Star Trek

If can you get past young Jimmy Kirk taking a '66 ‘Vette for a 23rd-century thrill ride while jamming to The Beastie Boys’ “Sabotage,” then you should be okay with the rest of J.J. Abrams’ hyperactive, pop explosion refit of the Star Trek franchise.

Sure, there’s a lot of energy-drink-fueled teen giddiness and slapstick to the proceedings—at times you’d think it was Stardate 90210. And while it’s true Old Trek sometimes spent too much time sitting around talking, this new version feels a like a kid on a sugar rush, running circles around the room until you want to scream “Just STOP for a moment! Stand still and take a breath!”

But hey, I love me some Beatsies, and overall, this is one helluva fun Trek--Star or otherwise. Maybe it’s a little too obsessed with hooking in younger, non-Trekkie viewers (product placement in a Trek film feels a lot like billboards at Wrigley Field), but considering all the hoops it has to jump through to get its origin story off the ground… while pleasing both newbies and devotees… and while introducing a very young, fresh-faced cast playing pop-cultural icons… well, this is a fine, fine start. One that not only leaves you breathlessly entertained, but giddy with anticipation for where Abrams and his co-creators can go next now that they have the hard part out of the way.

There is a plot—it involves Nero, a Romulan miner (Eric Bana) on an avenge-the-dead-wife mission (not the last shade of Khan the new film offers up) that involves going back in time almost two centuries and putting a serious hurt on the core systems in the budding United Federation of Planets. (An entity I’m not sure is ever mentioned in the film.)  Nero's first pounce comes just as Baby Kirk is being born (in space, not Riverside, Iowa—although he'll grow up there and the town still gets a nice shout out).

In what is a surprisingly touching moment amid the chaos, baby Jimmy Kirk is named and then left a fatherless rebel-to-be. (One critic noted that as the shuttle carrying Momma Kirk and her newborn waif retreats from Nero’s attack, it is literally the last time in his life James T. Kirk will back away from anything.) The Romulan with the Tyson face tattoo then pops back up 25 years later to continue his rampage, rushing the newly commissioned Starfleet flagship Enterprise into action with a crew comprised almost solely of cadets. (More Khan echoes.)

All of this, however, is pretense. Star Trek’s true goal is two-sided: Get young James T. Kirk (Christopher Pine) into the captain’s chair of the Enterprise and get his friendship with his Academy rival, Spock, started.

The ship, its captain, and its first officer will become legendary in time, but Abrams’ Star Trek wields a double-edged sword. The new film benefits from most of us already knowing—directly or indirectly—who these characters are. But that advantage cuts the other way as well, as comparisons to the original actors and their hard-earned dynamic are inevitable.

To everyone’s credit, they all hold their own nicely. Unlike the woe-begotten Hayden Christensen, Pine hits the ground running on his way to Movie Stardom—his lack of intimidation by the boots he needs to fill perfectly echoes Kirk’s own reckless confidence. There are plenty of times when Pine’s New Kirk comes off as an annoying jerk (the infamous Kobayashi Maru test is sadly tossed off as a smug, cocky joke) and his spastic womanizing feels more Van Wilder than Virile Leader.

But then you realize that’s the point. This is young Kirk, all impulse and swagger—he has 30 to 40 more years to season into the Kirk we last saw. Though it is unfortunate the film almost completely skips over his years at Starfleet Academy—Kirk appears to come out of the experience utterly unchanged from the unfocused horndog he went in as. (And yep, he beds a green-skinned Orion lass.)

Meanwhile Zachary Quinto has the doubly demanding job of taking over the role of Mr. Spock. Not only does Spock require the expression of emotion without actually expressing emotion, but Quinto has to do so under the watchful, arched eyebrows of the character’s originator.

The Heroes actor comes through perfectly. When Leonard Nimoy began playing Spock, the character was little more than an exotic prop that the actor, over the course of the next 25 years, developed into the soul of the franchise. Right out of the blocks, Quinto’s Spock is more assertive and yes, emotional (and sports more baby-face softness than Nimoy's sharp angles). And in what may be the move that elicits the most disapproving gasps from the Trekkies, he’s already getting his Vulcan groove on.

The rest of the crew is solid. As Sulu, John Cho gets to show off during a daring sword fight on a shaky mining platform. And I’ve had an eye on Anton Yelchin since last year’s underrated Charlie Bartlett—his Chekov functions mainly as one long snicker about his youth and accent, but here’s hoping the exposure gets the talented young actor a lot more work. (He’s also in Terminator: Salvation later this month.)

The character getting the biggest upgrade in the new film is Uhura—no longer just a lovely woman in a miniskirt and knee boots, she’s now a lovely, intelligent, independent, assertive woman in a miniskirt and knee boots. Zoe Saldana may have been placed here to give the marketing department a hot chick to slap on the posters and to bring some steamy sizzle to the mostly male cast, but she makes it clear Uhura is no longer going to be content to sit at the counsel and read off subspace transmissions.

If Uhura steps up, someone has to step back, and that’s Simon Pegg’s Montgomery Scott. Scotty shows up late in the frenetic proceedings to function mostly as comic relief and a bit of plot mechanism. (The film goes to great lengths to shuffle everyone around and then greater leaps to shuffle—or beam—them back.) But Pegg's having a blast, and the requisite Scotty Scene is so easily anticipated you'll find yourself counting down the seconds until Kirk yells down to Engineering and Scotty yells back.

Karl Urban makes the most of it as McCoy, nailing the character to the extent he can with little to do. Acting as the adult supervision on this ship of teenyboppers, the irritable country doctor plays straight man to Kirk’s irrepressible womanizing and lackadaisical ambition (we're not quite sure if Kirk wants to get on the Enterprise because he craves action or another run at Uhura--most likely both), but in this film we don’t yet see Bones functioning as the captain’s humane conscience. He doesn’t even spar much with Spock, though the script shoe-horns in most of his famous quips.

In fact, Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman do that a lot—sticking in little Original Series bon mots and Easter eggs for older fans. There’s even a Red Shirt, doing exactly what Red Shirts have always done: showing the main characters what NOT to do.

Such nods are a cute and inoffensive way to nab some cheap crowd-pleasing, but I remain unimpressed by Abrams' handling of characters. My suspicion is that he has trouble seeing them as much more than puzzle pieces to be moved around in creation of mystery and spectacle. Star Trek gets by thanks to the aforementioned nostalgia bump, but next time out the film makers better get to work on giving their versions of the characters new actions and attitudes that define them, rather than borrowing from the nostalgia bin.

With all these youngsters dashing about and trying to wreck Dad’s starship, it’s nice to have two fine, experienced actors nudging them in the right direction. First up is Bruce Greenwood as Captain Christopher Pike. It’s Pike who grabs young Jim Kirk by the scruff of his drunken neck and says “shape up and fly right”—his “what are you doing with your life?” lecture is one of the films’ few quiet pleasures.

Picking up where Pike leaves off is Prime Spock, or Old Spock. Nimoy gently steps into the film acting as an anchor to the canonical franchise continuity. But most of all, Nimoy brings all his dignity and grace to bear on a task almost more important than saving the world: making sure Young Kirk and Young Spock play nice and become the life-long friends they are destined to be. More than just a gimmicky cameo, Nimoy’s Spock gives the film its Gandalf (or Merlin or Obi-wan) while reminding us how rich and deep run the traditions Abrams is now caretaking.

Sure there are complaints to file with Starfleet Command. Starting with the absence of any sort of time or attention paid to explain what Starfleet is. As in the films and TV shows, you get the sense that Kirk and Spock’s Enterprise is the only ship in the entire fleet that can actually do any thing correctly—it is forever either the first ship on the scene or the last one standing.

And yes, the film is stuffed to bursting with non-stop action. But Abrams, like so many of his peers, needs to understand that action does not automatically equal adventure. Kirk and Company do a lot in a very short time, but there are times when you feel the film is just piling it on in fear of leaving a single scene or moment un-goosed. The Bond and Batman reboots took franchises that had become too silly and campy and toned and slowed them down. Abrams’ Star Trek does the opposite, taking what had become a too-solemn, ponderous affair and setting fire to the ready room table. Often teetering on the edge of losing control, the film does hold it all together. But this is most definitely a summer movie first and a Star Trek movie second.

(At one point, as Scotty finds himself flushed through the engine room’s something or other tubes, you cannot help but think of Sigourney Weaver in the delightful Star Trek tweak Galaxy Quest: “What ARE these things?!? Why are they HERE?!? They serve no purpose!!”... Though I admit it's nicely ironic to see Mr. Scott, who will come to know the Enterprise like the back of his hand, lost in what will soon be his engine room.)

And clearly space battles are not Abrams’ milieu. Star Trek boasts stunning visual effects, but the director has no idea what to do with them. There are a few nice moves here and there, a few glory moments for the NCC-1701, but for the most part the film’s cosmic dust-ups come off a bit static, lacking in majesty and deep-space wonder and sweep. Add that to the “to-do” list for the sequel.

Poor Eric Bana is just here as a set-‘em-up-knock-‘em-down patsy for Kirk and Spock’s coming-out party. He has a fine, tragic villain’s tale, but we hear it from a Vulcan mind meld instead of from him. In fact, Nero doesn’t get to say much of anything. We gather from his catastrophic actions that he has a serious rage on, but popping in as he does from another time with an uncharacteristically tight lip for a space opera villain, it’s hard to connect the madman to his motivations. Add that to that the fact he has no personal vendetta against the Kirk-Spock younglings and poor Nero is not much more than a plot device.

Nor is Nero’s angry quest served well by Orci and Kurtzman's script. In fact, most of the script is devised and twisted solely to get Kirk in the driver’s seat, and that means going through some awkward and painful plot contortions. (He’s on the ship, he’s off the ship, he’s hanging from the edge of something, he’s back on the ship.) In the end, the two-fisted, never-back-down James Kirk must assume his destiny by pulling some a cheap debate-team trick out of Robert's Rules of Order.

Still, most of that carping and nit-picking can be easly brushed aside for now. Once Kirk gets in the chair, old Trekkers can’t help but feel a rush of sweet recognition—and hopefully newcomers catch an inkling of just how much more there is to come. An exercise in pure, near-perfect entertainment, Star Trek keeps a dazzled grin on your face the whole way through. But for many of us there is also the lasting glee, carrried outside the theater, at having Trek back and knowing it will carry on in grand fashion.

Other Trek pieces:

Erika Olson's Non-Trekkie Review of Star Trek

What We Talk About When We Talk About Star Trek -- Locke reminiscences on what Trek has meant to him

Comments

[Jason]

Great review, Locke! I do disagree on one small point, however. Being a miner and all around working-romulan, Nero would not have gone into too much detail and done a pre-climax expositional monologue. Like Kirk, he seems to be a man, er..., Romulan of action. I think it makes more sense coming from Spock (the tragic perpetrator) than the grief-crazed victim. I think it ends up being that much more powerful.

[joules]

So maybe Chris Pine is more than just another pretty face -- no one was worse than the wooden Hayden Christiansen in the Star Wars flops. "I hate sand..." But I am disappointed that Starfleet Academy is given short shrift. I always wondered what it's like to be a Starfleet cadet. I guess I'll have to be satisfied with that episode of TNG where Wesley Crusher & his classmates get in trouble for flying in a risky formation or something (I don't recall the details), and another TNG episode where a young Jean-Luc is stabbed in a bar fight.

[Locke Peterseim]

Yeah, Joules -- see my long post I just put up over at the other Trek article in response to your posts there, Joules, re: the "missing" Academy years.

Of course, dramatically the problem with an Academy Years Trek movie or TV show (or book) would be that you can't give the cadets TOO much action, adventure, and dangerous experience while at the Academy, or else you undermine the notion (definitely played off in the new film) that they emerge from the Academy to face their FIRST encounters with possible death and tough decisions.

So any Academy story would end up, I'm afraid, being a lot of Saved by the Klaxon/Galaxy Gossip Girl interpersonal melodrama. Which maybe some folks would love, but not me :)

[Locke Peterseim]

And Jason, you make a good point about Nero's simple "I'm just a MINER" stoicism, but I guess I just feel it was a waste to have someone as solid as Bana in the role and not give him much to do -- the few moments of expression he does have are all really nice.

I mean, overall, it's fine -- overall, the entire film is GREAT -- other Trek-loving critics have pointed out that you really don't NEED a big, over-the-top villain in this film -- all you need is a catalyst to get the crew and Kirk and Spock together. And Nero is fine for that...

But still, I'm peeved to this day at how the Legendary Captain Kirk finally died at the hands of (no knock on the always delightful Malcolm McDowell) a two-bit, throwaway villain. And while Nero is better presented than Soran in Generations, there is still a bit of a disconnect between who he is and the magnitude of what he DOES. (I've been trying to stay mostly spoiler free, and I assume everyone knows Nimoy is back as Spock -- but the film's other HUGE change from continuity was a big surprise and shock to me when I saw it).

Yes, in real life the people who cause massive damage and changes in history are often banal, ignorant nobodies (your Lee Harvey Oswalds, your Timothy McVeighs) who can, with a single horrific act cause great pain and suffering. But of course, this is the movies -- Star Trek films demand a bit more adventurous and entertaining melodrama.

I don't hate Nero or think he ruins the film -- I'm not sure ANYTHING can ruin the fun of this film. I just think his character was a weaker link, more plot device than dramatic foil.

[JGM]

What an odd review - a litany of complaints and nitpicks (including the now-cliched '90210' reference) followed by the claim that it's "pure, near-perfect entertainment"... Going for the ad-quote, perhaps?

Anyway, I actually agree with many of the things you point out as weaknesses, but would like to argue with the contention that Abrams botched the space battles. On the contrary, I think they were handled nearly perfectly: after 10 Trek and six Star Wars movies (not to mention Battlestar Galactica and a host of lesser imitators) the zoom-zoom-fire-torpedoes-he's-thinking-TWO-DIMENSIONALLY! space shoot-em-up is simply *played out*. What we got here instead was something elegant, operatic, often nearly abstract that served the character-driven story perfectly. And with plenty of "majesty and sweep", I thought.

(Now, you want to talk faulty action scenes in this movie, reference Ice Planet Hoth or whatever it was called and Kirk outrunning the sabre-toothed Cloverfield monster.)

[joules]

I expected at least a minute or two of Academy scenes (besides the Kobayashi Maru test) -- perhaps a montage of cadets learning hand-to-hand combat, flight simulations and physics exams. Did Kirk "beat" the test in the way he was accused of? I wasn't sure if that was true.

Overall, I think this was the best Star Trek movie of them all. But can someone please tell me why most of the villains in the Star Trek movies are so "who cares"? Khan, of course was a worthy foe, and the Borg Queen gets points for weirdness, but all the rest, Nero included, are "meh". And why name this Romulan guy after Emperor Nero? Couldn't the writers think up an alien-sounding name? And where did a miner get his hands on a humongous war ship that looks like a rooster's tail?

[Locke Peterseim]

JGM -- what's so odd about saying you really liked a film, but from a fan viewpoint, there are always things to quibble about? I'm heading out to see Star Trek again tonight, so I'm very curious to see if it holds up on a second viewing, if it gets even better (further pushing aside my nit picking), or if I was just dazzled and won over by the pretty visuals the first time.

And ad quotes? Good god, no. I'm hardly the first critic to call this new Trek something like "perfect, pure entertainment." Now if I was going for an ad quote I'd say something like "This Trek is one helluva fun ride!" or "You'll be seeing STARS when you take this fast, fun TREK!"

As for the space scenes -- I didn't think they were bad, but just not as energetically inspired as much of the rest of the film. Abrams and his design team did such a nice job revisualizing the Enterprise, it's bridge, the uniforms, etc. I just feel that he doesn't have as strong a sense of how to do something new and exciting with the space battles.

Sure, there are a few great shots -- like the Enterprise rising out of the rings of Saturn (cribbed, of course, from Khan). And I can sort of see what they were going for in general -- Firefly and the new Battlestar Galactica introduced a whole new aesthetic to how space ships and battles are presented, with more verisimilitude and a sort of detached, distanced vibe, like you're watching newsreel footage. There seem to be a lot of space shots in Star Trek that were going for that--especially the ones where they'd show the Enterprise in extreme distance. But it just wasn't completely gelling for me.

On the other hand, too often for my taste, they went the opposite direction, just throwing a ton of chaos on the screen. You know me -- I like me the old "sailing ship" visual metaphor for Star Trek, so maybe I just need to get used Abrams' vision. But I still think the spaceship scenes are something that can be greatly improved on in the sequels.

Doing space battles requires more than just the best SPFX -- even Lucas screwed them up in the prequels (but his team gets them PERFECT in the Clone Wars series). You have to have a strong visual idea of HOW you want to present them, in a way that supports your film's overall aesthetic AND is entertaining and exciting. I just didn't get that from Abrams and his Star Trek.

But I do agree about Cloverfield on "Hoth" -- only my biggest beef was just HOW in the name of the galactic Darwin does a huge predator on an ICE planet end up blood RED? That would seem to be a MASSIVE evolutionary foul up, eh? Unless, of course, you argue that something that big and mean and dangerous can be ANY color it likes since it has no predators of its own to hide from and can catch and kill anything it wants, no matter how far off it's prey sees it coming. :)

[Locke Peterseim]

And Joules, the "Nero" name is actually kind of in sync with the Star Trek style -- after all, his home planet and its twin are named after the legendary founders of Rome, Romulus and Remus.

Actually, I did not read the Star Trek: Countdown comic books before I saw the film and I'm regretting it -- they appear to answer a LOT of these questions about Nero and his ship, as well as about Spock Prime (Old Spock) and his involvement and the source of Nero's vengeful rage. I'm going to try to find the comics this week and see for myself. But from what I understand, his ship, the Narada, is a Romulan mining ship that he enhanced and augmented in the future with parts from Federation and Borg ships.

And for the record, I think his ship looks like an Outback Bloomin Onion, or Chili's Awesome Blossom.

[Locke Peterseim]

As for your other points, Joules, I agree -- I guess I never thought of Kirk beating the Kobayashi Maru as a big frat-boy "joke" to impress a woman. It kind of gets to the core of who Kirk is, as we see in Khan: does he cheat on the test because he simply cannot stand to lose, because he believes every situation, no matter how dire, can be won? (The primary character trait of Kirk in TOS.) Or because he just wants to look good in front of other cadets and Uhura? (Seemingly the primary character trait of Young "Hello, Ladies!" Kirk in the new film.)

As for Star Trek villains, it is a VERY interesting and astute observation that the franchise has never really generated as many good ones as you'd expect. You're right, Khan of course was a perfect foil for Kirk, and yes, Alice Krige's creepy, eerie Borg Queen was unsettling and compelling (at least in First Contact -- I did not see the reappearance of the character, with a new actor, in Voyager). In both cases you can give some of the credit to the actors -- Montalban's grand scenery chewing and Krige's always somewhat weird manner. But other great, idiosyncratic actors have played Star Trek villains before (Christophers Lloyd and Plummer as Klingons, for example), and still the characters don't really resonate.

I also recall John Colicos (later Baltar in the original Galactica) as Kirk's grand Klingon nemesis Kor in TOS. He's the one, when hostilities between the Federation and Klingon Empire are averted, who tells Kirk it's too bad a peaceful solution was found because a war between them "would have been glorious."

But yes, especially in the feature films, it's seems hard to create and effectively use a really good bad guy or gal. It almost seems as if writers are afraid of creating a villain who overshadows the heroes. You can argue that Kirk might need a Joker-type nemesis, but you can also argue that in films like Star Wars and The Dark Knight, the villains are MUCH more interesting than the heroes. Perhaps it's part of Star Trek's whole "hope and optimism" thing: the film makers never want to suggest the evil is more interesting and compelling than good?

As I've noted before -- whenever the STNG creators came up with a really cool villain -- like Q or the Borg -- they eventually watered the character or threat down, made it more sympathetic and "understandable". Like they did with the Klingons -- taking Star Trek's great villains and bringing them into the fold. I guess that's part of the problem when your underlying philosophy is that everyone can and should get along.

Luckily, James T Kirk never bought into that (at least not until the very end of Undiscovered Country) -- he shoots first, shakes hands later. Clearly Abrams is bringing THAT Kirk back--he has no problem pulling the trigger on Nero at the end after offering a token helping hand he KNOWS will be rejected. :)

[JGM]

Interesting thread. A few brief comments:

On the review and why I thought it was odd: all I can say is I was taken aback when I came to the summary line, after reading the cogent criticisms. Again, I agreed with much of your review and liked the movie as much as you seemed to; we probably just have different thresholds for using the word "perfect".

On the space battles: okay, I stand by my comments on the space warfare early in the movie (particularly the opening, which did everything right), but I did sense Abrams throwing up his hands in the "FIRE EVERYTHING!!" scene. On one hand, this completely mirrors the unfortunate trend in action movies in general: cut fast and throw enough movement on the screen and noise on the soundtrack and nobody will notice that what's being portrayed makes no physical sense (I'm looking at you, Michael Bay). On the other hand, as I said, I think the point was that things *were* completely chaotic: there were no tactics or countertactics being employed, just a crap-yer-pants firefight. Also on the other hand, I was particularly pleased with Abrams' handling of the subtle bit of action when Our Heroes beam aboard the enemy ship. Where George Lucas would have had them instantly leap into action there is a great moment of "what the?" disorientation on both sides before they react.

On Trek villains: the Trek nemesis that scared me snotless as a kid was the "Doomsday Machine" - no motive, nothing to reason with, just pure destruction (with William Windom's scenery-chewing performance adding to the freakiness). The best original series enemies were all computers and machines. The early Borg took this and added the zombie attribute for a double whammy. Trek is all about facing the *unknown* - when you have a villain who is "just" acting on human (or human-like) emotions of revenge or, (well ... it's almost always revenge) that tends to be a lot less scary than something truly alien. (All right, except for Khan, notably the only major *human* -- well, superhuman -- Trek bad guy. And there's really no sense trying to out-Khan Khan.)

Finally, since Star Wars was mentioned by someone and I've brought Lucas into it, I'll share one of my compatriots' first comment as the credits rolled: "Why oh why couldn't the new Star Wars movies have been that AWESOME?"

[Locke Peterseim]

JGM -- I mentioned over in another post (hard to keep them straight, we have so many Trek posts up, but I think it was What We Talk about When We talk about Trek: http://blog.redbox.com/redblog/2009/05/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-star-trek.html ) that The Doomsday Machine scared me as a kid to for EXACTLY the same reason -- no motive, no melodramatics, just a relentless force of destruction. And same for the Borg until we started getting I, Borg, and Seven of Nine, and then the Queen (though I love the character and idea of the Queen, she still diluted the "single-minded, monolithic" nature of the Borg Collective -- not quite as chilling when there's an "individual" to focus on and talk to.

As for Star Wars, if you haven't already, check out the Clone Wars series -- we talked about it over here in this post: http://blog.redbox.com/redblog/2009/03/clones-need-love-too.html. The characters are a bit dicey (it's made for kids) but the battle scenes, both on land and in space, are really nicely epic and visually impressive -- unlike a lot of the prequels' fights.

Looking forward to leaving here in a few minutes to see Star Trek again tonight and see how those space scenes sit with me the second time around!

[joules]

I think I'm starting to realize what bothered me about the movie: In TOS, Kirk and crew usually (though certainly not always) managed to pull a last-minute solution out of their hats and set things right. I was expecting the same thing to happen in this movie: once Spock sent his whirlygig ship crashing into Nero's and generated the black hole (worm hole?), they would be able to go back in time to save Romulus and thereby prevent the destruction of Vulcan as well. I was left feeling unsettled when this did not occur. Maybe that's the way Abrams like things - I don't know - I'm not familiar with his other movies & TV shows (except Felicity).

[joules]

There are comic books? I guess there's a whole genre out there that I'm not familiar with. I know the story of Romulus and Remus and the founding of Rome, but I still think it's silly to name any Star Trek character after a Roman Emperor. This is the franchise that created a whole new language (Klingon), and you don't hear other aliens being given Earth names. Well, unless you count Dr. Benjamin Spock (pediatrician and author -- ask your mother).

[Locke Peterseim]

Well, Joules, there have always been Star Trek comic books, since the '70s (maybe since the '60s), though the quality was always VERY iffy. Even now there are numerous different Star Trek comic book series going on.

However, the one I'm referring to is called Star Trek: Countdown and was actually written by Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman as an integral prequel to the film. (Richard Kelly did a similar thing with Southland Tales a couple years ago, where if you read the comics you REALLY understand a LOT more about what's going on.)

The Countdown comic book is set in the 24th century, a few years after the events of Star Trek: Nemesis and involves Data, Picard, and Spock (Prime) trying to work prevent the destruction of Romulus. I just started reading it last night, but it explains exactly HOW Nero pimped out his humble mining ship into a massive Borg-infused warship and gives a little clearer motivation for both Spock Prime's regrets in the film and Nero's motivations.

I'm not sure how GOOD it is as a comic book, but I can tell it's definitely not a promotional throwaway or afterthought -- the stuff it details REALLY help make a lot of the film clearer.

And you know, I'm okay with that -- just like I was with Southland tales -- the film stands up just fine on its own (though last night at my second viewing, my 13-year-old niece came out of it going "whaaaa???"), but I've always liked the idea of using multiple mediums to put together an even larger, richer story.

[Locke Peterseim]

So I did see Star Trek a second time last night and want now to amend some of my initial reactions:

-- First, it's even BETTER on a second viewing. No, I'm not on Paramount's payroll (though in the interest of full disclosure, I guess I should mention that nine years ago I did do some historical background writing on promotional Paramount sites for Enemy at the Gates and We Were Heroes), but boy second time around Star Trek is even MORE entertaining and enjoyable.

-- The acting and characters all come off better than I first felt. Especially Pine as Kirk -- you really do see by the end of the film that he's growing up -- when he strides onto the bridge in the classic yellow uniform at the end, he has Shatner's perfect combination of life-loving swagger and solid leadership. My initial reaction was that Pine did fine, that he didn't screw it up. My feeling now is that he really knocked it out of the park.

-- Bones and Scotty take on more character richness on a second viewing (when you can slow your reactions down a bit and soak more of it in). I take back what I said about McCoy not really getting to go head to head with Spock -- that scene is certainly there and it's done just right. Urban is just fantastic in all of his scenes. And as much as I LOVE Simon Pegg, I'd dismissed his first outing as Scotty as "comic relief" (as did many critics), but again, on a second viewing you see he's doing quite a bit with Mr. Scott. For one thing, like McCoy, Scott is older than the rest and you really see that--he has a more laid-back competence. Sure he gets all the big, obvious punchlines, but you also see how quickly he integrates into the crew and takes his place as it's broad shoulders (even if Mr. Pegg is a bit slight in build).

-- Sulu and Chekov shine even brighter on a repeated look -- in fact there simply is NOT a weak link in the primary cast of seven. Every main crew role is nailed down perfectly. And again, I want to point out Anton Yelchin --this kid really deserves a career like Jake Gyllenhaal's or Tobey McGuire's. He's much more talented than even his wonderful scenes in Star Trek show. And Cho has a lot of nice throwaway moments as Sulu, showing the navigator's (helmsman's? which is he?) quiet confidence.

-- I'm mostly fine now with the Spock-Uhura romance--the moment with her and him in the turbo lift is actually as much if not more affecting and touching than many of the "Big Moments" between Spock and Sarek or Spock and Spock Prime. However, there are still a few 90210 bits, such as Uhura's "my boyfriend's back on the ship" grin when Kirk takes Spock on as his first officer at the end. Bleah.

-- I really appreciated Quinto even more as Spock this time around. With or without Nimoy looking over his shoulder and all the inevitable comparisons (Spock is the only character who must really LOOK like his predecessor), Quinto just does a great ACTING job. My only beef: Spock's peevish vengeance at the end when Kirk suggests showing compassion to Nero and his crew. [SPOILER] Yes, I know Spock lost his mother and his planet, but even so, Old Spock would have put that aside for the greater good of the Federation (the possibility of building a peace with the Romulan Empire -- a goal Old Spock devoted much of the last part of his life to). [END SPOILER] Yet another sign that Abrams' Spock IS going to be more of a rebel. Okay, but just be careful, J.J...

-- And boy, I sure like Nimoy in this film. His Old Spock has that twinkle in his eye, even in the face of great loss. I compared him before to Gandalf or Obi-Wan and he shares both those characters' wizened glee. You know the way Gandalf and Obi-Wan (New Hope Obi-wan, that is -- Old Ben) have that slight smile that comes from having just about seen it all and knowing that bad as things get, there's a greater good and peace to find joy in when things are viewed from a much broader perspective. Nimoy's Spock Prime has that going on here, and it's wonderful.

-- I carped a bit that this film never takes time to stop and talk things over, to take a breath and do some thinking and planning, but that's not true - the crew does huddle on the bridge in the third act to construct a plan for taking on Nero and the Narada. It's a nice moment, one I sort of missed the first time because I was still catching MY breath.

-- And finally, JGM, you're winning me over a BIT on the space ship stuff. I still stand by my assertion that the long-shots (of the Enterprise hanging in space in front of the Narada, etc) are not as effective as they were hoping. And I guess what I miss is the sense of two ships maneuvering around one another (as in Khan), but of course the relative size and scale of the Enterprise vs. the Narada makes that impossible to really show. But I will happily admit on a second viewing that boy those shots of the Enterprise ARE really stunningly beautiful, not to mention dynamic and detailed -- I really loved the way the camera swept over and circled around the ship. However, I can still hope for even BETTER stuff next time out.

[Locke Peterseim]

[SPOILERY GOODNESS AHEAD]

So Joules, you bring up the really BIG issue at the heart of this reboot, this "alternate reality" Star Trek: there will be NO Vulcan. Sure, Old Spock and Sarek and the other elders are going to start a Vulcan colony to preserve the culture and presumably repopulate the species, but still... a Trek without the weight of the Vulcan society? A Federation now stripped of one of its primary member civilizations? Think about, in TOS and the films, how often Vulcan played a major role (sometimes frustrating Kirk and his fellow humans) in guiding the Federation.

Of course, this DOES fit Abrams' general intention -- just as he kills off Kirk's father, he kills off the "Father figure" in the Federation -- the old, wise, stuffy, sometimes stubborn Vulcan delegation. (And think of how many future starships are now stripped of their reliable Vulcan science officers.)

So yeah, Abrams let Vulcan die. There was no "turning the clock back" to save it or Spock's mother, Amanda. This is a new Trek universe born out of, really, a kind of big FAILURE and LOSS at its start.

And how do we old-school fans feel about THAT?

[Joel]

First of all I want to say Star Trek was really well done. However, Spock NEVER would have allowed Nero to capture the Red Matter. He would have put the Jellyfish on a collision course with the Narada or caused the warp-core to overload. True, there would have been no movie, but Spock understands how dangerous Red Matter is. One drop is sufficient to create a singularity... In addition, when Vulcan was consumed by the singularity that would have created significant seismic activity on the planet where the Federation outpost was...

[Mike Sams]

Yes, I am an older Star Trek fan, so I too had mixed feelings about the demise of Vulcan. I also had some trouble visualizing the new Kirk compared with William Shatner's Kirk. But I also liked Sean Connery better than later James Bond characters and had some difficulty adapting to those guys as 007. I guess when it comes down to it, it's just a movie. A new generation of viewers will like the "action" more than the character development. Star Trek continues. Gene Roddenbury would be amused that his "wagon train" in space is still going strong.

[TJ]

Your point about Uhura stepping up means somebody else has to step back is well taken. Unfortunately, in this case, it wasn't only Scotty that took a step back but also McCoy.

Scotty seemed to be some weird parody of his former self that pretty much only served as comic releaf while McCoy seemed to have very little purpose in this film other than he needed to be there and managed to serve as a vehicle to get Kirk on the Enterprise.

Most of the characters seemed to be somewhat exaggerated versions of their previous incarnations.

I suppose my biggest complaint about the film was what, IMHO, was the assertion at the end that, with Kirk in the chair and Spock as his first officer that all was suddenly in sync with the Trek universe.

The message seemed to be that 6 billion people (including Spock's mother) dying was a small price to pay for destiny. That message seemed to be in drastic contrast to pretty much all things Trek that I just couldn't get behind in the end.

It's a decent enough movie for people who never liked Trek to begin with. But, visuals and humor aside, I'm not quite sure any long time fan of the franchise would really get behind the movie other than it gets Trek back on the big screen and seems poised to make a ton of money doing it.

[Mario F.]

Why has no-one taken this reviewer to task for using the term "Trekkies"?

[Locke Peterseim]

Uh, what's the problem with "Trekkies", Mario?

I've been a Trek fan all my life. Never considered myself a Trekkie (sometimes a Trekker), but never knew any fans who cared much one way or another. Many proudly call themselves Trekkies, some Trekkers, some Trek fans...

[Greg]

Can someone explain why, if just a drop of Red Matter is all Spock needed to try to save Romulus, did he take the Super-Humongo-Big-Gulp sized glop of Matter on the ship? And with time travel, why wouldn't Nero just go back to Romulus and tell them to tell Spock to leave half an hour earlier for the save attempt. I hate F$%^#$'n time travel plots!

[Locke Peterseim]

But Greg, dude, the big Super Humongo Big Gulp GLOP LOOKED so cool! lol

As for the time travel, remember, Nero and Spock had no control over their time travel -- it was just a freak result of the black hole/wormhole that was created back (forward) in the 24th century when Spock dropped the gloop on the star. They both got sucked in, no way to determine how far back they'd go or when they'd end up.

[Greg]

I get that. But instead of brooding for 25 years of revenge, why didn't Nero just go to Romulus, tell them the impending future doom, give them the Federation Obliterating tech, and then go on with their mining career. I loved the cast, but seriously, time travel stories always have holes Michael Bay could explode a truck through.

[Locke Peterseim]

I agree, Greg -- once you start messing with a time-travel plot, it's pretty much assured you're going to wind up with more problems (in both the script and the film) than you bargained for. Many sci-fi writers have done some amazing stuff with time travel, but too often -- especially in mainstream feature films -- it's just used as an easy crutch.

And that's certainly the case here with Abrams' Star Trek. Most writers love to come up with wild time-travel ideas, but then don't have the brains or the guts to really think them through and deal with the complex, headache-inducing, audience-losing outcomes they demand if taken seriously and followed through on.

(Best sci-fi film in terms of pure, mind-blowing, impossible-to-fully-grasp use of time travel? I'm going to say Primer from about five years ago -- tiny, tiny, NO-budget indie film -- if you haven't seen definitely find a copy!)

But really, the time travel stuff in Star Trek isn't the weakest part of the plot -- I mean, like I said, this is a SUMMER film first and foremost and as such it's primary concern is general entertainment, not adherence to science-fiction logic. I mean for example:

-- what are the odds both Young Kirk and Old Spock end up in the SAME ice cave?

-- how come Chekov can pluck a plumetting Kirk and Sulu out of midair with the transporter one moment and a few minutes later can't hang on to Spock's mom?

-- if it's so easy at the end for Spock to shoot down Nero's plasma mining platform, why doesn't anyone from Earth, Starfleet, or Vulcan do that EARLIER? Like maybe BEFORE Vulcan got flushed?

And so on :)

But you're absolutely right -- why DIDN'T Nero go to Romulus and say "Hey, see that star over there? Keep your eye on that sucker in about 129 years..." But you could argue that a) Nero's rage and pain blinds him to any such rational thinking--he has no interest in SAVING anyone, only PUNISHING people. And b) there is the sense that he just doesn't GET the time travel thing fully. HIS Romulus, HIS wife and unborn child are gone and he just can't grasp the rest of it. Helping 23rd Century Romulus doesn't help HIM, so he has no use for it.

(And can you imagine how much it would mess up life for Kirk and Spock and company if the 23rd Century Romulans got their hands on the 24th Century BORG technology on Nero's ship? Yikes.)

So yeah, lots of plot holes -- too much stuff probably happens because it's a cool idea or it's fun to watch. Abrams and his writers don't seem to mind cobbling things together fairly slapdash in order to get their characters where they want them, doing the cool stuff they want them doing for the sake of entertainment.

But I WAS pretty dang entertained, and I think, especially after a second viewing, that the SPIRIT of Trek is alive and well in this new franchise and these characters.

[JGM]

I thought the red matter looked like it was borrowed from The Fifth Element.

BTW, Is red matter new to the Trekiverse? I did like that we were supposed to be smart enough to figure out what it was on our own without somebody monologueing . . .

And, I guess, post-Vader, you're just not a bad guy unless you destroy up a planet or two.

[Greg]

"if it's so easy at the end for Spock to shoot down Nero's plasma mining platform, why doesn't anyone from Earth, Starfleet, or Vulcan do that EARLIER? Like maybe BEFORE Vulcan got flushed?"---YES!!! Also, the mining platform was at Starfleet Academy. There's NO other ships that could take it out before Spock comes around? But I agree it was a fun ride, the characters were portrayed really well. The car ride home conversation is where the chinks in the armor appear.

[John]

It's been 4 days since I saw the film and the one plot point I can't forgive is CADET Kirk being promoted to first officer of the Federation's flagship. As I recall, Saavik was a full lieutenant when she took the Kobayashi Maru test in Wrath of Khan. Compared to the other timeline changes wrought by Nero, I think it would be a minor thing to push Kirk's test out to after he made LT, perhaps returning for dept head school (I don't think Trek ever explains why Saavik is a LT while Kirk was supposedly a cadet). As a LT who just finished preparation as a dept head, Kirk would at least be a feasible choice for first officer (though unless a lot of folks died, he'd still jump over a few people. That would be OK since Kirk is SO extraordinary!). The idea that Pike would promote a cadet over his commissioned officers is just absurd.

[TJ]

John's and others' comments identify the other "change" about the feel of this film that irked me. The lack of the "everyman" feel to this movie.

Trek, to me, has never been about a single character or crew. There was always a sense that if the main crew hadn't saved the day or done what was right, somebody else would have. I always enjoyed the "Lower Decks" episodes for that very reason.

One of the things I always enjoyed about Trek was walking away from a movie or episode and thinking "I could have had a part in all of that." That, they were really no different than somebody now who had been in the Army or whatever. They weren't extraordinary in any way other than being motivated to do what was right.

This movie strikes me more as a futuristic chapter of the Die Hard films. Don't get me wrong, I like the Die Hard films. They're great fun. But, I never walked out of that film believing I could be anybody in that film because, in those films, the only person worth being was John McClain. He was superman doing only things that HE could do.

The closest you come to that everyman feeling in this movie is Chekov who manages to save Kirk and Sulu.

Like I said, I just can't get beyond the general idea that 6 billion people dying is perfectly ok because it was necessary to get Kirk in command of that ship.

The needs of the one apparently outweigh the needs of the many in this film.

[Jim]

One major flaw in your review: Nero does have a personal vendetta against Spock. He even says so, "I have something I want you to see" after he calls him out by name. He blames Spock for the destruction of Romulus and has been chasing him through space and time.

[DarleenMB]

Really good review, overall.

As to where Nero would have obtained that ship, it's a mining ship. Remember? They were drilling into Vulcan when the Enterprise showed up. He's a MINER. He was on board his mining ship when his home was destroyed.

[Locke Peterseim]

Jim, I never said Nero DIDN'T have a personal vendetta against Old Spock -- I said "he has no personal vendetta against the Kirk-Spock younglings". Sorry, I wasn't clear. Obviously yes, the whole POINT is his vendetta against OLD Spock. My observation was that this really ISN'T Young Kirk and Young Spock's fight -- they are merely bystanders to Old Spock's crisis.

[Locke Peterseim]

So I've been reading Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman's graphic novel "prequel" to Star Trek (it's called Star Trek: Countdown).

As a comic book, it's pretty lame (the story is okay, but the dialogue is dead awful), and I can't say I'd recommend anyone rush out and buy it. But it DOES fill in a LOT of gaps in the film's story.

Old Spock and Nero are initially ALLIES, working together to side-step the paranoid isolationist Romulan Empire and the stubborn, obstructionist Vulcan Council (along the way they get aid from both Captain Data of the Enterprise and Ambassador Picard). That he feels Spock betrayed him and Romulus, goes a long way toward explaining why so much of Nero's vengeful rage is directed at Old Spock personally.

It also explains that after the destruction of Romulus Nero winds up at a secret Romulan military outpost, where his modest mining ship, the Narada, is outfitted with Borg technology and weaponry and turned into the massive, fearsome ship we see in the film.

And there's a lot of information about the red matter, how it's created, etc, and about the Jellyfish, Old Spock's ship.

[Steven S.]

So, as I suspected, I did not like the new Star Trek film/movie. Let me repeat myself, I did not like the new Star Trek movie. Unfortunately, giving a movie project to a non-Star Trek fan is comparable to giving a head coaching job with the Yankees to a person who doesn't like baseball. Being a new convert (watching for only 10 years or so) I came to the realization that this film, like all films, was made to make money – lots of it! Although one could argue that anyone who took on the new Star Trek project would make money, regardless of who was at the helm of this intricate, massive, cultural-hit of a concept. Alas, in this case it is J.J. Abrams, the “stealer,” the “3M” of many of someone else's idea kind-of director/writer. Please insert your own comparisons for Alias (La Femme Nikita), Fringe (X-Files), Cloverfield (Godzilla meets Blair Witch Project), Lost (The Prisoner [from the 1960's] meets Gilligans Island), etc...

Before I tear a hole in J.J.s alternate-universe of Star Trek, let's give credit where credit is due and make it clear what the silver-lining was: 1) J.J. probably ignited, excited, and down-right invited non-Star Trek fans into possibly researching/enjoying the Star Trek of old/yesteryears and become a fanatic of the sci-fi “Enterprise” and all its counterparts. 2) He made Star Trek “cool”, especially for the younger generation, perhaps younger than me (30). 3) The set, studio, CGI, casting (mostly, especially “Bones”), and most of the storyline (I'll get to this later) was awe-inspiring, saliva-inducing, and visually stimulating to any creature on Earth. 4) They lept the “funny” quibbles in the script. Good job.

These examples of what was good should be enough to love the film, right!? It really sounds like I really enjoyed it, right!? No. And here's why: 1) Once you get past the “glitz & glamor” of JJ’s Star Trek alternate universe, you realize he forgot one thing many Star Trek television series episodes had, a “realness.” Well, you're thinking I'm some head-case to think Star Trek is real. No, I'm not a crazed, Star Trek lunatic, let me explain. Every Star Trek episode/movie teaches a lesson on life – one could argue Kirk, Spock and crew in the movie showed valor, braveness in this film, but at what cost? The message in this film was transparent: Action, revenge, action. It didn't teach me anything about the dangers or consequences of revenge. 2) The original Star Trek had its own explosions, shouting, and grunting, but rarely used expletives, such as “G.D.” Of course, in reality people curse, and I probably do it more than others, but it was another discrepancy to start from a sci-fi series that rarely curses. 3) Yes, I mentioned the casting/storyline was “almost there” but the Sulu actor did not come close to the original; the inflection of voice/tone was especially lacking. The storyline: Well it's completely new for Star Trek – everything that came before, and I mean everything, would logically need to be discarded. Why? In the new film there is now no Vulcan planet, and Kirk's father, as well as Spock's mother (an important supporting character in the original timeline) have perished. This changes everything, creating a J.J. Abrams “alternate universe of Star Trek” Star Trek.

Whether you are a purest, hardcore Star Trek fan or newbie, the movie is definitely a love/hate situation. Basically, this movie disregarded/omitted all previously known created Star Trek material, because the timeline has changed and all the choices/adventures would be irrelevant. Does this set-up allow the studios to make new adventures and create new character development? Yes. Does it sum everything I like about Star Trek? Almost.

Overall, there were many good/bad choices. I don't care for the “hold-my-hand”, watered down, non-thinking Star Trek. To me, there was no rewarding personal character development or new insights. I didn't take away a moral lesson, such as, “oh, this is how I should live as a person...with character, respect, duty, honor, pride, encompassing critical thinking/feeling skills.” This movie tells me I should live by a feeling that lacks realism combined with frenetic movement, and more explosions, the “I can't think, but I can react to visual stimulation” crap. Many will like the dumbed-down, in-your-face version of Star Trek, but I will always have the original genius of Gene Roddenberry vision in mind. This is one that is thought-provoking, breeds massive fans and has been doing just fine for 50 or so years without the almighty, J.J. “stealer of good things”...”I've got to 3M everything” Abrams. All in all, it's like different versions/translations of the Bible, everyone has their opinion. But for me, and many others, it just didn't have the heart of Star Trek and now is a critical time for fans to decide, J.J. is attempting to become the modern-day figurehead of Star Trek, leading the series away from the vision that should and always be guided by the foundation Roddenberry built.

As for the blatant disregard for William Shatner in the new film, especially his original narration, I hope J.J. “boldly goes where no man has gone before” and stays there in an isolated chamber, so he can not steal, borrow, nor corrupt another concept from an original creator and call it his own. “Live, long, and prosper...in a galaxy far, far away”...oh wait a minute; I don't want to give J.J. any more “new” ideas.

[joules]

If the old-school fans and the new viewers are supposed to read a comic book prequel in order to understand the movie, then there's something wrong with the movie.

[Locke Peterseim]

I agree somewhat, Joules, about needing to read a comic book to understand it. But I think the overall reaction from critics, fans, non-fans, and the theater-going public suggests that you really don't NEED to know all that stuff from Countdown in order to "get" and enjoy the film on its own. I'm certain Abrams and all do not EXPECT any film viewers to have read the comic.

It's really just for those of us who love to take these things apart and suss out every detail. Who geek out on stuff like Borg technology... lol

The main thing that confuses people about the film itself is the time-travel stuff (Spock showing up 25 years later, etc) and the comic doesn't help with ANY of that.

As I've said before, I kinda dig using other media to fill in a larger story, but like you said, the film still has to stand on its own -- I think Star Trek does for the most part.

[TJ]

So, let's see if we have this correct.

Writing a movie that might require some knowlege of a series that has run non-stop on TV for most of the last 40 years and is available on DVD for anybody to watch... bad.

Writing a movie that might require some knowledge of a comic book that few people have read to get an understanding of why Nero holds Spock responsible for the destruction of Romulus... good.

I suppose put in context with the moral relativism of this movie that says that Kirk being in command of the Enterprise is more important than the lives of 6 billion people that makes a lot of sense.

[Locke Peterseim]

Well, the comic book is kind of a non-issue, TJ -- it's just something extra, something that people who are interested can use to fill in some of the back story.

You've brought up the destruction of Vulcan several times and tied it to getting Kirk in command of the Enterprise. But Old Spock never makes that decision -- he DOES make a conscious effort LATER to get Kirk in command and I thought that part was a bit dodgy--he does not go along with Kirk and Scotty to the Enterprise simply so that Kirk can have his Moment.

But we are given NO indication that Old Spock could have stopped the destruction of Vulcan earlier.

But either way, I fail to see what the comic book has to do with that issue. One is a question of HOW you tell the story (using other media), the other is WHAT story you're telling about the destruction of Vulcan--which, as I say, is not "allowed" in order to get Kirk in the chair.

[Locke Peterseim]

TJ, you said earlier:

"I suppose my biggest complaint about the film was what, IMHO, was the assertion at the end that, with Kirk in the chair and Spock as his first officer that all was suddenly in sync with the Trek universe.

The message seemed to be that 6 billion people (including Spock's mother) dying was a small price to pay for destiny. That message seemed to be in drastic contrast to pretty much all things Trek that I just couldn't get behind in the end."

I can see how you can argue that JJ ABRAMS and his writers killed those Vulcans (and Spock's mom) off in the story in order to create the emotional situation they wanted for their characters, but you can't really attack that as the film's "message" -- otherwise you'd have to argue that every writer of a crime movie is morally "committing" crimes (including murder) in order to create drama and shape their characters. That's a creative decision that happens OUTSIDE the parameters of the actual FILM.

I sort of get what you're saying -- that the film makers say it's okay from a creative standpoint to destroy Vulcan (as creators) in order to get the story they want, but you can't really call that the film's "message." A creator, a writer, artist, whoever, has the absolute right to do whatever they want to get the dramatic or artistic result they want.

So maybe you can argue that Abrams et al made the wrong creative decision to destroy Vulcan and kill Spock's mom. But you can't really argue that the characters in the film, or the film itself is morally compromised or relativistic because Vulcan was destroyed. Within the moral parameters set up by the film makers, Kirk, Spock, and Old Spock all acted completely morally in regards to the destruction of Vulcan.

As for destiny, well if we know anything about destiny or fate it's that by their very definition they WILL have their way.

[Locke Peterseim]

I do want to also address your points, TJ, about how the film uses (or doesn't use) McCoy and Scotty.... and about the "everyman" issue (I agree the show works best when there's a CREW, with everyone pitching in and I think this film did that fine, to a superficial degree... but let's be honest -- Kirk and Spock are, and always have been, "supermen", superheroes.)

But one more point about your concerns about Vulcan. You said: "Like I said, I just can't get beyond the general idea that 6 billion people dying is perfectly ok because it was necessary to get Kirk in command of that ship."

So I'm trying to understand your complaint? Who are you blaming for the death of Vulcan in order to get Kirk in command? The characters in the film? Or the film makers?

Because as I've said, no CHARACTER (other than Nero) "lets" Vulcan die.

Nor did Abrams and his writers destroy Vulcan in order to "get Kirk in command" -- yes, they created a crisis that put him in position to take over, but in no way did it HAVE to be the destruction of Vulcan. It could have been anything. Therefore you can't morally link Kirk and Vulcan. See what I mean?

You can argue that Abrams et al should have found a DIFFERENT crisis to put him in the chair, but I'm sure they'd argue that it HAD to be something really big and catastrophic.

Okay, let's try THIS argument: by your reasoning, George Lucas is morally bankrupt (no, not for creating Jar Jar) because HE destroyed the planet Alderaan in order to make Luke the new Hero of the Rebellion. Right? Or that the creators of Batman are to be held responsible for the death of his parents, who they killed in order to give Batman a reason for being? Or that Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were wrong for destroying the entire planet of Krypton just to give his "Superman" incredible powers here on Earth? Right?

[TJ]

Locke wrote:
"So I'm trying to understand your complaint? Who are you blaming for the death of Vulcan in order to get Kirk in command? The characters in the film? Or the film makers?"

The film makers. I think writing the story the way they did ignores a constant that has existed through out pretty much all of Trek. And, I'll elaborate briefly simply because you asked.

An example, if I may. The TNG Episode "Yesterday's Enterprise." In the altered timeline, the crew of the Enterprise C was given a choice. Stay where they were and join the battle with the Klingons, or go back through the rift, facing certain death, all on the off chance that doing so would prevent the war and save millions of lives. They chose the latter despite having no evidence to go on but Guinan's intuition.

Trek has had more than it's share of time travel, but the one constant has always been that they try to get it as close to the original timeline before it's done.

In this movie, not only do they not correct the timeline, but they don't even try, despite the fact that by mid-film there are two characters in the film that know full well how the timeline is supposed to be (Spock Prime and Kirk, thanks to the mind-meld).

We then see Spock Prime at the end of the film, seemingly content that all was satisfied when Kirk is awarded command of the Enterprise.

So, yes, I see that as the "message" if this film. That, in the end, this film is about Kirk and his crew's "destiny" to command that ship. In fact, Abrams practically said as much in earlier interviews.

Like I said, I can accept some of the character changes and the lack of canon and all the visual inconsistencies like the uniforms having the wrong insignias on the Kelvin and nacell colors and all the other things that those far more detail oriented than I are concerned with. I simply think that despite all the changes that there should be at least some consistency with the rest of the franchise. They COULD have done both, and didn't.

How's this different from Star Wars or Batman or Superman? Because none of those stories involved time travel to begin with. There was never any notion that what had happened could be corrected by going backward through time (although, for the sake of pointing it out, Superman did that very thing in the first film starring Christopher Reeve). In Trek, they rarely accept that kind of catastrophe when it happens the first time, let alone when it happens because somebody mucked up the timeline.

[TJ]

I also wanted to follow up on what you said in your post prior to that one, if I may...

"So maybe you can argue that Abrams et al made the wrong creative decision to destroy Vulcan and kill Spock's mom. But you can't really argue that the characters in the film, or the film itself is morally compromised or relativistic because Vulcan was destroyed. Within the moral parameters set up by the film makers, Kirk, Spock, and Old Spock all acted completely morally in regards to the destruction of Vulcan."

Agreed. But, that is ultimately my point. That the film makers got it wrong when they penned out the central theme for the movie. By allowing Vulcan to remain destroyed, they are making the final destination of the film Kirk and company in command of the Enterprise.

If they didn't want time travel to be a tool that could be used to fix everything in the end, they should have never introduced it to begin with. Eliminate Spock Prime and Nero from the story and simply create a villian from that time period for Kirk to do battle with.

There's no purpose for time travel to be a part of this movie at all other than to give us a vehicle to get Nimoy on the screen one last time if it's not going to be used to fix things.

By introducing the Spock from "our" Trek timeline into the story, one should reasonably be able to expect him to act in a way more or less consistent with how he had reacted in versions of Trek past. A Spock that KNOWS how the timeline is SUPPOSED to be, and the willingness to see that it stays as close to that as possible. HE should want it corrected, even if nobody else in the film does.

By having him simply go with the flow at the end of this film, he, in a way, becomes morally compromised even more than the others. They at least have the excuse of not knowing how things were supposed to happen. Spock Prime (and ultimately Kirk) don't have that excuse.

It's flawed further it creates an unnecessary choice between saving Vulcan and making Kirk captain because correcting the timeline accomplishes both.

[Locke Peterseim]

I understand you now, TJ -- it's a very valid criticism. Yes, usually in science-fiction, the main thrust of a time-travel plot is HOW to get things back to the way they SHOULD be. (Though of course one of the cool things with "Yesterday's Enterprise" was that later we learn there WERE lasting side effects, such as the survival of Tasha Yar and her daughter? Am I remembering that correctly?)

So yes, now I see your point -- Abrams USED the destruction of Vulcan as a dramatic plot point, a motivation, and in doing so "killed off" so to speak a large part of Classic Trek continuity for his new reality.

And since we already KNOW Vulcan and the important role it and its citizens play in the life of the Federation, it does indeed feel like a new guy came in and shot our wise grandfather just to "make things more exciting"

In this case time-travel was most definitely NOT used as a challenge, a problem to be fixed -- it was used as a 'reboot' device that conveniently lets the new Trek creators have a blank canvas to paint on in the coming decades.

And yes, they could have done that without destroying Vulcan (ironically, Abrams took so much heat a few years ago for his un-used Superman script that did NOT destroy Krypton). First and foremost, I think Abrams and the writers simply needed something BIG to not only shake up the characters in the film (and give Spock a bit more tragic heft), but to shake up the series.

And I think it also plays into the theme they're pitching: Trek as young rebels breaking away from stuffy elders. That's essentially what Pike tells Kirk in the Riverside bar -- we need some wild stallions to stir Starfleet back up. Both Kirk and Spock are much more rebellious against Vulcan/Starfleet. And in a way, by removing Vulcan from the picture, the new Trek takes away the Federation "Father Figure" -- Vulcans were always the older, wiser ones sort of 'tsk-tsking' the Federation humans.

And I think we can even extend that theme to maybe a bit of intentional (?) nose-thumbing at Old-school Trekkies -- Abrams saying, "look, not everything is going to be the same... I'm going to shake things up and try some new stuff, you old fogies -- don't believe me, here.. I'll blow up Vulcan!"

As for me, I'm willing to sit back and wait -- my attitude with the destruction of Vulcan is the same as my general attitude toward the reboot: Okay, you have my attention, you broke it you bought it, now let's see if you know what to do with it." The destruction of Vulcan can make for some really interesting new story themes in future films... if Abrams and whoever else comes to play in the new Trek sandbox make good use of the tragedy, then good. If they just blow it off and it becomes a cheap crutch, used once and then glossed over, then yes, it was a terrible, wasteful, cheap creative decision.

[joules]

Thank you, TJ and Locke, for articulating what left me so unsettled about the time travel/destruction of Vulcan elements of the story in this movie. I think these elements *were* just cheap devices used to create the alternate reality that Abrams (et al) want us to accept for the sake of the reboot. The original Star Trek and its offspring were never about characters with Daddy issues (or Mommy issues) or wanton, even gratuitous destruction of the characters' homeworlds. Let's leave that to Star Wars.

[SLG]

Nice to read see some feedback from high-level, longterm Trek fans. I too had problems with the film:

- Spock & Uhura kissing: Wait a minute?! I'd imagine even a few centuries from now, there'd be rules about Star Fleet staff having relationships with cadets.
- Where was Remus in the film? I believe the Romulan homeworld was part of a double-planet group.
- Since when does a cadet get promoted to Captain straight from the Academy? Saving the day does come with rewards but more likely a lieutenant rank promotion upon graduation and the highest commendations available.
- Star Fleet vessels are not family ships in the early eras. What the heck was George Kirk's wife doing on that ship that far along in her pregnancy? Plus, where's George Samuel, JTK's older brother??
- Speaking of Kirk's mom in space, this little new event is ticking some Riverside, IA denizens off. This film just stole their claim to fame as the future birthplace of JTK. Sure they were thrown a bone - the Riverside Shipyards but Hollywood has not exactly treated this little town with respect.
- I thought Sarek was much weaker. "You must choose your own path"....this just took away one of Spock's psychological childhood demons. The familial distance between him and his father was an instrumental part in Spock's dichotomy in his dual heritage.
- "Red Matter" ?! Talk about a corny plot device. I know there's complaints about Star Trek being more technobabble, but naming something THAT powerful "Red Matter" kinda feels like the writers/director are insulting us.

I agree with an earlier poster - where's the message or philosophy lesson here? This was just more of an action-fest that DS9 disintegrated into in its later seasons.

[Locke Peterseim]

SLG,

-- Remus plays a role in the Star Trek: Countdown comic book prequel (post-quel?) that Abrams et al wrote, but we don't want to re-open the whole "should you have to read a comic to 'get' a movie?" argument :)

-- I agree I was a bit taken aback by Lt. George Kirk having his pregnant wife on board -- it was more a 24th-Century TNG thing to make starships "family friendly." Kirk's TOS Enterprise was always more of military ship, despite it's "peaceful" mission. However, there is real-life precedent -- despite the image of lonely men at sea, during the 18th and early 19th Century Age of Sail some captains did bring their wives to sea with them.

-- I've written a bit about Riverside, IA in my other Trek piece What We Talk About When We Talk About Trek: http://blog.redbox.com/redblog/2009/05/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-star-trek.html (I'm typing this 7 miles away from Riverside right now -- I spend about two-thirds of my time in Chicago and a third in my hometown of Kalona, IA.) I haven't heard anyone really complain, but then most Riversidians have been pretty good-naturedly bemused by the whole Birthplace thing from the start (20 years ago). But they're gearing up for the Annual Trek Fest in a month -- Nicols, Takai, and Koenig will be here, and I HOPE to do a blog report from the Fest. (However, it's the same day and time as my 25th High School Reunion, 15 miles away, so I'm going to have to do some jumping back-and-forth.) Trek Fest is always a hoot -- much, much more small-town summer fair than Trek convention, but the juxtaposition is always charming. (And no, there is no giant quarry near Riverside... at least not in THIS century.)