Star Trek turned 46 this month and the legacy of the show has grown to include 11 movies and a further 4 television series’. After the Original Series got canceled in 1969 after only three seasons, the show became extremely popular in syndication. In 1979 Star Trek The Motion Picture was released to capitalize on the success of Star Wars. Even though the film was a financial success, it failed to impress critics but the subsequent sequel by Nicholas Meyer with Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan showed audiences that Star Trek could be a success in the cinema as well as on TV.
The show’s popularity peaked with Star Trek The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager with all shows lasting seven seasons. The follow-up prequel series Enterprise was deemed a failure and the show got canceled after only four seasons, sadly just as the show’s quality was starting to pick up. Combined with Star Trek: Nemesis bombing at the box office, the Star Trek franchise was put to bed, suffering from a severe case of overkill.
After a break of 4 years, JJ Abrams gave the world a new Star Trek, and not just a new Star Trek but also a new set of actors playing Kirk, Spock and the rest of the iconic original crew. Gone was the techonbable, morality tales about what makes us human and canon. In its place we got ACTION, cheesy nostalgic one liners and a wafer thin plot, in other words, a movie for the modern casual audience.
Star Trek had fallen into the trap of only pleasing its core group of Star Trek fans, even though that audience was huge, Paramount wanted to bring in the casual audience movie-goer who doesn’t want to see a film with a heavy plot, references to science and belonging to a franchise that is considered very nerdy. So Abrams, being a life long fan of Star Wars, Star Warsified Star Trek and engaged the casual audience like no other Star Trek film had done before. It made $350 million at the box office and critics loved it. Anticipation is high for the sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness that is set for release next year.
But stuck in the whirlwind of hype that surrounded J.J Abrams’ Star Trek was a core set of old school Star Trek fans who objected to the liberties Abrams took with the universe they had invested so much time, love and money into for most of their lives. They didn’t like the dumbing down, the odd looking Enterprise, nonsensical science and the rubbish plot. It is easy to ignore them and say that they are just butthurt Star Trek nerds who would never be happy unless they saw William Shatner put on the Starfleet uniform again and take his place in the captain’s chair, but that is a lazy and dismissive response to some very valid points. There are a lot of flaws with Star Trek and the biggest being that the franchise has been pushed into a more generic action fare and gone (possibly forever) is all the things that made Star Trek unique.
Star Trek was more than just catchphrases, warp spreed and firing phasers, it was character driven story telling that had a human heart and no matter how fantastical the setting, you could always relate it to something much more closer to home. That is why these fans wait to see if Star Trek Into Darkness has more of what made pre-Abrams Star Trek so engaging for them or have they been pushed aside for the casual audience member and his/her box office ticket.
So in hope that Star Trek Into Darkness is a much more worthy movie for the Star Trek franchise now that the writers have not got to deal with the difficult, rebooting first movie, here are 15 blunders that ruined JJ Abrams 2009 Star Trek movie and possibly the franchise forever.
We are currently seeking Star Trek 2 contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Star Trek 2 contributor, click here.
116 Comments
Boo-Hoo … they didn’t made it like the original.
Indeed.
I have to congratulate J.J. Abrams for finally making a Trek movie that my wife liked, and she hated Trek for years. My only gripe with the new movie was the Engine room scenes, because I can’t stop unseeing the beer brewery stuff.
I honestly never expected Abrams to continue the Trek story with yet another sequel with Picard and his crew. The last two TNG movies were crap, and I bet only die-hard TNG fans saw them. I only did when they aired on TV.
I look forward to the sequel. In the 24th century, there will still be evil people/creatures and humans will still behave like humans, warts, mistakes and all. Let’s not sanitize the future; it’s not realistic.
Make it fun, Mr Abrams.
What SHE loves we HATE
By that reasoning, why don’t they just put sparkling vampires in it so that everyone’s wife will like it?
This idea that TREK either had to remain moribund, or else become dumbed down STAR WARS Prequel-style flashy action, is a false dichotomy. TREK needed a fresh start, but the way in which they went about that was lousy with bad science, poor characterization, and terrible storytelling in general. We old-time TREK fans don’t object to change. We object to BAD changes.
I have to agree with Patrick. If we’re going to add stuff that cool the masses. Why dont we add a Justin Bieber music to the ST Soundtrack. Why dont we have the Ghost Adventures guys try to find ghost on the Enterprise.
that’s easy he can tell that person is human and the only human there was amanda. and he lost her due to the fact she fell out of the transporter beam.
Once you have a transporter lock, you are pretty much set. But with her, not only did he have a lock, she was also in the process of being beamed up. So even if the planet exploded at that moment, she should have beamed on board the ship safely.
The transporter always was a plot device and the rules were flexible. You couldn’t transport through shield, until you could, then you couldn’t, and so on. Accidents never happened, until you need to kill the nameless Vulcan at the start of the Motion Picture. And I can point to several times over several different series that people were almost lost *during* transport.
It’s been done.
It is also an industry that needs more of an audience than the last Star Trek series.
Spock is young and also needed to be established to a new audience in the length of a feature film.
Plot Holes? JJ Abrams? No, that’s impossible.
I get your qualm about the “engine room” I have the same issue. However my belief is that the reason for the steamship look is based out of practicality.
Imagine you have hundreds of people living on a spaceship. Now imagine all the hygiene, food, living space issues that arise. While they never showed the “engine” directly I find it plausible that what we are looking at is essentially a water purification facility. I know this wasnt explained but this is where I immediately went to when I saw the movie the first time.
I was a little young to enjoy the original series and never caught on to the spin offs but I assume the life sustaining mechanisms werent a show highlight. I felt it was kind of cool to see how they support life way out in the edges of space. This was just my thought process when I saw the design.
They used replicators, they didn’t need a massive steam engine system. The only reason they made it look that way was so that someone who had never seen Star Trek before knew what it was, an engine room.
I’m fairly certain the replicator came about in Next Generation and beyond, but correct me if I’m wrong
There were Replicators in the Original Series but they were called Food Synthesizers.
How would the use of replicators eliminate the need for basic functions such as toilets and other amenities? And seeing how we’ve never had a real good look at an engineering section, which encompasses several decks I might add, how do we know what the rest of it looks like?
Coming from a true Star Trek fan this movie was spectacular. I can’t wait for the sequel
Finally A Man With Logic & Intelligence Great Comment. There are always Haters Everywhere & Everyone Wants To Be A Critic. I’d Like to See What Kind Of A Movie All The Haters Would Make. On Second Thought, I Guess I Wouldn’t Want To See The Disaster’s Of The Movie’s They Would Make. I’ll Stick To J J Abrams Sequel !!!……………….
I agree. Im a very big fan of Star Trek, whether it be TOS or DS9 or ENT and I found the movie excellent. There was very little that I found annoying or stupid; overall I loved it. Even Keenser. Only real complaint would be (as most have stated here) the engine room. However, I found the size much more practical than the tiny room of.the TOS Enterprise, so I got over it. Theres no way id say that Abrams ruined Star Trek. I am psyked for Into Darkness!
I approve this article. Yeah, I liked this film enough in the theatre but it might have been because I was Trek-starved(it’d been quite awhile since any new Trek had happened). I don’t like how the transformers bros jettisoned the ethical/moral quanderies and heady philosophical questions that are a Trek staple. Maybe it’s because they’re not good enough screenwriters to integrate such things with flashy action sequences.
Great analysis of the flaws in this horrible film. You might also want to point out the crassness of the Uhura character in general and the “war crime” ending in which Kirk and Spock callously open fire on Nero’s crippled ship.
Amarpal… you sir…. are a freaking genius!
I agree with everything single point you’ve made in this article. For 3 long years my family and friends have had to hear me get on my soap box every time this movie is brought up. I’ve warned my wife on many occasion that if her eyes rolled back any further, they’d get stuck that way! ;-)
As a fan of the REAL Star Trek for over 25 years this movie crushed my very soul. But I won’t go on and on. You hit every mark on the head in your article. But I will say this, they killed our Star Trek, its a shallow, juvenile shell of what it once was. Sorry, but people who claim to be fans of Star Trek and turned around and “loved” this movie clearly did not truly understand the heart and soul of what made Star Trek, Star Trek. It was human story, the great human destiny to boldly go into the final frontier… But instead we got ACTION, and SEX and ACTION and BIG HANDS and RANDOM CATCHPHRASES, and when they were biting off of Star Wars, they just used the bad parts. All in all it was disaster and I have no hope at all for the next one. I just thank my luck stars (pun intended) that we have Netflix and every single piece of the REAL Star Trek created for me to watch and enjoy like I’ve always done before whenever I want. That way, in the best traditions of Star Trek, it can live on forever…
Thanks, glad you liked it. It’s one of those films that people get shocked if you say you didnt like it, but there is so much wrong with it. And it’s taken Star Trek in the wrong direction.
This is the way Star Trek needs to go and is definitely the right direction. It gets us away from the boring nut shot that was TNG.
Boring as in REAL science fiction and intelligent storytelling? Boy you would really love Isaac Asimov and Ray Bradbury… haha.
Despite all the flaws I still liked it way more than those dreadful series in TNG era. If they go the Khan rehash route then they are true hacks.
Dreadful series in the TNG era? Are you a moron? TNG, DS9, and Voyager all ran for 7 years and called it quits when they were done. None of which were canceled. What does that tell you? You would like the reboot. Enjoy your lens flare simpleton.
This article isn’t even relevant now. First, there was nothing “ruined.” How does the HIGHEST grossing film in the franchise one of the HIGHEST rated films by fans and non fans alike call for an article like this? This is was a complete waste of time and energy. However, it’s still fun to swat the little bitter fans around who were mad that 10 minutes of the film wasn’t dedicated to some sort of morality tale that have been better dealt with in children’s books and episodes of “The Golden Girls” like Trek of the past. Critics of the latest film generally can not be taken seriously, nor have they been due to some of the ridiculous claims they’ve made.
If money is all you can think of as your big defense, then you really don’t get it.
@Devon
Because many fans are quite anal retentive about what they perceive as their universe. That’s no slight against the fans, just that after all of these years, they see Star Trek as theirs, and for someone to come along and change the fundamentals in so many ways, well, it leads to lengthy articles, such as this one, 3 years after the movie has been released. The whole article is an emotional appeal. You can even see that within the opening paragraphs:
“But stuck in the whirlwind of hype that surrounded J.J Abrams’ Star Trek was a core set of old school Star Trek fans who objected to the liberties Abrams took with the universe they had invested so much time, love and money into for most of their lives.”
That’s in the opening page. There will forever be some kind of disgruntlement with the movie by a small sect of fans who simply do not like the stylistic choices made for the film, and that’s their right and their choice.
As for myself, I loved the movie, and I’ve been watching and loving Star Trek since I was 4. Raised on TOS, went on to TNG and the others. My brain full of countless bits of trivia. I felt the movie touched on much of what made the original series so much fun. Others will think differently. I’ll still be in line when Star Trek: Into Darkness premieres. ;)
A lot of his points weren’t that things were changed in the new Trek, but rather than they just didn’t make sense. The arguments against the red matter, the engine room, and especially the supernova were very good and had nothing with the old Treks. Some points were just the author’s opinion, but they shouldn’t discredit all the points.
That said, I think he should’ve categorized them into “These are illogical” and “These are my opinions”.
Oh so whatever makes the most money is how we judge “good ” now ? I guess you adore the Twilight series as well…a major part of the movie going crowd has been dumbed down ( as has America in general) and they find the most inane comedy shows and movies ” funny” and acceptable. I bet you watch the Kardashians and The Girls Next Door…
Very good points, I’d say too much action, nonsense plot twists, what you said. I saw it again the other day to see why I felt so unsettled about it the 1st view despite all the drama and epic scenes … again many of the same “blunders”. Also, what about Nero’s ship! strange hollow thing and it seemed you literally jump around inside – don’t make sense. Admire your analytical try to try and make sense of all the nonsense. Probably gave you quite a headache. I’d venture to say there probably 15 or more “blunders” still in there.
Thank you for this article. You hit the nail on the head.
What’s really remarkable about this movie is how Abrams hit just the right notes of ACTION and DRAMA and ROMANCE to distract [mostly] everyone from seeing how terrible and absurd the script was. I’m still not quite convinced he’s a great director, but he proved to me with Star Trek he’s a great distract-or.
Hes not a good director and Orci & Kurtzman are not good writers, but Hollywood doesn’t care because their films make money. It’s sad.
Well, going over their résumés now, it’s hard to argue with you.
My main problem with the movie, apart from the script, was the product feel to it all. Everything seemed too neat and cutesy, too packaged for mass consumption. And looking back, I don’t see much difference from this one and its immediate predecessor, the very dumb Star Trek: Nemesis. Only now they have a more energetic cast and director! Yee-haw….
Hope the next one has more to offer.
I have never had any interest in Star Trek, but i really enjoyed this movie. Probably because it isn’t like the original series. It’s better.
And then you woke up.
Did anyone else see the similarities in Abrams star trek and star trek: nemesis? For example, both movies had a) very powerful massive romulan ship hell bent on destroying everything b) Main antoginist hating on enterprise crew for some reason, and c) both Romulun captains were not really Romulun military (which is weird cuz I’ve never seen a Romulun civilian/non-military ever..)
First of all I really enjoyed the articled and I have to say I agree with every single point made along with many others with regard to distracting flaws in the film.
I also have to say that I am, and have been, a Star Trek fan since watching the re-runs of TOS when I was a little kid back in the 70s and have watched and enjoyed everything Trek since (with the exception of most of the middle episodes of Enterprise, many holodeck gone amuck episodes and any episodes featuring Troi’s mother trying to find a man)and I am a true fan with a great deal of Trek experience.
I of course watched the new Trek at the theater and can say that for the most part I enjoyed the film. I found it a bit jarring to see some of the more head scratching aesthetic choices made for the film, the engine room, the entire opening scene with kid Kirk which was covered in the article very well.
The fact is I was at war with myself the entire time watching the film. Annoyed that certain elements were just plain “off” but also thrilled that Trek was back, at least in some form, and it was fairly entertaining.
I tend to think of new Trek and classic Trek in different ways anyway and have been for some time. Which all began way back in 1987 when we saw Patrick Stewart’s Picard for the first time, it was Trek but it wasn’t the Trek we were accustomed to. However I’m not saying we should blindly embrace the new films without acknowledging serious issues but the fact is this is the Trek of the present and this is what we’re going to get.
-Tom
I enjoyed reading your article and agree with some of your points, although I still loved the film. Especially Karl Urban’s potrayal of Bones. It seemed he really made an effort to honour DeForest Kelley’s excellent potrayal of the character, who is my all time favourite character in the franchise. It was only a pity he didn’t get more screen time. The core relationship was always between Kirk, Spock and Bones, not just Kirk and Spock. While I personally still loved it, I do respect your opinion in not liking it. We’re all individuals after all, the world would be boring had we all the same opinions. Just to point out though – and I’m sorry if it seems I’m nitpicking – that you said,
“And Captain Pike already told us that he was an officer on the Kelvin during the attack…”
Pike said he that he wrote his dissertation on the Kelvin because he admired George Kirk’s actions. He never said that he was a crew member.
But again, I did enjoy your article and while a fan of the movie, one thing that I zealously agree with you on is the pointlessness of the romance between Spock and Uhura. That did bother me. There was never any trace of that in the original series. Chapel was always into Spock, while there were suggestions that Uhura and Scotty may have had feelings for one another. But I guess they figured Simon Pegg wasn’t young enough or good looking enough to have an onscreen romance with Zoe Saldana. And while I’m on the subject of Scotty, Simon Pegg was a terrible choice to play him. I love both the character of Scotty and Simon Pegg as an actor. However, I do not love Simon Pegg as Scotty. He looks, acts and sounds nothing like Doohan’s iconic portayal. He’s been reduced from engineering genius to comic relief. I was excited when I heard that Paul McGillion had auditioned for the part. He would have been a much better choice and even resembles Doohan as a younger man.
@Dave
There was absolutely no scene in the original series that could hint to Uhura and Scotty having romantic feelings for one another, unless you invent them and create your own headcanons (fanfictions) to justify the “romance” (if it can be called like that since Sybok was messing up with her feelings anyway) that came out of nowhere in that hideous movie that is the final frontier, a movie that gene Roddenberry himself decanonized.
Spock and Uhura, on the other hand, had been attracted to each other in the actual television series and we can list some scenes where there was some flirting between them and Gene Roddenberry himself had admitted years ago that he had wanted to put them together (thus the random flirting scenes from the first episodes) but racists didn’t let him do that. Clearly, Spock and Uhura were more canon and less baseless than Scotty and Uhura anyway.
clearly this article is appeasing the fake fans obvious really oh and your argument has holes in it
Nope, Vulcan apparently DOES have a moon…moonS…see ST Motion Picture (versus Uhura’s comments to Spock in Original Series!!).
I’m a hardcore, old-school fan of Star Trek. I have memories of watching the show when it originally aired on NBC. I watched it daily when it came to syndication in the 1970′s. I bought blueprints, read Starlog magazine religiously and stood in line for hours in 1979 to see Star Trek: The Motion Picture. I’m a HUGE fan. And I just don’t get the petty complaints of you guys who trash the new movie. What don’t you understand about a “reboot”? Its a new interpretation. If you want The Original Series, go watch it on DVD or Blu-Ray. But please quit whining about a great movie that will inspire a new generation of Trek fans, just as the original series inspired me.
Star Trek should not have been re-booted. If dumbing it down for non fans is the only way to keep it going, then I say let it die.
I love anything that involves space or star ships,especially STAR TREK,TOS and every other STAR TREK show but the truth is almost every episode from every show was bordering on boredom.What STAR TREK has always lacked the new STAR TREK has an abundance of but I will agree that the accuracy and depth of the science and the story need to be maintained and were found wanting in more than a few areas of the new STAR TREKS science,plot and story side,but as far as the design of the ship and the realism of the people go,their actions and attitudes look and feel more believable than the old trek ever did.
upon reading a number of your articles I can honestly say that this is one of the most negative nerd sites on the internet.
The author of this article is obviously an aged fanboy. Star Trek will never overcome its image as long as pathetic whiny nerds are permitted to exist. Thank God their precious canon is dead now, but more rehabilitation remains to be done before Star Trek can truly shine.
I am one of those die hard trek fans, the absolutely last thing I wanted was Shatner back in the film, I even objected to Kirk an gang. I wanted a new crew, a new ship an even a new era, to boldly go where no man has gone before, to kick things off, not starwarification of Trek, an JJ Abram revisiting his childhood.
Success of films like District 9, Source Code, Nolan Batman films, Inception, Moon, proves that not only can the audience can handle intricate storyline with Sci Fi at their core, they prove that audiences will go an watch them. JJ Star Trek and Avatar had dumb down stories lines because they are easy and not hard to do.
Hmm…
I don’t disagree, but name one PERFECT sci-fi film that has ZERO flaw in plot/writing. Maybe that’s not a fair challenge because this movie was up against a well established history, but we all knew it was going to be a reboot. And reboot they did – I loved it!
First off, why didn’t the editor for whatculture at least TRY to correct grammatical/usage errors before posting or allowing this article to be posted? It makes the author (and site, by default) appear as little more than a pissed off redneck with a computer bought on layaway at Walmart. If not editor’s folly, then the author was SO intent on getting out his geek rant that he just free-got to check to make it sure his aritkle were germattically kee-rect. Seriously, I am also a huge geek, but never do I allow my written communication to present anything but the image of an intelligent and educated human. In his article, the author brought up a good many issues that might have been extraordinarily prescient had his article been proofed. As presented, however, the article presents a picture of a low intelligence fanboy ranting on the only soapbox he can find from a couch in his mother’s basement.
Second, Kurtzman and Orci were drawing DIRECT reference to a 1980s Hustler magazine spread wherein Spock and Uhura were depicted… doing Hustler stuff. They may deny it, but the truth is obvious to anyone in the know.
Next time, proofread an article before posting it so that it correctly represents the site.
Great article, but only 15 issues with the movie? I’ve got almost 3 times that. Here’s some more for you: Logical Spock is not logical. Bones is not so named because that’s all he got in the divorce. Kirk still has fresh brawling scars 3 years later. Hanging around… Everyone’s hanging from a cliff. Endless filling-in for someone else. Saturn and Earth are too far apart for the Enterprise to “sneak up” on Nero’s ship. Yes, I’m going to say it: Lens flare. And finally, it’s “I stand relieved,” not “I am relieved.” But I guess that would be a Biden-like gaffe for Pike to say “stand” if he’s stuck in a wheelchair.
I figured we were in trouble the first time I viewed the theatrical trailer and saw Kirk gazing reverntly up at Enterprise as she is being built in the middle of freaking Iowa. Stunning visual, preposterous from an engineering standpoint. Starships are assembled in orbit, not on a planetary surface. Even in the 23rd Century, the energy expenditure required to boost that much mass into space would be staggering. Even if the ship is under power, you’d better hope and pray no one’s in the shipyard when those impulse engines throttle up at launch.
I always understood Vulcan to be eleven light years or so from Sol System, yet the Starfleet task force makes the trip in somewhat under two hours, another example of Orci and Kurtzman either having no understanding of the true immensity of astronomical distances or not caring. Even worse, they assume the audience doesn’t care either. Then there is the patent absurdity of Scotty transporting Kirk and Spock from Titan to Earth orbit, a distance of 500 million kilometers give or take. All right, assume for the sake of argument the transporter is no longer limited to lightspeed, it operates on some quantum entanglement principle that permits transporting from point A to B in zero time. (And if that’s true, why would you even need spaceships any longer?) There ‘s still the small matter of how Mr. Scott is able to get an accurate scan on the Romulan vessel from halfway across the solar system. Here again, Orci and Kurtzman could give a damn.
I’m totally in accord with you that Mr. Church botched the Enterprise redesign. The primary hull looks off-center in relation to the secondary hull, the pylons appear to meet somewhere in the center of the shuttlecraft bay, and the nacelles are ludicrously oversized and almost deformed in appearance.
For the record I’m not an aging fanboy (58, married, father of four, a career police officer) and I understand and accept the franchise needed new blood. There were aspects of the film I truly enjoyed–the performances of Chris Pine and Karl Urban in particular–but Star Trek never discarded the laws of physics the way Orci and Kurtzman did.
Thanks for your comment and I agree with you. I was watching the TNG episode “Contagion” yesterday where Picard discovered and destroyed an alien technology that allowed you to instantly appear anywhere you wanted by waking through a portal. He was so worried about it falling into Romulan hands that he destroyed it, in case the Romulans use it as a weapon. But I thought that it’s essentially just the same as Transwarp beaming, so it just made all beaming onto a ship at warp and beaming from one planet to another even more dumb.
There would be nothing to stop an invading army instantly beaming onto a planet and taking control.
I agree with a third of these complaints, perhaps. But it’s difficult to be angry at a film that has literally beckoned new fans to towards the real thing. My best friend used to rag on me for years about my love of Trek. He saw the 2009 film and immediately began watching Trek, starting from the beginning. Now we have an equal love of Trek and have had many a lengthy discussion concerning the future of the franchise. We agree that the film diluted some parts of the original, but was a reasonable price to pay to reboot Roddenberrys’ vision. Genes’ TRUE vision was one of humanity recognizing its potential and taking the proper steps toward realizing it. I am pleased to see that his vision lives on, both in old fans and the new.
This film has NOTHING to do with Gene’s vision. It leaves that behind for action, product placement and a paper thin plot. My gosh, Star Trek V was better then this film!
Which Vision of Gene’s are you talking about? if your referring to the perfect utopian boring as hell vision he brought about with TNG, you would be correct. If you’re referring to the action/ adventure series called Star Trek, brought to life in 1966…the one that was laced with drama, action, romance and a healthy dash of humor, then you would be incorrect, the new movie matches the spirit and tone of original series brilliantly. Gene’s whacked-out guru mentality that he championed in the 70′s with the Motion Picture and the 80′s with the dreadful TNG was a full 180 degrees from the Gene we saw in the 60′s. I couldn’t be happier with the new movie, finally returning Trek to it’s roots!
Found the new movie very entertaining, JJ Abrams has always F#%$ charactors originality just watch the Hulk, Transformers etc. Even though it was entertaining with the new fast pace bright lights there is no legacy with his version. The original movies had “real life” to it as if it where true you could believe you where there and this is how it would feel. Even though flash in bang now, there wont be a need to watch it years down the road.
By the way, you should check your information. J.J. had nothing to do with The Hulk or Transformers.
So just because it’s new, does that mean it’s beyond critism? The point a out the drill and young Kirk driving the car over a cliff is that they are all symptoms of Star Trek being dumbed down to appeal to the mass audience. There is nothing wrong with that if your only focus is to make lots of money but it is clear that you can only do that by making Star Trek less Star Trek and more Star Wars. And in the process, you lose everything that made you watch Star Trek in the first place.
This movie was fun to watch but its not a classic like Wrath Of Khan that you will watch again and again, It will be intresting to see how Abrams Star Trek is perceived in 20 years time, once all the hype about it has long been forgotten.
“The point a out the drill and young Kirk driving the car over a cliff is that they are all symptoms of Star Trek being dumbed down to appeal to the mass audience”
Yeah, kind of like when Gene Roddenberry added fistfights to the second Trek pilot after the first one was dismissed for being too “cerebral”. In other words….dull. So Roddenberry, in turn, spiced things up and ramped up the action. Nothing wrong with that…if it was good enough for the original series, it’s good enough for JJ’s Trek.
“…too “cerebral”. In other words….dull.”
Thanks for illustrating one of my main complaints about the dumbing down of America: cerebral is not dull except to dullards.
Someone would actually watch Wrath of Khan more than once? That movie dragged.
And on the drill: Assuming the drill was a fusion powered beam, its possible it would have created electromagnetic pulse waves that would have distorted communications and disrupted transporter beams.
On Spocks mother: Her not being beamed up is similar to the away crew not being beamed up in TNG Skin of Evil. Where the beam had started but they were not able to complete the transfer.
Side note: Admiral Archer would have been as old as Mcoy was in TNG.
There are a lot of great points in this article, and I agree with a lot of it, but why can’t someone proofread before they publish?
Proofreading –a dead art in today’s world!
Oh, and “Colombo” is actually spelled _Columbo_. As a “Columbo” fan, that error, not once, but twice in the same paragraph, was especially egregious and unforgivable.
Really? These are your points? Why didn’t Picard go back to when he first saw Dr Soren on his ship? Should we go on from there? Do you know what would happen if a ship with the mass of the Enterprise went light speed? Then you’re off to criticize the red matter factor. I don’t know, need I quote the Shatman and bark out “get a life”?
I’ love the original ST, but here is my contribution to this posting:
The solution for me is do both, make the action movies for the money and make a TV series wirh other actors for the thinkers like most fans are, also if any (any) actor wants more money, put in another actor and don’t tell us, most true fans won’t care. We just want to go treking in outer space not only with Enterprise but other same class ships, but always show me the Enterprise.
I juat saw picture of Alice Eve: she will be Rand I’ll bet you.
This movie was doomed from the Supernova on. In the end I blame Red Matter. This pablum of putrid nonsense is for today’s fair where flashing lights and glitter make for a good film. Enjoy it, embrace it, it will end in about 8 years. BTW….Giant space need to inject planets with illicit substances…wow who writes this stuff.
That film was a waste of good film! what a piece of junk! anyone liking that pos must enjoy having their intelligence insulted! Assuming their IQ even registers. The Crew was a joke! The story was a joke! Those claiming the franchise has progressed are either brain-dead fools or pathological liars who work for this new wanna-be star trek crap!
The Majority of Star Trek fans hated this movie! Of course those working for this POS hired as many people to go on places like facebook and youtube posing as “Trekkies” who “love the new film” but they were so obviously fake! When you start pinning them down to specifics about original stories about things not covered by wikipedia they all start turning very nasty! Start calling us TRUE TREKKIE, nasty names and accusing of us of living in the past. They are so pathetic!
Those who like the new movie are not now nor will they ever be accepted as Trekkies! They are nothing! And the fools at paramount can lie their butts off all they want! We Real Trekkies are soon going to be taking back our Star Trek!
Can’t wait to watch the next POS crash and burn! And hopefully they will fire that moron Abrams! That arrogant SOB! What a worthless writer! His story was ultra-cliched and only mindless fools like that sort of crap!
We Real Trekkies are ahead of the curve! We’ll wait for the half-wits at Paramount to get a clue! New crap out! Old stuff in! And yeah! I could make a 3 part movie that would make WAY more then that moron Abrams! Of course Paramount wouldn’t have the guts to try out my idea or anyone else’s. They rather stick with boring old morons whose writing is laughable at best. And so are his fans!
“We Real Trekkies are soon going to be taking back our Star Trek!”
Umm…yeah, well, have fun with that. Lol
Too bad Red Matter isn’t real! We could use it to destroy that abomination that has pathetically and farcically attempted to pass itself off as a real star trek movie. We could make it remove all traces of it and put us Real Trekkies out of our misery.
The morons defending it work for Abrams so their opinion is a worthless joke! like the movie! lol
Thank you for this article! I hated this film, but you came up with reasons to dispise it that even I had not thought of. “Fans” that slam us real fans for longing for life before JJ keep showing exactly how much they didn’t get it in the first place. They can keep their fake Trek, I long for the real thing, which sadly I’m realizing may be gone for good. R.I.P. Star Trek. :(
Yes, another lifelong Trek fan from first broadcasts of classic Trek. Pretty much agree with the criticisms, but, oddly, I did enjoy the film. I liked the direction of the action and the way it was shot and the performance of all the cast. But I was aware of the fact it was a thin plot full of holes whilst watching…but I let that go because for me it had a big “heart” somehow – and that’s what reminded me of the original the most and was the key aspect missing from much of later Trek. My conclusions though would be that the writing was lazy and many of the holes could have been filled without spoiling the film in any way or harming box office with a good chance it could have improved both. For me there were a few key things that spoilt the film for me: production design was very underwhelming even poor – the look of the ship exterior and interior set pieces, some of the props, and the general feel of being too contemporary rather than 300 years into the future. The casting of Pegg didn’t do it for me either. I think to sum up, enjoyable film with a big heart…but weak Trek, I certainly don’t think it will have any longevity or the makings of a classic scifi film such as Trek 2, Terminator 2, Predator, Alien, first Star Wars, 2001, Apes 1, etc.
Yes, another lifelong Trek fan from first broadcasts of classic Trek. Pretty much agree with the criticisms, but, oddly, I did enjoy the film. I liked the direction of the action and the way it was shot and the performance of all the cast. But I was aware of the fact it was a thin plot full of holes whilst watching…but I let that go because for me it had a big “heart” somehow -and that’s what reminded me of the original the most and was the key aspect missing from much of later Trek. My conclusions though would be that the writing was lazy and many of the holes could have been filled without spoiling the film in any way or harming box office with a good chance it could have improved both. For me there were a few key things that spoilt the film for me: production design was very underwhelming even poor – the look of the ship exterior and interior set pieces, some of the props, and the general feel of being too contemporary rather than 300 years into the future. The casting of Pegg didn’t do it for me either. I think to sum up, enjoyable film with a big heart…but weak Trek, I certainly don’t think it will have any longevity or the makings of a classic scifi film such as Trek 2, Terminator 2, Predator, Alien, first Star Wars, 2001, Apes 1, etc.
You, sir, hit the nail on the head. JJ-Trek is a joke – a bastardized version of a great show. I’ll watch it, because it’s better than no Trek, but it was ridiculous on so many levels. And I don’t expect much better from Star Trek Into Crapness.
This is the whiniest article I’ve read in a long time. There are a lot of films I don’t like, that I’ve been dosappointed by, but I don’t waste my time writing crap like this.
Yes, the Star Trek franchise was killed… in 2005, after Nemesis had flopped and Enterprise was cancelled. JJ Abrams saved it, with a fantastic movie, IMO.
J.J. ruined the franchise? Have you seen a little show called “Voyager”? Maybe you can make a case that J.J. is beating a dead horse, but you can’t fault him for destroying Star Trek. I’ll watch JJTrek before I watch anything made after All Good Things.
I think that most of your comments are valid, although many are just “nit-picking”. Without doing a point-by-point breakdown, suffice it to say, nothing is perfect.
Original Trek often contradicted itself and made many a scientific and technical faux pas. Although they did a pretty good job in maintaining a fair degree of continuity within their own scientific model, they were not above bending the “science” for the sake of plot advancement.
Remember, it’s all about entertainment. At best, Star Trek is a vehicle for heroes, philosophy, wonder and excitement. As long as it does that, then it’s doing it’s job. Times and audiences change. Yes, sadly, they did dumb it down, but it is just playing to the unwashed masses. I know, it sucks for many of us “old schoolers”, but welcome to the 21st century!
P.S. The Beastie Boys are cool in any century!
Wow. Abrams and co. done us all a favor by bringing a new Trek movie with a new perspective on it and all the “trekkies” do is complain, whine and cry about how bad they have it.
I think JJ, Bob, Alex and Damon have their next storyline for the last movie right here. That is where all the “die-hards” would attack the Big E and the new crew for an epic showdown. It would be done cerebrally of course, without lens flares, brewery rooms, fill in complaint, fill in complaint, etc.
Personally some of you here and on other sites scare me and I wouldn’t even want to go to a convention if I were some of these new actors. I’d be scared of what some of you could be capable of considering the way you get so bent out of shape about someone else’s opinion or interpretation of the reboot.
I personally liked TOS, TNG was ok, the rest were ok as well imo. But to me JJ and the SC brought a new life and with it a new perspective to the franchise. Setting my phasers to stun, bring it on.
Amarpal, You’re 100% dead-on target with everything you said here! To toss a little more into a couple of your arguments for reinforcement, I read an article interviewing the writers who said fate is proven by quantum mechanics; therefore, that explains why Kirk, Spock-Prime and Scotty meet on Delta Vega. That’s so much B.S. it’s ridiculous. Where and when did these fellows get their degree in quantum mechanics? These were fan boys who wrote their Star Trek movie, gushing all sorts of Easter eggs all over the place for other fan boys to find.
First of all, Delta Vega. Same name as the planet in the 2nd pilot, which is at the edge of the galaxy, far from Vulcan. It can’t be Vulcan’s moon, as you stated. It can’t exist so close to Vulcan that it orbits within the same habitable zone in space because otherwise, it too would be a desert world like vulcan. So it exists further away. If we stood on Mars, we would not be able to see Earth that clearly. We can’t see Venus that clearly from Earth either. So the planets have to be very close together. A desert planet and an ice world.
Second of all, if they’re so close together, the black hole would also have consumed Delta Vega.
Third, it’s an ice planet. Where does the air come from? There has to be plant life to oxygenate the atmosphere.
Fourth, since there is no plant life, where did Spock-Prime get the wood to burn, to create the torch that chases off the monster?
Fifth, since JJ Abrams is a Star Wars fan, am I the only one who saw the similarity to this scene and one in Empire Strikes Back? Ice planet? Ice cave? Monster has the hero by his foot? Where’s your light saber, Jim?
The entire scene was contrived.
Are there ways this could have worked? Yes, but the writers were too busy gushing like fan boys to think straight.
Start with Kirk being ejected from Enterprise. As stated, this is idiotic. However, if Kirk had escaped from Enterprise, feigned a weak spell and punched a couple guards, made it to the escape pod and launched himself, THAT would have been in keeping with his character. Spock would have had Sulu go to all stop, the pod would launch, and Kirk — not manifest destiny — would have told the pod to set course for the nearest outpost i.e. ‘Delta Vega’, though a better ‘Vulcan’ name would have made more sense, since it would have logically been named by Vulcans. The planet itself would be a dwarf planet with an erratic orbit, in the same way Pluto has an orbit that crosses Neptune’s orbit. Therefore, because of its proximity at that season, it would be at its closest approach to Vulcan that year. Yes, a little contrived but way better than what we saw. Also, it can’t be an all-ice planet. Kirk would be at one of the polar continents. Of course, the pod computer would explain this to Kirk, therefore also informing the audience what we need to know. Okay, Kirk encounters BEM on planet, runs for ‘cave’, and encounters SCOTTY with a Starfleet electronic torch. He waves the BEM away, and says he carved out the ice mass after the recent ice storm that covered the facility entrance. He tells Kirk he also rescued Mr. Spock. Kirk acts shocked until he sees Spock-Prime. Then, the three (or four) evacuate the planet as the gravitational stresses from the black hole are tearing the world apart. They leave via shuttle-craft and use a transporter on board the shuttle to beam onto Enterprise. Spock-Prime and the Ewok stay behind on the shuttle and proceed to Earth. They beam onto the ship without Scotty’s trip through ‘Willie Wonka’s factory’, which was stupid. And most of that scene has been salvaged.
No long nod of the head to Star Trek VI, with Kirk and Prime walking the ice drifts looking for salvation. No tribble on Scott’s desk. No reference to Archer’s beagle. It’s too much stuff like that that ruined the film for me.
Here’s another not mentioned here.
How did they know that Nero and crew were Romulans? Kirk-Prime and company encountered them ni Balance of Terror. irk was 33 years old thereabouts. No one had sen a Romulan before. Only voice communication was possible in the past. Now, the timelines were identical to the moment the Narada attacked the Kelvin. No one knew what a Romulan looked like. When Nero appeared onscreen, no one thought, who’s this Goth Vulcan with the tattoos? They did not identify themselves as Romulans.
How could Kirk-Abrams tell Pike and crew that the Kelvin was attacked by Romulans, UNLESS the Kelvin scanned the Narada before all hell broke loose? Now, when the ship was coming through, it could have been scanned. The science officer would report strange readings from the alien vessel. They read Romulan. “Romulan?” the Captain would say to George Kirk. The screen would activate eventually, Nero would demand the Captain come aboard, and they would remark to one another, “I guess that’s a Romulan!” The Captain would order all scans be sent to Starfleet, which would be an entire file with technology from 156 years in the future. THIS would explain the upgrades in technology and the shift in the balance of power throughout the quadrant, making the Abrams universe quite different from the Prime universe. They have a 156 year jump on the Prime timeline.
Anyway, the movie had glamor and effects but lacked the heart and warmth of any film with the original cast, and even TNG crew. For ACTION, it had that, and lens flares to spare. For a story that was whole and complete and well told, it was sorely lacking. I thank you for your article. It’s nailed things extremely well!
Amarpal, You’re 100% dead-on target with everything you said here! To toss a little more into a couple of your arguments for reinforcement, I read an article interviewing the writers who said fate is proven by quantum mechanics; therefore, that explains why Kirk, Spock-Prime and Scotty meet on Delta Vega. That’s so much B.S. it’s ridiculous. Where and when did these fellows get their degree in quantum mechanics? These were fan boys who wrote their Star Trek movie, gushing all sorts of Easter eggs all over the place for other fan boys to find.
First of all, Delta Vega. Same name as the planet in the 2nd pilot, which is at the edge of the galaxy, far from Vulcan. It can’t be Vulcan’s moon, as you stated. It can’t exist so close to Vulcan that it orbits within the same habitable zone in space because otherwise, it too would be a desert world like Vulcan. So it exists further away. If we stood on Mars, we would not be able to see Earth that clearly. We can’t see Venus that clearly from Earth either. So the planets have to be very close together. A desert planet and an ice world.
Second of all, if they’re so close together, the black hole would also have consumed Delta Vega.
Third, it’s an ice planet. Where does the air come from? There has to be plant life to oxygenate the atmosphere.
Fourth, since there is no plant life, where did Spock-Prime get the wood to burn, to create the torch that chases off the monster?
Fifth, since JJ Abrams is a Star Wars fan, am I the only one who saw the similarity to this scene and one in Empire Strikes Back? Ice planet? Ice cave? Monster has the hero by his foot? Where’s your light saber, Jim?
The entire scene was contrived.
Are there ways this could have worked? Yes, but the writers were too busy gushing like fan boys to think straight.
Start with Kirk being ejected from Enterprise. As stated, this is idiotic. However, if Kirk had *escaped* from Enterprise, by feigning a weak spell and punching a couple guards, made it to the escape pod and launched himself, THAT would have been in keeping with his character. Spock would have had Sulu go to all stop, the pod would launch, and Kirk — not manifest destiny — would have told the pod to set course for the nearest Starfleet outpost i.e. ‘Delta Vega’, though a better “Vulcan” name would have made more sense, since it would have logically been named by Vulcans. The planet itself would be a dwarf planet with an erratic orbit, in the same way Pluto has an orbit that crosses Neptune’s orbit. Therefore, because of its proximity at that season, it would be at its closest approach to Vulcan that year. Yes, a little contrived but way better than what we saw. Also, it can’t be an all-ice planet. Kirk would be at one of the polar continents. Of course, the pod computer would explain this to Kirk, therefore also informing the audience what we need to know. Okay, Kirk encounters BEM on planet, runs for ‘cave’, and encounters SCOTTY with a Starfleet electronic torch. He waves the BEM away, and says he carved out the ice mass after the recent ice storm that covered the facility entrance. He tells Kirk he also rescued Mr. Spock. Kirk acts shocked until he sees Spock-Prime. Then, the three (or four) evacuate the planet as the gravitational stresses from the black hole are tearing the world apart. They leave via shuttlecraft and use a transporter on board the shuttle to beam onto Enterprise. Spock-Prime and the Ewok stay behind on the shuttle and proceed to Earth. They beam onto the ship without Scotty’s trip through ‘Willie Wonka’s factory’, which was stupid. And most of that scene would then have been salvaged.
No long nod of the head to Star Trek VI, with Kirk and Prime walking the ice drifts looking for salvation. No tribble on Scott’s desk. No reference to Archer’s beagle. It’s too much stuff like that that ruined the film for me.
Here’s another blunder not mentioned here.
How did they know that Nero and crew were Romulans? Kirk-Prime and company encountered them in Balance of Terror. Kirk was 33 years old thereabouts. No one had seen a Romulan before. Only voice communication was possible in the past. Now, the timelines were identical to the moment the Narada attacked the Kelvin. No one knew what a Romulan looked like. When Nero appeared onscreen, no one thought, who’s this Goth Vulcan with the tattoos? They did not identify themselves as Romulans.
How could Kirk-Abrams tell Pike and crew that the Kelvin was attacked by Romulans, UNLESS the Kelvin scanned the Narada before all hell broke loose? Now, when the ship was coming through, it could have been scanned. The science officer would report strange readings from the alien vessel. They read Romulan. “Romulan?” the Captain would say to George Kirk. The screen would activate eventually, Nero would demand the Captain come aboard, and they would remark to one another, “I guess that’s a Romulan!” The Captain would order all scans be sent to Starfleet, which would be an entire file with technology from 156 years in the future. THIS would explain the upgrades in technology and the shift in the balance of power throughout the quadrant, making the Abrams universe quite different from the Prime universe. They have a 156 year jump on the Prime timeline.
Anyway, the movie had glamor and effects but lacked the heart and warmth of any film with the original cast, even TNG crew. For ACTION, it had that, and lens flares to spare. For a story that was whole and complete and well told, it was sorely lacking. I thank you for your article. It’s nailed things extremely well!
the reason nero didn’t destroy the kelvin was because he wasn’t after kirk. he was after spok. the name kirk was never mentioned durring the interigation sequence.
ok this one is a bit technical when the super nova goes off it sets off a gamma ray burster that can in theory detroy all life on a planet. if not the planet itself depending on the size of the burst
As a die hard Trekker – I found much to enjoy about this movie. My biggest issue was in the totally destroyed timeline – things that WOULD NOT have been affected by the Nero going to the past.
1) Kirk’s OLDER brother George Samuel Kirk – what would have happened in this altered timeline that prevented his birth. (The only alteration was Nero’s being sent back – just before he attacked the ship Jim’s father was serving on.
2) Chekov was about 10 YEARS YOUNGER than Kirk – just how did they end up on the Enterprise at the same time.
Sorry but Nero coming back in time would NOT have changed those two things at all and that is part of what hurt the movie for this Trekkie/Trekker.
Kirks older brother was in the deleted scenes on the dvd
A lot of valid points, many of which I took major issue with when I watched the movie the first time. I was rather ambivalent about the movie but did take major issue on several things.
As for the boiler room brewery engine room – I can confirm for you that it indeed will be back. They filmed those scenes at the Budweiser brewery in Van Nuys, CA for the first movie (hence the product placement). My brother in law works there and he confirmed for me the movie folks were back for the second film.
Gene Roddenberry wasn’t just indebted to C. S. Forrester, what with “Horatio Hornblower” and all. His real role models were, in addition to Rodman Edward “Rod” Serling, the Reverend Dean Jonathan Swift Jr. and Monsieur Voltaire. These were satirists, and the “Voyages” are and, at their best, have always been, as much satire/allegory as science fiction. The Bad Roboticist repeatedly refuses to acknowledge this.
“Vulcans only mate every seven years but that’s probably been forgotten about as well.”
insert here EPIC FACEPALM
I just chose only one example of the many silly things that you wrote here. I suggest you to check canon first before presenting supposed canon facts.
The phrase posted above is one of the most idiotic things that people (wonder) still say. Let’s repeat it together: VULCANS CAN HAVE SEX EVERYTIME THEY WANT!
because I’m lazy I will quote from wikipedia:
“A common misconception associated with the series (and Spock in particular) is that Vulcans only have sex once every seven years. However, pon farr is not coincident with the sex lives of Vulcans, and they are able to have intercourse without the affliction, and thus more than once every seven years.”
Pike: “You understand what the Federation is, don’t you? It’s important. It’s a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada.”
No it isn’t you numbskulls Orci, Kurtzman, JJ et al. That’s what STARFLEET IS!
I love you for this!!!
Has anyone seen the holes in the plot of The Wrath of Khan,the Voyage Vome and others? Chekov recognising Khan in Wrath of Khan for one. I’m a life long trekker and have loved all the series and most of the movies… and I loved the last film. Yes, you could pick holes in the plot and characterisations but this film bought a whole new generation of fans to the Star Trek universe. To critisise Quinto’s Spock is to forget how emotional Nimoy’s Spock has been for the last 15 years or so let alone Spock in the original pilots. Embrace the new life that has been given to the characters we love. Shatner will always be my Kirk but that doesn’t mean I hate Chris Pine’s effort. Can’t wait for the next film.
You forgot how the whole movie was ruined because Kirk didn’t occasionally lapse into a Canadian accent. No seriously, this is of MAJOR importance to any serious “Trek” fan and was by far one of the most important elements of TOS. What were Abrams and company thinking? Kirk sans occasional Canadian accent?! My panties are in a double knot. I’m cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs about the whole thing.
This movie was a load of garbage. Along the lines of Prometheus garbage. It did ruin the franchise, that agree with. No more enjoyment in the subtleties of the Trek universe. Why do people have to go and ruin things that are fine as is.
Amarpal is right on the money on all counts. This movie was an absolute travesty. I fully understand I won’t ever see the tv version of Star Trek on the big screen because quite frankly this society we live in today has zero patience and lacks any real cognitive ability.
But I do expect to see some semblance of what Star Trek IS about. When I saw this movie, I felt like I was watching a crappy version of Star Wars in the Star Trek universe. Too many gimmicks, too many plot-holes, too much shock value for no reason, Spock has a girlfriend now? Seriously? WTF.
I always felt TOS was a mix of Gene’s vision with a little space cowboy flavor. Which I think was good, and is mainly the reason why the TOS movies were so successful. TNG was Gene’s vision of what he wanted Star Trek to be, which was great television but not so good for the silver screen. In all honesty, I would have liked it if they just pushed Trek forward into the future, or stay in the present TNG era.. new characters new ship. Star Trek is big enough that it does not need to rely on the past. TOS movies were showing in theatres at the same time TNG was being aired on tv, so don’t give me this nonsense that people would ‘get confused’ — and this was in an era before the internet/social media. People aren’t dumb. Wait a minute…
One thing I will say is I mildly agree with the creator of this article as for standard old breed Star Trek Fans this movie was a bit of a disaster, but for the reboot as a stand alone I reckon it was pretty cracking.
I’m torn… I prefer my Voyager Universe :P, but one thing I will say. Warp beaming as i’ll call it was mentioned in Voayger when they were trying to rescue Chakoty or however that name is spelt to save him from the Kazon :P
True geekery at it’s max remembering that one :P
Do you want a tissue to dry those eyes pal? I went into that movie with my arms crossed and it was going to take a lot to impress me, recasting the original crew was ballsy to say the least. Yes there were a few holes in the plot but where is your 15 point article on a film where the main premise is a giant pencil with an extending glowing ball that is somehow destroying the earth (yet no ship is having a square go at it) because its not been able to hear whale song for 200 years from god knows how far away? Star trek has always had some pretty crazy ideas to present audiences but they have always been tolerated because, ultimately, its about the relationships between the characters that make it special.
I cannot believe you can possibly slate the latest incarnation of the Enterprise, it looked amazing and had some amazing shots none more so than when it appeared through the rings of Saturn which was phenomenal cinematography. In my eyes NCC 1701 has never looked so good and given I actually have that registration inked permanently into my arm I’m going to have to say I have more right to make a judgement on it than you do.
Two things more than any other discredit your whining. Firstly Pike never served on the kelvin, it was the subject of his dissertation when at starfleet academy. Fail.
Secondly if you did any research you would have discovered the corvette was actually Kirks fathers that was taken on by evil step dad and that the kid jim waves to when driving it is his brother George who had just walked out because evil step dad is a throbber. Again fail.
You can say what you like about the re-boot but for me the acid test was my old man, he didn’t take to tng, voyager or enterprise though he did get a bit drawn into ds9. He was 21 when tos came out and loved no other show quite like it. I got him the re-boot on dvd for his birthday and he absolutely loved it, sadly he isn’t going to be around for the sequel as he died last year but if it was good enough for him its good enough for anyone.
Live long and prosper.
i find this explanation full of holes nice try what culture but you clearly need to quit finding fault
Delta Vega was in the original Star Trek, episode ‘Where No Man Has Gone Before’. It is NOT the Vulcan moon. It is a dilithium mining station.
While only 20% of your statements are valid; it appears as though you will bash this movie until even your own comments are meaningless.
If you could do better, then why don’t you submit your script and see how well it turns out!
Your comments/questions:
‘A normal transporter beams a person from point A to point B and we have always been lead to believe that it has a limited range. But in Abrams universe, it is now possible to beam you from planet to planet and even on a ship that is traveling at warp speed.’
Answer:
In Star Trek: TOS, episode: ‘Assignment: Earth’, Gary Seven is transported to earth from a very distant system. Spock mentions that the formula used is one Engineer Scott will develop. The development happens decades beyond Star Trek: TOS. Just because it was used in TNG, DS9 or Voyager doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened. There was nothing in the episodes that blatantly stated it couldn’t happen. In Enterprise, Trip is transferred to the Enterprise from another starship; however in all the series and movies that followed in the time line, it was never tried again; and it was never blatantly stated it could not happen.
I just want to applaud this article. I’ve been a first-generation Trek fan all my life–until recently. I reviewed this movie, brought up the same flaws (and many, many more!) and I was banned from Star Trek sites worldwide. Anything with “Trek” on it these days has a zombie-like (or Borg if you prefer!) following. There’s been a vast dumbing down of TV and movies in recent years and now it’s hit Star Trek–and the average person can’t even see it!
Abrams’ Star Trek film was a KIDDIE MOVIE, plain and simple. It was geared to the intellect of todays super-hero filmgoers and fits right into the same mold as Armageddon and the Transformers movies. Lots of noise, explosions, shaking cameras, lens flare–dumbed-down characters, NO real plot beyond the simplistic, B-A-D SCIENCE.
Listen to me, folks. The previous 10 Trek films may have had their share of flaws but each one of them was Aimed At An Adult Audience and each one Featured Adult Characters. Got it? Watching Abrams’ 2009 load gave me the instant impression that it was aimed at teenagers and young adults with little to no grasp of Science Fiction, much less of Trek.
This was NOT a Star Trek movie, regardless of the use of that title and its character names.
I wrote a dozen page review of the film, you can find elsewhere. Or maybe you can’t. I think it’s been banned or taken down. Because, you know, I’m an old fart who can’t adapt to new Trek aimed at a new audience, that sort of thing.
Amarpal, can you turn down the hysteria a little? Yep, there were clunky bits (it was filmed during a writer’s strike… and the source material wasn’t exactly 2001). But It wasn’t exactly Final Destination in Space either.
How do a corvette, a mining drill and Chekov draw in a mass audience, exactly?
“Paramount wanted to bring in the casual audience movie-goer who doesn’t want to see a film with a heavy plot, references to science and belonging to a franchise that is considered very nerdy.” – This is what is wrong with all media and why almost nothing is very good in specific categories anymore. Everything gets watered down to cater to people who have no passion about anything or patience to think about something on a deeper level then “call of duty”. Yes I went there, most of you will flame me, cause you are in that category, so I expect that. There are less people who think as I, and unfortunately that is why they get away with making things with no regard of continuity, integrity, or our expectations of what should be followed. Simply put they make more money off casual people, therefore they get away with murder by releasing horrible reboots over and over (Michael Bay etc) and casuals just eat that up. -Rant of a Star Trek Fan.
I’m pretty sure one of the reasons they went with the Beastie Boys was because the Beastie Boys liked to do shout-outs to Star Trek in their songs – the movie was returning the favour, if you will.
LOL, someone needs a life. It’s just a movie. A good movie. I enjoyed it very much just like I did all the Star Trek shows
Looking forward to the new one in May
I have been a Star Trek fan for as long as I can remember Star Trek. I grew up with the Original Series as my childhood “cartoons” and have appreciated every incarnation of Star Trek for its strengths and in spite of its weaknesses. I have seen every episode of the Original Series and Next Gen, almost all of DS9, most of Voyager and Enterprise. Plus ALL the movies, more times than I can count. I can hold my own in any trivia contest. I say all this to preface the announcement that I LOVE J.J. Abrams Star Trek. Using almost exclusively the Original Series as inspiration, especially for tone, it completely succeeds. Every element brought up in this article is a nit-pick that could easily be explained with enough techno-babble to fill an entire Star Trek episode, but does anyone remember that the original show was really LOW on techno-babble? Things HAPPENED in Star Trek; action happened, constantly! Every decision they made in this movie that “violated” some Trek tenant was deliberate. Especially interesting is Spock and his humanity and his relationship with Uhura. The original Spock struggled for years with his human half before finding some sort of reconciliation with it. This Spock is already clearly more in touch with his human side. This Spock, informed by the inclusion of the original Spock and all that we know about him, is INTERESTING because he’s not the SAME EXACT Spock. He’s not WRONG, he’s DIFFERENT! He will make choices the other Spock wouldn’t have! That’s a GOOD THING! Star Trek Nemesis was a love letter to Wrath of Khan, but did that work out for it? No. Self-referential, do-it-the-same-way-we-always-have Star Trek DOESN’T WORK. Plus the REASON that so many things are different is BUILT INTO THE MOVIE! It’s an alternate time-line! Period! You cannot dismiss that element because it’s KEY. FOUNDATIONAL! It defines this new Star Trek. It cannot be dismissed.
Honestly, every complaint of this article elicited a groan from me. Why is it so easy to dismiss detractors of this film as nit-picky, staid, stuck-in-their-ways Trek fanboys? Because of articles like this, that’s why.
I agree with your article. Abrams’ Star Trek was definitely aimed at the casual moviegoer. That decision, I believe came from the higher ups that wanted to bank on the past proven success of the brand which people shockingly ignore (meaning it was fine the way it was and should have been left a classic – like the Dodge Charger). Where are the old series that had all of the flash and bang recipe this new Star Trek has? Exactly. That recipe is not for longevity and franchise building. Greek style tragedies rarely do. Abrams’ style does not have any staying power. It is a very good movie, don’t get me wrong. I genuinely liked it, and I quickly got over any continuity breaks (even the annoying alternate reality pill that people were expected to swallow since most scifi franchises avoid that topic like a third rail) but I only saw it once and didn’t feel the need to see it again. I just didn’t feel compelled to and I don’t really know why to be honest. Supertroopers, Beerfest, Stargate SG-1, SGA, Startrek TNG, DS9, The original Series and even Enterprise, I will watch over and over until I go blind because they just have that element that makes you want to get involved . But the new movie? Not so much. It was exhausting to watch despite the fact that I did genuinely liked the movie. Today’s movies aren’t made for intellectuals, that’s just the facts – sorry if that is offensive to anyone but box office records don’t lie. People don’t want to think when watching a movie and money talks.
Thank you for this article. It helped me understand why that movie felt so wrong.
AMARPAL BIRING! You are my HERO! Every point you made was true and for each point there are dozens more. I DESPISED the prequel to my core. They (JJ and his hack writers) may have indeed destroyed ST forever. I love your name for it: ACTIONTREK. It has been dumbed down and should be taught in film & writing schools as an example of LAZY MOVIE MAKING.
What ever you need to happen in a story you can make happen by ignoring basic science or when in a pinch blame it on some kind of time travel shift. It is Deus ex machina at it’s worst.
I’m hoping, but doubt it will ever happen, that someone can “remake the reboot” like they did with “HULK”, and correct all of the mistakes that JJ has made. (JJ? Is that short for JarJar?)
Thank-you for writing this article because I was feeling so alone on this. You are a wonderful genius!
Live Long and Prosper!
I LOVED this article! Every point was right on and I’m sure the author was limited by space considerations and so couldn’t list even more things wrong with this movie.
Yes, I got caught up in the action and the special effects. But the only reason I went to this movie was because it was Star Trek and what I love about Star Trek is Story and Characters and Moral Conflicts and Ethical Dilemmas.
I have purposely never seen a single Transformers movie or G.I. Joe movie. The movies of Orci and Kurtzman I have seen, such as Eagle Eye, Van Helsing and The Mummy have all taken decent to great actors and made the suck! Seriously, how do you make Hugh Jackman boring?
I think changing the timeline was a great way to reboot the franchise, but come on! The only change in the timeline was Kirk’s father’s death. Why would that personal detail change everyone else’s life? Including their birth dates? How can Chekov be on the Enterprise and an ensign at the age of, what? 17?
Change the timeline to tell a new story, fine. But after doing that, and showing it’s effects on Kirk as a kid, getting recruited into Star Fleet (unbelievably) by Pike, why not jump over all the bogus Star Fleet Academy crap, jamming all the characters together as Frat House budddies, and just pick up the story with Kirk as the youngest First Officer ever serving on the Enterprise under Pike, Spock as science officer butting heads with Kirk, everyone else in their respective posts. . .And THEN they meet Nero!
Pike is fried and ends up in his wheelchair, Kirk naturally takes command, promotes Spock to First Officer because he recognizes he needs his logical insights, calls on Scotty to push the engines too hard, Chekov does something brilliant to become navigator, Sulu gets to fight with swords, Uhura gets to seduce someone to forward The Plan, while still saving her virtue and McCoy gets to bitch and complain throughout!
Go ahead and destroy Vulcan, even kill Spock’s mom (just not stupidly!). But give their destruction MEANING. We tell stories to make sense of our lives, to give our existence meaning. The best screenwriters, the best storytellers know this. Too bad Orci and Kurtzman don’t.
Here’s a thought. Would this script have been successful as a stand-alone movie without its leeching off of Star Trek’s soul? Very possibly, especially with access to the same caliber of talent and backing it had as Star Trek. It wasn’t that it was a bad script (although it was from a story lover’s point of view). It’s that it wasn’t Star Trek and showed no respect for the Star Trek mythos.
It’s like DC Fontana said of Harlan Ellison’s original script of “City on the Edge of Forever.” She said it was a perfect script that could have been shot exactly as it was written IF it had been written for an anthology series such as The Outer Limits. BUT, as a Star Trek script it HAD to be re-written. And so she did and it became the most popular episode of ALL the original series. Ellison always blamed Roddenberry for the rewrite (and the lies he told about why the rewrite was necessary) and he was blown away when 30 years later he found out his dear friend DC had done the hatchet job to his script. That’s Hollywood and it’s not personal. It’s business.
P.S. I walked out of Star Trek Nemesis and I have little hope for the next Star Trek movie.
I’ve read through the list of issues with the new Star Trek movie and most of them seem to fall into the category of “But that’s not the way it should be…”. If this is your criticism, you missed the point of the film entirely. The point of the film was to reboot what we knew about the Star Trek universe.
1. Kirk’s promotion: Field battle promotions have been part of the military for forever. When this happens the person promoted has to prove themselves to gain loyalty.
2. Transwarp Beaming: Future Spock didn’t say when Scott would invent transwarp beaming, just that he would. Perhaps it requires a huge amount of power, which is why we don’t see it on a Starship. Again, you’re trying to fit a reboot into the old Trek universe.
3. Red Matter: The original series had plot devices that would be used that were never really explained until the writers decided to flesh it out in another episode or movie. This is nothing new.
4 – 7, 10. Spock, Uhura, Enterprise, Chekhov, Kobiashi Maru: These all fall into the category of a new universe with new rules and slightly different characters. The point here is that Nero changed history. So things are different, including a more emotional Spock, a more capable Chekhov, a different Enterprise, and a more rebellious Kirk.
8. Mining Drill: The Mining drill is from the future with advanced technology. Is it so hard to believe that it could disrupt technology from the past? As for the chain being easy to break, perhaps it’s built that way so that it could be cut and abandoned at the first sign of trouble during mining? It wasn’t originally meant as a weapon, so it wouldn’t be hardened.
9. Comedy: Not everyone has the same taste.
11. Kelvin: Again, you are trying to fit the new universe into the old Trek storyline. The destruction of the Kelvin was necessary for the reboot to occur. I do agree that Kirk being born on the Kelvin was a little over the top and unnecessary.
12. Rebel: Perhaps Kirk’s step-dad was a collector. He obviously had an antique car. The rest of the items in the car, such as the Nokia, Beastie Boys, etc. belonged to his step-dad and, perhaps, were his favorites. My guess is he was playing this music as a big sendoff for the car, not because Kirk liked it.
13. Beer: The engine room layout is from a time before the original Star Trek and in a rebooted universe. Perhaps the original “engine room” also supported other things such as water filtration, heating, etc. much like a building’s engineering room today.
14 – 15. Supernova, Nero: I agree that Romulus would have been evacuated and I also agree that 25 years is a long time to sit on a grudge.
In my opinion, of the 15 blunders, only 3 have nothing to do with a rebooted universe: Kelvin(11), Nero(14), and Supernova(15). I agree that each of these were plot holes that could have been thought out better.
The rest of the complaints are simply because something is different from the original canon. Personally, I enjoyed the changes as it breathes a new life into Trek universe and gets it back to the feel of the original series.
To comment (1); Yes, field promotions happen…in time of declared WAR. They are to the next rank….not from junior-year cadet all the way to Captain of a ship (the same as Colonel in the army or air force; the next rank up is Admiral/General).
The last time someting like this happened in real life was during the Civil War. A young officer was field-promoted repeatedly for a number of reckless charges in battle, and made it all the way to Brigadier General. He graduated LAST in his class from West Point. You may have heard of him: George Armstrong Custer. Didn’t work out well for him (or his unit for that matter).
When you don’t put any true thought into this movie, it’s entertaining. I liked it when I first watched it but the more I thought about it, the more I realized I was probably duped. I do have to agree that these critiques are spot on. Over all, the writing had more holes in it than swiss cheese with a gunshot through it. Unfortunately, the movie was not for thinkers, it was for the mindless masses that enjoy blinking lights. I guess after enjoying some of the more cerebral writing of the various Trek series’, the new BSG and a few others I expected it to meet the higher bar that’s been set as opposed to coming right out of the early 1990′s. The next movie looks truly horrific. So much so that I have to opt out entirely. If I want to see people running around with guns for two hours, I’ll watch CNN.
There’s nothing wrong with change, there’s just a lot wrong with this change.
You write at length about the drill being stupid but miss the rather obvious point that if you have the ability to create black holes at will, you certainly do not need to drill into the middle of a planet to destroy it, so the drill was completely pointless and just a clunky ‘ticking clock’ plot device.
I didn’t actually realise that this film shared writers with Transformers, but that goes a long way to explaining how unbelievably poorly written and plotted it is, and makes it all the stranger that people insist on writing off valid criticism of it as the whinging of a few fanboys.
In short: Damon Lindelof. The king of self lazy plot devices that make no sense and leave plot holes that red matter couldn’t fix. Supporting evidence? Prometheus, Cowboys and Aliens, and the first Star Trek. Each left viewers asking “WTF?” and seriuosly doubting that they would bother watching any sequels. He’s a sloppy writer / producer and his work shows it under close examination.
I am in FULL agreement with this article. The “new” Star Trek comes across like some writing hack (Lindelof) loosely put together a bunch of pop culture references, without ever actually having WATCHED the original show. Yes, Kirk did occasionally hit up a lady, but there are a LOT of episodes where he is a damn fine character and commanding officer. “The Doomsday Machine”, for example. And look at his face at the end of “City on the Edge of Forever”. The difference is that those episodes were written by real sci fi writers (Norman Spinrad and Harlan Ellison) who understood the characters and the genre.
For a very interesting contrast, check out (google to find it) “Star Trek: The New Voyages”. They are a fan-made episodes, and the first one was a bit flaky, but after that they got GOOD real fast. They have the attitude that Star Trek is like Shakespeare: the characters are semi-iconic, but many good actors can play them. New Voyages is FAR better than the drek from JJ Abrams.
Ugh, you even mention new voyages. there group is just as bad, if not worse than abrhams group. Taking the hacked scripts Rodenberry did not approve of, even adapting rejected scripts from the animated series for there version.
Not to further mention they stole ideas from Abrhams to use for there trek. Biggest one being kirk serving on the enterprise when pike was in command WHICH COULD NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE KIRK IN “The Menagerie part 1″ KIRK CLEARLY STATED HE ONLY MET PIKE ONE TIME BEFORE AND THAT WAS DURING THE TRANSFER OF THE ENTERPRISE FROM ONE CAPTAIN TO ANOTHER.
I don’t care that they got DC Fontana or other writers from the original series to work on it, there scripts are not timeless or memorable due to the fact many of the scripts were rejected scripts or re adapted/unused animated series scripts.
The acting in it is atrocious. I hate Abrhams movie a lot, but I will give it credit on getting good actors. Some of the worst choices were the early scotty, the early spock, the guy that plays mccoy and series producer James Crowley playing Kirk. His elvis impersonation ruins kirk and he hams it up so much he makes Shatners acting look amazing, but then again Shatner was a shakespearn actor so his acting is proper. where Crowley is trained as an elvis impersonator and he throws so much of that in it ruins kirk more than what chris pine did with the abrhams script.
I also know a lot of star trek originals like Walter Koenig, George Takei, and Michelle Nichols Rodenberry supported it. However despite there choice in supporting it, I don’t trust there Judgement since it was there attempt like leonard nimoy’s attempt with abrham’s film to relive there glory days as these iconic characters.
Michelle Nichols judgement I wouldn’t trust at all after two attempts to bring two of Gene’s unproduced tv series to tv through canadian tv production studios after Gene’s death. We know of both as Gene Rodenberry’s Andromeda and Earth Final Conflict. Both series were horrible because they lacked style, suffered from early cgi, badly designed aliens, and the storytelling was crap. Worst part is is that she served as executive producer on those shows. She was not a storyteller, Gene was the storyteller and gene knew what he wanted. She may have had a good idea of what he wanted, but it never showed in those series.
It’s why I don’t trust her judgement when it comes to something like new voyages. And why I hate JJ Abhrams star trek reboot.
None of them live up to or recreate the memories we got with the original series. Starship exeter and starship farragut were much better, they still suffer from bad acting, exeter isn’t even being produced anymore, but they atleast went through and created there own characters, there own scripts, instead of rehashing great and iconic characters or taking and using star trek veteran writers rejected scripts.
Starship Farragut I believe has more heart and soul in it that recaptures the reason we loved star trek. It has real fans that want to honour star trek than harm it like New Voyages or Abhrams reboot do.
The story made no sense. Why would Nero blame Spock for the natural desaster that destroyed Romulus. It is a little like Japan blaming us for the earth quake and tsunami that hit Japan. Plus I really don’t think the inside of a star ship would look like a water works. As science fiction writer myself I am always amazed by how badly Hollywood does Scifi. It is as if all those ivy league writers see science fiction as the despised step child of literature so they write inane treatments of great stories because thru can’t understand the ideas they are trying too present. I really wish Hollywood would hire some scifi writers instead of hacks like abrams.