the wee old little ship kelvin) and then wait there for over twenty years or so doing what? twiddling there thumbs? come on. I don,t mind the enterprise being constructed on earth, but if your going to have it in a "ship fleet yard" at least have some other ships being built along with it, have you ever seen a naval dry dock JJ? and in Iowa? come on. okay, how come the Romulan drilling ship and Spock,s little hot rod could go through the rift in space (without any of the energy from the sun going supernova getting through by the way) and come out at some other time, but when Vulcan is pulled into it, it,s destroyed and not just delivered to another time? Speaking of time (and the lack of understanding on JJ,s part) the whole mind meld sequence where Spock explains his plight DO,S NOT MAKE SENSE AT ALL. Romulus being destroyed and Spock not being able to get there in time, Spock dropping the "red matter" anyway just for the Hell of it and Nero being around there just at the right time to get pulled in as well. Vulcan dos not have any moons and there are not any other planets that close by to view the demise there of, come on really? What was with Ohura being somewhat of a whore and all? and the thing with her and Spock? you,v got to be kidding me. Does anyone else feel that the humor was a little too Michael bayish? Kirk with blown up swollen hands? Montgomery acting like a git and not the awesome raunchy Scot engineer that we all know and love. Coy witty comedy in a good action film such as Iron Man works, slap shtick in an action film never can and never will. Okay, what,s the point in having all of this money to put into a movie and spending a great deal of it filming in a beer brewery? I mean I,m all for the whole "nuts and bolts look" but we never even get to see the hallway of warp cores. it just looks like they took a couple of props and set them up around distillers and drainage caps, come on guys really? The ship being pulled apart by the rift, need I say more? Why let someone who dos not even like Star Trek make a Star trek film? I think they did it for spite to degrade the trek universe, I mean JJ did say that he likes Star wars far more after all. maybe it,s his way of getting the ultimate stab in on us Trek fans for liking a better medium. I mean it,s not all gloom and doom and there are some pretty cool moments, but the inconsistencies in the script and the teenager/young adult centered viewing basis are more then enough to make most of your Star trek fans pretty outraged. We all know who they should have gotten to write the scrip and direct this film, Ronald D Moor can I say Battle Star Galactica anyone? Gene would have never let this abomination get past a rough draft, truly a sad day for the federation :(

  • May 8, 2009, 10:03 p.m. CST

    by TallScott

  • May 8, 2009, 10:11 p.m. CST

    thank for your "chimp : human" translation Rocco ;)

    by lastchimp

    in fact... the plot could be better by being dumber without changing anything. only the explanation from old spock to the young kirk. If Nero is simply a "very bad guy" (old school megalomaniac, emperor Ming's style) who go back in time to erase the federation from the begining. and he is followed by an old spock trying to stop him. Than the story make more sense... (only stealing from terminator 1) i'm not a trek fan and it's still an enjoyable movie but JJ look like someone who trying to be "smart" but alway fail if you use the routine "the bad guy by circumstance and not really by choice and natural evilness" than you have to make the circumstances a bit... well logical, time travel or not

  • May 9, 2009, 12:12 a.m. CST

    It's Star Trek for Joe Sixpack

    by MCVamp

    Entertaining fluff. The trilogy will make millions. But then...where do you go from there? In one fell swoop "Star Trek" becomes nothing more than popcorn summer blockbuster. It's nothing more than a better-executed "Lost in Space" remake. This is a remake, no matter how it tries to tie into "actual" Trek continuity by (SPOILER) stranding Old Spock in the altered past (although of all the possible fates for Spock, why not this one?) Gene Rodenberry's STAR TREK is now officially dead. Which might be fine, because so few people knew how to effectively work within that continuity. However, what we have here isn't a STAR TREK revival. It's a temporary solution to a dying franchise that will sputter again when they run out of sequels. What would be next, a rebooted TNG in the same continuity with "Old Data" coming back in time to make sure Jean-Luc Picard joins Starfleet instead of staying in the wine business? I liked it, it was a fun movie, but it was not thought-provoking, which was the original intent of the concept. If the sequel is just another slam-bang FX extravaganza, STAR TREK will fizzle out much like the Matrix did. But other than that good movie (where did Giachinno lift that main theme from though? I KNOW I've heard something like it before and all that guy does is re-work other people's stuff into catchy themes.)

  • May 9, 2009, 12:20 a.m. CST

    Re: characters...

    by MCVamp

    Pine as Kirk was good, the voice lacked a commanding tone. Ditto Quinto. Pegg was near-perfect, a little clowny. Sulu and Chekov could use some work. Zoe Saldana's Uhura was propped up with little to do except make witty remarks and fawn over Spock--the romance was a bit too contrived (shades of BSG in my book.) Pike was good, Nero was...well, whatever. Nimoy didn't even seem like he was playing Spock, it felt like Leonard Nimoy playing Leonard Nimoy doing Spock dialogue. Karl Urban...for half of his screen time he was awesome. The other half you could feel his forced lines and phony accent in the back of your neck. Not that anyone cares what I think...

  • May 9, 2009, 12:24 a.m. CST

    "It's Star Trek for Joe Sixpack"

    by JediWuddayaknow

    As opposed to what? Star Trek for Dilbert Paste-eater and his perpetual virginity living in his mom's basement?

  • May 9, 2009, 12:32 a.m. CST


    by MCVamp

    Actually, yeah.

  • May 9, 2009, 1:06 a.m. CST

    nonce nts

    by The Dark Shite

    I did "pick something with better teeth", as you put it. For example, I've been calling you nonce nts the whole time. Look up British slang-Nonce in the thesaurus. It isn't nice.<p> & don't call me son, unless you like the taste of boot.

  • May 9, 2009, 1:28 a.m. CST

    The Dark Shite

    by JediWuddayaknow

    Did you REALLY just threaten someone over the INTERNET?

  • May 9, 2009, 1:37 a.m. CST


    by The Dark Shite

    I'd literally just woken up with the hangover from hell. Oh well.

  • May 9, 2009, 1:49 a.m. CST

    I'm A Plant For Who???

    by Media Messiah

    The truth, that's what? This movie is trash!!!

  • May 9, 2009, 3:31 a.m. CST


    by Pixelsmack

    Phasers sounded weak too but JJ forgot one of the cast members with that uninspired completely forgetful score. How dare you say it's even close to what Goldsmith and Horner did! Theirs were epic, this was DULL CRAP!

  • May 9, 2009, 4:22 a.m. CST

    Ironic that Ebert posted one of the few negative reviews of this

    by Iblis_mage

    For me, Trek passed the tipping point irrevocably into hell back in 1998 when Siskel (then alive) and Ebert reviewed Insurrection. The film actually compelled Ebert to use the words "metagenic radiation" in the course of the discussion, and I've been indifferent to any/all new Trek product (use of the term as intentional as possible) ever since.

  • May 9, 2009, 7:04 a.m. CST

    Saw it with my 11 and 9 year old boys..

    by oldenslow

    ..they totally geeked out. They weren't worried about all the things we worry about, since they knew nothing of what had come before. They enjoyed the film, just like we did when we first saw Star Wars. As the Penny Arcade guys say: "It's not for you" When we got home, "Generations" was on one of the pay channels. They thought it totally sucked. Tonight we'll watch "Wrath of Khan" on the projector.

  • May 9, 2009, 8:49 a.m. CST

    yeah that's pretty much the way I saw it too

    by Maniaq

    except the only time(s) I "got a lump in my throat" was when you heard NOTHING in outer space

  • May 9, 2009, 9:33 a.m. CST

    the star wars analogy is a real stretch

    by Eyegore

    after reading two paragraphs making really wink generalization on how this is just like, or modeled after star wars, I can't take anymore. REVIEW FAIL! I saw the movie. It was great. It wasn't like star wars. Get over it alexandra. You probably think terminator is about star wars too?

  • May 9, 2009, 9:38 a.m. CST

    It's not for me?

    by GeorgieBoy

    WTF? Who is it for then? People who don't give a crap about Star Trek? Why would they go see it anyway?<br><br> I think Edward James Olmos created a dangerous precedent when he told fans of the original BSG not to watch the new show. Now you've got people making movies of long running series flipping the bird off to those that kept that series alive long enough to make the new movie/show in the first place! <br><br> I dunno about you, but I'm getting tired of these Hollywood hacks recycling legendary ideas just to fill their already huge coffers. Damn greedy bastards. Stop stealing the work of others (Roddenberry) for your own ends!!

  • May 9, 2009, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Patrick Stewart in a leather or leather-esque coat

    by Jesiah

    Never seen insurrection before, but seeing that picture makes me want to give it a shot. And we'll see if this beats wolverine.

  • May 9, 2009, 12:17 p.m. CST

    DICKBLOOD - How does if feel having my balls...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius your mouth? Feels good, don't it?<P>Glad to see that you're still a completely off-base and clueless asshole.

  • May 9, 2009, 12:20 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    What's up you crazy bastard!<P>Actually, I'm probably going to catch the flick tonight. I was just hashing out the nonsensical theories of AsimovLives (Memories-Of-Murder).

  • May 9, 2009, 1:33 p.m. CST

    from Variety:

    by Hercules

    Paramount's reboot of the sci-fi classic franchise "Star Trek" had no problem playing beyond its core Trekkie crowd Friday as the pic raked in an estimated $31 million giving the Melrose lot its second highest opening day ever at the box office for a live-action film. <p>

  • May 9, 2009, 1:38 p.m. CST


    by KnowItAllFromCali

    Ha ha, dude - I said I agreed with you! However, you're really stretching yourself to fill in STII's plot hole. Are you telling me that Star Fleet computers are that imprecise? The writers could have easily come up with something to explain it, but they didn't - and that's their job. I still love Wrath of Khan. I didn't love Abram's Star Trek, but I was entertained. I actually thought it was brilliant until about half way through and the story started to fall apart. I was really disappointed at how Kirk took command - it made no sense at all!! I actually think you were being a bit generous with your score - I'd give it 3 out of 5 stars - maybe.

  • May 9, 2009, 1:56 p.m. CST

    Joe Average (the plumber?) Vs. Trekkie Fanboy

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    It's really a silly argument, but then that's what these forums are for. I think the line is a lot fuzzier than some people make it out to be. The way it is being presented by some is that we have to make a choice between satisfying the two groups. I happen to disagree. I'm a pretty big Trek fan and am almost ashamed to say I could spew more than my fair share of obscure Trek trivia. However, I'm not all that concerned with continuity (between the new Trek and old). Star Trek stories have had serious contradictions from the beginning. I like the fact that they are spawning an entirely new Trek universe that leaves it open to interpretation. What I don't like is stories that make no sense. It IS POSSIBLE to make a movie that is just as spectacular and entertaining to the average person, yet weaves a tale that is not so easily broken down by anyone that isn't willing to shut his/her brain off.

  • May 9, 2009, 2:03 p.m. CST


    by whitty

    Flop? The film's doing great in theaters--what are you talking about?

  • May 9, 2009, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Fun time at the old Bijou.

    by Sal_Bando

    They did a good job w/ Trek. Yes see it. Fuck the haters. I'm more of a Big Robots (hitting Each Other) type fan, and prefer SW to Trek, but c'mon-this is a good movie. You'll prefer seeing it in the theatre too. <p> Iggy all the time travel contrivances and just have fun. <p> Wasn't Spock's little Gyroscope ship cool?

  • May 9, 2009, 4:02 p.m. CST

    $31 mill? That's all?

    by StarWarsRedux

    Seriously? You're getting excited over that?

  • May 9, 2009, 5:38 p.m. CST


    by noncents

    As a non-fanboy, because I think my shit stinks lovely, I have to say all this fuss is useless now. Go see it. It will make you feel good. That is what the movie did for me personally. If you are a human being that is capable of empathy and vicariism, you might be surprised. Enough talking. The MOVIE is OUT, the FUSS is DEAD.

  • May 9, 2009, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Annoying Coincidence, huh?

    by bitnik1

    I was thinking how the Kirk landing near Spock's man-cave and then happening upon Scotty was a little much, but then... How about a rebel blockade runner with a princess onboard smuggling stolen Deathstar plans just happening to come under Star Destroyer attack and having to jettison 2 droids to a planet that just happens to be the boyhood home of the empire's second in command, and who just happens to be her (unknown to them both) dad, AND just happens to be home to her (unknown) brother - AND AND said brother just happens to buy those droids with his stepdad - one of which he has to talk his dad into buying after the first one turns out to have a bad motivator????

  • May 9, 2009, 7:16 p.m. CST

    Um, bitnik...

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    There's really no logic to your assessment. Putting the words "happen to" in front of something does not automatically mean it's a coincidence. The reason the situation with Kirk and Spock and Scotty is different is that these are three characters that we know met under one set of circumstances and in this alternate timeline, they "just happen" to meet again under a different set of circumstances in a vast universe. It's more than just a little improbable. But yes, Star Wars has its share of ridiculous coincidences - Darth Vader built C3PO as a child!? Really!?

  • May 9, 2009, 8:34 p.m. CST

    @ KnowItAllFromCali

    by LordVonPS3

    Ha ha. Well, my Ceti Alpha 5 / 6 example was just an example. When you ask whether I think the computers are "that imprecise"? I think you should remember that the computer data used during "Wrath of Khan" is based on ST:TOS recordings / data (it's not ST:TNG)! From a planetary physics perspective, I wouldn't expect the computer data to be that much better than some souped up version of Stellarium or Starry Night Pro. i.e. Map the planets, their sizes, their orbit's, the sun's brightness, the solar system's position and movement vectors in the galaxy it is in, etc. When flying into the solar system, the Reliant's computer would have loaded up TOS data and overlaid that against its sensor logs. The Reliant would have detected Ceti Alpha 5 in Ceti Alpha 6's place and thus mislabeled the planet Ceti Alpha 6. If Ceti Alpha 5 was originally in an orbit where it would have been out of sensor range, then everything works out quite nicely... Do also remember - no ship from Star fleet visited that system for a decade or two. The Reliant's computer only had old data to go on. So, are you buying it? Ha ha.

  • May 9, 2009, 8:44 p.m. CST

    @ KnowItAllFromCali

    by LordVonPS3

    3/5 is a fair score and you're right - I was actually feeling generous! I'm thinking maybe a second showing on the small screen may prove a little better. Kudos to everyone who pointed out more JJ-shake-o-vision (again)!

  • May 9, 2009, 10:53 p.m. CST

    I'm SURPRISED at how many pirated leaks are around.

    by scriptgirl_nipples

    Cam versions appeared within a day. TS versions 2 days.

  • May 10, 2009, 4:52 a.m. CST

    well noncents...

    by lastchimp

    "if you are a humain being that is capable of empathy" I dont think the movie make you feel good... several billion people die in the middle of the story but somehow it's a happy ending because 1 guy become the capitain. at the end no one give a shit about vulcan even old spock : the important thing is that young him and kirk become buddy.

  • May 10, 2009, 9:04 a.m. CST

    Um, cali...

    by bitnik1

    No logic you say? Throw me a bone, here...the only difference between the ice planet hooha in the current movie and EP4's beginning is that we are talking alternate reality in the former. The situations are very similar otherwise - 3 characters (actually 4 if you count Threepio and Artoo) in a ship under duress converging in space and story line by accident (and jettisoned spacepod) who have a huge tangled backstory together. And from Webster's - coincidence = "the occurrence of events or circumstances that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection ; also : any of these occurrences" I was tired and just using "happen to" as a rhetorical device. :>

  • May 10, 2009, 2:04 p.m. CST

    So So

    by 2LeggedFreak

    Just watched it and was entertained for a couple of hours (slightly bored around the exposition segment.)<BR> <BR> Thought the villain, as in a couple of previous ST films was a little ho hum and, if even if you didn't care about continuity with original ST there didn't seem a lot of logic in Old Spock looking to ensure Kirk got the captains chair as that was how things "should be" when there was already a Vulcan sized hole in the space time continuum - hated how this was just a special effect with no impact - billions of Vulcans have died. <BR> <BR>Kirk got his cataincy by default- one minute he's a dick head cadet , the next he's Catain--- very very lazy/ <BR> <BR> Only redeeming factor was the performances.

  • May 10, 2009, 3:28 p.m. CST


    by 2LeggedFreak

    I am not sure what is worse, the Generations story that saw mega hero Kirk simply fall off a bridge and die or the Star Trek story that shows a doddery incompetent Spock who mis-times a Super Nova then goes back in time and delivers a world destroying weapon to a nutty Rumulan and then sits by in a cave waiting for ? <BR> <BR> Where are the time police when you need them.

  • May 10, 2009, 3:58 p.m. CST


    by 2LeggedFreak

    Also gotta love the flippant murder of Nero at the end when he was already beaten - condoned and encouraged by Spock - that didn't feel very Trekky !

  • May 10, 2009, 8:15 p.m. CST

    Nero's death

    by Maniaq

    yeah - they could have added a whole second dimension to him if he'd accepted Kirk's offer of assistance instead of "fuck you I'll take death" but.. as somebody pointed out, he's more of a plot device than a villain... <p> <br> STILL LOVED IT THO!

  • May 11, 2009, 12:15 a.m. CST

    @ Bitnik

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    I suppose you could argue that the prequels destroyed the continuity in the original Star Wars movies, but that is not the fault of the original movies. Since we were exposed to them out of sequence, it is the prequels that are to blame. But here's a bone - what the heck. :)

  • May 11, 2009, 12:18 a.m. CST

    Hmm, bad word choice...

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    What I meant was that if the prequels did not exist, the events you described from Episode IV would not seem like such a huge coincidence.

  • May 11, 2009, 12:30 a.m. CST


    by KnowItAllFromCali

    Ha ha! No, and I don't think you are buying it, either (but it was a nice effort). Let's just say the hole in WOK is big enough to fly a shuttlecraft through while the hole in JJ's Trek is big enough for an entire starship! And I agree - what's with the use of shaky-cam these days!? It plagued the latest Bond movie, as well!

  • May 11, 2009, 2:45 a.m. CST

    So what ever happened to Kirk's brother...

    by Droogie Alex

    ...Sam, and nephew, for that matter. Never born, huh?

  • May 11, 2009, 8:02 a.m. CST

    Fuck you Trekkie Haters, I liked it.

    by ragermac

    I have seen all of the Star Trek TV shows and Movies and I really enjoyed JJ's remake. It had its holes, but I always remind myself and you should too.... It's a fucking movie!!!! I liked the cast and I even liked the Uhura+Spock connection. Sure it had some slapstick but thats good, it was not overdone. Nero needed to be more evil IMO and I did not like the alderaan style destruction of Vulcan. But it was very entertaining, the special effects were good and I look forward to a sequel. And by the way, you fucking trek bitches will complain NO MATTER WHAT. Unless Gene Roddenberry's ashes get sucked into a wormhole and he returns from the dead to take back the series you stupid ass OVERLY CRITICAL nerds will complain NO MATTER WHO DIRECTS the Franchise. STFU. At least it is not a bad that that shit movie Serenity or the abomination that was the Star Wars Prequels.

  • May 11, 2009, 8:57 a.m. CST

    too much coincidence?

    by whoisthismuaddib

    it wasn't coincidence, it was fate!