Star Trek **SPOILERS**

Speaking of, you know, America owns the moon.

We planted a flag on that shit. We should get a team to go build a colony and mine it.
Correct me if im wrong, but vespene gas is on the moon.
and we always, ALWAYS, need moar

And if Mir burnt up over the Pacific, ISS will suffer the same fate once its mission is over. Nobody owns the Moon or Earth's stratosphere.

Strangely this Star Trek thread is turning into a **TROLLS ALERT**, temporarily.

Here... put a flag on this; while everyone kicks your butt off Antarctica or its magnetic opposite before it all shifts for an electronic collapse worth rational interruptions.

Ambassador Spock dies as a hero, for real!

At this time, aside from Rotten Tomatoes partnered with Chicago snooping Ebert's stinky usual filt against non-academy awardly worth of classical boredom for the anti-futuristic wickedly stubborn, this is the only review which makes any sense both by its clarity & neutralistic zone of unfalsified facts;

Vic's at Screenrant.

Define me as a biased and unconventionally hiplocked storyline digger of a Sci-Fi freak, if you want.

First & foremost, my Review...

With such spontaneous jolts of energy, if you still don't understand what Humanity must do to evolve beyond static presence in reality not even another cinematic miracle (of and by pioneers) will convince you that people, space & time aren't mutually exclusive paradoxes; i liked this stuff, it was much more than just exciting! *****

Loved it.

Extrapolate please, Melibee.

This is where you can define WHAT you enjoyed in that film. Don't be shy.

I'm Spock .... Bullshit! Thats just hilarious .

Don't be unfair to Ebert. He's a huge gorram geek. Look up his review of Gamera: Guardian of the Universe sometime.

The Roger Ebert, we all know about wouldn't judge a movie by its category of entertainment as usual?

Why would he stop spitting on Fiction, you tell me...

The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action.

Read the rest for yourself, Phaedyme. He simply doesn't get it.

If anyone can pull millions of people out of theater seats for any reasons, that's the critic.

Did Star Wars win an academy award other than visual effects in 1977?

How about Jackson's LOTR records?

Both are from some quiet past too, btw.

Yeah, that is a pretty awful review.

I'm just saying that Ebert's not the enemy of all that's good and wonderful in movies, and critics are not required to espouse your opinion about a film, they're simply required to espouse their own opinion. Some people find they frequently agree with certain critics, and some frequently disagree.

I don't think that Ebert will make Trek fail, if it's a watchable film.

And this is the review I referenced.

I did take time out today to go see it with my wife. Loved it. Best Star Trek since Star Trek II.

I already watched the movie so I won't post on here till someone start posting the plot

The "plot" is kind of a no brainer. Time traveling space thug hell bent on wiping out the federation.. Been there, done that.

What makes this trek different from the rest (besides the complete redesigning of everything visual) is "how" they did it. They did it with ideas, and imagination not seen since the original series. This new Original Series era movie is just that.. Original. It takes what we all know about trek, and refreshes it in ways that "should" make berman and braga green with envy.

The way the "been there, done that" plot is executed is nothing short of brilliant. The story telling is brilliant. The way the new Enterprise (which i hated when i saw the first pics of it), and other effects are executed are nothing short of brilliant. What this film had that all the others did not since wrath of khan was that trek feel. JJ Abrams, and his crew used their imagination, took a risk, and it payed off big time IMO. I was skeptical before i saw it, but i was happily dissapointed. The movie is damn good. Are there flaws? of course there are. I can nit pick quite a few. However the changes in this new trek are quite refreshing. I really enjoyed the movie, and im an old school 45 year old trekkie. Kudos to JJ Abrams, and his crew for bringing trek back to life again.

Mr Ebert also trashed the motion picture, and damn near the every trek movie. I dont think he likes any kind of sci fi.

You could be first!

After all this is a *SPOILERS* thread as warned in the OP.

Everyone has that right.

'97 is twelve years ago - let's just say, he settled into a sort of "wisdom is more important than youth acrobatics for the Box-Office rankings".

I always highly respected Ebert's film opinions which is why i feel deprived of a honest "summary" from him. He served us the Roddenberry referencing crap and he knows dam well Abram's film wasn't anywhere near that 60's TeeVee legend. In both scope and intentions. Same characters, same ship; com'on, people (that includes Trekkers and the all new generation of 13+) are much smarter than that. We saw the Shuttles, the Mars Rovers & the ISS since. The future is bright because Mir & Mercury capsules belong to the past.

You need an open-mind to rationalize that THIS Star Trek is standing on its own rights & millenium.

Sadly, it may not to go back to TeeVee because that's the public to miss; 12 episodes a year, every third Wednesday of the Month (pick your own primetime slot, it's yours) -- no more summer cliffhangers. Get out of the silly patterns, Paramount -- these excellent actors proved it already.

Innovate. Revolutionized. Re-energize our hopes for real Sci-Fi -- not Lost but Found, at last.

Thank you, Major Stress.

Your input is appreciated. Reset, scream and warp - what time and foes can't destroy belongs to Pioneers.

The JellyFish was just icing on a HUGE cake. I'm a GDI art activist (and extremist too, btw), and must kneel before ILM perfection once more.

To be honest, I like Chevov in the movie, he seems to have more energy in the movie than what i have seen in the TOS

and the teleporation was nuts, I am first scotty gets teleported into a vat of water from which kirk had to save him (ok old spock forgot that it was the older enterpise). from then tele to "cargo bay" when it is really a command post and don't get me started on that sence when spock and kirk run thru the center getting shot at but not hit

however, I do like and I quote:

"You can't even speak..."
(Kirk Grunts)
"What?"
"I have your gun!"

- Ayel, shot by Kirk

Zyx, I thought this would amuse you.

Having seen it, I completely agree that Ebert's review is terrible and out of left field.

I liked the movie.

I liked that they hung a lampshade on a particular Trek trope just before Kirk and Scotty beamed up.

I like that the stage is set for a reboot that can go in new directions without needing an explicit tie to the original series - not that I dislike TOS in the least, but they've given themselves flexibility without needing to account for strict canon.

Funny "interpretations" by geeks or nerds have always been biased to some degree in everything; as i recall, Batmanners went after Mr Freeze & Riddler for their snappy characterizations as well. Even the Jaws of a great white can't rip apart a boat and sink it - doesn't make the practice of blockbusters less effective or feasible though. I prefered Burton's Planet of the Apes for the spectacle of crashed ship still ready to blow up as opposed to a Statue burried in sand -- at THAT particular moment. But i still was stunned by Heston fisting on a sand beach.

Most film goers expect what they want (or were led to believe by intensive pubs, btw) not what is the actual film. It's been called the schlerosis of opinions before facts by critics more than enough to turn verbs into adjectives.

"Fisting" means something specific in English, btw. Pounding or punching the sandy beach might be better word choices.

The video I linked is a joke news story, 'cause that's how The Onion rolls.

Nicely done. 8/10 from me.

Positive
- The Story: It was clear from the beginning, that this movie is made as a relaunch of the Star Trek Franchise, so that the old films and series do not have to be taken under consideration anymore, or at least not completely. It wasn't clear how it was done.
The fact that a time travel incident changed the time line was, in my opinion, the best way to create "a new reality" in which Kirk's father died and thus he became a different character at first, who didn't even enlist in the Starfleet Academy.
Destroying Vulcan also was a rather bold and unexpected step.

- Faithfulness to some Star Trek Canon: The USS Kelvin is simply a Hermes/Saladin alteration that fits into its time and also could have had such a registration number. I liked that .

- Orchestration: Beautiful models, good CGI action, very pleasing. I liked one thing in particular: in some scenes when the scenerey went into space they muted the sound in "aesthetically correct moments". That was nice .
Another important point here is the playfulness of the camera in space. There isn't always an "up". Best example is the tracking shot from the bridge of the Enterprise into space with a pan to Nero's ship.

- Warp Speed: woosh! (though it has more similarity to Star Wars' hyperspace now).

- Comedy that was actually funny.

- Acting was good.



Neutral
- Stardate: answering the question from Spock, when future Spock's ship was comissioned, the computer answers something like 23xxx. The ship would have been commissioned some time after Voyager or Nemesis, this would indicate a Stardate greater than 54xxx. However, Stardates have never been consistent so no one should care about that.

- Chekov was weird, but more or less funny.

- Story: the fact, that the Enterprise is suddenly too close to the black whole, which they created themselves basically, was a bit stupid. However, one could argue, that they couldn't predict the exact magnitute of the black hole, created by full amount of red matter.



Negative
- Engineering Room: I absolutely do not like the new Engineering Room. This is probably the thing that is most different from the "old" Star Trek. Instead of a moderately plausible Warp Core and some plasma conduits etc. we have now numerous tanks and other shabby stuff who have questionable purposes. This might be more plausible for Battlestar fans, but it's definitely not for me.
Also.. that water conduit, in which Soctty has beamed himself (which was a quite funny ) or rather this "water pump" or whatever that comes afterwards has the charakter of the stompers from Galaxy Quest .

- Beaming: Scotty and Kirk beam themselves on the Enterprise over an enormous distance...

- Story: there are also some negative parts about the story of course. (Old) Spock, Kirk and Scotty all meet on that Hoth like Planet? What a coincidence. Why was Spock in that cave anyway? Instead of in the Starfleet base already for example.

Well the bigest glaring inconsistency was that Earth (and vulcan) is totaly undefended ... seriuosly ... a ship can can sneek up on an interstelars empires homeworld and start drilling the planet with a huge laser powered drill  ... and all the citizens can do is run about screaming? I mean were is the home fleet? dont tell me those 7 ships that went to vulcan were it? Where are orbital defenses? where are the god damed ICBM's?

Other than that it was a great movie

I thought the movie on its merits was outstanding and it should surely get a sequel.

With that said, I really, really dont like the time travel mechanic at all. I consider it the same as the Q as far as story devices. Moreover I cant believe that Spock would be off with his timing and the comment that a star explosion threatened the destruction of the galaxy was a bit over the top. Additionally I cant believe that all the senior commanders of SF where killed as well as the entire Vulcan fleet and the Klingon fleets. Then what about the fact Nero went back in time and did not go to his homeworld and give them the tech he had and use it to shift the power of the galaxy. Then there is the fact that Mr Spock is still alive and have hundreds of years of advanced knowledge that he could use to do the same for the Federation now. I have other issue but those are the biggest peeves of the top of my head.

On a side note, I still love Ms. Rider. It would have been nice to see more of her in the movie.

@Spooky - The reason Spock was on th eplanet was becasue Nero put him there to see the end of his homeworld.