Sign in to follow this  
trekz

trekz's ST XI review

Recommended Posts

Just got back from Star Trek, my second viewing. I see the movie as a success, and enjoyed it a great deal, but urge all who haven't seen it to go, and judge for yourselves. As one of the older Star Trek fans here, I've seen a lot of Trek, and this movie is certainly exciting, because anything can happen. The cast was very entertaining, generally buffed and young

Click for Spoiler:

I thought Carl Urban was great as McCoy, and enjoyed Zachary Quinto as Spock, and Leonard Nimoy as Spock prime was wonderful as always. Pine was very good as Kirk, as was John Cho as Sulu. While perhaps a bit too funny, Pegg was great as Scotty, as was Captain Pike though a bit older than the original - Jeffrey Hunter Uhura was certainly "hot" and intelligently portrayed. I thought Chekov was portrayed as too brilliant and Wesley-like. Bana was good as Nero but could have been more developed. Ryder as Spock's mother was a bit too much for me, and I've seen too much of Mark Lenard as Sarek to buy this actor as Spock's father, although he gave it a good shot.

The score:

Click for Spoiler:

was a bit too epic for me and at times seemed heavy handed, but didn't ruin things.

The writing:

Click for Spoiler:

certainly gave some nice nods to TOS: the Vulcan nerve pinch, the Vulcan salute, Sulu the swordsman, etc. and many scenes were quite good, but I have to agree with VBG that I felt uncomfortable with some of the changes made in the timeline. I understand it's an alternate timeline, but to force the orignal TOS crew onto the Enterprise under Captain Pike just seems wrong after 40+ years of that being the timeline. Having Kirk on the ship despite him being on suspension and never assigned to the Enterprise, then being assigned as First Officer is really credulity straining. Destroying Vulcan certainly changes things & I'm not sure that's progress. Changing the relationship between Uhura & Spock doesn't feel right either - what about Nurse Chappel? AS noted in the thread started about the writers being questioned, perhaps some of the cuts in dialog were a bit too severe, making some scenes less believable. Two out of three people being able to successfully land on a drilling platform after jumping out of a shuttle? That seems convenient. And leaving Spock prime to coexist with young Spock does not seem logical.

Despite my complaints, I did enjoy the movie, and hopefully it will bring in lots of new fans. I hope some of the new fans will explore the previous Trek and enjoy it too. There I feel is more of the true spirit of Star Trek with its positive view of the future and of humanity coming together and working with other races to travel the galaxy, explore, learn, and boldy go where no one has gone before!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points - I agree with most of those points. I too left the theatre having enjoyed the movie but after thinking about it a while I do see some issues

 

Click for Spoiler:

as regards the timeline - No Vulcan means no Tuvok - hence no Tuvok lost on mission on Maquis ship - and thus no reason to send Voyager to the badlands. ie no Voyeger.

 

And getting the whole bridge crew there together - that was contrived

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click for Spoiler:

Its possible Tuvok does exist but in another form. Remember, the Mirror Universe Vic was a flesh-and-blood human and Porthos was a rotweiler.

Click for Spoiler:

It is possible Tuvok could still exist. His current birthdate is believed to be 2264, only 8 years after the setting of this movie. And his parents could be among the survivors of Vulcan. Granted the changes in the timeline could have changed the circumstances of Tuvok's birth (and it may not even occur) and even if he is born, he will likely not be the exact same Tuvok we know from Voyager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except

Click for Spoiler:

Its possible Tuvok does exist but in another form. Remember, the Mirror Universe Vic was a flesh-and-blood human and Porthos was a rotweiler.

 

It isn't an alternate universe - it's a new timeline - basically the future we know has been erased..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except

Click for Spoiler:

Its possible Tuvok does exist but in another form. Remember, the Mirror Universe Vic was a flesh-and-blood human and Porthos was a rotweiler.

 

It isn't an alternate universe - it's a new timeline - basically the future we know has been erased..

 

Click for Spoiler:

Yes, and to me personally I feel that for them to do the "alternate timeline" thing in order to "erase history" is just a cop out. An excuse for having a lack of creativity to stay within the 'Real' Star Trek timeline and stay true to canon.

 

People say that it's all consistent with the "most accepted and up to date scientific theory on alternate universes and timelines etc..." but it's not how Star Trek has operated in all of it's 43 years. In Star Trek's history any time there was a problem with the timeline it affected the "real Star Trek timeline". If this wasn't the case then what was the point of Enterprise and The Temporal Cold War? If the result of time travel was simply a new timeline that doesn't affect any other timeline then why have Daniels interact with Archer in order to 'fix' what the temporal factions were doing?

 

Why not just say "meh, it'll just simply be some alternate time line, who cares?"

 

Why have Kirk and Spock go back to 1930's Earth to prevent Bones from altering WWII? Why not just say "Meh, so in this timeline Hitler conquers the world. Who cares?"

 

Why have Sisko and crew worry about the bomb in the Tribble? "Meh, so Kirk and company get killed at Station K-7. Who cares?"

 

"Meh, so the whales go extinct and the big alien Whale probe destroys Earth. Who cares?"

 

"Voyager is in orbit of Earth in 1996, let's let them stay there and give humanity an advanced warp ship centuries earlier than they're supposed to develop it. Who cares?"

 

How many more examples are there of having to "fix" the timeline to preserve the future?

 

To me, having them do what they've done kind of takes away some of what makes Star Trek special and different. I know that I may be in the minority, but that's how I feel. They've watered it down and diluted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this