Comments

1. Jess wrote:

   I understand the discomfort with the Spock-Obama comparisons, but as a sort-a fan of ST and a bit of a science geek then damned right I see it as a compliment. Spock was the kind of logical, unflappable guy I aspired to be for years. (Still do, to a degree).

   I mean, am I the only one who thought “Yeah! Finally!” when that came up?

   A little rapture of the nerds, ya know?
   

   Posted 26 May 2009 at 7:07 am ¶

2. Jess wrote:

   Also:

   Ricardo Montalban really was cut in his old age. No foolin’, the guy was in fantastic shape for a guy pushing 60 at the time. I can’t think of an actor who is the same age who would fit…

   Posted 26 May 2009 at 7:08 am ¶

3. Elton wrote:

   The Star Wars/Star Trek divide stems from how Star Wars is a space opera fantasy, emphasizing mythological and supernatural elements, and how Star Trek is science fiction, with allegorical statements about real world politics, race relations, and morality.

   Unfortunately, Trek XI is more space opera than science fiction. The obviousness of Abrams’ desire to make the franchise more Lucas than Roddenberry is pretty appalling to someone who has actually watched the five TV series.

   I don’t see that Abrams Trek is Star Trek in any sense deeper than the characters, places, and ship have the same names. Whatever we see of the original series–whether it be that clichéd optimism about the future of humanity non-fans are always harping on, the *essence* of the Enterprise and her crew, Starfleet, Starfleet Academy, the Federation, 23rd/24th century Earth and the rest of the Alpha Quadrant, or the made-for-TV allegories Roddenberry so loved–Star Trek fans are projecting onto this movie.

   This is Trek legacy, and Abrams hasn’t earned any of it–he outright rejects it. His contribution was to reimagine the origins of Kirk and Spock, getting a lot of details not only different, but wrong. Mere revision of canon is not necessarily wrong, but incoherent and illogical plot, uncharacteristic behavior and situations, and ignorance of Trek beyond the superficial *is* wrong.

   Whether you agree with me or not, I urge you to think critically and deeply about the new movie. I think that’s what it really means to be a fan–to love something enough to give it harsh and thorough criticism. In that sense, I hope to become a better fan of all my loves.

   Posted 26 May 2009 at 7:29 am ¶

4. Fiqah wrote:

   Rocka Khan, Rocka Kan…
   Rock-Rock-Rock-Rocka Khan…
   Rocka Khan…
   Rocka Khan lemme love you lemme love you Rocka Khan that’s all I wanna -*GURK!*

   ::: sputters as fellow commenters proceed to choke her :::

   Posted 26 May 2009 at 7:42 am ¶

5. Mary wrote:

   For what it’s worth, Captain Robau (the hot captain who died on Nero’s ship) has become like the Trek equivalent of Chuck Norris among some segments of the fandom. Complete with his own set of “Robau facts”, as in, “When Robau goes swimming, Jaws tries desperately to get out of the water. ” Seriously, I’ve seen some Trekkies all but creaming themselves over what a total badass Robau was.

   Faran Tahir certainly is a nice looking slice of man.

   And the idea of Michael Steele in the sequel made me just LOOOOOL.

   Posted 26 May 2009 at 8:26 am ¶

6. bradski wrote:

   The Klingons of this era would look human. Recall that in the original series, the Klingons did not have the ridges on their foreheads, etc.

   As explained in Star Trek Enterprise, those Klingons resulted from a genetic engineering project that used the DNA of super-humans like Khan. The project went awry and virus used to created enhanced Klingons was stopped but at the cost of changing the Klingon genome and appearance.

   By the time Worf was a child, the genetic changes had been reversed.

   Also the Bajorans did not build DS9. The station was built by the Cardassians as a base of operations in the enslaved Bajoran system.

   Posted 26 May 2009 at 10:15 am ¶

7. gatamala wrote:

   Andrea:
   clowns Admiral Madea (headache)
   mentions Mae Jemison
   knows Pinero

   My hero!

   That list is KILLING me…Charles Ogletree!!!
   ***
   Why can’t Irfan Khan & Chow Yun Fat be worked into this somehow? Hell, Grace Jones, Wes Studi, Danny Trejo…and yes, Michelle Yeoh.

   This series could by the entire POC Roots, meaning if you weren’t in it…you probably didn’t exist.

   Posted 26 May 2009 at 11:09 am ¶

8. gwangung wrote:

   The obviousness of Abrams’ desire to make the franchise more Lucas than Roddenberry is pretty appalling to someone who has actually watched the five TV series.

   Au contraire.

   Abrams is channelling Gene COON.

   Too many fans forget that Coon’s contributions to Trek. And he was definitely in the action/adventure camp. One could say that his contribution was actually more important than Roddenberry’s, as it pulled Trek down from the clouds and set it firmly into conventions that were audience friendly, but still allowing room from commentary. And one could say that a lot of the problems of post-Roddenberry Trek is too MUCH fealty to Roddenberry and not enough to Coon.

   Posted 26 May 2009 at 11:22 am ¶

9. Erica wrote:

   If they redo Mirror, Mirror, I’d like Mirror-universe Kirk to be fat old William Shatner

   Posted 26 May 2009 at 11:31 am ¶

10. jen* wrote:

    After seeing the movie this wknd, I was totally not into Kirk…and wondered why he was always hanging off the edge of something. Always.

    I loved the movie, and was struck by how much Firefly took from Star Trek. Like – almost everything.

    But I never got the Sy-vibe from Spock. Loved ZQ as Spock and I’m happy he found something to take him places, since Heroes is pretty much busted. But I’m super into Sulu. I heart John Cho.

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 11:49 am ¶

11. jen* wrote:

    Oh – and I’m glad that I get to see the word ‘Cardassians’ in print. Cuz I totally didn’t get why the Kardashians were getting a shout-out in the movie.

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 11:50 am ¶

12. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @Jess #1–::side-eyes:: Aaannnnnyway…

    @Elton–Thaks for the response to my confusion about the Star Trek/Star Wars beef. Actually, mythologist Joseph Campbell would disagree with the disagreement, in this respect: he saw Star Wars and Star Trek as retelling myths. IIRC, Star Wars, he said, borrowed leitmotifs from many old sacred stories of yore: the hero’s quest, the discovery of the feminine and love, and so on. Star Trek borrowed from a very American-styled mythology: a band of mulit-racial people traveling through space to discover, to interact, to learn about the universe through which they’re moving and discovering something about themselves in the process. Campbell’s book and series with Bill Moyers, The Power of Myth, further addresses the similiarities b/t the two series.

    @Fiqah–You’re just gonna start with the “Rocka Khan”-Chaka Khan on this post-holiday Tuesday ? And do you *hear* the purse of my lips all the way from Brooklyn? Miss Gurl….:D

    @gatamala–Me? Look at *you* rolling out Irfan Khan, Grace Jones, and three of my imaginary lovers: Chow Yun Fat, Wes Studi, and Danny Trejo (next to Antonio Banderas, the only reason for me to watch Desperado). I say the lurve flows both ways!:D

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 12:51 pm ¶

13. Fiqah wrote:

    @The Cruel Secretary: Now, you know I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t make my favorite Scrubbing Bubble cut me some side-eye.

    Now I’m gonna go flesh out a “Star Trek” Rocka Khan parody of “I Feel For U.”

    [Prediction: New mod rule will be "Please limit silly comments to one per thread...this means YOU, Fiqah."]

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 1:15 pm ¶

14. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @Elton–…and one more thing re: Star Wars and Joseph Campbell: from what I understand, George Lucas approached Campbell as part of his research on Star Wars, namely those leitmotifs contained in great epic stories, like mythologies.

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 1:16 pm ¶

15. Tracey wrote:

    @Mary: “When Robau goes swimming, Jaws tries desperately to get out of the water. ” You just made my week, not even joking. Especially b/c I can no longer honor Norris after the revelation of his political beliefs.
    I can not say enough how much I loved this movie and hated Perry’s cameo. Michelle Yeo and/or Michael Eric Dyson making an appearance would absolutely rock!! And I could not get past Sylar either. Maybe it was the eyebrows and lack of expressions. I am also super glad they showed the importance of Uhura’s job. Communications/sonar is a huge deal and I don’t think the original did not do her job justice.
    More Klingons would be absolutely amazing, though it could be problematic if they are displayed as noble savages and not the super complex beings they are. I am a huge fan of Klingons though, and hope they are incorporated, complete with references to their culture (opera anyone?). I would also like to see complex Klingons and Vulcans whose multi-dimensionality is not attributed to being half-human or adopted by humans(Worf).And I think the Rock as Khan would be great, I like him now that he doesn’t look like a freakin semi-truck. Or bring back Faran Tahir. I don’t care. He’s hot and I would overlook the fact that he was the same actor. Really, I would. Hotness is more important than casting making sense(if the talent is there of course).And he has the badass look down.

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 1:20 pm ¶

16. bradski wrote:

    Uhura did not work the “sonar” (actually called senors in Trek); Sulu and Checkov were the navigators.

    Uhura handled communications and linguistics.

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 1:29 pm ¶

17. Mary wrote:

    @ Tracey: LOL, no problem. I can’t take credit for the Jaws line, I just pulled it off a Star Trek message board topic dedicated to Capt. Robau… which happens to be 100+ pages long and counting.

    It’s funny because at first I was like “Oh look, they killed off the desi captain.” But a lot of Trek fans have apparently decided that Robau makes most of the other Trek captains look like, and I quote, “putzes.” The actor’s ethnicity doesn’t seem to have crossed a lot of these people’s minds, which could be a good or a bad thing depending on how you look at it.

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 2:00 pm ¶

18. Diana wrote:

    @gatamala–I’m responsible for Charles Ogletree being on the list. I hope you have recovered. ;]

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 2:06 pm ¶

19. WhatANightmare wrote:

    Not sure if that means you like him or not, but it was nice to see Arturo say something true about Kirk. By no means was I a cool kid, but I feel like a lot of the Kirk-hate comes from this “revenge of the nerds” place. Like, “YAY! The jock didn’t get the girl!” Why is everyone surprised? This franchise is presumably run and kept running by “geeks,” so naturally in its reincarnation they would give “the smart one” the lady. Somebody call me when a not-so-cool, not-so-cute girl gets to “have” the hot guy.

    He was the Jack Sparrow (obviously not as well played, but that’s who he reminded me of in this movie). I’ve seen it 3 times and I like him more every time I see it, even though he is bumbling and overly cocksure. Or maybe Chris Pine just looks hotter every time…

    Anyway, I’m afraid of a sequel. Sequels can be murder.

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 3:22 pm ¶

20. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @Diana–*I’m* still recovering from your mind meld during this roundtable.:D

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 4:05 pm ¶

21. Elton wrote:

    gwangung,

    Abrams is channelling Gene COON.

    You have out-geeked me. I don’t know who that is. I will look him up.

    Despite my attribution of true, original Trek-ness to Roddenberry, I actually believe DS9, in breaking so many of Roddenberry’s rules for a Star Trek series (must be ship-based, agnostic, episodic, not too dark/serious), is the definitive Trek in terms of how coherently and entertainingly it developed characters and plotlines. It explored the ambiguousness of morality (Sisko, Worf, and Odo all betrayed allies at some point), allowed us to sympathize with, yet revile villains like Dukat and Winn, made series-long allegories for racism, religion, and more through the Dominion War, occupation of Bajor, etc., and showed how a tribute to the original series (”Trials and Tribble-ations”) should be done.

    The Cruel Secretary,

    the Star Trek/Star Wars beef. Actually, mythologist Joseph Campbell would disagree with the disagreement, in this respect: he saw Star Wars and Star Trek as retelling myths.

    I don’t doubt that Star Wars, Star Trek, and literally every story that has ever been told could be said to contain common mythological elements, which I understand to be Campbell’s point. I guess my preference is–and I hold the best of Trek in high esteem–for stories that hold fast to the core elements of science fiction. To me, one of the core elements is a naturalistic worldview, even behind all the technobabble, and even behind religion, as explored in DS9. Star Wars seems to fundamentally differ from Trek in that Lucas celebrates mystical, fantasy elements throughout his saga.

    As has been widely quoted, The Original Series was supposed to be a “Wagon Train” to the stars, which of course means the five-year mission was bound to incorporate some elements of the standard Journey Myth. But I see core differences in terms of science fiction vs. fantasy between a story about the future of mankind and a space opera that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

    –

    To me, Matrix trumps all. Am I 10 years too late for a Racialicious discussion on that?

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 4:11 pm ¶

22. JC wrote:

    Khan should definitely be played by an Indian actor – a famous Bollywood actor like Shahrukh Khan perhaps (hey, he’s even got the name down). The characters is supposed to be an Indian in the canon and that’s what he should be in this version. No, not Kal Penn – next thing you know the entire bridge is stoned. The next film will not become “Harold and Kumar Goes to Rura Penthe” (that’s a Klingon prison colony, like Gitmo).

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 4:38 pm ¶

23. Diana wrote:

    @The Cruel Secretary–Rarely have I had that full on mind meld effect. Makes me a little drunk with power. LOL

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 4:39 pm ¶

24. Sobia wrote:

    Ok wait….Khan Noonien Singh?? What? He’s Muslim and Sikh? Khan is a Muslim surname and Singh a mainly Sikh one. I’m confused.

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 6:48 pm ¶

25. Sobia wrote:

    Oh..and yes…LOVED Faran Tahir. I was also extremely saddened to see the hottness factor go down when he was killed off. As my friend said, he is one hot Pakistani man.

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 6:51 pm ¶

26. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @Elton–I understand your preference for sci-fi over fantasy, but just because the Roundtable is being pretty jovial about the flick doesn’t mean we haven’t thought critically and deeply about the film. 1) Understanding that what’s posted is an edited version of what was talked about and 2) having worked with this crew for a while, I can assure you we thought about the movie rather deeply–and came to the conclusion that we simply liked it, even in light of the rest of the canon, like DS9. Don’t mistake laughter and joshing about the film for lacking deep critical thinking about said film.

    My “trouble” (for a lack of a better word) is the beef b/t the film franchises itself. The reason why I referenced Campbell is to point to these “factions” that Star Wars and Star Trek –and may be even Matrixmay have more in common–namely re-telling mythologies–than the the played-up differences and preferences, which are blown up to the point where folks who profess love for the films are stank-eyeing each other at conventions.

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 7:21 pm ¶

27. EB wrote:

    re Nero’s ship:

    When we first saw Nero’s ship my husband and I looked at each other and mouthed Babylon 5 (it’s where Chekov went to play an evil psychic) – Nero’s ship looked like the “bad guy” ships of Babylon 5.
    The ship looked exactly like some of the shadow vessels and later, in one of the movies that paid homage to the Cthulhu mythology some of the ships one of alien races from another dimension.

    Re: perhaps spock betray human love for the good of the species

    At least in the movie, the ending precludes this. Spock is already contributing his genetic materials to the rebuilding of the Vulcan species through the alternate universe spock. It might even be argued that one of these spocks needs to stay out of the gene pool in order to preserve diversity. On the other hand, the Romulans are descendants ofy Vulcans who refused to follow Surok’s teachings (as my husband says, the split is one of the few good ST novels) so the gene pool is artificially small.

    But seriously, in Star Trek mythology Vulcan plays a huge role in the federation so getting rid of Vulcan makes a hole

    re: post 3

    I do agree with Elton, this movie got a lot of the Star Trek details wrong which made it hard for me, as a Star Trek fan, to fit this movie into the established Star Trek Universe. I can accept a complete reboot, but I also just found the movie full of holes -

    for example, a small one like seriously, when removing kirk from the bridge, why not throw him in the brig [a time honored tradition, btw] instead of marooning him, except there was a plot hole that needed to be filled.

    big hole- if spock was emotionally compromised, kirk was doubly so, as he basically went ballistic on the bridge and proved he couldn’t handle himself (seriously, who wants a captain that flys into a rage when crossed). Spock only reacted under extreme duress after being taunted for a while (seriously, any human would have decked kirk long before spock reacted).

    McCoy should have jettisoned them both and taken over at that point rather than put a guy who had just thrown the biggest shit fit in the world (and had to be literally sedated) back in charge.

    What rubs me wrong about kirk is not that he’s the athlete among the nerds, but that he’s the white American guy whose been advanced over everyone else without merit (literally it’s a – “you showed up against orders, you’re first officer while I’m gone.”)

    Somehow, kirk is so special that he doesn’t need to earn his place, it’s given to him and accepted that because of his gender and origins he’s supposed to be the natural leader and any other power structure in which he has to answer to someone else is unnatural (the old spock literally says something to this effect, implying that spock over kirks is wrong and they can only have their illustrious careers if kirk is the captain).

    Kirk displays no leadership ability, doesn’t work for his position, sabotages the person in charge, screams when he doesn’t get his way, refuses to follow the rules, just shows up, and get’s put in charge.

    I see this happen all the time in the real world, I’ve had this happened to me (white male=natural leader, minority female=hmm… needs seasoning before she’s put in charge), that’s why I dislike kirk.

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 8:10 pm ¶

28. jsb16 wrote:

    To be honest, I couldn’t take this Star Trek at all seriously. It was so obviously fanfiction, from the time-travel conceit that underlies it to the shot of Iowa that might as well have been Tatooine to the plot holes large enough to hit warp speed in…

    Good thing, too, or I might have cried at the whole “red matter” shtick. Science fiction gets one violation of physics free. Fanfiction gets more leeway.

    On the mythic qualities, the original Star Trek had so many internal inconsistencies that asking for a consistent alternate universe version is… illogical. I try to thin of Star Trek as modern America’s version of the Greek myths: every community/decade has its own version of the stories, reusing the same characters to tell the stories found most relevant at the time.

    On J.T.Kirk: I’ve always hated him, so seeing him get a promotion he in no way deserves doesn’t really alter my opinion of him. Yeah, it would be nice to see him serve under Spock, but Spock couldn’t snog Uhura if he were Captain. (Unlike Kirk, Spock has ethics that might prevent him from engaging in a relationship with a subordinate.) And Uhura/Spock is just too hawt to give up.:)

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 10:25 pm ¶

29. Tracey wrote:

    @JC: Hecks yeah. I just saw Om Shanti Om and am a wee bit smitten with Khan(actor), not to mention he would bring the hotness if not the chest.
    @EB: excellent points. The whole Kirk above all thing didn’t make sense even given Kirk’s personality. The rest of it I didn’t to much mind overall b/c in reality I think almost every person there probably would have been discharged. Affairs with students, aiding a stowaway, intentionally sickening someone, hitting a superior, hitting a subordinate. If it was merit based, the only people who probally had the presence of mind,training and rank to take charge were Uhura and Sulu. (IDK what kind of tactical training McCoy was implied to have and thought it was implied he received commission straight into the medical corps). But it was all mostly to fill holes and set up Kirk to take charge. And maybe the marroning thing was to show that Spock was a little off emotionally as well as set up mtng w/alternate Spock.

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 11:10 pm ¶

30. marci wrote:

    i would ask that mccoys little alien sidekick buddy is jettisoned… as annoying as scrappy doo… ugh..

    i was definitely happy to see winona ryder… forgot why i liked her as an actress..

    and maybe because i am british i have no objection to tyler perry appearing.. no-one here said wtf? they accepted him.. i thought he was good.. not james earl jones good but you know he did a good job….
    and i did have to explain who he was to my friends afterward when i exclaimed omg.. it’s madea!! funny as hell..

    and yes.. the rock as khan would be great.. just think.. schwartzenegger (sp?.. too lazy sorry) got to play terminator.. we now see this as inspired… my mind is open…

    Posted 26 May 2009 at 11:55 pm ¶

31. Jehanzeb wrote:

    @ Andrea – “That Anakin mess”??

    LOL, that was low! What, no Star Wars fans at the roundtable? Well, considering that someone suggested to “piss off Lucas fans” by stealing Star Wars actors, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised

    Although I liked the new “Star Trek” movie, I can understand what Elton is saying. My friends and I were discussing an article that says “Star Trek” is “way cooler” than “Star Wars” right now. My friends and I, being long time and die-hard “Star Wars” fans since we were in elementary school, couldn’t believe it and just said to one another, “who would have thought that people would actually think ‘Star Trek’ was cooler?” The general impression that non-fans had about “Star Trek” was that it was “lame” and most of all, nowhere near as cool as “Star Wars” (and this was most especially true if you were a, uh, “Star Wars loyalist”). Now, the typical non-fan or someone who NEVER even thought about seeing a “Star Trek” film thinks “Star Trek” is cool all of a sudden. lol, how did that happen?

    I don’t intend to diss what J.J. Abrams did with the new “Star Trek” film. Like I said, I enjoyed the film and it was refreshing to see people of color playing non-stereotypical roles, but that aside, I get the feeling that the new “Star Trek” film was made to be more “hip,” “young,” and fast paced so that it could appeal to mainstream audiences. J.J. Abrams even admitted that he was never into “Star Trek” before. It’s almost as if Abrams wanted to make it “less nerdy.”

    When “Star Wars: Episode 1 – the Phantom Menace ” was released in 1999, there were a lot of disappointed people, including fans, because it didn’t “live up to the hype.” I personally enjoyed the prequels, despite the poor acting and wooden dialogue (mostly during the romantic scenes). As a fan, I can see Episode 1 as the beginning of the saga. It’s a treat to see a young Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker and seeing how everything leads up into Episode 4. Non-fans may not appreciate those films as much as I do.

    You don’t need to see the previous “Star Trek” films to enjoy the J.J. Abrams reboot. I’m sure there’s a lot fans could appreciate more than non-fans, such as seeing Spock prime or the younger version of characters, but it seems that Abrams wanted to make some adjustments because pleasing the fans wasn’t the only thing he wanted to do.

    It’s similar to what Christopher Nolan is doing with the new Batman movies. As good as they are, the fantasy/comic book element is drained out of it. Nolan prefers the more “realistic approach” which takes away the gothic elements of Batman. Gotham City looks nothing like the comic books, you don’t see archaic buildings or gargoyles sitting on rooftops; instead everything looks like Chicago (and it *is* Chicago since that’s where they filmed!).

    To me, this is selling out. It’s implying there’s something wrong with the source material and that adjustments need to be made so that it’s appealing to the mainstream. The beauty of films like “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” is that they have their own worlds and people are drawn to them — they attract people on their own merits rather than conforming to what the mainstream looks for. There’s nothing wrong with the films appealing to as many people as possible; I’m just saying that the filmmakers need to respect the source material.

    Wow, I think I’m going to write a post on this for my blog, lol.

    Posted 27 May 2009 at 2:30 am ¶

32. pololly wrote:

    Couple of thoughts

    1) This whole ‘I hate Kirk’ thing is just stupid to me as a long term obsessive Star Trek (but mainly DS9) fan who only lately came back to TOS.

    I’m surely missing something here because I’m not sure how anyone who knows anything about Star Trek can wipe out 45+ years of canon to decide that Kirk gets the promotion because he is the white man. Or that he somehow represents those men. I’ve seen this all over these types of discussions – why? It completely misses the point that Kirk in the context of the canon’ is ’special’. All the captains are.

    Captain Sisko is special, Picard is special, even Janeway is ‘meant’ to be special.

    Why is Sisko the prophet of a bunch of Gods from another species whose mother was possessed in order to conceive him? Damn lucky isn’t it?

    Why is Picard chosen as Locutus of Borg? Why is he the first to meet Q? Please.

    Why is Janeway (in all the universe) chosen to bear Q’s child (ugh!)?

    And Kirk is meant to be the most special of them all. A legendary captain. The Shatman. blah, blah, blah. And this is an origin story. So *no shit* the whole movie has a destiny-like focus on promoting every thing Kirk does. And no shit, Kirk is lucky, honoured and, yes, there was probably a black engineer who could do the job better than Scotty or whatever and is a better captain than Kirk could ever be but what on earth has any of this got to do with STAR TREK THE ORIGINAL SERIES, which contains the characters the film is actually following.

    It’s also fairly OBVIOUS why Pike chose him as the First Officer – he knew his father as a legend, felt he had great potential and that he balanced out Spock. Nepotism? Definitely. A reflection of the racialised nature of nepotism? fine. But was he just another undeserving white guy? Erm no he was KIRK.

    The film is *not* called Stardate 2258 – an entertaining look at the future. It’s called Star Trek and it’s based on a bunch of characters with a mythology that people are actually familiar with.

    2) Uhura (who was great).

    There is a limit to what you can do without violating canon and there is a limit to what the fans will accept from a series to which they feel such a sense of ownership. I think Uhura/Spock is brilliant and perfect (and conveniently within canon) but that’s about as far as it goes. The film was VERY gentle with their relationship, they barely kissed. How any sane person thinks this will go to full on pon farr rivalry stuff in the next film is beyond me. While I’d be very very interested in seeing that as it’s own film (I refuse to be side tracked here by Zachary Qunito’s extreme, extreme hotness), it would be awful for the next film.

    What people seem to be forgetting is that ST:TOS is the series that really popularized slash fiction. The slash phenomenon is really its own conversation but I personally believe that is is at least partly fueled by the absence of strong female leads and the strength of central male-male relationship. In a show like TOS, this means that the K/S relationship was so central that it really was the core of the show. And the Captain/First Officer relationship or lack thereof became a defining trait in ALL of the Star Trek series. So in rebooting it you have to REALLY CAREFUL that you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Because the Enterprise already has all of its characters, there can be no new additions to the main cast. That means the only way to bring a stronger female lead into the show is through the women already there. And while that is fine, nothing can really be allowed to ruin the chemistry between the two (white male) leads. Yes they are white and male. Yes that is annoying. Yes it would be better if they were POC but they are not. And they are the leads.

    If JJ wanted to create a brand new star trek with POC leads, he could. A new series could have anything it wanted. They took on TOS to capitalize on the characters (and goodwill) already created. So I’m sorry but that means that Kirk will be glorified in this. He will get chances and learn lessons and it will always feel like he is getting off easy. But if you are watching *Star Trek* to see the downfall of *James T. Kirk* as the archtypal white male, you are watching the wrong series.

    3) Boo to any reboot of Khan. Why piss off every true fan when you don’t need to? No Khan EVER. I’d even say stay away from the Klingons, it’s been done. Nero was barely Romulan. He was a generic baddy with a personal motive for revenge. We didn’t get to really see Romulus or really anything particularly ‘Romulan’ in his behavior. That’s why Romulans are all over ST as the villians – there are the ST equivalent of a guy with a russian accent. Klingons have been filled in so successfully in DS9 and TNG that reducing them to 1D villians would be pointless. I would love to see some of the really interesting species in DS9 make an appearance but that would never happen despite the fact that the Klingons (in this show) are the most brilliantly portrayed and fully formed ‘warrior’ races out there. No Cardassians, no Dominion, sigh.

    4) Also, as a black women – what is all the criticism over Tyler Perry? What *exactly* did he do wrong?

    Posted 27 May 2009 at 8:08 am ¶

33. Mary wrote:

    The mention of Sisko/DS9 reminds me of how well Trek does with bald captains. Picard, Sisko, now Captain Robau. Now I see what Enterprise’s big mistake was… not hiring a hot bald guy to run the ship.

    @Elton:

    I actually believe DS9, in breaking so many of Roddenberry’s rules for a Star Trek series (must be ship-based, agnostic, episodic, not too dark/serious), is the definitive Trek in terms of how coherently and entertainingly it developed characters and plotlines. It explored the ambiguousness of morality (Sisko, Worf, and Odo all betrayed allies at some point), allowed us to sympathize with, yet revile villains like Dukat and Winn, made series-long allegories for racism, religion, and more through the Dominion War, occupation of Bajor, etc., and showed how a tribute to the original series (”Trials and Tribble-ations”) should be done.

    Could not agree with you more. A lot of fans revolted at the murkier morality on DS9, but I think that was one of its strengths. When they had a “moral moment” it was really meaningful because it was often hard to stay moral in the face of Cardassian war crimes, the Dominion’s overwhelming power, an ally’s betrayal, et cetera. One episode that I didn’t really appreciate at the time, but I do now, was when the station had been taken over by the Dominion, and Kira found herself suddenly in the position of collaborator – one of the people she had despised when she was in the Bajoran resistance.

    DS9 was also the only Trek series to have an episode nominated for an Emmy – “The Visitor” – about Jake Sisko trying to save his father’s life. Yes, I totally cried at the end.

    Plus, DS9 had Garak, who is one of my personal favorite characters in Trekdom…

    @EB:

    Kirk displays no leadership ability, doesn’t work for his position, sabotages the person in charge, screams when he doesn’t get his way, refuses to follow the rules, just shows up, and get’s put in charge.

    Oh yeah. I’ve been watching Trek since I was a kid and have gotten used to rolling my eyes at the speech Kirk always gets: “You stole a starship, destroyed Starfleet property, disobeyed direct orders … and saved the universe. You’re promoted.” So Kirk getting put in charge in this movie wasn’t my favorite thing, but it’s one of those Trek contrivances I’ve just gotten used to. (On that note, I am really bummed we didn’t get a glimpse of Sulu in the captain’s chair when the Enterprise showed up to save Kirk and Spock at the end.)

    Anyway, what I appreciated about this movie’s Kirk is that you did get to see him earn the loyalty of his future crew. I mean, he jumped nearly a mile to his death to save Sulu’s life. He rescued Scotty professionally. He helped Spock destroy the guy who committed genocide against Vulcan. And so now, it makes sense to me that these people will be loyal to Kirk and willing to follow him even on insane missions. In some respects I think this is a huge improvement over the original material, where Kirk would just kind of walk into a room and everyone would follow him because hey, it’s Kirk’s world and we just live in it.

    Posted 27 May 2009 at 8:44 am ¶

34. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @Jehanzeb–Yep, that Anakin mess. No quotes around it.:D And I call it a mess for a singular reason: it was 3 films that were unnecessary exacerbated with wooden acting and eyerolling dialogue.

    Now, maybe it’s just my personal psychological make-up, but I didn’t need three films to tell me that Anakin Skywalker made a decision–or a series of decisions–that led him to go to the Dark Side for the power he obtained and that diminished him on the inside. I sussed all of that when Darth Vader told Luke he was his father. Why? Because it’s the proverbial story of selling out to the devil, be it Faust or The Picture of Dorian Grey or the what-if story of Satan tempting Jesus, who said the oft-quoted line of gaining the world and losing one’s soul. (And by “what-if” I mean, “What if Jesus did succumb to the temptation? What would have happened?) To me, the Anakin trilogy was overkill. And before you say, “Dang, Andrea, do you not Star Wars?” I actually do–treasure it, in fact. Just as much as I treasure Star Trek for the flawed myth that it tells–canonical inconsistencies and all. And I don’t base that lurve on the “coolness” factor–that’s not where I enter the Star Trek vs. Star Wars debate. Because, at the end of my day, there simply isn’t a debate. I love them both–and equally.

    Posted 27 May 2009 at 8:57 am ¶

35. Diana wrote:

    @pololly–I don’t rant about JTK because he’s not POC. His character is basically a man-whore which is quite consistent with Shatner’s incarnation of JTK. ST wouldn’t be the same without him. I admire Uhura because she did not give in to the pretty-boy brash hero but went for the guy with brains.

    As for Tyler Perry, he really does make a mockery of black women. While I admire his ingenuity in working outside the traditional Hollywood system, his characterizations of POC are akin to a modern minstrel show. (See Spike Lee’s Bamboozled).

    Mod Note: Please avoid using words like “whore” or “man-whore.”

    Posted 27 May 2009 at 10:18 am ¶

36. Jehanzeb wrote:

    @ The Cruel Secretary,

    I personally Love the prequels and as a loyal “Star Wars” fan, I think the films *are* necessary to tell. The original trilogy were Episodes IV, V, and VI, so without Episodes I, II, and III, the saga would be incomplete. I used to read the Star Wars Expanded Universe novels and comic books as well, and I don’t think it would be fair to say those stories weren’t necessary either. “Tales of the Jedi” for example took place thousands of years before the films and they contain really compelling stories where we can explore new stories, new characters, and new planets.

    Way before the prequels were even in production, I remember reading the “Return of the Jedi” novel and after Ben (Obi-Wan) Kenobi tells the story about throwing Anakin/Darth Vader into a pit of lava, I really wanted to see that in the films. The characters in the original trilogy make plenty of references to the past, like the “Clone Wars” and to Luke’s father, so the prequels gave us a chance to explore that post.

    I don’t see why people can’t appreciate the films for what they are since they were made by George Lucas, the guy who created the Star Wars universe in the first place. We treasure his movies so much and yet we rip on him like he’s some kind of amateur director. I can look past the bad acting and wooden dialogue (Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, and Ian McDiarmid were probably the only actors who gave strong and convincing performances) because I see the Star Wars universe, I see the characters, I see the story, and I see Lucas’ extraordinary imagination and vision of this incredible world. I can escape to it and examine all the details, such as Anakin’s scar in Episode 3 — where did he get that from? It’s explained in one of the comic books in between Episode 2 and 3. Those kind of things make Star Wars special.

    And ultimately, the entire Star Wars saga is about Anakin’s fall to darkness and then his redemption. The prequels explore how a good person turns bad, and also how a democracy becomes a dictatorship. There are lot of mystical themes as well, especially about how we humans try to take control of things. As Yoda says to Anakin, “Train yourself to let go of the things that you fear to lose.” Anakin refuses to accept Padme’s destiny, so he turns to the dark side because Palpatine convinces him there’s a way to stop it. As a result, he becomes blinded to Palpatine’s hidden agenda.

    That’s not a “mess” to me. It’s a story worth telling and it fits into the “Star Wars” chronology perfectly.

    Posted 27 May 2009 at 12:11 pm ¶

37. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @Mary–The mention of Sisko/DS9 reminds me of how well Trek does with bald captains. Picard, Sisko, now Captain Robau. Now I see what Enterprise’s big mistake was… not hiring a hot bald guy to run the ship.
    LOL! And I personally think Captain Robau needed a bald-headed partner who would have given him a kiss before he went on Nero’s to school Uhura & Spock and every other pair of folks who kissed onscreen.

    Of course, I’m volunteering myself for that part–or would have if I’d known.;)

    Posted 27 May 2009 at 1:15 pm ¶

38. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    That should read: …before he went on Nero’s ship.

    Posted 27 May 2009 at 1:17 pm ¶

39. Lisa J wrote:

    @polloly. Thank you for defending Kirk. I’ve always loved the character and I liked seeing a version of him that was a misguided youth and a lot less buttoned down than the original Kirk. And you are also right that if they wanted to change it so that Spock or a vulcan or one of the POC’s being in charge, they could have made another movie and not done a Star Trek origins story for the original series. It would make no sense any other way without Kirk. If you hate Kirk then not much point in getting to into this series of film b/c he will most likely play a central role or just be prepared to be upset a lot. I don’t even understand how you can be a fan of the original series if you don’t like Kirk since he is for all intents and purposes the main character, the actor who played him got top billing, and almost every episode focused on him. If there was a show where I disliked the lead, even if there were other elements I liked, I’d probably not watch it or pay $12-14 to see it in the theatre. Guess it is a scratch my head thing.

    Posted 27 May 2009 at 1:20 pm ¶

40. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @Jehanzeb–Then you and I have to agree to disagree about the Anakin trilogy. Fair enough?

    Posted 27 May 2009 at 4:36 pm ¶

41. Jehanzeb wrote:

    @ The Cruel Secretary – fair enough

    Posted 27 May 2009 at 6:25 pm ¶

42. Mahsino wrote:

    @pololly. I don’t really think we disliked Kirk based on race, and certainly nobody was asking for any sort of “affrimitive action” type casting for the mere sake of diversity in this reboot- Kirk just wasn’t a likeable or interesting character. period. that criticism had nothing to do with race really.

    And as for what Tyler Perry did, Diana already addressed that one.

    @Jehanzeb. While I agree that the story should have been told- I think the point of any movie is to be able to communicate it to people who don’t necessarily have the vision- not just to create pretty pictures on a screen and hope fans who are already familiar with the franchise to know what’s going on.

    And I while I wouldn’t hop on the bandwagon that Lucas is an ameteurish director- he and those around him knew his writing abilities weren’t up to par for the time period. Yes, I could look past the original trilogy, because honestly I think the story was better- but the quality that he claims to pride himself on wasn’t 100% on these last three movies and I think that is one valid criticism that viewers have.

    Lucas has become like the Emperor with no clothes at best or Kanye West at worst (can’t tell him nothin’). A good leader knows how to delegate- which the prequel trilogy and this last Indiana Jones mess proved he doesn’t know how to do.

    Posted 27 May 2009 at 8:56 pm ¶

43. Lisa J wrote:

    @Mashino, “Kirk just wasn’t a likeable or interesting character. period.” with all due respect, that is your opinion. I found him likeable and funny and I disagree that all he did was scream and he wasn’t suited for his position. I thought he displayed enormous potential, and leadership skills, was tested at a genius level “according to Pike” and figured out a way to beat a test that no one else had been able to, etc. Not really fair to paint such a broad brush and though no one said it on this specific thread, the review thread had several comments specifically saying things like “hollywood needs to get over its blue-eyed white boy as savior fetish” and the like so maybe the conversations are getting crossed.

    Posted 28 May 2009 at 12:56 pm ¶

44. pololly wrote:

    @ Diana, Mahsino

    Seems like a race based critique when his race is explicitly mentioned as a
    negative. I understand it as a broad point but for Kirk specifically in Star Trek, I think it’s unwarranted.

    Secondly I found Kirk funny and interesting and while he’s not personally my type (Spock and Chekov- hot hot hot) but the Kirk hate just seems like a slightly harsh axe to grind.

    Posted 28 May 2009 at 5:12 pm ¶

45. Mahsino wrote:

    @Lisa J. I was talking about the context of the roundtable where nobody seemed to like him. And I’m sure that some of the Star Trek threads could have been confused, but you can probably understand how annoying it can be to have your entire opinion of a film dismissed because someone feels you’re essentially just playing the race card for giggles.

    I wasn’t trying to place my opinion as that of everyone who saw the film or even every commenter here.

    I’m sure there were some movie goers that liked him, the point was none of us on the roundtable took a shine to Kirk.

    Posted 28 May 2009 at 7:00 pm ¶

46. jsb16 wrote:

    Lisa J. wrote:
    

    I don’t even understand how you can be a fan of the original series if you don’t like Kirk since he is for all intents and purposes the main character, the actor who played him got top billing, and almost every episode focused on him. If there was a show where I disliked the lead, even if there were other elements I liked, I’d probably not watch it or pay $12-14 to see it in the theatre.

    Not even if you liked the entire rest of the show? Really? I watched TOS with my mother, and neither of us liked Kirk. We’re both Spock fans. Add to that the show’s politics (not perfect, but progressive for its time) and the intelligence of many of the plots, and yeah, I watched a show with a lead I dislike. I’ll probably watch not just this incarnation of the story, but at least some of the sure-to-follow sequels.

    Then again, I watch the occasional Kevin Costner movie even though I dislike him, too.:)

    Posted 28 May 2009 at 7:08 pm ¶

47. pololly wrote:

    @ Mahsino

    I also think I am crossing the comments with the other Star Trek threads and may be imputing more negative comments to you, which, if unwarranted, I apologise for.

    If your comment was directed towards me – I am genuinely sorry, I don’t think you’re playing the race card, but some of the general race critiques of this film (from many sources) have fallen flat to me in a way that the feminist critiques of Uhura’s character fell flat. I think for the same reason – the feminist critiques do not understand the K/S relationship and the race critiques don’t appreciate Kirk’s ’special’ role in the Star Trek universe.

    But, yeah, I’m not sure how representative a panel it can be when no one on the Star Trek panel likes Kirk *at all*. I have to say – I’m not ashamed to say that I quite liked Kirk, I thought he was consistent with the original characterization, and I had no problems with his advancements. This is not an attempt to undermine your point, just to disagree with it.

    Posted 29 May 2009 at 5:43 am ¶

48. pololly wrote:

    Also, thinking it through, I really liked Star Trek because I honestly felt like it was a big fun dumb movie. I’m a DS9 fanatic but it was good to see a film really embody the humor and joy of TOS with great characterization (and, ok, really hot men).

    Spock was the center of this film to me. But I loved the Kirk/Spock relationship. And I liked Kirk. The foundation of TOS to me is that relationship. It just seems really strange to be able to enjoy the movie as a TOS fan while resenting that relationship.

    Posted 29 May 2009 at 6:05 am ¶

49. Lisa J wrote:

    @Mashino, I don’t think I was dismissing your opinion of the film but if that is how it came across to you, I am sorry. I was just expressing my own POV and that I couldn’t understand the venom towards a central character to the series and the movie.

    @jsb16 I guess I watch Heroes and only like a few of the “main” characters so I guess I can understand.

    Guess I’ll have to agree to disagree with you both.

    Posted 29 May 2009 at 4:04 pm ¶

50. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    As someone old enough to see the original “Star Trek” in its original time slot, I totally agree with Elton. He nailed the problems with the movie.

    Best line from a review I read:

    http://www.mountainx.com/movies/review/star_trek

    There’s an inescapable sense of watching kids playing dress-up throughout—a kind of ‘Muppet Babies’ aura.

    Posted 30 May 2009 at 1:52 am ¶

51. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Since “Uhura matters” to Racialicious, here are some problems with her character:

    http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997

    Uhura (Zoe Saldana) seems to have traveled through time to the pre-feminist 1960s, where she found her miniskirt and go-go boots.

    http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/yb/130668300

    The ship’s communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana) — in a leap backwards for women’s roles — has evolved her from 1960s space secretary persona to a space girlfriend sleeping with academy instructor Spock to get a choice placement onboard the Enterprise. Her only other function is to leave her post during battle in order to make out with Spock in a classic “Star Trek” set piece whenever he has a personal tragedy.

    http://www.oscarguy.com/Reviews/Annual/2009/StarTrek.html

    As Nero stalks across the galaxy on his quest to make Spock and his friends weep at his villainy, we’re given a rather lazy romantic triangle that never existed in the series before. Uhura was merely a communications officer on the original series. She deserved better stories, but in the 1960s, black actors weren’t given nearly as much to do as their white counterparts. Here, she’s modernized slightly, but given stereotypical vanity qualities and used as an emotional wedge between Spock and Kirk. Some have said her emotional kiss with Spock in a turbolift was one of the highlights of the film, but I found it to be offensive to the character.

    Here is a woman whose mere presence in the crew back in 1966 sent shockwaves through the television industry and households. Later, her on-screen kiss with Kirk (although the product of mind control to escape leery censors) became part of history as the first interracial kiss shown on broadcast television. And all of this merely helped to cement Star Trek’s cultural importance to the medium as well as to legions of future fans. But, now, being the only female member of the bridge crew, she has to conform to the modern desire for all movies to have romantic entanglements, thus washing away decades of pop culture relevance with a single kiss.

    Posted 30 May 2009 at 1:59 am ¶

52. Sobia wrote:

    Again, I don’t have the history with Star Trek that many others here seem to but I did see this movie. And I have to agree with Rob Schmidt on Uhura. Again, as someone who has no history with the series I saw her character as weak and objectified. Not at all a strong female character. She just seemed to be there to create a little sexual tension and a love triangle of sorts. Oh, and to nurture Spock.

    Not impressed at all.

    Posted 30 May 2009 at 9:52 pm ¶

53. MichelleM wrote:

    Uhura (Zoe Saldana) seems to have traveled through time to the pre-feminist 1960s, where she found her miniskirt and go-go boots.

    IA, that I wished there were either miniskirts for men or they all wore pants or onesies. I don’t think the miniskirt itself was the problem but the gendered way it was used. I also didn’t like the gratuitous underwear shot, but in that scene, everyone was in their underwear and hers was practical in a way that told the viewer a little about her character.

    The ship’s communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana) — in a leap backwards for women’s roles — has evolved her from 1960s space secretary persona to a space girlfriend sleeping with academy instructor Spock to get a choice placement onboard the Enterprise. Her only other function is to leave her post during battle in order to make out with Spock in a classic “Star Trek” set piece whenever he has a personal tragedy.

    Uhura wasn’t just a space secretary or space girlfriend. She was a communication officer who handles linguistics and message decoding. If you’re not familiar what people in that role do, you would think she was a space secretary (and I do like that slur on being a secretary). In the episode “Who Mourns For Adonis”, when she rewired the communications system.

    In the movie, Uhura argued why she deserved placement on the Enterprises because of her knowledge of linguistics and her high ranking in her class. She also picked up the vital Klingon message, and she earned her spot on the helm at communications by knowing all three dialects of Romulan.

    She did leave to comfort Spock, but in light of all else she did and was capable of doing; it showed her as well rounded and having a personal and professional life.

    As Nero stalks across the galaxy on his quest to make Spock and his friends weep at his villainy, we’re given a rather lazy romantic triangle that never existed in the series before.

    Well, they couldn’t put it in TOS, but they did have Uhura flirt with Spock in Season 1.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTEwjjruRYM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmgYMTO6Th4

    . Later, her on-screen kiss with Kirk (although the product of mind control to escape leery censors) became part of history as the first interracial kiss shown on broadcast television.

    Well, that’s a bit complicated. She was original supposed to kiss Spock (since he was half-alien and it’s not as controversial as kissing an All-American white guy), but Shatner pulled a tantrum and he got the kiss.

    But, now, being the only female member of the bridge crew, she has to conform to the modern desire for all movies to have romantic entanglements, thus washing away decades of pop culture relevance with a single kiss.

    I had a problem with this because in the original series, there were other female characters like Yeoman Rand and Nurse Chapel, but they didn’t show up at all, so Uhura had to represent all female characters. Even Spock’s mom and Gaila, Uhura’s roommate, died.

    Posted 31 May 2009 at 9:16 pm ¶

54. Arturo wrote:

    @RobSchmidt:

    While you may be old enough to have watched the original ‘Trek’ series, your willingness to dismiss the original Uhura as a “space secretary” and saying that the alternate version of the character slept her way to the top over at the Roundtable thread strike me as sentiments that G. Rodenberry wouldn’t have endorsed.

    Moreover, citing Ebert is fine and all, but two things: Gene Siskel was the thoughtful one in their partnership, anyway; and might I suggest you read the views of reviewers rated above Ebert by Metacritic?

    * Manohla Dargis, NY Times
    * Stephanie Zacharek, Salon
    * James Bernardelli, Reelviews
    * David Edelstein, New York Magazine

    And even The New Yorker’s Anthony Lane, while disliking the new film, remarks that it “powers along, unheeding of its own absurdity, with a drive and a confidence that the producers of the original TV series might have smiled upon.”

    Posted 01 Jun 2009 at 10:41 am ¶

55. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    The quote about the space secretary was the review’s, Michelle, not mine. But I’m willing to embrace it.

    Re “She was a communication officer who handles linguistics and message decoding”: Uhura was a communications officer who often did little more than what a space secretary would do. “Get me the Klingon commander on line 1, honey, and make it snappy.”

    As for the reviews you cited, Arturo, the most they had to say about Uhura was calling her a “hot number.” That isn’t exactly a compliment.

    If you want to revamp Uhura, making her a sex and love object isn’t the way to do it. She’s a top cadet…so why doesn’t the movie put her in charge when Kirk and Spock leave the ship? Why isn’t she officially made third in command–especially over the scruffy punk Scotty has turned into?

    The third and fourth reviews you cited sum up the movie pretty well:

    http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=1617

    In addition to the battles, there are also chases, fight scenes, and all the other staples one expects from an action movie. Those hoping for some kind of “message” or “idea” will be disappointed. Star Trek spends some time on relationship development–especially the crucial one between Kirk and Spock–but there is little in the way of depth. Breadth, yes. Depth, no.

    http://nymag.com/movies/reviews/56428/

    When Kirk gets bumped from the captain’s chair and trades insults with Spock, it’s funny and surprising and wrong wrong wrong. Which is the point. We’re rooting for Abrams to be LESS original—to give us back OUR Kirk and Spock.

    P.S. For my review of the movie’s problems, see:

    http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2009/05/captain-kirk-part-sioux.html

    Posted 01 Jun 2009 at 11:25 pm ¶

56. Elton wrote:

    Now that it has been a while since Star Trek XI came out, my feelings toward it have mellowed. They did more than could be expected to pay homage to the original series, all things considered, and they did a better-than-average job of explaining the existence of the alternate universe (compared to other time travel stories like Terminator). I have become fond of the new NCC-1701 design, which is refreshing (though I hope by movie 2 they’ll build a real engineering section with a matter-antimatter warp core instead of water pipes and turbines).

    My biggest criticism still has to do with the plot: the implausibility and foolishness of cadets being given such great responsibility in the face of such a poorly-explained threat (lightning storm in space!?) and the impetus behind Nero’s revenge are hugely significant and virtually ignored.

    Although it will always feel contrived, I understand that they had to, in one movie, promote Kirk from a loser to captain of the Enterprise, while putting the rest of the original series crew in their rightful places. And Starfleet orders have a history of coming out of nowhere and making little sense. Star Trek is about how those orders are carried out, not the reasoning behind them.

    Now, after studying the Star Trek Countdown comic book series, I have finally elucidated a somewhat subtle point: Nero blames the Romulan government, Vulcan government (and the Federation/Starfleet by extension), and, most especially, Spock for Romulus’ destruction. Why would he blame them if Romulus was obviously destroyed by a natural disaster (the Hobus supernova)? Because they hesitated.

    Spock was originally Nero’s ally in spreading the warning about the impending disaster (which Nero discovered and Spock verified), but the Romulan senate didn’t believe them until it was too late because they wouldn’t trust Spock (for being a Vulcan) and the Vulcan government wouldn’t turn over the red matter technology to Spock (because he was a Romulan ally).

    Red matter, as you know from the movie, has the power to mop up spreading supernovae. It comes from decalithium (what Nero was mining) but has to be converted to red matter by Vulcan technology.

    The crucial point that brought Nero’s universe-splitting ire was Spock’s decision to *ask* for the red matter technology instead of *stealing* it. Nero preferred that Spock use force, THEREFORE, he blames Spock for the destruction of Romulus because he hesitated.

    Most unfortunately, they dumbed down this fascinating story of mistrust and blame between Romulans and Vulcans, one of Trek’s most cherished themes, into a disembodied revenge plot. They made Nero look crazy and his actions baseless and confusing. They made Starfleet look like a bunch of idiots who shoot at anything that looks funny.

    They could have taken one minute to hint that Nero blamed Spock for hesitating to use force to obtain red matter, and that this disaster could have been prevented if the Romulan and Vulcan governments had believed him and trusted each other. Instead, they used that time to show kid Kirk driving a Corvette and listening to Beastie Boys on his Nokia.

    Posted 20 Jun 2009 at 6:07 pm ¶

57. Franki wrote:

    @Elton

    Totally agree about the Romulan plot hole, though I’m going to be a script apologist here and say that re-writes of the script were interrupted by the writer’s strike, so there’s a good chance unfinished parts of the plot got cut for clarity. Doesn’t make sense? We’ll just make the bad guy extra grief-stricken and crazy! Looks like we’re going to run short for time? Enter action sequence! 5 minutes of screen time with less than half a page of dialogue! And as a bonus, we’ll get to introduce Kirk’s predilection for hanging off of ledges (which, okay, I kind of loved).

    Posted 27 Jun 2009 at 4:28 am ¶