Just because there were like 9 Watchmen threads I figured Star Trek should have at least one.

I think the movie was excellent, probably the best Star Trek movie ever. All the casting was excellent (Simon Pegg!), as was the acting.
I also think the movie should appeal to all people, just not hardcore fans - my wife loved it and she hates Star Trek, outer space, sci-fi, etc...
Maybe part of the reason is that I think this Star Trek movie actually played more like a Star Wars movie (Star Wars = fun!) but with a better plot and script than the last three in that series.

Also liked the way they avoided continuity problems and enabled the upcoming Trek movies to have a clean slate. Maybe these movies should actually be called Alternate Reality Star Trek?

Feel free to submit your Star Trek movie rankings.

not better than Khan and I liked VI better as well.

didn't like the villain very much but everything else was very good -- I'm excited for a second run.

I'd never seen a Star Trek movie or TV show before it, and I really enjoyed the movie. Plus going to see it allowed me to avoid Lidge's meltdown on Saturday afternoon.

Warszawa wrote:Also liked the way they avoided continuity problems and enabled the upcoming Trek movies to have a clean slate. Maybe these movies should actually be called Alternate Reality Star Trek?

I enjoyed the movie, however, I did not like how, in my mind, they took the cheap/easy way out by circumventing the time line. To me, that cheapens the story/characters I have grown to love.

I really enjoyed the new cast-crew especially Scotty and Bones and look forward to seeing more of them in the inevitable sequels.

It is hard to rank this one amongst the others, it is definitely up there. Of course Wrath of Khan is very good, I liked Undiscovered Country a lot.

A word of warning, do not go and see this film at the Franklin Institute on the IMAX. It is not shot in IMAX and the large screen distorts things very badly. I am looking forward to seeing it again from a more focused perspective.

gusmoney wrote:I did not like how, in my mind, they took the cheap/easy way out by circumventing the time line. To me, that cheapens the story/characters I have grown to love.

Where I would agree a bit, I am not sure that there was any way around it. Beyond that, I am also not sure that 'Bad Robot' can help themselves but bust out alternate realities and time lines (e.g., Lost and Fringe).

I did enjoy the movie and have come to anticipate the next installment in an all new story line that happens to have characters and cultures that are sort of familiar.

The franchise did need a serious reboot and I have no problems with blowing up the whole time line and starting fresh. The only thing that really perturbed me was that Vulcan was destroyed, and the way everyone ascended to high ranks so quickly was also a bit silly. But I can forgive that and really did enjoy the movie. Chris Pine did a fine job of being Kirk without emulating Shatner. Zachary Quinto was awesome as Spock and Karl Urban may have been the best cast as Bones. Simon Pegg was funny and captured Scotty well. John Cho, Zoe Saldana and Anton Yelchin were acceptable as Sulu, Uhura and Chekov but not great but they could grow into the roles.

Khan is still the best but I could see a really good story with this cast being better. It was an "origin" movie after all and the villain was not anything truly frightening or great like the Borg or Khan.

I 2nd the comment about not seeing it at the Frankling Institute. We were there for the exhibit and decided to see it there, but it was a bit crazy. I love big screens, but holy cow.

Loved the movie and the casting, etc. My only complaint was the way they set up the whole time thing. I have no problem with blowing up the timeline and everything, but the meeting with the other timeline's Spock was totally unnecessary for the story, as was the final part with the two Spocks meeting. I found it sappy and the story didn't need it. They could have just explained how the villain got there by explaining what happened and why he hated Spock and the Federation (this still would have allowed the cameos) without actually having the future Spock interact directly with the main timeline.

But all in all, it was one of the best Star Treks, imo, and I'm hoping it will signal a few more movies on the horizon. I also would like to see another movie with the Next Generation group, but I don't think that will happen.

The Red Tornado wrote:The franchise did need a serious reboot and I have no problems with blowing up the whole time line and starting fresh. The only thing that really perturbed me was that Vulcan was destroyed, and the way everyone ascended to high ranks so quickly was also a bit silly. But I can forgive that and really did enjoy the movie. Chris Pine did a fine job of being Kirk without emulating Shatner. Zachary Quinto was awesome as Spock and Karl Urban may have been the best cast as Bones. Simon Pegg was funny and captured Scotty well. John Cho, Zoe Saldana and Anton Yelchin were acceptable as Sulu, Uhura and Chekov but not great but they could grow into the roles.

Khan is still the best but I could see a really good story with this cast being better. It was an "origin" movie after all and the villain was not anything truly frightening or great like the Borg or Khan.

This really bothered my friend whom I saw it with--how the movie basically was a feel-good story that happened to include billions of people being wiped out. I suggested that after "Battlestar Galactica" and its constant evocation of sadness and grief, we'd maybe had our expectations out of whack as far as heavy emotion in sci-fi.

On balance, I really liked "Star Trek," and I'm excited to see more films with this cast and creative team.

I agree with the Vulcan comment, but I can live with it.

However, I have to show some love for Star Trek IV. If only for the fact that I used to walk around cities I hadn't visited before saying, "Can you tell me where I can find the nuclear wessles."

The Uhura character had a giraffe like neck.

Anyone else notice the subtle allusion to Pike being water-boarded? I thought that was an unnecessary connection/comment to today.

If I may make one more comment about my dislike of the time-line redux, I do not understand why they could not have used the same new cast with a story in the timeline we are familiar with.

gusmoney wrote:Anyone else notice the subtle allusion to Pike being water-boarded? I thought that was an unnecessary connection/comment to today.
.

was more an allusion to the bugs that went into the ears of Chekov and the other guy in Khan

The Red Tornado wrote:

gusmoney wrote:Anyone else notice the subtle allusion to Pike being water-boarded? I thought that was an unnecessary connection/comment to today.
.

was more an allusion to the bugs that went into the ears of Chekov and the other guy in Khan

Paul Winfield, rip - that scene from Khan still creeps me out

gusmoney wrote:Anyone else notice the subtle allusion to Pike being water-boarded? I thought that was an unnecessary connection/comment to today.

If I may make one more comment about my dislike of the time-line redux, I do not understand why they could not have used the same new cast with a story in the timeline we are familiar with.

So then you would have had every Trekkie scrutinize every breath every character makes from here till the end of the series. Maybe the creators of the series don't want the hassle of the research necessary to connect all the dots or maybe they just don't want any possibility of a screw up in that area at all. I mean this way its much easier for them, opens up more possibilities, and the other Star Trek universe does still exist right?

One of the thing that worked against Star Wars and other prequel movies (for me) is that I knew what was going to happen....

Alternate timeline - not only brilliant but quintesentially (spelling is correct in dozens of other timelines) Star Trek.

- Continuity preserved (It and later movies are still sequels)
- Legendary characters preserved (avoiding nude geriatric fan dances)
- Audience allowed to suspend disbelief by keeping characters in jeopardy. (Somethings got to be done about your kids Marty!)

Imploding Vulcan - Fantastic.

How many times have we seen the Enterprise destroyed, threatened to be destroyed, self destructed or "indian giver" destroyed? I'm convinced we won't see a new Vulcan with slightly different warp nascells and a hyphenated letter at the end of the name. Finally the big JO is over.

Vulcan is gone. Most of the Vulcans are gone (including Sybock, Baal willing) and we have twice the haunted Spocks charging around the Alpha and Beta quadrants.

Hell, we could see Kirk encounter the 'borg.

To all those detractors poking their heads out of Jeffries Tubes, I haven't heard this kind of whining about an unexpected turn of events since Decker watched Ilia's tricorder hit the deck.

FlightRisk wrote:Al

To all those detractors poking their heads out of Jeffries Tubes, I haven't heard this kind of whining about an unexpected turn of events since Decker watched Ilia's tricorder hit the deck.

Speaking just for myself, it wasn't that I minded the new timeline or blowing up Vulcan. Alternate timelines have become very much a part of Star Trek. I just didn't like bringing the old spock into this timeline because it made for a bunch of sappy moments that really did little to advance the story or make it more interesting. It was like they wanted something to tie the new cast to the old cast, so they tweaked the story a bit to make it happen. I would have preferred the same story, except with a flashback (or flashforward in this case) showing what happened that led to the villain wanting revenge. The old Spock (and the old Kirk for that matter) could have been in this flashforward, if they really felt the need to do something like that. The story would have been just as good, complete with exploding Vulcan and an alternated timeline, but without several awkward and sappy scenes that did little to advance the plot save for making the old Trekkies (of which I am one) go gaga over the older spock meeting the younger Kirk. Other than that, I really thought the movie was great, and it certainly didn't detract from the movie enough to keep me from enjoying it immensely.

Monkeyboy your opinions imploded in this timeline, now there's a third Spock running around (with a Van Dyke).

FlightRisk wrote:Monkeyboy your opinions imploded in this timeline, now there's a third Spock running around (with a Van Dyke).

So did you like the scenes with the two Spocks or the scene where Kirk meets Spock on the frozen planet (not counting the Scotty part because that was a separate issue). Just wondering. Those were the only two scenes that I didn't like.

Warszawa wrote:
One of the thing that worked against Star Wars and other prequel movies (for me) is that I knew what was going to happen....

Only sort of.. making them mostly marketing vehicles to children rather annoyed me, beyond the stories being average at best. Fortunately that time line was killed off (unless you count the video game action Clone Wars).

Finally saw it. Really enjoyed it although I wish they hadn't destroyed Vulcan. But I guess Abrams & Co. wanted to go as far as they could to draw clear distinctions between this alternate timeline and the previous one, so I guess you gotta do what you gotta do...

I read somewhere that their explanation for the enhanced technology in the "alternate" timeline as opposed to the Original Series was that the Federation retrofitted their technology based on the information gleaned from the scans the USS Kelvin made of Nero's ship before it was destroyed. Made me laugh, but also very clever.

And the Kobayashi Maru segment cracked me up, too... particularly Uhura's behavior in the scene. Nice to see it finally played out, and very much like I imagined based on Khan.

I need to go do something awesome and cool now, since I'm definitely not a nerd.