Regular Screen Rant reader “790″ suggested I set up a discussion post for the Star Trek movie, where people can feel free to talk about all aspects of the film without having to worry about spoiling it for others. I had meant to set one of these up for Wolverine but just never got around to it.
Considering how popular I think Star Trek will be (moreso than Wolvie), I thought it might be a good idea to get this set up ASAP. 
So discuss the film below to your heart’s content!
Tags: star trek
Loading ...
565 Comments
Thanks Johhny-O, I had forgotten about transwarp. Well now my plot holes are filled and I am very happy. Like everyone else I also hope they do a bit more cerebral movie next time but cerebral does not mean no action which sometimes trek does forget. The wrath of khan and undiscovered country were both good examples of this. Also, as someone had said earlier in the thread, the enterprise was a sight to behold spinning and dodging debris when it dropped out of warp at Vulcan. Just beautiful.
I’m glad I’m not crazy – that some other people out there spotted Kal Penn. Thank you Cookie Garris.
And thanks Maverick for the Star Trek Countdown synopsis.
Few more points:
Didn’t like the new hand phasers – thought they looked “plastic-y”.
The new Enterprise has grown on me. When I first saw the screen shots I thought they created a hybrid of the TOS version of the ship and the “movie” 1701-A version. Didn’t really know if it was good or not. But the shot of the Enterprise coming up through the rings of Saturn . . . that’s it – I’m sold. Although the interior was a little to shiny white for me.
Just nit-picks, not a big deal.
Still not happy about Vulcan being gone. Just watched a three-part Enterprise episode about Vulcan and Surak and Vulcan lore. All I could think about was this whole planet is going to be destroyed. A little too much sacrifice if you ask me.
I will give the movie 5 of 5 stars. I have been waiting 7 years for a new movie and I wasn’t disappointed. I didn’t expect the movie to be exactly true to every single aspect of the known Trek history. I felt the characters were as dead on as they could be and I especially like the young Bones. There were enough tidbits in the movie to help my comfort leval (the gross bug, Pike, refernece to Admiral Archer, Spoke of course, etc). It though the young Scott was a bit of a stretch but he was fun an refreshing. I could have lived without Winona as Spocks mother. It leavs you thinking and I can’t wait for the next 2. I am still hoping against hope that someday, someone will be able to write a doable script tht would incorporate all the series in some sort of crazy time travel thing. Of course all the ‘generations’ would have to come together to save time as we know, it etc:) It would probably have to be a 2 parter. This way we could see many of of our fav characters, past and present and the new past. Thanks Star Trek for my many years of enjoyment and being part of my family. T
@macerick
Then why does Nero hate Spock if he knows he was the only one fighting to use the red matter to save his home world??
Because Spock failed and Nero lost his wife.
Oops, meant to say maverick anyway…
But anyway, I think you are missing the point, read the synopsis maverick posted. In that, it reads pretty clearly that Nero recognizes that the fault of the delay that resulted in the destruction of the planet was on the senate, not on Spock.
“He beams aboard surviving senators onto his ship and kills them for not listening to Spock”
He obviously recognizes that Spock is the only one trying to help him and that it was the Senate’s fault.
I think perhaps the movie simply wanted to find a way for Leonard Nemoy to appear in the movie with Kirk, and that’s why he was captured and beamed onto the very planet Kirk is stranded on, coincidentally. While in the original version, Nero probably wasn’t against Spock and that sequence was never supposed to happen??
Nero also let Spock live.
I’ve read every comment here, and I’m a little surprised. Does no one else find it disturbing that Spock, an instructor at SFA, was supposed to be having a romantic relationship with his STUDENT?!
@Di Bott
I respect that you have different priorities in your movie rating system than most of the people here, and that you feel you have the magical ability to infer someone’s sex by reading a post that doesn’t mention their sex anywhere, but please don’t bring the war of the sexes into this. I am a woman, and I left this movie feeling conflicted, disappointed, and let down. I recognised that the actors performed brilliantly, but that there were plot holes and inconsistancies the size of planets. Basically, I thought the plot was crap, the scripting was mediocre, and the acting was (as stated above) brilliant.
Most of the things mentioned in the above posts distracted and bothered me throughout the whole movie so that I didn’t enjoy it. I say most things because the destruction of Vulcan, the alternate timeline, the recreation of many of the characters (notably Scotty, Kirk, and Sulu) – those things didn’t bother me. I didn’t even notice the lense flares that people keep bringing up. Spock being SO emotionally motivated bothered me. The romance that seemed thrown in just so that there would be a romance in the movie bothered me. The rediculous idea that a supernova could destroy the Galaxy bothered me. Spock Prime being able to clearly see the destruction of Vulcan with his naked eyes from another planet bothered me. The end scene (where the Nerada is destroyed) bothered me for a number of reasons, most of them mentioned here.
I was also really bothered by how this movie seemed to be Star Wars with Trek-based characters. It seems that the people involved in making the movie must have realised this, too, at some point and started getting some “inspiration” from other popular sci-fi shows and movies of the past. The whole movie came off to me as half fan-fic, half sci-fi Frankenstein (except for the acting and the CGI – those where both beautiful).
I’d be looking optimistically forward to the sequel, except that the same people are making it, so I doubt it will be any different.
Ooo. After re-reading that, I feel I should add that I do still want a sequel, I do still plan on watching the movie again, and I plan on buying it when it comes out on disk. I don’t think it was a bad movie. I just think that it didn’t live up to the standard for story telling that we’ve come to expect from Star Trek (barring Enterprise and the bad movies).
Spock is half human, and so does have an emotional side that he controls/manages better as he matures. As shocking as those scenes were to me and most Trek fans, for me it was easy enough to accept.
Yeah, that’s basically what I kept saying to myself through the whole movie. “He’s supposed to be a lot younger, right? So this is possible.” I do accept that this was a completely valid direction for them to go in with young Spock, but it still bothered me on an emotional level. This is part of what I’m calling my ‘Star Trek baggage’ and why I wish I’d gone and seen this movie without ever having seen ST before. I would have enjoyed it more, I think. I plan to wrestle with my baggage over another 10 or so viewings of the movie.
So, yeah. With that particular point, I wasn’t saying “You jerks! How could you do that to Spock?” It was more “Umm…I’m having trouble accepting it.”
Probably also complicating my struggle to accept this Spock is the fact that I’m an avid Heroes fan. There were a couple of times when uninvited thoughts of Sylar crept into my head. Between my ST baggage and my Heroes baggage, I was so confused that I probably can’t even make many valid comments about Spock in this movie.
Thankfully, I have a whole summer with no Heroes and many viewings of Star Trek ahead of me to help sort it all out.
@Vee if it helps.
Remember that Spock did not go through Kolinahr until after the first five year voyage. This he did because he felt that he was to emotional. Even without that it was Spock prime that told Kirk that he would be able to get an emotional response from Spock because he himself(SP) was feeling highly emotional after seeing his planet die. Just my thoughts hope they help.
I think I went into the film under the impression that Spock Had deeply repressed his emotions since childhood and that it was the Enterprise crew who pulled his humanity out bit by bit. My take (and I admit here I could be WAY off as I only watched TOS once through) was that this gradually emerging humanity scared him into his attempts to return to pure logic before he finally came to terms with his human heritage and accepted emotions as being a part of who he was.
To me, Spock’s struggle with his humanity seemed to have a lot of parallels with many peoples’ strugle with their homosexuality (part human on Vulcan being viewed in much the same way as homosexuality was viewed in, say, the 1980’s). Complete denial through teens and young adulthood (acting completely Vulcan/straight) until some person or group pulls the truth out. Then an attempt to fix the defect (kolinahr/gay correction camps) before a final acceptance of the truth.
Spock Prime knowing he would be emotionally compromised but deny it didn’t bother me at all because it still fit perfectly. Young Spock being that emotional threw me because it didn’t match with my preconceptions about how he would have handled it. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense (partly because this version has a much higher dramatic value). It just didn’t even come close to what I expected going in.
Slightly off topic – am I the only one who likes Enterprise?
I don’t see what’s so bad about the series.
Please, enlighten me.
@Fury2701
This may offend. As a disclaimer: this is simply my opinion. I feel pretty convinced about it, but it’s still only my opinion with no proof but the episodes themselves to back it up.
I liked the premise for Enterprise. I thought it had a lot of promise. However, it became pretty clear to me by half way through the first season that Scott Bakula couldn’t act any emotions but confusion and anger. The writers seemed to pick up on this and opted to have him angry increasing amounts of time until he was just angry all the time with brief breaks of confused anger. This made Captain Archer seem like an emotionally challenged dullard, and that’s just not something that an audience can connect to and admire.
Most of the rest of the cast was average, meaning that they could have done well if the main character had ben well acted. Since that wasn’t the case, they struggled. The only two characters that were really well acted were Trip and Dr. Phlox. I thought Malcolm was pretty good, but I’ve since seen that guy in other roles and come to the conclusion that he just got lucky with Malcolm.
So, in conclusion, I feel that the show could have been really good if Bakula’s inability to act hadn’t killed it. As it is, it was almost painful to watch by the end.
No offense taken at all.
But I will say this – if Bakula is as bad as you say, and frankly I thought he was fine, the show whole should still not be bad. A Star Trek series is bigger than any one actor – even the “lead”. And BTW I think that Trip was well done ans so was T-Pol. I enjoyed watching the female vulcan perspective and her relationship with Trip.
Now – Next Gen was made better by the acting of Patrick Stewert, among others, but he didn’t “make” the show.
I think Archer was a good character. He was just different than other captains that came after him. He was supposed to be naive, and full of wonder and flawed. Humanity at the time was supposed to be learning how to be part of the galatic community. He shouldn’t have been the polished diplomat that Picard was or the adventuous cowboy that Kirk was.
@ Badnewsoit & Vee:
@ Bad: “If it helps. Remember that Spock did not go through Kolinahr until after the first five year voyage. This he did because he felt that he was too emotional. Even without that, it was Spock Prime that told Kirk that he would be able to get an emotional response from Spock because he himself (SP) was feeling highly emotional after seeing his planet die. Just my thoughts, hope they help.”
@ Vee: “I think I went into the film under the impression that Spock had deeply repressed his emotions since childhood and that it was the Enterprise crew who pulled his humanity out bit by bit. My take (and I admit here I could be WAY off as I only watched TOS once through) was that this gradually emerging humanity scared him into his attempts to return to pure logic before he finally came to terms with his human heritage and accepted emotions as being a part of who he was.
“To me, Spock’s struggle with his humanity seemed to have a lot of parallels with many peoples’ struggle with their homosexuality (part human on Vulcan being viewed in much the same way as homosexuality was viewed in, say, the 1980’s). Complete denial through teens and young adulthood (acting completely Vulcan/straight) until some person or group pulls the truth out. Then an attempt to fix the defect (Kolinahr/gay correction camps) before a final acceptance of the truth.
“Spock Prime, knowing he would be emotionally compromised but denying it didn’t bother me at all because it still fit perfectly. Young Spock being that emotional threw me because it didn’t match with my preconceptions about how he would have handled it. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense (partly because this version has a much higher dramatic value). It just didn’t even come close to what I expected going in.”
Bad & Vee, I believeyou are both really onto something. As Manowar put it:
“Spock is half human, and so does have an emotional side that he controls/manages better as he matures. As shocking as those scenes were to me and most Trek fans, for me it was easy enough to accept.”
This is a case where one really does have to have seen most of the episodes of TOS’s first season, at least, to understand Mr Spock (no offense, Vee, I for one appreciate your objectivity, even in this case); he was indeed half human, and very sheepish about it too. When Kirk or McCoy would even mention it, he would respond with something like “I see no need to insult me, Captain/Doctor” (this attitude remained, even if only as tongue-in-cheek, as late as the rendezvous mission with Klingon Chancellor Gorgon prior to the Khittomer Summit [ST-VI/'The Undiscovered Country']), as if he were ashamed of his ‘half-breed’ status (remember the memory trick Kirk used to imprint his replicant as he was being duplicated by Dr Corby? “Mind your own business, Mr Spock! I’m sick of your half-breed interference!” – ‘What Are Little Girls Made Of?’, TOS), which he was most definitely NOT, but it did bug him, constantly.
Afterwards, when the Kirk-bot was revealed and Captain Kirk himself was freed, Spock raised an eyebrow to Kirk in private & asked “Captain…’half-breed’???” That cracked me up, because it was a rhetorical question – Spock knew why!
It helps to remember that, far from being a naturally logical race, the Vulcans, although gifted with an unusually clear, deductive mind, are nonetheless VERY highly emotional – that is why the great Vulcan messiah, Surak, was so determined to make peace, 1500 or so years before, to keep Vulcan from consuming itself in a global thermonuclear war. It is this very highly emotional nature of the Vulcans that made their embrace of logic and reason so central to their survival as a species.
Add to that an occasional non-Vulcan parent thrown into the mix (Spock’s mom Amanda Grayson, for example – also Lt Saavik’s (ST-II/’Wrath of Khan’) mother, who was Romulan), and it’s like throwing gasoline on an open fire.
Spock’s emotional behavior can be more easily observed in the TOS 2-part episode ‘Menagerie’, made from then-current footage with the established stars, plus spliced-in sequences from the original pilot, rejected by NBC as being “too cerebral”, ‘The Cage’, starring actor Jeffrey Hunter as Captain Christopher Pike, with Leonard Nimoy as Mr Spock as his Science Officer.
You should’ve seen Spock, facinated by a ’singing plant’ on Talos IV, smiling, even laughing, at whatever took his fancy as a scientist. He was no stoic, unsmiling personality from Vulcan then.
Of course, the truth is that the character of Mr Spock was not exactly gelled, yet, hahaha! But you take my meaning. The usual route of someone in a ’safe’ environment (the otherwise all-human crew of the Enterprise) would probably tend to be him/herself, unmindful of how easily a reputaion can be set in stone; afterwards, Spock likely would redouble his efforts to be ‘even more Vulcan than Vulcan’, so to say, just to prove that being part Human would be, if anythting, an enormous asset, even his greatest strength.
By being as Vulcan as possible, even with the failure of his ‘Kohlinaar’ ritual (good catch there, Vee), but instead accepting the highly charged emotional nature of his dual personality, he becomes a perfect model of self-discipline for both species – hell, all species. As Humans, we can be proud of him in that, as Vulcan as he is, he is nonetheless One Of Us, and that even pure-blood Vulcans – and indeed, all people, everywhere – can look up to him as a model and as an honorable example. Especially from the standpoint of friendship.
As Admiral Kirk himself said, choking back sobs, at Spock’s first funeral aborad the Enterprise:
“Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, HIS was the most…Human…”
I cried too.
JOHN
@ Vee:
I have to agree with Fury 2701:
“I think Archer was a good character. He was just different than other captains that came after him. He was supposed to be naive, and full of wonder and flawed. Humanity at the time was supposed to be learning how to be part of the galactic community. He shouldn’t have been the polished diplomat that Picard was or the adventuous cowboy that Kirk was.”
While you may have something there about Archer, I have seen Scott Bakula in other things, such as the movie ‘Master of Illusion’, co-starring Kevin O’Connell and Famke Jansen, where he played the perfect private eye – just the kinda guy who could go digging for the truth, and wind up in bed with Famke Jansen! Not bad for a goob!
My point is, he pretty much filled whatever role he was in, for whatever it was, such as in ‘Quantum Leap’, just a few years before, where he essentially played a different personality every week.
As Captain Jonathan Archer, he represented the next generation after the Great Awakening (a term used in Star Trek canon), the discovery of the Vulcans as a friendly race (ST/’First Contact’), and his naivete, as you observed, was indicative of the attitudes of the People of Planet Earth, as a whole.
No offense, it’s up to you, Vee, but I think you should cut the guy some slack…for what it is worth, while I can understand the serie’s disappointing ratings and understand why it fell short of Trekkers’ expectations, I did not miss a single episode…
And when Abrams releases a sequel to this movie (not if, but WHEN), wild horses won’t keep me from seeing it!
JOHN
@John
Gonna respond to the Enterprise related post first. Just ’cause it was shorter.
I haven’t seen Scott Bakula in anything other than Enterprise, so I could be mistaken about his acting ability. But I remember so many times, especially in the first season, when he could have easily taken a line or a scene in another direction. It didn’t always have to be angry or confused.
“Naive” and “full of wonder” don’t say anger management issues to me. Neither does “flawed”. I don’t expect him to be anything like Picard. Picard, aside from having a lot more personal experience than Archer had, had centuries of starfleet history backing him up. Procedures, training, all of the mistakes having been made and worked out. Archer was much more like us: he came from a culture that had strained too far and too fast to get to where it was; where the world was changing every day and you had nothing but your self and those around you to rely on. I get it, I really do. I think that’s a great premise, and (strangely) one that I haven’t seen done before.
But he had the opportunity to discover the galaxy for the first time in the history of humanity, and he got angry at it! I can understand getting angry at specific things, but angry at the beggining, angry in the middle, and angry at the end? I can understand the confusion, to a point (not as far as he took it). It was a big new galaxy that they were facing, ad the Vulcans had pretty much shielded them from it for a long time. I can understand him being angry at the Vulcans. I can’t undertand him being angry at the universe. There could have been far more to that character then he put on the screen.
On a side note from the enterprise series discussion.
I really enjoyed the theme song from that show. I really did not watch it but that song… it felt to me like exactly what starfleet and the federation stood for. to quote it:
I see my dream come alive at night
I will touch the sky
And there not gonna hold me down no more
no there not gonna change my mind
Because i’ve got faith of the heart
i’m going where my heart will take me.
Since i first heard it i have trying to live my life that way.
Oh i dont think I actually answered the original question
of the thread.
I loved this movie. As did my mother and my sister. We are all avid trekkies. It is the only t.v. series that we all agree on. Trek made me who I am (computer tech) and showed me that at least one other person believed as i did.
Did i have any problems with this movie? Only that it made me cry at times and that has only ever happend before with the secret of nyhm and when optimus died in transformers the movie (no not that M. Bay crap). While I was in the theater when it ended I felt a need to stand up and shout my love of trek , I didn’t. I’m just to shy so I yelled it from my seat and it felt really damn good. I feel like a long lost part of me has been reawakened and for that JJ Abrams gets my gratitude, I give him this for as the title goes “Everything I need to Know I learned from Star Trek.
Thanks for reading folks. I think you all are the only ones who will get it.
@John on the Spock-related post.
Just to clear up right at the beggining: I have seen all of TOS. I’ve also seen most of the movies involving them at least twice (not V – it was just too bad). I’ve just only watched TOS through once, and that was a couple of years ago, because I really hated watching Shatner’s Kirk. Watching him gave me a deep understanding of the feminist movement (from someone who swore that feminism had no place anymore), and I don’t like to feel that much hate, so I haven’t re-watched it. I did watch every episode once, though, and I really liked the rest of the main characters. (So, don’t tell me it was the times. Scotty and Bones were the times. The uniforms were the times. The sexy, airheaded yeomen were the times. Kirk was not just the times.)
I know that Spock was not a stone, emotionally, in TOS. He had a quiet sense of humor, he had cultural prejudices. And, yeah, I tend to discount inconsistancies from the earliest episodes because both the actors and the writers were still finding their characters. This is especially true of TOS, because it was the first show of its kind (so far as I’ve found – I wasn’t alive then to know).
You wrote, “It helps to remember that, far from being a naturally logical race, the Vulcans, although gifted with an unusually clear, deductive mind, are nonetheless VERY highly emotional – that is why the great Vulcan messiah, Surak, was so determined to make peace, 1500 or so years before, to keep Vulcan from consuming itself in a global thermonuclear war. It is this very highly emotional nature of the Vulcans that made their embrace of logic and reason so central to their survival as a species.”
As it was both a necessity and highly desirable social feature, I would think that Vulcans would have an evolutionary trend toward minds that were naturally ever more ordered and inclined to logic. As a human-vulcan hybrid, Spock’s mind would be less naturally inclined to order and logic (our minds are just so seriously messed up), which would make him less able to strictly control his emotions. His emotions would most likely also be less dangerously intense because of his heratige (though still stronger than human emotions. That accounts for all of the emotional slip-ups we see from Spock that weren’t induced by mind-altering mechanisms. I certainly wasn’t saying that vulcans are emotionless, but I do think that Spock would be more naturally inclined to showing emotion than a full-blooded vulcan. It’s that tendancy that I’m calling his humanity.
Because this is taboo in vulcan culture, and he grew up among vulcans almost exclusively, I think he would have tried from a very young age to deny that this tendancy existed and quickly (nearly sub-consciously) quash anything that he thought showed this perceived weakness. The thing is, the big ones like happiness, anger, sorrow, joy, jealousy, etc. are obvious. The small ones like some points of humor, contentment, the love of friendship – these things slip in without us even noticing. It was the quiet emotions that Spock showed throughout TOS.
You also wrote, “By being as Vulcan as possible, even with the failure of his ‘Kohlinaar’ ritual (good catch there, Vee), but instead accepting the highly charged emotional nature of his dual personality, he becomes a perfect model of self-discipline for both species – hell, all species.”
I don’t know about the perfect model of self-discipline.
The perfect model of balance, perhaps. When he accepted that his emotions were part of who he was and stopped trying to hide all of them, he was able to find the balance required to let himself feel but not be overwhelmed.
As for Kirk saying that Spock’s soul was the most “human” one he had ever encountered, I chalked that up to things people say at funerals that they wouldn’t have said before the person died. Actually, come to think of it, I’d really like to know how the Star Trek writers define “human”. They pull that same gimmick with Data, and I don’t really think that Spock and Data are very much alike at all. (I see the logic simularity, but other than that, they’re nothing alike.)
You seem to be one of those people who’s been watching TOS for longer than I’ve been alive (born in ‘87), so you could probably answer this. Did the idea of vulcans being a naturally highly emotional species rather than a naturally highly logical species actually get presented during the show’s original run, or was that one of the things they added in later? I know that that was used in TNG, but I don’t actually remember it being used before that.
I have re-watched the film now, and wow, there really are a LOT of lense flares. I think I didn’t really notice it before because I have Irlen Syndrome, and the world looks that flarey, streaky and bright to me every day. Even with that, it was slightly annoying to me once I noticed it. It must have been quite aggravating for those of you who aren’t used to it.
I also did better with young Spock this time. What really helped was the realisation that this Spock will never become the Spock I’m used to, so there’s no need to reconcile them. They’re completely different people. Kind of like brothers. Same background; different person.
The plot holes and inconsistancies still bothered me. And the romence still seemed thrown in for the sake of romance. And it was still Star Wars with Trek characters and history. And the fight scenes weren’t any more watchble than before. Thankfully, that shakey hand-cam extreme close-up thing is just a phase that Hollywood’s going through right now.
Man, I don’t even know where to start. There are so many posts and so little time. I have been watching Star Trek since about 1968 (I was 9) and it was close to the end of it’s run and I have of course seen all moveis, series episodes, etc. I am not an intellectual and I dare say I am ot really a purist either. I do have the Encyclopedia and many other books, etc, but the bottom line is that I love Trek and I love it no matter what. No matter how ‘well’ it’s scripted there are those of us that also want it to be “fun” as in Kirk’s last words. If it’s not a bit fun, then what’s the point? And I am not so insecure that I am offended that Spock dare ever have a romantic or feeling relationshipor that they put that in there at all. There are humans in teh movie and part of life is sex and romance. It’s not just all work and play. Spock was still finding his true course and I think he always had to struggle with the human part. As to Vee’s post I think it’s always been known that Spock is 1/2 human. I can’t recall when exactly Vulcan’s were presentted a highly emotional race that learned to oppress that but I thought it was always known. I will have to read my Enclyclopedia. At any rate, I am not so much concerned with all the technicalities. I enjoy it nonetheless. Compared to others I know very little and I can’t remember all the details like some. It just seems to me that those that are the most disappointed seem to missing the point. It’s supposed to be fun. It’s not “real” and it’s ok.
@everybody
I’ve seen the movie five times now, just to make certain I have my facts straight before I post on here. First, this was a top-notch movie, and it was also imperfect. I (like many others) wrote my doctoral dissertation on Star Trek, so I know a thing or two about it. It’s great to get credit for watching a show you love. Now, specifically, I love TOS, and the first six movies. After that, there hasn’t been any Star Trek for me. I’ve read all of the posts on here, and I don’t honestly remember if it’s in one of them or one of the many reviews I’ve read elsewhere on Star Trek, but everything after TOS has been a movie/series with “Star Trek” slapped on it.
I *hated* the Enterprise-D. Nobody has ever explained to me the benefits of an aerodynamic starship. My point was beautifully (poetically?) proven with the introduction of the Borg. (I watched enough TNG to know stand firm in my loathing of it) A cube-shaped ship is about as far away from aerodynamic as possible. So, let’s talk reality for a couple of paragraphs.
First, in Star Trek the series, people have to remember that the original pilot (the Cage) was never meant to see the light of day. It was meant to SELL a series to a network. The network bolted and we got “Where No Man Has Gone Before.” Enter Kirk. Spock smiled in that episode, said weird things like “Ahh yes, one of your human emotions” as if he had never encountered them before. He used contractions constantly (something you’ll notice Zachary Quinto’s Spock never does – excellent writing) and he emotes. Compare this Spock to the one that appears in “Mudd’s Women” (the first episode that actually aired) and they’re like two different people. People conveniently forget that the original series contradicted itself quite frequently, because writers were hired on a per-episode basis. Something that the ship could do easily in one episode is impossible in another. Stardates were just numbers made up to fill a part of the opening sequence (or return from a commercial break) and had no order to them. They fixed this in TNG (I believe) and in the movies, but they are clearly screwed up in TOS. It never bothered me in the least.
Gene Roddenberry needed episodes in a bad way due to the lag in SFX production in TOS, so he broke “The Cage” into two episodes, and filmed about 20 minutes of footage to end cap it. Jeffrey Hunter (the original Pike) wouldn’t reprise the role, so they had to get some unknown actor, apply a ton of make-up, and make him horribly scarred and put him in a “wheelchair” so that nobody would notice. Pike never had a chance to develop into a character because he only existed in one episode. So, Greenwood’s Pike in the movie is a fantastic addition of detail to this otherwise-mysterious character from Star Trek past.
I was very upset when I first saw a picture of the new Enterprise for this movie… I agree with the post above, it seemed like they morphed the Enterprise from the TV series with the one in the movies. Then I saw it on the screen and fell in love – that’s the great thing about movies: they can surprise you.
People in this board are amazing in their criticism! What was Chekov doing in the movie? “He wasn’t introduced until the second season.” Just because we don’t see him until the second season does not mean he wasn’t on the ship. Sulu was originally in astrophysics, I believe. He definitely was *not* the helmsman in “Where No Man Has Gone Before.” On the subject of Chekov, try playing “Kill the Chekov” as a drinking game. The first movie, they fry his arm. Second movie – ear worms. Third movie… pretty good for him. Fourth movie… falls off a nuclear “wessel’s” deck to the dock… add in the stupid things he does in the series and you can get drunk very quickly, so play with care.
I will admit, Nero was no Khan as a villain, but I disliked him as a character, and generally you’re not supposed to like the villain, so they score a star there.
The SFX are an amazing blend of past and present. I thought the bridge looked a little retro compared to the first six movies, but if you look at the movies, you’ll see that the bridge morphs quite a bit throughout the movies. The set was damaged after Star Trek IV was filmed, so Paramount “borrowed” their own property for the fifth and sixth movies. Using the TNG “Battle Bridge” with some window dressing, if my memory serves me. Nobody has complained here that this violated canon. I mean, we *clearly* see the “old” bridge at the end of “The Voyage Home” (ST IV or “the one with the whales” to those who need a reference) yet it’s completely rebuilt in ST V for no reason. Uhura’s in love with Scotty for no apparent reason. Spock has a half-brother that nobody knew about for no apparent reason. (It’s noteworthy that his mind and McCoy’s were melded for the span of the third movie, and even McCoy didn’t know Spock had a half-brother?)
The point to all of this is that every Star Trek movie has had a few problems, even Star Trek VI’s “starboard thrusters, turn her into the wave” on Excelsior’s bridge when the ship is clearly turning to port. That’s called “we shot the scenes and whoever did the VFX wasn’t paying attention at ILM.” It happens, the movie was still good. Did anybody wonder why they needed book dictionaries printed on paper to look up Klingon words? I mean, even if “the Universal Translator would be recognized” as Chekov comments, couldn’t they use SCREEN-BASED dictionaries? In other words…
1. Hit Mute.
2. “Computer, how do I say ‘we are carrying supplies to Rura Penthe?”
3. Computer displays response.
4. Unmute and speak.
It was a plot line that worked in the movie, and I laughed with everyone else that they were reading books.
Now, onto acting.
First, Karl Urban was channeling DeForest Kelly – Kelly’s Dr. McCoy was my inspiration for becoming a physician, and Urban kept that spirit alive. Another star awarded to this movie.
Quinto does a great job of picking up the Spock from “Where No Man Has Gone Before” and taking him back to a place from which I can see him logically (pardon the pun) originating.
The thing that a lot of people don’t like to admit is that Star Trek was about Kirk/Spock/McCoy. It’s why they (and only they) appeared in the “Starring” sequence of the credits in TOS. Heck, they didn’t even add DeForest Kelly until the second season. If a series tries to focus on too many characters, you can’t connect with them. Roddenberry’s vision was for an interracial crew (with a Vulcan thrown in to boot) but that doesn’t mean the story focused on ethnic mixing. Yes, the interracial kiss was huge, and kudos to Star Trek for doing it, but why wasn’t Uhura (even once) left the Conn? The “also-starring” actors were all excellent in their roles. I’d have like to have seen more Scotty, but his introduction was where it was in the movie, and it works for the purposes of the script. He better get more screen time in the sequel, but not too much. He was always an “almost-starring” character for me.
If I’m going to complain about this movie, there’s my first complaint: Chekov was left the Conn, and he turned it over to some unknown guy sitting at the helm. Uhura has never been in command of the Enterprise – that they could have fixed: props to them for finally canonizing her first name, though. I was upset that Sulu was given that honor in “The Undiscovered Country” but they couldn’t find time to do the same for Uhura. So, there’s a second star – fixing something that’s been bothering me for years.
I’m very pleased they kept William Shatner out of this movie. He made his bed when he signed the contract to do Generations. Unlike Nimoy, who got a great death scene, Shatner got a paltry, “I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!” He didn’t even die saving *his* Enterprise. Bringing him into this movie would have served no purpose, and really would have screwed up the time stream in a way that can’t be explained by alternate timelines. Unless we want to assume that Spock (Prime) was from an alternate timeline where Kirk doesn’t die, and lives to be about 150 years old, yet only looks about 80. Shatner was and will always be Captain Kirk to me, but his presence in this movie would have served nothing. A star for sticking to their guns on this – Shatner tried very hard to get into this movie. Spock was integral to the story line, Kirk was not.
To prove I was paying attention, here are the things that baffle me about this movie:
1. Vulcan and Earth sure must be close, or Kirk was unconscious for a long time in Sickbay. (Did anyone else notice McCoy call to Nurse Chapel off screen, or the old “thwump” of the med bed when Kirk was thrust on it?) I can’t figure out why the trip was so short.
1a. I can completely understand Vulcan not having defenses. They’re pacifistic people. Nobody asked where the orbital facilities were in “Amok Time” as the only thing in orbit during that episode was the Enterprise. Anyone remember when Surak went to negotiate with Colonel Green in “The Savage Curtain?” Spock gives a long (for a TV Episode) speech on Vulcans’ disdain for violence. It doesn’t surprise me, then, that Vulcan does not have orbital defenses. There was an awful lot of debris floating around when the Enterprise shows up in the movie, so I presume Nero just blew everything up. That I can believe.
2. Why is Delta Vega so close to Vulcan?
2a. I get that they’re paying homage to the planet so named in “Where No Man Has Gone Before” but that planet was not an ice planet, and it definitely wasn’t close to Vulcan. I know that Vulcan has no moons, but it does have a huge “sister” planet with varying names if you read the books. Regardless, it is not Delta Vega. So they get a star for paying homage but lose a star because it just doesn’t fit.
3. Where was Kirk’s older brother?
3a. Kirk *clearly* finds his older brother George, (now officially named after their father) in “Operation Annihilate!” and even if the time continuum changes when Nero’s ship comes back, George Kirk is *older* than Jim Kirk. He should not be affected by the change in time. According to the novelization, and several websites, this role was written and cast, but the character never appears. It’s not integral to the plot line, but neither is the random “I’m stealing your car” scene. So Kirk was a hellion as a child… I didn’t need a movie to help me figure that out. Down a star for messing with a part of the canon and not explaining it. (Points – but no star – for naming Kirk’s mom and dad per the books, and his grandfathers to boot)
That’s it. No more things about which I can complain.
I’m not a bothered by everyone else that Vulcan was destroyed, or that Amanda dies. Did it have to happen? No. But it was integral to this story, which is the story that the director chose to tell. I might have picked a different planet (say, Andor or Tellar) to destroy as a writer, but that wouldn’t evoke the emotional response necessary from Spock. If they cleaned everything up at the end of this movie, you get a Disney movie. I don’t want to see “Princess Uhura” dolls at my local Target store. Star Trek II ended messily (dead Spock) as did three (no Enterprise). The story arc came to a graceful close at the end of Star Trek IV – Spock’s back, new ship, we can boldly go again.
On the subject of “The Voyage Home,” it’s noteworthy that much like the original Motion(less) Picture, the enemy was not someone I hated. I did not hate the Probe. I feared it, so it was a good villian, but it had no acting, no voice, no emotion. Not all villians need a good background if the story is well told. So Bana’s Nero was okay for me, as I mentioned previously.
I’m not sure what my final “rating” is for this movie, because I’m a doctor, not a mathematician. If someone wants to add up my additions and subtractions of stars, feel free. The rating I ascribe to this movie isn’t nearly as important as what it did for me: it re-engaged me to a series with which I had become completley disenfranchised. It kept the core essence of Star Trek and made is visceral, beautiful, and fun. I am eager for a Star Trek sequel for the first time in almost twenty years. Since I’m in my mid thirties, that’s impressive.
If someone wants to banter points of the plot, I’m all game for that. My prescription to Vic: keep writing movie reviews – yours was excellent and prety spot on.
To Fury2701, I am in the same boat. I loved Enterprise and the opening music. It was different, Scott Bakula was hot an they needed to stick it out for 1 more season. If I recall, on the opening night of NexGen, I already had all my little preconcieved, purist notions and I had decided that I wasn’t going to like it, no sir-re! It really did take until season 3-4 for it to start to grow on me. Now, when I watch the 1st few season of NG I think it was a bit cheesy and over acted. I feel the same about DS9 and Voyager. I wasn’t really hooked and involved until seasoni 3-4. I am hoping against hope that they bring it back but I know that will never happen. T
@ Vee & Badnewsoit; RE ‘Enterprise’:
(Smiling, sheepishly) Sorry, Vee, if I got the impression that you had watched only a FEW of the TOS episodes, instead of watching the ENTIRE series only ONCE through – quite a big difference, and I missed it because I didn’t read your post closely enough – I apologize profusely.
I have to admit, Bakula would not’ve been my first choice for a starship commander – that would’ve been Robert Patrick, aka FBI Special Agent John Doggett, partner to SA Dana Scully of the X-Files. I also would like to see TV/movie veteran Robert Ironside in that role, but not on ‘Enterprise’ – maybe some ST series set even further in the future. Patrick, at least, would’ve been more quizzical about the galaxy. In that sense, his curiosity as an FBI agent would serve him well as a starship captain – a man of authority, unafraid of the responsibility of representing all of humanity. Damn sure better than Shatner.
And Bad, I liked that song, too; as a Star Trek series theme, it differed from the others in that it was a an actual SONG, with lyrics, and I am sure I read somewhere that it was chosen just for the series, as a sort of touchstone for the ST philosophy.
As I said in an earlier post, if not for that Franchise, my natural cynicism about people would’ve devolved into full-blown depression a long time ago – an effect of the TOS series noticed, and remarked on, as far back as the interim period not long after the first cancellation (Tom Snyder’s late night talk show, guest stars Jimmy Doohan & DeForest Kelly, followed up by writer & Star Trek consultant Harlan Ellison), when people who had serious emotional and even physical handicaps watched TOS and somehow, mysteriously, felt better & happier about life.
I don’t remember ever being completely satisfied with ‘Enterprise’, but perhaps my lackluster passion for the show was a matter of it only suffering by comparison to, I dunno, uh, FOUR OTHER TV SERIES and 10 – count ‘em, TEN MOVIES – YA THINK??? I knew it was a prequel, but my attitude was like, “Helllloooo? The FIRST Starship Enterprise? I thought that was a Constitution class vessel captained by guys with names like April, Pike, and Kirk???”
Anyway, all things considered, I thought they did a good job, Bakula notwithstanding, and I won’t be an apologist for the series, only for the idea; if you ask me, if it isn’t in the Star Trek Chronological Concordance, it didn’t happen.
And it isn’t like I was completely satisfied with TOS, either. I loved Spock, and he (and Uhura running around in a miniskirt – forgive me, Vee, I am but a man) made up for ‘overdramatic Bill’ Shatner.
But then, it IS Star Trek, I’m sure you’ll agree…anything can happen.
Perhaps, as someone mentioned on here, the series ‘Enterprise’ was a result of the altered timeline events in the movie ST/’First Contact’…
???
JOHN
JOHN
@ Vee:
Vee, I agree with you, kiddo – ‘balanced’ is a much better description of Spock, perfect or not, than ’self-disciplined’ – as a matter of fact, I would say that the term ’self-disciplined Vulcan’ is a redundant oxymoron (!), but I like your term better just for it’s accuracy. Let’s face it, that is more important, what was I thinking, lol?
And to answer your last question about basic Vulcan passion (seems the best word for it), you don’t have to take what is in the later series & movies as evidence, the TOS episodes were full of it – in ‘The Savage Curtain’, where Spock was able to meet the great Surak face to face (sort if); in ‘Amok Time’, where Spock had to fight Kirk (standing in for T’Pring’s true love, a Vulcan named Stonn), not because he wanted to but because he REALLY had become, despite what Bones had said to him in his defense as a sentirent being, like a “salmon swimming upstream”; or like in ‘The Paradise Syndrome’, where alien plant spores made him shake off his Vulcan sense of duty, fall in love with an old flame of his from Earth (Jill Ireland), and only after Kirk (who was curiously immune to the spores) angered his Vulcan temper to the point of murderous rage, did he regain his senses; he was also very into the art & beauty of ‘The Cloud Minders’ (as well as the beautiful Droxine); or the regret & pain he expressed to Kirk, even if under a strange mutated molecule infecting the whole crew in ‘The Naked Time’, that he could never tell his mother Amanda that he loved her – that he came from a culture where his friendship for Kirk, or any friendship, was considered ‘bad taste’.
As for your comparison of Spock to Data, that actually happened, in the TNG episode ‘Unification, Part 1′ (I THINK, maybe it was Part 2); Spock fully admitted to Data that like him, he still felt apart from the Terran humans, but he had learned to acccept that he was only human by half. Data was surprised at this, android logic being what one might expect, as he had always desired more than anything else to be fully human, like Pinnochio.
Spock merely raised one eyebrow, as was his fashion, and answered, “You would be surprised, Commander…”, leaving much unsaid.
Personally, I don’t think Kirk was just eulogizing at Spock’s firs tfuneral, he meant it, like Scotty playing his ‘Amazing Grace’ recording on the bagpipes, something common anywhere on Earth that was ever a part of the British Empire (including Arlington National Cemetery, to this day).
I mean, f’Chrissakes, they ALL went back to get his body on Genesis Planet – he was their friend, and those six people considered him as human as they were themselves.
I think it’s clear that, Vulcan or not, Spock’s decisions throughout the whole of his life, from his fateful choice to help Christopher Pike return to Vela on Talos IV, to his return to the Enterprise after his failure of Kohlinaar, to his sacrifice in the bowels of the Big E’s warpcore and later his loyalty to Kirk & McCoy and their rescue off of Rura Penthe – hell, even his willingness to deliver the red matter into the heart of the Killer Star, Hobus, in this last movie – is evicence enough to me that, at LEAST by half, he was as human as any of us.
And as for Kirk, well…he was his friend. Friends stand by each other.
JOHN
PS: You’re right, I am an old fart, lol! I was 15 when Star Trek first premiered on NBC, 20 YEARS before you were born, so yes, at 56, I do qualify as an original, life-time fan!
I suppose the concept of Vucan savagry was quite evident in TOS, as I say above, but so was their hatred of violence and their desire for the order of a civilized society – probably why they supported the capital of the Federation, so to speak, being in San Francisco, the original home of the ‘old’ United Nations (as it was founded there in 1945, moved to Flushing Meadow, NY, and finally moved to New York City); apparently there was something they very much admired in the human tendency towards peace and away from war – to an alien curious about Spock, Kirk once noted that they ‘worship peace, above all’ – and like the humans of Earth, they came about it honestly, as they very nearly wiped themselves out in the time of Surak.
Later, Vee, thanx for asking -
@ Steve:
Gotta tell ya, Doc, I really, really loved all you said – and now I have ‘Verbosity Envy’, is that a real condition? I thought I had a lot to say, lol! I mean that as a compliment, oarticularly loved your take on the Enterprsie bridge translation scene! (”Nope, it’s not in the LCARS, we need a Klingon/English-English/Klingon dictionary…get the Funk & Wagnalls, somebody…anybody?”) Hahaha! Loved it!
My favorite musing of yours is the ‘Kill the Chekov, Kill the chekov’ drinking game! “Nucleear wessels…?”
I am warry soorry, buut I vill have to stun you…PFFFT!
Whoops….
You crack me up, Doc! You’re a doctor, not a mathematician! Lol!
I love it! Not at all surprised that Bones McCoy was your inspiration to aspire to medicine. I have two nieces who are medical doctors, and they both loved Bones, too.
To quote your own words right back at you about the new movie: “It kept the core essence of Star Trek and made it visceral, beautiful, and fun. I am eager for a Star Trek sequel for the first time in almost twenty years. Since I’m in my mid thirties, that’s impressive.”
Well, I am 56, and I feel the same – if you ask me, you nailed it.
Good job, Steve,
JOHN
@Steve
One of the funniest posts I have seen. So many of these posts feels like there writers are wound way to tight.
I was around 10y/o when I really got into trek in it’s syndicated run and I have watched ever since. In fact I have seen the episodes of TOS, TNG, DS9, and even Enterprise countless times.
I had posted way earlier about this topic and I have finally found a friend. THE ENTERPRISE-D HAS BEEN THE UGLIEST STARSHIP EVER! Areodinamic my ass!
The borg had one big collective laugh when they saw it!
And one more question for ya. Why did scotty need a mascot?