[Livingston]

Originally Posted by The Saint

As I made clear, it wasn't a matter of "couldn't resist," it was a matter of, "Oh, God, fine. If you people absolutely can't grasp the concept of putting clues together to get an accurate idea of the thing they're clues of, I'll go see the damn thing."

Come on, it was fun though, wasn't it? You were just a little enthralled watching it weren't you? I mean, regardless of any plot/story criticism, this compared to TOS, it was an experience and I don't just mean brainless eye candy. There was a hint of majesty there wasn't there? The final frontier, expanse. Unknown territory. I felt the film really captured that well. Space, the final frontier, it captured that well, I thought.

[omegaman]

He's got a point with some aspects. And I loved the movie, but its true there are flaws.

[Scribbler]

I've seen star Trek twice since release. The movie was a non-stop fun experience. the new Enterprise was as incredible as I knew it would be. The new cast were great, everyone had a moment in the spotlight. I felt Nero was underexplained and some of the science was a bit silly, but the film was such a great rollercoaster of fun, it's not something I'm going to get hung up on. This was my daughter's first Star Trek film in the theatre. She went absolutely mental - she loved it, so much so, we're seeing it again this morning. Her reaction was the important one for the future of Star Trek. New fans, and a new dawn.

And now a review of the forum. My first experience on a Star Trek forum has been a mixed one. I've met some great people, bright people with interesting views and enthusiastic outlooks on life. The sense of community has been fantastic and really added to the excitement of the movie. Then there were the nitpickers, the people who visited the forum night after night and poured toxic criticism on a movie they hadn't even seen yet. The vultures are already gathering to pick on every little aspect of the movie and this doesn't interest me at all. Frankly, with hindsight (actually I think I said most of this beforehand, but moving on...) a lot of the pre-movie criticism was completely stupid. Most of the vitriol surrounding the design of the Enterprise has evaporated and many of the biggest haters have done a 180 after actually seeing it.

I've enjoyed every episode of every series and all the movies, each in their own way. I'm glad I don't view the world of Star Trek through the cynical kaleidoscope of negativity that some people do. One idiot descibed a plot point as eating away at him like a cancer (come on!)

I don't know if I will repeat this forum experience for the next movie. I believe that too much information is given away and the method of excessive observation of individual details works against actually getting into the spirit of the movie. All I can say is I loved Star Trek as a kid. My daughter loves it now. That's how I want to feel, and I'm lucky because I still can.

[robbo298]

I'll be honest, after months of excitement I was greatly let down by this movie. I'm not that supprised either - after watching the awful Cloverfield I shouldn't have raised my hopes so much.

Abrams has negated every last Star Trek film, suggesting the last 10 movies were not good enough for him, so he has in effect, wiped them from existance.

The whole movie for me felt like one long trailer, there was barely any time to catch you breath because of the pace. You never got time to get to know much of the characters, they didn't really have any back stories, we never got to hear about the capabilities of the ship.

The most annoying point for me was the parody of Star Trek TOS itself. I'm talking about the blatent and almost humourous death of the Chief Engineer (You know, the unknown in the red uniform). That kind of humour is acceptable on Family Guy.

Why did Abrams change so much, even things that weren't broken? What about the iconic and familiar tone of the red alert alarm and those pathetic excuses instead of ejecting an actual warp core? Did anyone know those people were Romulans before Kirk said they were? There were Romulans in the last movie - even from the same time peroid so why change them. Where was the Star Trek tech, there was no explanation for anything.

I suppose its because I'm a hard-core Trek fan, and maybe I was expecting too much from Abrams. If this were just another space battle movie, then I'd give it 8/10. But this is Star Trek and for me, its dead. 3/10

[The Saint]

I'm still lost over how a star could go supernova and wipe out any planet outside its own system. I'd like to assume it was Romulus's star, except that if I recall correctly, Spock said that "a star will explode and threaten to destroy the galaxy." Um.... wwwwwwwokay. Makes you wonder how many times the galaxy has been destroyed by, y'know, all those other stars that have exploded.

[RedShirtsRuS]

Originally Posted by startrek fan

the actors simply looked too young on screen and it was hard to take them seriously.

So if you see a young looking person on screen it automatically registers in your head as being hard to take them seriously?

I'm really tired of the "too young" argument.

ALL the actors are older than they look. They really are. Look it up.

People are looking younger at a later age naturally, as our life span is increased through breakthroughs in medical technology and medicine.

The average human life span in Star Trek in the 23rd century IS a century. At least they had the foresight to write that into the underlying story.

We look fairly younger now than our ancestors did around the same age. It's a fact.

I can somewhat understand your predjudice against young looking people, we are typecast in some really bad movies that enhance a negative stereotype.(I'm looking at you Twilight). This reinforces why young looking people are taken less seriously.

I however don't share that predjudice.

[Admiral Archer]

As of this writing, I'm in a bit of a crunch for time. But make no mistake that what I'm about to say is absolutely positively truly my honest opinion.

I give it a minimum score of 15 out of 10.

This film is not only the greatest Star Trek film ever made, nor is it even only the greatest movie ever made, but it is also one of the greatest stories ever told in the history of mankind. Every aspect of this film is beyond perfect. It is a total and complete master work of art.

I will elaborate when I have more time and words to do so.

[The Saint]

I'd readily agree with the reviewer who said that, as a light popcorn flick, it's fairly good. I walked into this, though -- way back when -- with much, much higher expectations. To be generous, though, while it didn't have most of the good things I've come to expect from Star Trek more than any other franchise, it also left a couple of the more annoying bad things we've gotten used to from TNG onward: obnoxious cascades of technobabble and a total lack of subtlety with the moral theme of the story.

[Livingston]

greatest stories ever told in the history of mankind! Wow! I'm completely sold on this movie and think it is second only to TWOK but greatest story told in the history of mankind! Wow!

So you liked this one, Admiral Archer?

[startrek fan]

it is not hate mongering. i went into the film hoping for something good, especially because it is a jj adrams movie. however after the first half an hour or so, the immediate impression was that it was star trek nemesis all over again. it was not a surprise that they were going after earth at the end because of that. the plot had silmilar aspects. beyond that, a startrek film has to have follow startrek history, like in one other thread, someone talked about the size of the NCC1701 not being right. purely from an entertainment point of view, if one has not been following startrek tv series or movies, it does has entertainment value, but as a startrek movie, it was poor. in a way, it is kind of like telling everyone who has watched previous startrek movies, and tv series that they have been wasting their time.