[starwarsrcks]

Moments that really made you cringe or didn't like

[jerhanner]

Hmmm... The only one I can think of was in the bar, when Kirk said his name to Uhura. I didn't quite buy the "drunk" in his voice. But that's pretty small beans!

[I-Am-Zim]

Wow. Where do I begin?

1. Every scene with Spock & Uhura making out just didn't sit well with me.

2. The introduction of the Abramsprise. I think the ship is ugly and looks nothing like the original Enterprise.

3. Keesner. 'Nuf said.

4. Engineering.

5. The iBridge.

6. Abramsprise being built on the ground. Just made me say "WTF?????"

7. Cheesy communicator sound effect. There was nothing wrong with the original. Why fix it if it ain't broke??

8. James Kirk hitting on Uhura in a bar. Once again, "WTF??"

9. Lack of escape pods on the Kelvin. Where were they? Did the ship even have escape pods? 800+ crew and no escape pods? Just doesn't sound right. Shuttles have never been used as escape pods before. Why now??

That's all I can think of on short notice. I'd have to watch it again to find some more. I'm sure there are plenty. But those are the ones that stuck out in my memory.

Well, you asked.

[Vincent Cain]

Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim

Wow. Where do I begin?

1. Every scene with Spock & Uhura making out just didn't sit well with me.

2. The introduction of the Abramsprise. I think the ship is ugly and looks nothing like the original Enterprise.

3. Keesner. 'Nuf said.

4. Engineering.

5. The iBridge.

6. Abramsprise being built on the ground. Just made me say "WTF?????"

7. Cheesy communicator sound effect. There was nothing wrong with the original. Why fix it if it ain't broke??

8. James Kirk hitting on Uhura in a bar. Once again, "WTF??"

9. Lack of escape pods on the Kelvin. Where were they? Did the ship even have escape pods? 800+ crew and no escape pods? Just doesn't sound right. Shuttles have never been used as escape pods before. Why now??

That's all I can think of on short notice. I'd have to watch it again to find some more. I'm sure there are plenty. But those are the ones that stuck out in my memory.

Well, you asked.

1. Why?

2. I see a saucer section, two warp nacelles held up by struts, and a secondary cigar shaped hull; looks like the Enterprise to me.

3. Wait, what?

4. Kind of agree, kind of don't.

5. It's an Ibridge because it's white? That's the only reason I could see it being called that.

6. Again, why not?

7. How was it cheesey? That just sounds kind of anal to me....

8. Again, why not?

9. Are you well versed in that century's ship design? How do you know?

Really, it just sounds more like anal retentive well, whining.
Sorry. *shrugs*

[NCC-73515]

Those very WTF?!-moments were what made it excellent.

[I-Am-Zim]

Originally Posted by Vincent Cain

1. Why?

Personal preference. I didn't like it. It never happened in TOS. In a military/quasi-military setting aboard a starship it would be an extreme conflict of interest and could compromise the safety of the vessel and crew.

Originally Posted by Vincent Cain

2. I see a saucer section, two warp nacelles held up by struts, and a secondary cigar shaped hull; looks like the Enterprise to me.

That description is very generic and vague. It could apply to every starship that has been callled Enterprise (except NX-01). It could also apply to many different starship classes, Constitution, Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, etc. I stated that it didn't look like the original Enterprise. Which it doesn't. It looks like a starship, but not the original Enterprise.

Originally Posted by Vincent Cain

3. Wait, what?

Scotty's sidekick? Had no reason to be there. Waste of time and space.

Originally Posted by Vincent Cain

4. Kind of agree, kind of don't.

The brewery is a love it or hate it design. I personally hate it.

Originally Posted by Vincent Cain

5. It's an Ibridge because it's white? That's the only reason I could see it being called that.

Have you been on this forum long?? It's an iBridge because that's what people have been calling it ever since the first pictures came out. Abrams actually called it that himself. That's where the term originated. It also looks like a cross between an Apple store and the jewelry department at Belk.

Originally Posted by Vincent Cain

6. Again, why not?

Because it's rediculous. And because no other starship in the 40+ years of Star Trek history has ever been depicted as being built on the ground. Nor has there ever been any mention of any kind of any starship in the 40+ years of Star Trek history of a ship being built on the ground. That was change simply for change's sake. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by Vincent Cain

7. How was it cheesey? That just sounds kind of anal to me....

Maybe. But I prefer the more solid, substantial sound of the original to the high pitched weak sound of the abramsverse version. Again, personal preference.

Originally Posted by Vincent Cain

8. Again, why not?

Didn't like it. Personal preference.

Originally Posted by Vincent Cain

9. Are you well versed in that century's ship design? How do you know?

The NX-01 had escape pods a century before. Why wouldn't the Kelvin. And yes, I am well versed in the designs of starships within the Star Trek universe. I know because Capt. Robau made absolutely no mention of escape pods. Nor did George Kirk. Nor were any escape pods seen on screen.

Originally Posted by Vincent Cain

Really, it just sounds more like anal retentive well, whining.
Sorry. *shrugs*

Again, maybe. But I'm answering the question that was posted as the subject of this thread. If there was nothing that you didn't like about the movie, go to the "This Movie Was Absolute Perfection And Had No Flaws" thread. You won't see me there.

[starwarsrcks]

You are being really hard on this brilliant film everything about it was amazing maybe not to you

[I-Am-Zim]

Originally Posted by starwarsrcks

You are being really hard on this brilliant film everything about it was amazing maybe not to you

Nope. Not to me. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the movie. I did. I just expected more.

[starwarsrcks]

Why was it absolute rubbish and shouldn't have been made is that what you are saying

[I-Am-Zim]

Originally Posted by starwarsrcks

Why was it absolute rubbish and shouldn't have been made is that what you are saying

It wasn't absolute rubbish. Only sotra rubbish. It was a fun 2 hrs of sci-fi stuff blowing up, neato high-tech gadgets, and whiz-bang special effects. The term "brilliant" never came to my mind while watching it, though. It was mediocre at best.

If I had never watched any TOS in my life, I probably would have thoought this was a fantastic movie. But considering the fact that I have been a dedicated, loyal fan of TOS for over 25 years, trying to reconcile the differences between the events in this movie and what I know to be the history of the original Star Trek was an excercise in futility. This nuTrek has nothing in common with "my" Star Trek other than the names. That's my biggest problem with it.

Edit: Dangit! Before it starts: I KNOW IT'S AN ALTERNATE REALITY! AND THAT TOS IS STILL THERE UNCHANGED AND TRUCKING ALONG NICELY! The problem is that the casual moviegoer doesn't know that and won't know unless a Trekkie tells them so.

Can I ask you something? Just out of curiousity. Why did you start this thread? If you think this was a "brilliant" and flawless movie, what's the purpose of asking people what they didn't like about it? Just to stir up folks like me? Just asking.