One of the things that made (past tense)Star Trek unique was its view of humanity having improved, not just our technology. Gene Roddenberry intended that Starfleet officers in particular were to be models of ethical behavior. In Classic Trek and the Next Generation, conflict among Starfleet officers was forbidden (until Roddenberry passed away, that is). The movie shows Starfleet cadets picking fights, officers fighting, Kirk finishing off the Romulans, etc. Good drama and conflict, but not good Star Trek.

Is a society of ethically perfect people realistic? Well, that’s the point. Star Trek used science fiction to portray a ideal, romantic view of the future. If you want to watch something with a realistic characters, watch some reality TV instead.

The movie was missing the usual social commentary, also, of course.

The movie certainly entertained, though. I loved the Easter Eggs and the fate of the redshirted skydiver.

Adapting other fiction to Star Trek? Try Star Trek: The Phantom Menace. Substitute Kirk and Spock for the Jedi. Someone from Naboo called the Federation in to mediate. Phaser fire and social commentary ensue. See, that was easy.

Can anyone name a science-fiction story that could easily be adapted into a Star Trek adventure?

First off, I can appreciate why people have a hard time grappling with your ‘reviews’, Reed. There’s not much to latch onto. It’s why I haven’t responded to your Ong Bak 2 review. That said, fuck ‘em. I’ll always enjoy watching someone try to work out how they feel about a film rather than regurgitate the plot and add a few soundbites, and I’m definitely including myself in that category.

For the record, I have watched some Star Trek in the past, but haven’t seen anything Star Trek-related in nearly a decade, so I’m hardly a huge fan.

While I enjoyed this new Star Trek movie, if I wanted to watch an entertaining Star Wars rip-off I would have just watched Battle Beyond The Stars again.

I didn’t even really realize my disappointment until the very end, when they repeated the Star Trek mantra and hit the part “to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations”. You can keep all your talk about the intellectual and philosophical underpinnings of the series. What always fascinated me about Star Trek was that everything revolved around this idea of a band of brave souls cut loose from all they know, thrown into a vastness both frightening and awe-inspiring, and forced to adapt to new and strange cultures. This iteration had none of that.

I dig that people enjoyed it. I just think that Star Trek provided a welcome alternative to the space opera, and with this reboot mainstream cinema has become just a little more homogenized.

It’s like that goofball Superman Returns being bizzarly sold as a sequel to Superman II. Hello? Superman II already had two sequels.

Personally as a movie taken on it’s own merits, it’s good, and I would have enjoyed it as such. If this was Starship Troopers, I would have loved it, because frankly it had the story quality and mood of Starship Troopers.

It all boils down to this. It did not feel like Star Trek. It had ludicrous story elements. Seriously, Starfleet actually decided to staff a brand new flagship with en entirely untested crew of new graduates? Are you kidding me? Mighty convenient to the plot, but it sure exposes some major shortcomings in the script, IMO.

Destroying Vulcan? I don’t have a problem with the alternate timeline idea, but this is taking it a bit far, IMHO.

Who was that green thing?

Was it a reboot or wasn’t it? Personally I was quite bothered by the fact that the wrtiers can’t seem to decide. In my opinion they should have wiped the slate clean instead of having this flimsy and awkward attempt to connect it to the rest of the series for no reason except as an excuse to include Leonard Nimoy as far as I can gather.

Star Trek went of the rails when they made Enterprise, and nothing has been corrected here. Trying to shoehorn a prequel into a universe that has so much history and backstory behind it already never works, unless that backstory already exsisted. That’s why the prequels for Star Wars work as stories, (even if only the third one is actually a good movie), and this doesn’t work so much.

In short, if they’d just had the guts to make a real reboot of the series, instead of this strange hybrid, the result would have been much better. Instead we have something that is akin to Batman Begins featuring the Cesar Romero Joker travelling from the future.

The only movie that has ever done time travel well, and not created a painfully large number of plot holes is Back to The Future.

Let me sum up why I didn’t enjoy Star Trek. These are only my opinions based on my biases:

1. The movie didn’t make me feel anything new.
2. The movie didn’t make me laugh. (Jay was sitting two seats away from me, so he can verify this.)
3. The movie didn’t inspire me.
4. The movie made me think bad things more than good things. Wait, maybe I should say the bad things outweighed the good things in my mind.

One more thing. I don’t think filmmakers should necessarily listen to the audience. So I’m not expecting Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman to make Star Trek into something I like. They have made a lot of people happy, and my somewhat lonely opinion doesn’t really matter. That’s why the title of my review references the “needs of the many” quote.

Sacrifice everything meaningful in the name of pure entertainment?

That is the bane of why I watch movies. Sure it has to be entertaining. But to the point of compromising why you are telling the story. I guess I just viewed Star Trek more than entertainment for entertainments sake. I’m not even sure if that is not what Roddenberry wanted with the show, even.

I was also underwhelmed by the new trek, mainly on the grounds of the screenplay. BobOrci gives me little faith in that the screenwriting is in good hands…