Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.

[Russell]

I think what I always loved about Star Trek 09 was its ability to create tension. Throughout the whole movie I was trying to visualize how the Enterprise could possibly destroy the Narada... I couldn't even imagine that happening, and then they come up with a pretty clever plan. Well, clever as far as cadets go, and I might even go as far as saying as Star Trek goes, it was probably the best plan they could have come up with. If tension is what makes a movie great, then Star Trek 09 is indeed great.

[Jito463]

In my opinion, they broke several rules (both in character development and in technical details).  This was merely one of them.  I already covered part of the character development problems I had with it, too.  Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?  This isn't just about one technical detail, it's about multiple problems that simply altering the timeline shouldn't have changed.  While I understand the need to suspend disbelief for a movie (yes, i realize that transporters do not actually exist), the movie should still follow the rules of the fictional world it takes place in, which were set by the TV series and movies that preceded it.

The point is, Star Trek breaks its own rules all the time.  In TNG, no one in the Federation except the El Aurians had heard of the Borg until Q sent the Enterprise to their sector of the galaxy.  Then subsequent series said that the Federation had encountered the Borg numerous times before that.  In Star Trek II, Kirk claims the Klingons don't take prisoners.  Then in Star Trek III, the Klingon commander executes his gunner for accidentally destroying the U.S.S. Grissom, saying that he wanted prisoners.  In Star Trek 6, Uhura, the communications officer, who presumably got that post because of her skill with languages, needs a Klingon-to-English dictionary.

Yeah the fact is(and I say this as a life long Star Trek fan)how the tech works and character back story has always been whatever the writers want it to be on a week to week basis in Star Trek.  For some reason this movie is the only time some of the fan chose to notice it.  Again if the movie wasn't your cup of tea I am not sure what else to say other then just don't see the new one.  I hated the movie Sherlock Holmes but you don't see me complaining about the sequel in it's thread,I just avoid it and I am happy.

No, this isn't the only time I've noticed it.  In ST6, when the Klingons start talking about the "original" Klingon version of Shakespeare, that always bugged me.  And the backstory of Seven in Voyager always irked me, too (the timeline never added up).  I found those elements just as disdainful.  It's not about changing things, it's about breaking the immersion.  For me, those details break immersion for me, and prevented me from enjoying the movie fully.  I think the most glaring aspect was how Kirk became captain straight from cadet.  Taking over the ship in a crisis was one thing, but then they make him captain?  That was just such pathetically poor writing.  There is no military organization that would ever put a cadet in charge of a ship, especially not their flagship.  And Starfleet has always been shown as having the structure of the military, even if it's not explicitly written that way.

*EDIT*
I'm not trying to say that this is the worst movie (I still believe ST5 holds that title), but there's enough aspects of it that constantly break immersion that I find difficult to just accept.

[daltysmilth]

This is the same "military" that has on numerous occasions left its main base of operations (Earth) completely undefended.  How many times have they used the old "the Enterprise is the only ship in the sector" routine?

[Sideswipe]

Earth is actually very well protected.  As far as "the only ship in the sector routine"?  Twice, TMP and Generations.

[Bahana]

I am a big Trek fan and went to the opening night in 2009.  I doubt I pay to see the next one. The last movie was so-so. I'm sick of alternate timeline/time travel stories in Star Trek, but I do realize the new films are made to bring in new fans and I guess changing the timeline was needed in order to have fresh stories.

[Smith Dr John Smith]

I don't understand why some people are so upset about the timeline thing.  I don't see how setting the show in alternate universe so some of the rules can be changed to attract new is any different then setting a new show one hundred years latter as an excuse to change the rules and get new fans the way TNG did.

New production teams like to try new things and it doesn't bother.  What does bother me is one the same people stay in control too long and you end up with a show like Voyager that is 90% reused scripts from TNG.

[Russell]

New production teams like to try new things and it doesn't bother.  What does bother me is one the same people stay in control too long and you end up with a show like Voyager that is 90% reused scripts from TNG.

I agree. It was a bold move to Start from the very beginning of TOS, but even bolder when I saw Vulcan being destroyed. I was sitting there and I was like no way... this can't happen... and then when Vulcan disappeared it honestly chilled me to the bone because I thought Holy shit, if they can do that they can do anything.. ANYTHING! The hardcore fans need to put aside their personal feelings(mostly because this is an ALTERNATE universe... it's okay to change things!) and see the potential for unique and new stories in this alternate universe with the TOS characters.

[Darth Geek]

I agree. It was a bold move to Start from the very beginning of TOS, but even bolder when I saw Vulcan being destroyed. I was sitting there and I was like no way... this can't happen... and then when Vulcan disappeared it honestly chilled me to the bone because I thought Holy shit, if they can do that they can do anything.. ANYTHING!

Exactly my feelings, too. I think that's a large part of why they did it, too. It really brings a tension, as Gunflyer said, to it.

[shodan]

I agree. It was a bold move to Start from the very beginning of TOS, but even bolder when I saw Vulcan being destroyed. I was sitting there and I was like no way... this can't happen... and then when Vulcan disappeared it honestly chilled me to the bone because I thought Holy shit, if they can do that they can do anything.. ANYTHING!

Exactly my feelings, too. I think that's a large part of why they did it, too. It really brings a tension, as Gunflyer said, to it.

and romulus ends up destroyed. anybody want to bet what next major planet they're gonna destroy? bajor? Cardassia Prime?.... Qo'Nos?!

[Sideswipe]

Fuck it, why not blow up Earth.  Thats dark and gritty.

[Smith Dr John Smith]

New production teams like to try new things and it doesn't bother.  What does bother me is one the same people stay in control too long and you end up with a show like Voyager that is 90% reused scripts from TNG.

I agree. It was a bold move to Start from the very beginning of TOS, but even bolder when I saw Vulcan being destroyed. I was sitting there and I was like no way... this can't happen... and then when Vulcan disappeared it honestly chilled me to the bone because I thought Holy shit, if they can do that they can do anything.. ANYTHING! The hardcore fans need to put aside their personal feelings(mostly because this is an ALTERNATE universe... it's okay to change things!) and see the potential for unique and new stories in this alternate universe with the TOS characters.

Yeah i agree and it has nothing to do with dark and gritty(just see what I have said in the past about NuBSG to see how I feel about that)because the movie wasn't but it did have a sense of danger that has been lacking in Star trek for a long time.  Fro the first time since DS9 ended I felt there were stakes and that things could go wrong so there was a sense of excitement to this movie that Star Trek really needed.  The biggest problem Star Trek had at the time was that everything was always getting a quick fix well there were no quick fixes in this movie,they didn't go back in time save Vulcan and there were no back up characters standing by to replace someone if they died,that to me is a huge step forward for Star Trek after the TNG movies,Voyager,and the first two years or so of Enterprise.

[Sideswipe]

Star Trek has always been about second chances.  Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong.  Vulcan's fucked, oh well.  Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him.  So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series.  Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave.  As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."

[Smith Dr John Smith]

Star Trek has always been about second chances.  Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong.  Vulcan's fucked, oh well.  Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him.  So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series.  Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave.  As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."

See that is what was wrong with Star Trek,the producers were catering to the hard core fans who want the rest button pushed every forty five minutes and there never being any danger of anything going wrong.  the trouble is that is not good drama and there are only about 100 people in the world who watch a movie to see a much of people in jump suits be in no danger what so ever.

Don't worry IU am sure some day your idea of the greatest film of all time will be made,Shatner reading the Star Trek Wiki.

[shodan]

Star Trek has always been about second chances.  Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong.  Vulcan's fucked, oh well.  Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him.  So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series.  Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave.  As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."

See that is what was wrong with Star Trek,the producers were catering to the hard core fans who want the rest button pushed every forty five minutes and there never being any danger of anything going wrong.  the trouble is that is not good drama and there are only about 100 people in the world who watch a movie to see a much of people in jump suits be in no danger what so ever.

Don't worry IU am sure some day your idea of the greatest film of all time will be made,Shatner reading the Star Trek Wiki.

why the bloody hell cant people just appreciate the varying incarnations of a great franchise/idea. if you can handle the transition from MST3K to Rifftrax and still love it, you can handle the new Star trek Movie(s)

[ScottotD]

Star Trek has always been about second chances.  Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong.  Vulcan's fucked, oh well.  Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him.  So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series.  Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave.  As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."

See that is what was wrong with Star Trek,the producers were catering to the hard core fans who want the rest button pushed every forty five minutes and there never being any danger of anything going wrong.  the trouble is that is not good drama and there are only about 100 people in the world who watch a movie to see a much of people in jump suits be in no danger what so ever.

Don't worry IU am sure some day your idea of the greatest film of all time will be made,Shatner reading the Star Trek Wiki.

why the bloody hell cant people just appreciate the varying incarnations of a great franchise/idea. if you can handle the transition from MST3K to Rifftrax and still love it, you can handle the new Star trek Movie(s)

The thread for the last Star Trek movie, the Sherlock movie, Dr. Who movie and pretty much every sequel, prequel or remake says otherwise.