The full-spoiler 'Star Trek' discussion thread.

Just came back from seeing the new movie!

it was good! But not great.

But it did what it was supposed to do. It kept me entertained, and for the first time since DS9 ended I actually cared about Trek again.

Yeah, I know it is technically not our Trek anymore. I'm okay with that. I always have the old movies and episodes to revisit.

It wasn't the same Kirk and Spock, but it sort of felt like them anyway. Kinda wierd.
And the interaction between the two really made the movie for me.

When you get down to it, strip away all the backstory and technology, Star Trek is really about Kirk and Spock. And this movie wisely focused on that legendary duo.

It was really, really nice to see Leonard Nimoy again. Frankly, I was scared that he'd look really old and decrepit... let's face it, he ain't a young guy. He was looking old back in 91 when Star Trek VI came out.

But he was just the same as he always was. Same humor, same wisdom. He was a good touchstone for us old Trekkies.

By the way, all my friends, who never gave a damn about Trek before are suddenly very interested in the franchise. I'm just shocked at all the questions I've been getting and all the interest from folks who used to roll their eyes whenever I mentioned Trek.

This was the shot in the arm the franchise needed. Not that abortion called Enterprise or those anemic TNG movies.

I do have some quibbles, but fuck it, this is a new timeline. I give them license to change whatever they want to change, as long as they keep the story interesting.

Why does this make me feel like Brian Griffin when he walked in on Stewie in drag?

BTW, Majel was said to be doing the computer voice, but I didn't catch it. Anyone know if she did or not (since it was announced right around the time that she passed away)?

But they're detroying some people's RELIGION.

Oh, yeah, and Zoe Saldana is fine as hell.

either you are joking or someone is pulling your leg...unless you mean they intend to do something based in "Space Seed" and not TWOK


In either case, I seriously doubt it - though landing Bardem for the bad guy (whomever he might be) would be nails.

Seen it again, and with two non-Trekkies in tow. My conviction that it's a terrific action movie was strengthened, but even they pointed out some of the plot holes.

What do you expect from the writers of the oscar worthy Transformers?

I hope they don't. I mean it's good that that they want to present something that the Trekkers will recognize I guess, but the point of rebooting is so that they can explore new ideas in Trek and not be bound by the old continuity... Not to mention, doing Kahn again would almost be like a remake. Why would anyone need to remake TWOK?

Just leave it alone and allow the new writers to explore their own creativity.

Sez hoo?

Some of the plot holes bother me too, even without screaming about continuity (which means nothing now anyway). The writing was sloppy in areas and could have been better on a lot of points.

It was entertaining.

But I enjoy WB cartoons.

I agree in terms of re-telling old stories, but at the same time I wouldn't mind eventually seeing old characters used in new ways.

Depends on how they do it.

I was just musing last night about Harry Mudd in fact...

Which plot holes specifically?

How do you figure that one?

It's an alternate timeline and a series reboot. There were no plot holes. There is no continuity to which to adhere. They can do what they want. I went to see it expecting it--and Zachary Quinto from the truly awful Heroes--to suck rocks and I was amazed at just how good it was. It was an amazing popcorn flick with a lot of heart and charisma. Leonard Nimoy was the heart and soul that tied everything together. I expected it to SUCK and I thought it was great. Can't purists stop nitpicking long enough to enjoy?

Apart from the ears and brows what the fuck else IS there?

As for the face art, "We do not represent the Empire. We stand apart."

Yes, yes, there were. There were huge gaping plotholes, which had nothing to do with anything that might have appeared in other versions of Trek. These plotholes have been pointed out, time and time again, in this thread by people who liked the movie. It is not just the people who hate the film who say, "There were plotholes!"

Wrong, again. There's continuity within the film, if nothing else. (Why did the "lightning storm in space" appear around Vulcan? It was shown early on in the film that you only got that when a ship was exiting a black hole.) Then there are the events of Enterprise, which happened before this movie took place, as well as events shown in other Trek series/movies, which were set in motion long before this movie takes place. Khan, if you'll recall, fled the Earth in 1996.

No, they can't. If a Star Destroyer were to show up and blow up the Enterprise, I doubt very many people would be happy.

Did it ever occur to you that some people enjoy nitpicking and that even in a well crafted movie (like say, Citizen Kane or Casablanca) part of the fun in watching a film repeatedly is nitpicking it. (And some of the complaints are hardly nitpicks, IMHO.)

Continuity has nothing to do with some of the MAJOR plot holes in the movie.

Nero just sits around for 25 years ...
Then after waiting all that time, he simply lets Spock go.
Kirk and Scotty beam to a ship that is millions of miles away.
Cadets manning the Federation flagship and then Kirk gets promoted to captain in one easy step.

Yes, it was an exciting mindless action movie akin to the likes of Independence Day and Armageddon, but I was hoping for something with a little bit more substance in a Star Trek movie. And it could have easily been with a few tweaks.

I feel like this was asked and answered in the movie...[/I]

Think of it like this.... Spock chose to maroon Kirk on Delta Vega because there was a remote Star fleet base there. So him landing within 14 kilometers of it makes sense. Spock Prime also being marooned there would also seek out the closest Star fleet base. I really don't see this as a big deal.

Was The Enterprise Star Fleet's flagship prior to Kirk? If you throw out the Series Enterprise and Uhura's desire to serve aboard, why would anyone consider it the flagship prior to Kirk?

"Flagship" simply would mean "the best" in this case, and since the Big E is basically brand new and the most advanced ship in the fleet, that would make it the "flagship" in that sense. I think that's getting at one of the biggest plot holes though, which is that there is such a shortage of active or reserve Starfleet personnel that they have to crew ships with cadets who are probably not even qualified to man those ships.

Answered? How so?

Capt. Pike specifically calls it the flagship in the movie.

I eagerly await the DVD Director's Cut with the deleted scenes and plenty of easter eggs.

Yes, I've heard that as well, but:

1. It's not in the movie, so it hardly counts.
2. If he and his crew does 20 + years in a Klingon penal colony, how in the heck is he going to get his superduper future ship back? Do you think the Klingons just parked it in orbit?

Romulans would presumably age around the same rate as Vulcans.

Of more concern to me is what 25 years to pick apart a Romulan ship from the future would do for Klingon technological advancement. Especially the "red matter" black hole-generating warheads.

'Mkay, so the Klingons capture a ship from nearly 200 years in the future, and somehow, fail to realize that its a hellavalot more advanced than anything they've ever seen?

And to have the Klingons able to successfully pull off a sneak attack on a Romulan ship from the future, would be like the Somali pirates capturing the USS Ronald Reagan armed with nothing more than an AK-47! Does. Not. Compute.