CocaColaAddict CocaColaAddict

The New - Star Trek movie 2009

The New - Star Trek movie 2009

Hi all
I just saw the new Star Trek movie, and im thinking to myself, WTF?
I am a big movies fanatic, but if ill rate this move, ill give it 2 out of 5 stars!
First thing first, I never was a fan of Star Trek movies, yet i watchd it
and hoped they will give me some background, but during the 2 hours film, I kept woundering
who, when, why, and much more. While ignoring the fact I dont know ANYTHING about the races or history
I kept watching the movie, hoped that something will at least make sance. 

At the beginning we see a wierd battle between 2 ships, later on I got the fact
that those were the Federation battle cruiser, and a Mining Ship from the feauture,
yet im woundering how come a minig ship, even if its from the feauture, can destroy a Battle Cruiser. 
Yet the battle cruiser was completly destroyed (and how come a mining ship got weapons and shilds?)

Later on the story went something like this, the ship came from the feauture where the commander
of this mining ship got really pissed off as the federation didnt protected his home world
so he was like, "ok you killed my wife and didnt protected my homeworld, and now you die".
While his homewarld was in fact destroyed by natural couses (sun died and turned into super nova) 
he blamed everyone in it, including the guy that tryied to save it but ran out of time, not his foult
at least he tryied, but he was punished anyways. (and how come they didnt left, knowing the end is comming
I mean even today we can predict the death of a sun).

So this guy destroyed 1 planet, punishing them, and then he kept going and now he want to destroy Earth too...
Obviously blaming Earth in the natural death of a sun and the stupidity of his people. 

The story line was SO boring that I kept woundering, who was the idiot behind it?
1 angry guy, 1 big mining ship Vs the entire federation fleet.
And then there is some wierd time travel bullshit confusing me to death
so I ignored that part, imbrasing all my brain cells to figure out WTF is going on
and by the time im starting to undarstand something, 2 guys BEAM into the mining ship
killing everyone aboard, and then destroying it... with a happy ending
where you see people smiling, medals are thrown on the heros, and all are now true freands for life...
ah, and i cant just ignore the CHEAP humor, with a russian guy who cant verify a voice command
because of his half russian half american english, and an alien dwarf that looks like poo...

The only good thing I can say about this movie is the graphics
so if you are a fan of meaningless explotions, and some nice graphics, you will enjoy this film. 
And if you are a Star Trek fan maybe you will undarstand it better then I did. 
Overall, this movie was a waste of time. 

113,410 views 36 replies
Reply #26 Top

Quoting Annatar11, reply 23
It's good Trek. Don't confuse Trek with science, though. Scientifically accurate movies do not make for good entertainment

Actually the original series was commended many times for thoroughly researching the plausibility of most of the fiction that they threw at the fans.

Also am I the only one that picked up on the fact that the whole idea of putting Kirk in command hinged on the fact that the captain put him as acting XO in front of the ENTIRE commissioned and qualified crew of the ship?  He was a 3rd class cadet, who btw doesn't actually have any military rank, promoted to the position of roughly O-5 in todays military terms.  Ya ya, future military != sci-fi military but star trek has almost always used the exact same rank scheme of the navy of today.

Reply #27 Top

I'm not saying that it wasn't true star trek becuase of the nits. I'm saying it isn't true star trek becuse of the attitude of the production team, the attempts to modernize the plot, and the fan response. It was still a very good movie.

Reply #28 Top

STAR WARS > star trek

Reply #29 Top

Lol i think in age and in the size of the franices

Star Trek > Star Wars

12 Moives, 6 series, rofl the amount of series, is greater than the number of movies in star wars

Reply #30 Top

I'd like to qualify my earlier remarks by emphasizing that the whole thing is a matter of taste. I found the Abrams Trek flick to be mildly entertaining in the generally-dull sense of a Hollywood action romp.

I found the script-level Trek stuff seriously underwhelming, but I got enough enjoyment out of the acting to mostly make up for awful things like Scotty-in-the-pipes. Really, had everyone changed their head meds the day they locked down that part of the storyboard? It's really important to have stable serum levels with those fancy pharmaceuticals...

Reply #31 Top

Actually the original series was commended many times for thoroughly researching the plausibility of most of the fiction that they threw at the fans.

Like the giant god hand holding the ship in space? :P

Reply #32 Top

Like the giant god hand holding the ship in space?

I thought you didn't care for lengthy Trek canon talk? This seems like baiting for a real Trekker, which I'm not, but will attempt to play one on TV.

Yes, that episode was some truly excellent science fiction. The underlying premise was that an ancient, very hi-tech culture had used some of their toys to play with pre-classical Greeks and at least one of those aliens had come away with some durable version of having 'gone native,' as the old European imperialists used to say. The hand was special effects in both the TV production and science fiction sense of the term--the visual appearance of very powerful technology along the lines of Federation tractor beams. It looked that way because the alien who controlled it was still very hung up on thinking of itself as an ancient Greek god. Heck, that episode is not only swell science fiction, it's pretty decent dramatic TV in general, what with the conflict between romance and duty that the female red-shirt faced.

Edit: The fact that my avatar is currently part Vulcan joke is not because I'm Trek-obssessed; it is because some new folks on the Elemental boards seemed to think it was fine to 'borrow' what I thought was 'mine' on account of my having claimed it first. That, and because a forum friend was willing to do the art tweaks as a favor.

Reply #33 Top

Wait, are you actually calling that kind of fiction "plausible"? I'd love to see your explanation on how the warp drive is plausible.

"High tech" does not imply that it's even in the realm of possibility, much less plausible. That's what I was making fun of.

You must see the huge irony in picking out scientific inaccuracies in the new movie while being perfectly fine with faster than light travel without which Star Trek would not exist. ;)

Reply #34 Top

You must see the huge irony in picking out scientific inaccuracies in the new movie while being perfectly fine with faster than light travel without which Star Trek would not exist.

I give. I don't think I can get my point across to you. We don't really disagree about much except the 'Trek-worthiness' of the flick and its total entertainment value. And, like I said, I'm not a real Trekker, so this kind of seesaw also loses entertainment value for me quickly.

Plus I'm in a play-huff over your disrespect for one of the best episodes of the fine Old Show. I'm far more likely to watch that (for the Nth time) on DVD than I am to do more than scan through the Abram's Trek DVD to confirm my impression that Mr. Pine is either sporting a serious package or the costumer's put him in some life-and-separate undergear.

Reply #35 Top

Quoting Annatar11, reply 8
Wait, are you actually calling that kind of fiction "plausible"? I'd love to see your explanation on how the warp drive is plausible.

"High tech" does not imply that it's even in the realm of possibility, much less plausible. That's what I was making fun of.

You must see the huge irony in picking out scientific inaccuracies in the new movie while being perfectly fine with faster than light travel without which Star Trek would not exist.

I suppose I should rephrase what I said to mean that they tried to research the current theories as much as possible when they were introducing fictional topic, i.e. faster than light travel.  Generally instantaneous transport aside, FTL travel is conceptualized (still currently) as to either include hyperspace or a bending of the rules of normal space.  Hyperspace is generally thought of as being able to transfer to a similar alternate dimension where the distance between objects is closer and tranfer back shortening your travel time relative to the same travel in real space.  The other common theory of bending the rules of normal space, presumably how warp drive works, is to remove yourself from real space so the light speed limit doesn't apply and then go wherever you want. 

Point being that these are theoretical topics discussed today, and of course we can't do them yet otherwise they wouldn't be science fiction.  Another more real life example is that if you look at the communicators of TOS you'd be surprised at how closely they resemble flip phones.  Also hyposprays?  Yeah, they're currently researching methods of injecting medicine subcutaneously via supersonic air bursts that don't use needles.  Again i'm just stressing that they did research these kind of things when they were writing the scrips for TOS.

Reply #36 Top

Actualy a warp drive is entirely plausible, possible and occurs in our universe today (at an atomic level).

A warp drive involves moving space-time (3D of space + the D of time) that the vessel occupies rather than the other way around. It could be done using massive amonts of anti-matter (a very reall substance). However containing even tiny tiny amounts of anti-matter is a universaly challenging task...

Dont really feel like going into detail here...