The New - Star Trek movie 2009

Ah lol there is a topic already, didnt saw it, oh well here are my 2 cents anyways

rofl true that. Bascially they go back in time and go into an alternate universe. In which kirk's father is killed and that vulcan is destroyed. but it explains a lot even if it is in an alternate universe

The movie made star trek seem very simple...and devoid of any complexities. (ie. boring)

Examples:

1-Only 3 planets in entire movie (Earth, Vultron and the ice world) 4 if you count the breif glimps of the madman mining ship captians homeworld.

2-Only 4 different ships (Federation battleship, mining ship, small ship that carried the red matter, and the federation shuttle)

3-No real space battle. The first little skirmish is just a quick obliteration as is the one you DONT see where the mining ship destroys the entire federation battle group except the enterprise. (scratched my head on that one)

4-No large battles really of any kind

5-no jedi??! (lol)

Also i couldnt understand that despite how quickly and thoroughly the mining ship dispatched all but one of the federation battle ships...it couldnt take out just one more. (really starting to scratch my head at this point)

I think my problem is im trying to compare star trek to star wars and its just not a fair fight. poor star trek

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's many times better if you know some of the Star Trek lore. Especially the humor, as all the acting was awesome in my opinion.

This movie suck.

Then again, I didn't have the NERDSTALGIA to appreciate it

I'll second this. However, special effects aside, and despite how I still managed to enjoy this one, there had been better Star Trek movies.

There is already a very long thread about it here.

Sylar is Spock

Saint Mina of Ophelia VII of Order of the Bloody Rose of Orders Militant of Adepta Sororitas

Wiping out entire fleets isn't that hard to believe.  This is before they had good sensors.  They warped into a natural disaster and got a surprise attack with their shields down instead.  The Enterprise survived because they had their shields up and ran like crazy when they started getting shot at.  Shields make all the difference in Star Trek, even really weak shields would block a few hits before getting overloaded.  A single torpedo to the hull could be game over.

Those are also very small ships by TNG standards, the mining vessel being post TNG.  The original Enterprise is only about 300 meters long, the Enterprise E is about 700.  They have vastly superior weapons and shields as well, the Enterprise E could easily take on any fleet of it's choice from the TOS era, probably all of them together.  This is with the Enterprise, having not even been christened yet at this point, being the most advanced and powerful ship in the fleet by quite a stretch.

A mining vessel wouldn't be particularly powerful against equals, but just the cutting beams for mining at that stage would likely have far outstripped such dated technology.  Any defensive weaponry they had for their deepspace mining operations would have been a bonus.

Just think if you had kevlar body armor and a semi automatic 9 mill 230 years ago, you'd be a god in a gun fight if you could shoot worth a damn.  That's cop gear these days.  You could have tipped the balance in the revolutionary war all by yourself just with publically available gear.

The  new star trek movie had a flaw. The flaw was that they needed to give out way to much information for a 2 hour movie. They would of needed 4 hours to be able to put everybody at the same level.

I'm sure the next movie will be much better because they won't need to convay so much this time. They will be ablet o spend more time on the story

the movie was excellent, saw it 2x!

I thought it was an excellent movie, but I can understand not enjoying it without some Star Trek background.

I was surprised how much the good acting made up for the numerous very annoying aspects of the film, chief among them the very, very silly business of that 'drill head' dangling from orbit and no one at Star Fleet HQ having an armed ship to send to just shoot the cable. Taking down the defense net with stolen codes explains getting safely into orbit. Nothing explains the complete abscence of independent armed ships in or near San Francisco. The Academy alone should have been able to field a squad of lightly armed training shuttles, if nothing else.

p.s. Seems like Christopher Pine's pretty face was some metaphor for how the hardcore Trekkers made the retconning director feel during production. The beatings started early and kept going and going and going...

I lol'd

Yeah, severe plothole on the drill platform.  Not bad to have a movie with only one ridiculously retarded part though.  That's really good shit these days...

I was dragged reluctantly into that theatre and remarkably surprised overall. But I'd worked hard on ignoring my basic hatred of retconning and young Mr. Pine is not hard at all on man-fan eyes.

Really, though, there are at least two ridiculously retarded parts. I wonder how many useful jobs could have been paid for with the money they spent on that Scotty-in-the-plumbing segment. The drill is offensive on a wargaming level, but that business of big, water-filled, often-transparent plumbing on the freakin' Engterprise...

I don't know, I think beaming from a planet to a warp travelling starship that's already pretty damn far away was more retarded than the plumbing tubes. Why need spaceships at all then? Just transport people from planet to planet!

Increased chance of transporter accidents perhaps?

I found the 'scotty in the plumbing' part particularily hillarious. The movie had tons of humor in it for those who have watched previous star trek movies/episodes.

I didn't think the plot was confusing at all... You just have to be used to 'typical' scifi plots which involve time travel, alternate universes, ect.

Well, the nitpickers (myself included) have crated a pretty good rundown on the other thread, but I will summarize here:

1. If the Federation can make hovering vehicles, why are there still well-maintained roads. My dad is in charge of logistics for a large university, and he claims that roads cost a fortune to maintain.
2. When ever McCoy shoots him with a hypo, Kirk yells or does something else to indicate that it hurts. Star Trek hypos use an atomization system, which is painless.(But then again, we're changing everything ELSE in the seires, so why not that?) Now, some people have said that the hypos may not have been invented yet, but I seem to remember the spray variety used in the Enterprise series, which is set before this.
   
3. OK, so McCoy's mud-(something) vaccine causes Kirk's hands to swell dramatically. Ok, the vaccine seems a bit rapid in its effects (It can take hours for something to get absorbed into a person's system), but not being a doctor, I will refrain from comment. However, with that much fluid or blood or air or whatever in his hands, Kirk should notice something's up (I've had my hands swell up a little and another poster named Phaedyme claims to have as well, and it ITCHES!!) But he doesn't seem to notice the swelling until he looks at himself.
4. Not only do Kirk and gang make it from hard vacuum (probably ORBIT) to breatheable atmosphere in a surprisingly short period of time, but there is also no re-entry heat. And, they slow down from sevearl hundred KPS to survivable fall speed in an instant: the G-force from that sort of thing would puree any human, even with a shock-absorbing suit. Finally, they do this with PARACHUTES! I don't have the #s in front of me, but that does not seem like it would work.
5. Ok, so for whatever reason Nero is compelled to drill into Vulcan's core to drop the hole. Then, the planet is destroyed in a matter of minutes. However, I read somewhere that it would take hours or even days for a black hole at an Earth-sized planets's core to destroy it. Granted, the planet would become uninhabitible long before then, but in the movie the whole thing implodes in a few minutes.
6. Why does young Spock take the Vulcan elders all the way out onto the cliff. Even if they couldn't be beamed out of the cave itself, they could have stopped at the entrance.
7. There seems to be an absecnce of the usual acceleration ring around all of the movie's black holes, but then again, these ARE the Magical "Red Matter" Kind Of Black Holes.
8. In order to produce a black hole of the size pictured in the movie, the "Red Matter" would have to be EXTREMELY dense, dense enough that the blob in Spock-Prime's ship would be distorting the light around it. Yet we see no warping or other odd effects (then again, maybe THAT'S why it looks red....)
9. When Kirk's pod crashes onto Delta Vega, it makes a rather small hole in the ice, considering that it FELL FROM SPACE!!!! (I have seen several complaints that this Delta Vega does not look like the Delta Vega in TOS, but most Earth-like environments DO have polar ice caps, so that can be explained.) I know it could have decelearted, but there would still be an aweful lot of heat that would melt the ice.
   
10. There is a bit of consternation(sp?) over the fact that Spock can see Vulcan implode from Delta-Vega. This can be explained by the Vulcans' psionic abilities: in the TOS episode The Immuntiy Syndrome, Spock can sense the deaths of other Vulcans over interstellar distances.
    
11. A regular super-nova could never threaten anything more than it's immediate system in the time frame depicted by the movie, unless it had some sort of Subspace component that allows it to travel fater than light. Even then, I find it hard to beieve that it would threaten the ENTIRE SECTOR!! Supposedly the supernova was 130 years old, but the whole thing just looks wrong.
    
12. Also, how come these universe-destroying celestial events never seem to happen in a place or time where the Fed cannot correct them?
13. This is just a complaint about beaming in general, but it especially applies to the water scene: unless someone is beaming into a perfect vacuum, there is going to be air or something in their place. Where does it go? The only thing I can think of is that it is somehow displaced by the transport process, but that would create a definate "pop" whenever someone beamed down.
14. An average human can hold their breath for around a minute before passing out, which in water means drowning (some people can do more, but they are swimmers etc. who have special training). Now, even assuming that there is air in the tank itself, Scotty is underwater for considreably longer than that, and he comes out conscious and sputtering. Actually, now that I look back, it seems as though that sort of breath-control training would be a good thing to have in Starfleet.
    
15. The tank again. When Kirk opens the hatch, there is surprisingly little water, considering that the tube was full and apparently under some level of pressure. I would have expected an absolute torrent.
16. Nero bores a hole into San Francisco. The problem is, that hole looks like it goes deep into the seabed, probably penetrating the crust. If so, even though Kirk saves the day, there is going to be MASSIVE geological disruption all through the city. Earthquakes, probably some lava, maybe an few islands forming in the bay, that sort of thing. Yet, at the end of the movie, eveything seems hunky-dory.
17. That, and the lack of ships to shoot the drill stalk.
18. The Narada lingers in that black hole for an awefully long time. It shouold have gone right in in the space of a few seconds. Also, Nero's image should have been distorted and slowed down by the relativistic effects.
    
19. Also, the black hole that swallows the Narada seems about the same size as the one that ate Vulcan. Since there was hundreds of times more "Red Matter" involved in the creation of the latter, it seems like it would have been, i dunno, HUNDREDS OF TIMES BIGGER?
20. I also noticed that the black holes in the movie look like a 2-D disc. The real kind are perfect spheres. But then again, these ARE the Magical "Red Matter" Kind Of Black Holes.
21. Finally, I find it a bit odd that a black hole destroys the Narada, considering that it passed through A BLACK HOLE in the beginning with no ill effects. (Actually, this could be explained by #18, if the second hole actually WAS larger.
22. Yes, some more! In the prologue, the crew of the Kelvin monitors their capitain's vital sines and can tell when his heart rate rises and when he dies. However, when Pike comes aboard the Narada and is captured and tortured, the Enterprise crew doesn't know about it. They should have, if they had used the same monitoring tech, which at this point is at least 20 years old!
23. Spock blows open the hangar doors on the Narada and escapes. However, in the interior scenes, there is no outrushing air. I realise there might be a force field or something, but it would take a few seconds to come up.
24. The enterprise needs to use a warp core explosion to escape the black hole. However, at this point, they have not reached the event horizon, so the escape velocity should be BELOW light speed.
25. Some people complain about the Narada's weapons abilities: this is explained by the backstory, as the Narada got Borg technology from a group of Romulan scientists who survived the destruction of Romulus.

good post Scoutdog

The more I hear of this movie, the less inclined I am to watch it.

It seems just like the U.S. government. Make it flashy, even if it is totally wrong. Sell it on glitz, because the Truth would never work to your favor.

Well, in my opinion, it was a good movie. Just not good Trek.

It's good Trek. Don't confuse Trek with science, though. Scientifically accurate movies do not make for good entertainment

"Good Trek" is most certainly in the eye of the beholder. Good casting, good acting, and piles of special effects money do not a good Trek make, IMO. I'm starting to lose some of my loathing for retconned titles mostly via The Ultimates, but even if retcon is OK by you, there's still doing the job well and doing it pretty badly.

Now that's just going too far. What you mean is that a tedious devotion to accuracy can wreck a film. I didn't see Apollo 13, but it was a huge commercial success and from what I read was also very faithful to the science (well, engineering mainly, I guess) at the heart of the story.

And commercial success does not equal good entertainment, either

It was a classic Trek-like adventure. That's what makes it a good Trek movie. Its inaccuracies are no different than any other Trek show or movie, yet the long list above mostly points out those scientific inaccuracies and reaches the conclusion that it's not "good Trek" - but then by that definition none of the shows or previous movies are good