[Graham]

Ok Detrius, I will take you on.

The films were dying? The Star Trek films? Yeah they were. So WHY make another in the first place? That was the first mistake with this movie.

Spock kissing Uhura is completely, completely unnecessary to show Spock's conflict. They had already perfectly set it up, Spock as a child going nuts on his schoolmates. They showed his reaction to watching his planet implode and his mother die, you could TELL he wanted to kick and scream and beat the shit out of somebody. You could tell, even when Kirk had beaten his test, that he was burning with rage inside. It wasn't Spock kissing Uhura, it was Uhura kissing spock. Where the hell did that COME from? Nowhere, that's where. Just, "oh, Spock, I'm so sorry...I'm so sorry...i want to make you feel better...i know you just lost 8 billion of your species and your mother but...oh..Spock...*tear*...*kiss*kiss*" WTF is that?

The goal of developing Spock's character shouldn't be to show how "human" he is. If it was he wouldn't be holding such a high position at the Academy. I'm willing to concede some of my points, and if there's one I absolutely will not concede on, is the idea that Spock was shown to be more "human" so that Kirk could meet Scotty? Excuse me? A Vulcan, half human or not, would NEVER do that. Hell, a HUMAN wouldn't even do that! They are in STARFLEET! They're heading back to Earth anyways and Spock would like to see nothing else other than Kirk in the brig for his entire career.

So they make him freak out and send Kirk to Hoth, why? To show how conflicted and deeply disturbed he is? Hey man, wasn't that what Uhura was for? The fact that they have to make him do this just so that Kirk meets Scotty is only proof of how terrible these writers are. This was the best way for them to get all these characters together on the same ship? To have a Vulcan act like a lunatic HUMAN?

I don't agree that the movie would be an hour shorter if they hadn't fucked with the nature of Vulcans like that. There were many routes they could have taken at this point. Hell, they could have had the balls to write a story about the real characters in the real Star Trek universe and that would have saved all of this.

Time travel, I suppose it isn't really "time travel" in this movie so much as it is "alternate reality travel" but same pile...yeah I know it's been around in the past. I'm willing to go with it once in awhile. At least going back in time to save some whales was comedic. What i don't like is when they make a franchise like Enterprise and base a quarter of the episodes on time travel and "temporal war." I was getting on my own soapbox there about time travel so I'll give you that one.

I can also concede the Romulan point.

Look, what I'm trying to say is that every re-incarnation of this franchise has had to make a change for the current times, and on the whole, I, and the people I know who have seen this, have enjoyed this reworking.
They needed to get the film out there, but also give it a future that wasn't tied to the 60's series and the previous films....

Fair enough. But let's consider how monumental the original series was and how this series does absolutely nothing in it's wake. This was a series originally created in the 60s, about a futuristic and advanced time period of the human race. Roddenberry depicted the bridge's crew as such, international cooperation and a black chick. That was pretty bold, to have a Russian on the bridge during the cold war. The whole point of this was to of course, at a time of uncertainty and escalating tensions between nations, that in the future we would all work together as a single race.

That's HUGE. I would like somebody to tell me, how you can claim to "revive" a franchise with that kind of track record, by making a movie based on making black holes out of red goo and some reinvented species of Vulcan. I mean, take your pick of world issues. There's a LOT right now. Roddenberry didn't create a space opera, he created a show for the times. For space opera, see "George Lucas."

The people who made this movie, they created a movie for the times alright: a movie devoid of substance, created for a society with the attention span of a fly.

[direwolf74]

The people who made this movie, they created a movie for the times alright: a movie devoid of substance, created for a society with the attention span of a fly.

I disagree. I'm a huge fan of the original series, TNG, and all the films that followed. And I thought the new movie was terrific. My fellow co-worker (also a big Trekkie) loved it as well. I thought the movie did a nice job of keeping the spirit of the original franchise intact, while also throwing in some new twists and action to draw in people who had perhaps never heard of the original series. I understand why you didn't like it. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have bad taste or short attention spans just because we enjoyed the film. I get that you wanted the movie to be more thoughtful and reflect the issues of the day. I too would like to see them delve into that aspect of the series in the next movie (if there is one). But this is an origin story, which is very tough to do when you're trying to re-boot a franchise. Not only do you have to satisfy the die-hards, but you also have to make it entertaining and accesible enough to put butts in the seats and make enough money to at least cover your budget. If Star Trek wanted to survive, it needed a good swift kick in the ass, and that's exactly what J.J. Abrams did with this film. Sure, it's not exactly the thinking man's Star Trek that we're used to, and it's got more action, romance, and humor than your average Trek film or episode. But I still found it to be a smart, fun, well acted, and well crafted sci-fi adventure. For me the storyline had enough substance and was enough of an homage to feed my inner Trekkie, while being entertaining as hell at the same time. I hope they make more of them.

[Graham]

Why can't an origin story reflect the current times? And moreso, it WASNT an origin story, it was an alternate reality, remember? So this isn't how Kirk and Spock REALLY met up.

So....why couldn't this one also reflect the times? Why wait, as you suggest, until the next movie to make it more thought provoking?

Not only do you have to satisfy the die-hards, but you also have to make it entertaining and accesible enough to put butts in the seats and make enough money to at least cover your budget

See, this is what I despise about the film industry. It's not about art. It's about covering your ass and your budget. It's about making a profit. You can't make the film you want because they have this down to a fucking formula, how to make a movie that people will watch en masse and how to make money from it. And that's exactly what this movie is/was. I'm not saying you specifically have bad taste or no attention span, but let's face it, most people do when it comes to these kinds of movies. Speaking of these kinds of movies, I can now lump Star Trek in with them. Unfortunate.

You said that this wasn't the thinking man's Star Trek, "like we're used to." Isn't that what Star Trek was? About thinking, and pondering? A bit philosophical? If so, then why, to "reboot" the Star Trek name and "save" the franchise, did they have to cut that out? Why did they choose to eliminate any trace of philosophy or thought?

If this is what the new Star Trek movies or future series will look like, the JJ Abrams vision of flash and action scenes, then I am a pre-Abrams-era Star Trek fan. I want the thinking man's Star Trek, which is what let Star Trek rise above the fray of mediocre Sci Fi in the first place. Future Star Trek could find it's place amongst the dozens of mediocre to piss-poor shows they run as fillers on the Space channel.