[kevin]

Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms

No substance. Lets see:

- Characters are given an origin story with a twist, showing the genesis of core characters.
- There is an emotional impact to the events in this film beyond most Star Trek.
- The character of Spock is given close examination in a way only seen on occasion in the series.

There is a great deal of substance. Social commentary and allegory, if that is what you mean, is probably for the next movie, and was not in all, or even most, Star Trek.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

I wonder if "pew pew pew" will inspire kids to become scientists?

I LIKED the fact Trek was seen as "nerdy" by many people. I gave them the finger and challenged them to make me stop. A part of me liked the fact that I "got" what so many others could not. That may sound "elitist", but it's true. It's the same feeling I had when I got a 100% score on a test and completely screwed everyone on the "bell curve"!! I LIKE feeling "smart", even if it's only from a TV show.

Precisely, NuTrek will not inspire a black actress (who later played in TNG) or the first black female astronaut nor will the new Enterprise inspire a bunch of design folks (who later worked in TNG and post-TNG) like the original one did. Nor will Stephen Hawking or someone of his calibre demand to have a cameo in Nutrek. Nor will the navy send anyone to examine the bridge like with the TOS bridge nor will NASA ask a NuTrek design guy to work for them like in the case of Mike Okuda. (And as I mentioned Mike Okuda, I prefer the ENT designs who are often rooted in NASA technology vastly over the brewery design. That was the right way to extrapolate contemporary technology into the future, no silly "the future looks like today, visually and socially".)

[kevin]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

I must clarify. I mean "pew pew pew" almost literally. I don't mean it as a definition for action or battle scenes. I LIKE battle scenes. I really digged the battle scene in NEM and the many fleet battles in DS9. I mean "pew pew pew" as in the way the phasers and other weapons actually sounded and "felt". It seemed a corny way to make them feel less "Trek" and more "Halo"

Well, I must and say that how the phasers sounded was not high on a list of priorities for me. It's being blunt, but it's a fact.

At the end of the day it's shooting guns.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Precisely, NuTrek will not inspire a black actress (who later played in TNG) or the first black female astronaut nor will the new Enterprise inspire a bunch of design folks (who later worked in TNG and post-TNG) like the original one did. Nor will Stephen Hawking or someone of his calibre demand to have a cameo in Nutrek. Nor will the navy send anyone to examine the bridge like with the TOS bridge nor will NASA ask a NuTrek design guy to work for them like in the case of Mike Okuda.

True, and you know why that is?

Because that inspirational aspect has been and done already. The only way to get around that would be to truly ignore TOS and do an all new (really new) version of Trek based on future aspirations from today not based on what seemed possible in the 1960s.

This cultural impact has never been replicated since TOS because it was based on 60s issues and hopes and dreams and the subsequent series lacked it as well. That aspect of Trek is simply not what it was and what's left is the regular TV series it all became.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by kevin

Well, that's a whole different ball game of perspective.

There's no-one else's opinion going to get round being hurt your private club got opened up a bit.

My "club" was/is by no means private. I have many friends that are also Trek fans in the same regard as I. I also like other aspects of Trek, including watching starships blow each other to pieces, but I embraced the narrow minded "nerd" stigma and shoved it up... you get the point.

I also don't think the "club" was "opened up a bit", not at all. The club was replaced. It's like a ride having a 5 ft. "must be this tall" rule... then changing it to a 3 ft. rule.

[I-Am-Zim]

Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms

No substance. Lets see:

- Characters are given an origin story with a twist, showing the genesis of core characters.

The origins of an alternate reality version of the core characters was explored. We still don't know how the original TOS crew came together. And the story used wasn't that great. There were too many rediculous coincidences for it to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms

- There is an emotional impact to the events in this film beyond most Star Trek.

I disagree. USS Kelvin was destroyed, Kirk's father died, Spock's mother died, Spock's planet and most of his species died, Romulus died, 47 Klingon "Warbirds" destroyed, seven Starfleet ships destroyed. Gee I see a common thread. Death and destruction. Stuff going boom. Typical popcorn flick stuff. They didn't have enough time to adequately convey any real sense of emotional loss or impact in this movie because they had too much to cover in too little time.

Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms

- The character of Spock is given close examination in a way only seen on occasion in the series.

I sooooo disagree with that. He wasn't given "close" examination. We got to see him wail on some Vulcan brat for calling his mother a wordy derd. We got to see his human side get all gooey around Uhura. We got to see him wail on Kirk for insulting him. But close examination? No. Again, not enough time to completely flesh out the character.

Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms

- There is a great deal of substance. Social commentary and allegory, if that is what you mean, is probably for the next movie, and was not in all, or even most, Star Trek.

If by social commentary you mean that Earth looks to be a pretty crappy place to be and completely throws out GR's vision of future Earth as a utopian society, then yep, you're right. It's full of social commentary.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by kevin

Luckily, I find the Beatles vastly over-rated.

Me too! I just needed an example of some sort

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

True, and you know why that is?

Because that inspirational aspect has been and done already. The only way to get around that would be to truly ignore TOS and do an all new (really new) version of Trek based on future aspirations from today not based on what seemed possible in the 1960s.

This cultural impact has never been replicated since TOS because it was based on 60s issues and hopes and dreams and the subsequent series lacked it as well. That aspect of Trek is simply not what it was and what's left is the regular TV series it all became.

Sure, most of my examples are TOS related, but as I pointed out, many people who worked in post-TOS Trek were inspired by TOS, not so in the case of NuTrek.
And to get repetitive, folks like Mike Okuda made TNG+ Trek feel real, compared to this fake-brewery-motorbike-car-look-like-today pseudo-real.

[jla1987]

Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim

The origins of an alternate reality version of the core characters was explored. We still don't know how the original TOS crew came together. And the story used wasn't that great. There were too many rediculous coincidences for it to be taken seriously.

I agree that coincidences should have been addressed as they apparently were in a deleted scene/line. Doesn't ruin the movie for me though.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms

No substance. Lets see:

- Characters are given an origin story with a twist, showing the genesis of core characters.
- There is an emotional impact to the events in this film beyond most Star Trek.
- The character of Spock is given close examination in a way only seen on occasion in the series.

There is a great deal of substance. Social commentary and allegory, if that is what you mean, is probably for the next movie, and was not in all, or even most, Star Trek.

Completely invalid points in my opinion. Vulcan was NOT destroyed. ALT Vulcan was destroyed. Origin story? We just met these ALT characters... I could care less about their "origins"