[Botany Bay]

Originally Posted by omegaman

Anyone else wondering why McCoy was making such a fuss onboard the shuttle that was simply transporting him from Iowa to Star Fleet Academy. Are we to assume the shuttle had to fly into space to get from Iowa to San Francisco?

And another no-brainer from a movie that was so full of no-brainers. Thanks omega, I didnt even realize that one.

However, I enjoyed to watch the flick, seriously. But the longer the movie sinks in the more moronic it gets. Its still a fun flick and worth its money for being the spectatcle it is. But you cant say the movie hadnt had a huge load of stupidities in it.

[Steve Gennarelli]

With all the complaining and kvetching going on here, I hope JJ avoids all of the boards and blogs.
To me, seeing "Star Trek" come back is a gift. Let's not walk over this gift with our dirty, muddy sneakers. I'm grateful for my 2 hr plus gift.
If Roddenberry, Harve Bennett or Rick Berman had made this movie, there would be things to complain about too...

[Kataan]

Originally Posted by The Saint

So can the classic one. I think what he meant was using the new actors to portray the original universe characters in adventures we haven't seen that happened before and during the original five year mission.

Bingo there Saint, there is know reason why they can't maintain the original timeline of TOS and use these new actors playing the original crew and intersparse new adventures and stories in between the ones that have already been written.

The problem I see is allot of people are jumping on the band wagon with praise, which in reality it deserves, but not at the sacrifice for continuity and history established by 5 series and 10 movies before this one!

This has the potential to catapult trek to new heights if they don't screw it up for the wham bam thank you mam crowd that are only concerned about sex and action and no real meat in the story line.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Steve Gennarelli

With all the complaining and kvetching going on here, I hope JJ avoids all of the boards and blogs.
To me, seeing "Star Trek" come back is a gift. Let's not walk over this gift with our dirty, muddy sneakers. I'm grateful for my 2 hr plus gift.
If Roddenberry, Harve Bennett or Rick Berman had made this movie, there would be things to complain about too...

Sure, they'd have made a less impressive yet smarter movie. "Dark Knight" showed that you can create an intelligent, thematically rich yet also action-packed "big" movie.
The "best of both worlds" is possible, so what is wrong about pointing out that this movie is a blockbuster, yet not smart?

[Botany Bay]

Originally Posted by Steve Gennarelli

With all the complaining and kvetching going on here, I hope JJ avoids all of the boards and blogs.

I havent read all the complaints of all the posts here, but even to the risk of repeating someone else, just let me give you my main complaint:

Nero is thrown back in time and instead of working to prevent the future destruction of Romulus he decides to take revenge on Spock and the Federation because they will fail to prevent a catastrophy he doesnt bother to prevent himself.

Thats as if I see my wife die of lung cancer because she smoked her whole life and I blame the doctors for her death. Then I am accidently thrown back in time, but instead to warn my wife about her future death I go and kill the doctors.

I mean, WTF?

Or how about this: Spock travels back in time and gets marooned on Delta Vega, where he meets Kirk, who got marooned there too, completely coincidentally. And then he meets Montgomery Scott, also completely coincidentally. And coincidentally the future Montgomery Scott had developed a formula for beaming people many lightyears away, a formula no one has ever heard about, and completely coincidentaly Spock remembers that formula. Thats as if Abraham Lincoln gets thrown back in time, strands in a desert where he meets George Washington and King George, who coincidentally ended up there and all three find a convenient way to declare the independence of the United States without bloodshed while also all three win in Lotto to conveniently pay their trips home. Now thats what I call suspension of disbelief.

But again, the movie was absolutely enjoyable for plundering the greatest moments of Trek and tacking them together. Seriously, I had fun with it.

[Kataan]

Originally Posted by Steve Gennarelli

With all the complaining and kvetching going on here, I hope JJ avoids all of the boards and blogs.
To me, seeing "Star Trek" come back is a gift. Let's not walk over this gift with our dirty, muddy sneakers. I'm grateful for my 2 hr plus gift.
If Roddenberry, Harve Bennett or Rick Berman had made this movie, there would be things to complain about too...

My only complaint there Steve is I don't think Roddenberry would have thrown the last 4 decades of his shows life out the window in the name of making tons of money for the action and sex crowd.

He appears to me as a man of conviction that really cared about what he wrote and directed for this series. Star Trek has never been about the action, it's always been about "The Message" written between the lines that Gene wanted us to get out of each of his creations.

There was no such message in this current movie. Action and sex were the key players this time.

Mark my words all those people trumpeting the current movie about how great it is wouldn't be there to support it if it wasn't doing well. We have a ficle society today and allot of fly-by-nighters that are only around when the going is good and slink back into the woodwork when it's not.

I have been with Trek since I was a teenager, almost 30 years ago, so I have some time invested with this show, through the good and bad, I never gave up and lost interest.

Show me that from this current generation of viewers and then we can talk on even terms.

Star Trek is a unique beast that has things that other shows have never had and it's written history and continuity are one of them. These things are what make it what it is today, and if you just simply throw that out the window in favor of the fly-by-nighters I have mentioned you might as well not even call it star trek anymore, because it isn't.

I will apologize as my comments are not directed at you but I am just a little frustrated because I feel the movie could have satified the "new" crowd and not thrown the history out the window in the process.

[mmoore]

Sorry folks, but not everyone needs (or wants) the slow-moving technobabbling 3.5 hour movie. I want to be entertained. This movie is entertaining.

Hate it if you want. Maybe next time you'll skip it and let the rest of us have a good time. We will anyway, but hey.

[the_lizard]

Originally Posted by mmoore

Sorry folks, but not everyone needs (or wants) the slow-moving technobabbling 3.5 hour movie. I want to be entertained. This movie is entertaining.

Hate it if you want. Maybe next time you'll skip it and let the rest of us have a good time. We will anyway, but hey.

YAY!!

My thoughts exactly.

[neoracer_xox]

I was kinda hopin we'd see how they get the Enterprise to orbit, I don't know why I was expecting it but did they leave it to the imagination on purpose or saving that technology for another movie to be seen. Either way it was cool and I loved the reveal in the movie.

[MissionTrek08]

Sorry, but even the idea of casting TOS as not part of the sex and action genre to then blame Abrams' film was embodying it is just ignoring history... which is exactly what critics are accusing Abrams of doing.

Bad basis for a logical argument.