Rented the most recent Star Trek movie last night ...

[Flaxbee]

I can see that it would have been a lot of fun to see on a big screen.

I don't know why I didn't think I'd like it -- but I did really enjoy it.

Who else has seen it, and what did you think? :hi:

[InvisibleTouch]

1. Loved it. n/t

[NewJeffCT]

2. Liked it until the end (spoiler warning)

The cast was good - Karl (Eomer) Urban was spot-on as Bones McCoy, and both Kirk & Spock were good, too.

However, one of the tenets of time travel stories is that in the end, the heroes can set everything right. That does not happen here. Yes, they can come up with new stories & all in the this new timeline. But, they had plenty to work with in the original timeline from when Kirk & Spock get together until the original series started. They didn't need to kill off 6 billion Vulcans.

[Taverner]

3. It definitely changes directions though....

The Federation without their brain-trust

[Flaxbee]

6. don't you know, Spock Prime IS the braintrust

:P

Will be interesting to see what's up in the next one (announced for 2011).

[Flaxbee]

5. yeah, my husband and I were talking about that --

They didn't fix the timeline, even though the opportunity existed for them to do so.

[Bleacher Creature]

15. There are rumors that the next couple of movies will be about setting things right.

I'm pretty sure I saw that on AICN -- i.e., fixing the timeline and restoring history.

[NewJeffCT]

16. I hope so

and, that would be interesting to see.

[rcrush]

42. What I wanna know is

Where are all those guys that monitor the timeline from the future? That Captain Braxton from Voyager or that Daniels guy from Enterprise. They always show up when someone messes with time travel going on about the "temporal prime directive" and all that. But some Romulan goes back in time and blows up Vulcan and they dont do a thing?!

[edbermac]

71. They brought Spock back from the dead in #3.

So I'm sure they can time travel back to save Vulcan.

[Orsino]

4. It's pretty lightweight, but good.

It might have been better to use the same cast as original characters, rather than the sorta-impressions we got.

Very moving beginning, too.

Major scientific howlers.

[Flaxbee]

7. Entertaining, but somewhat predictable, and with, as you said,

scientific howlers.

I also agree that the beginning was quite moving. Surprised myself getting emotional.

[Deja Q]

12. Or not lamely superglue it to the Trek franchise.

It had enough merit to be its own thing.

Plus, star trek with product placements and characters openly mocking their enemies? No thanks. Trek tried to rise above that or showing such actions are unsavory at best. NuTrek being an alternate reality doesn't cut it either.

[Orrex]

65. Yeah! Just like Star Trek V and Star Trek VI!

And Star Trek III and Star Trek VII, while we're at it.

Burn 'em all!

[Tikki]

8. I like the interaction....

between those who become the crew members..'specially the turbo-lift thing. aaahhh...


Tikki

[Flaxbee]

10. yeah, the personal back-story / character introductions were

IMO, the best part of the movie. Fistfights = booooorrring (except for when Kirk makes Spock snap), character intro/development = interesting.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Haven't seen it, but I really want to.

[Flaxbee]

11. Just released on DVD yesterday - I recommend it, it

was an enjoyable few hours.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. We have a big HDTV now, so even though we aren't seeing it in a theater hopefully

it'll still look really good. :)

[Rabrrrrrr]

14. I thought it was crap, a spit in the face of Roddenberry, and an abomination.

The effects were good, and I liked the acting.

But was it Star Trek? Only accidentally. And very, very poorly.

[kentauros]

23. "Accidentally" Star Trek.

I like that :D

[Bucky]

27. I think that's a ref to the philosophical meaning of accident, meaning characteristic.

Like having red hair or being a German or a Korean or tall or short are "accidents" attached to the essence of your humanity.

[leeroysphitz]

60. Roddenberry blew...

TNG was able to find it's footing and get REALLY good after Roddenberry finally died (giving teh producers the opportunnity to get rid of the pajama uniforms and all the stupid Lost In Space like story lines) and that is the ONLY reason why Trek din not disappear, why it has managed to remain relevant and why anybody is still worrying about Star Trek movies 20 years on.

[Fire Walk With Me]

17. Too much "oh no!/Struggle/We're free!" formula, however (spoiler)

it was entertaining, that's for sure. The puffy hands joke was very amusing! The actors will have to get used to each other and develop the sort of easy comeraderie that was notable in the original series (exepting those angry at Shatner). Or maybe, including those angry at Shatner. You never know.

A DUer in the Entertainment forum mentioned that perhaps the reason they "rebooted" the ST universe was to avoid one, and one possibility only- That Shatner and Nimoy might join together in song, doing such cover tunes as...no, I can't say it. Suffice to say, it is averted. ;)

Hey, isn't that Harold, from Harold and Kumar? Isn't he Korean? Oh well...

[EndersDame]

22. John Cho was excited to be Sulu since there are not alot of cool roles for Asians

And said that Takei was an inspiration. I think that him being Korean is no big deal

[Bucky]

30. Rightly so: if Pinto from Animal House can play an Austrian in "Amadeus"...

... then what's the problem with a Korean actor playing an American character of Japanese descent? I don't recall there being much controversy when a Chinese actress was cast in the lead role in Memoirs of a Geisha--I assume they did that for marketing reasons.

[kentauros]

31. The difference in facial features is the biggest problem

at least for people that can tell the difference.

Now, if they explained away this obvious flaw by saying he's a Korean orphan raised by Japanese parents and thus the surname, then that's acceptable, but I never heard anything like that in the movie.

[EndersDame]

39. I have Mexican and White facial features, perhaps Sulu had a Korean mom

Even though my sister and I are half mexican half white , most people think my sister is 100% anglo and some people think I am Italian, Greek or Lebanese.If my brother had a kid with a 100% white girl it would be only 1/4 mexican but still have a very strong mexican surname. I don't see why it has to be assumed that Sulu is 100% Japanese

[kentauros]

40. Yes, I thought of one parent being Japanese.

It's only that when I saw an obviously non-Japanese man playing what was previously a Japanese man in that role, then I was put off, among other bits in the movie.

[EndersDame]

50. I understand but have kept in mind when my sister was almost kicked out of a Hispanic Student Org

:rofl: our grandparents CAME from Mexico! She is still lily white though! I see Cho playing a Japanese man like Christian Bale (a Brit) playing an American Icon no big deal! :hi:

[kentauros]

51. I see your point about how our "race" can be mixed and still

have names that are contrary to our features. I'm just disappointed they didn't remain true to the original. They seemed to do that for the other characters, so why not Sulu? Takei is definitely a Japanese man. Cho is definitely not ;)

[Frank Cannon]

58. John Cho actually talked to George Takei about it to see what he thought

Takei said he always assumed Sulu represented all Asians in the future, so a Korean playing a guy with a Japanese name was no big deal.

[EndersDame]

61. I agree tell that to the other guy

[Frank Cannon]

62. I was just providing a supplemental footnote to your post

To further support the point you were making.

[kentauros]

63. Okay, but it's too bad that can't be made as a point within the story.

I like Star Trek. I'm not enough of a fan to go looking for all the little interviews and whatnot in order to enjoy it. It's still just not "right" to me to see a Korean playing George Takei's Japanese character, thanks to how that has been set up since the show first aired.

However, this is a very minor contention with the whole of the movie. I still balk at the idea you have to kill millions and even billions to make an exciting movie.

[bikebloke]

18. Netflix is sending it this week.

In fact it ought to be in my mailbox when I get home.

But I won't watch it until Saturday night.

Back in September I started watching it on a flight. After 5 minutes, I decided I wanted to watch it in wide screen (and larger than the one on the back of the seat in front of me). I think I moved on to Dr. Who.

[yawnmaster]

19. okay, except for the "galaxy quest" moment.

If you've seen Galaxy quest, you'll remember the stompers scene, where Sigorny asks, "why would anyone put these in a starship?". Well, the water pipes in engineering, in my opinion, were a similar thing. A gimmick so that they could flush Scottie around, yet really with no other purpose.

A few things like that. But overall, entertaining.

[DainBramaged]

26. Galaxy Quest was a FUN movie

[AsahinaKimi]

20. **spoiler alert **if you havent seen it but...

Why did they have to go blow up Vulcan?

[kentauros]

24. Because JJ Abrams like to kill as many people as he can

in the most imaginative and gruesome ways possible. At least, that's my observation of him so far and why I don't like any of this products.

[trackfan]

21. I saw it tonight. I didn't like the new timeline it

gave the characters - but even though that doesn't sit well with me as sort of a purist, I could live with that, as being "the breaks" in this genre. What the movie really lacked, though, was story. It was really just a vehicle to introduce the "new" characters, and take advantage of the Star Trek cachet, while also appealing to what Mrs. Trackfan would call the booby boy mentality.
The best part of the movie was the use of the original theme over the retro-television-style titles at the end.

[quakerboy]

25. Just got a virgin BluRay disc

from blockbuster. Just watched it.

Overall, if I separate it from the franchise, it was a decent movie. Putting it in context, not so much a match.

I really, really, really could have done without the Spock on Spock action. That hurt me.

[Bucky]

28. It was a fun watch-thru, but it doesn't hold up on reflection.

The things that runs through all the Trek series are missing from this version.

(1) The characters in Trek always lived by a moral code; these guys do not--the whole point of the plot was you killed a bunch of our people so now we're going to kill you right back. That flies in a Mel Gibson movie, but Star Trek has always been about living for a higher purpose.

(2) Star Fleet is always shown as being a large, intelligent, professional organization. When they have flaws, they have flaws of a bureaucracy, not flaws of core competence. But the story in this reboot hinges on Starfleet acting like a bunch of assclowns. They jump an ungraduated cadet all the way up to the rank of Captain, even though just hours before he was on the brink of being expelled for cheating. Okay, he saved the universe--give him a second chance. But would an organization of grown ups really but an obnoxious, disorderly, insubordinate brat in charge of a space ship under these circumstances? For that matter, how moronic is the tactical thinking of Starfleet if they rush into an ambush and get slaughtered en masse so easily. Did the entire fleet pop into orbit around Vulcan all lined up like 18th century musketmen to facilitate their mass extermination by the single Romulan mining ship?

This is what happens when you put Tyler Perry in charge of Starfleet. I fucking hate Tyler Perry.

(3) Kirk is crafty and deceitful in past Treks, but essentially a mature person of character and personal loyalty. He's a modern day Odysseus, using his cunning and wits to outsmart his enemies--yet always acting from a core of moral rectitude. The Kirk as impetuous brat is a major devolution of the character that Shatner built up over the past 40 years. This new Kirk doesn't out wit his enemies; he just sneaks up on them and then kicks their asses. Steven Seagal could have played this version of Kirk. In the final show down, when the Romulan refused to surrender, Kirk could have just let him die; but this version had to give him a final "fuck you" photon torpedo just to add one more satisfying explosion to the story's ending. How un-Trek. In the past the legend of how Kirk reprogrammed the Kobiyashi Maru test has been used to build the character up as a man who cheats death. But the real Kirk would have at least played it straight during the actual exercise. This Kirk just prances around like George Bush on an aircraft carrier, chomping his apple and refusing to take the whole thing seriously. He's not cheating death; he's just cheating--and he's being a douche bag about it in the process. Let's not forget the point to all this: the Kobiyashi Maru is supposed to be a character test. JJ Abrams seems to have specifically designed this retelling to make a James Kirk totally devoid of character.

Commercially, the reboot seems to be a success. Artistically, it's a failure. I won't watch another Star Trek movie from this man.

[kentauros]

29. Great analysis!

Too bad the masses won't agree, yanno, because it was a "fun" movie. I guess fun movies don't have to make any sense. Galaxy Quest made more sense than this movie! ;)

[Rabrrrrrr]

32. In the age when American Idol counts as a "talent show", Abrams' Star Trek becomes Really Bitchin'.

:eyes:

"Oooh, don't be so critical about it. It's just a movie. I liked it! I thought it was fun!"

Pfagh. Assholes.

It's that devaluation of art in that fucking awful phrase "Well, it's just a..." as though nothing is to supposed to be of quality of any more.

"Oh, it's just a book"
"Oh, it's just a movie"
"Oh, it's just a singer"

and then we get
"Oh, it's just a bridge"
"Oh, it's just heart surgery"

Fuckers.

[arcadian]

35. Agree about the Kobiyashi Maru thing

They should have had him taking the test seriously, then had the moment when his "cheat" subroutine kicks in and then professionally taking out the Klingon battle cruisers, then simply walking off and not being all cocky, then later at the hearings had him explain with a cool head why it wasn't cheating, because he felt that "there are always options" and that the test takes place in the real world where the option of changing the test was real variable that Kirk took seriously.

Also, the entire fleet being destroyed was pretty lame, the Enterprise was only a minute behind them, which I guess explains why Sulu couldn't "start" the Enterprise and why they were late and not destroyed with the rest of the fleet.

Over all i liked it though, i think the franchise needed a new direction, but I can see your points, but in the end it's just a movie, one that I enjoyed.

[GaYellowDawg]

41. Hm.

Point #1:

They'd witnessed the destruction of an entire planet. 6 billion lives. And what you neglected to mention is that Kirk offered assistance. When it was turned down, he fed them a few extra photon torpedos. So what? Fucker deserved it. Don't hand me any bullshit about it, either. The villain had killed 1,000 times the number of beings that Hitler did. You or anyone else would have done the same thing and given him an "Eat this, asshole" while you did it.

Point #2:

Starfleet has never, in my opinion, been an "intelligent, professional organization." Cases in point:

1. Captain John Harriman, ST: Generations. If this moron is given Starfleet's new flagship (e.g., Enterprise-B), no reason to not give a cadet a starship.

2. Captain Terrell and the entire crew of the USS Reliant. Another incompetent. Who lets a bunch of raggedy terrorists living in a mobile home in the middle of the desert, armed only with worms, take over your starship? Please.

3. Captain Styles. The dude with the swagger stick. Need I say anything more?

4. Virtually every other captain in TOS. How many times was another starship's captain crooked or incompetent and Kirk had to clean their crap up?

5. Admiral Cartwright, STVI.

6. And why, why is there never another starship in range? Seems like Starfleet would be at least competent enough to keep 3 or 4 starships within range of Earth at all times. Nope. Not during ST:TMP.

7. Who lets something like the Genesis Project go completely without on-site security?


One of the great things about the movie was that a captain besides Kirk actually seemed to know his ass from a hole in the ground. I liked Captain Pike better than I ever did Kirk - either Pine's or Shatner's Kirk. Yeah, giving the Enterprise to Kirk was a major plot hole. They should have tossed another time gap in there after the Kobiyashi Maru and had him as a discontented lt. commander or something.

Point #3: character? How many times did Kirk simply fuck his way into a solution? A bunch, I'll tell you that. And how many times did he violate the Prime Directive? Just about every week. Character, my ass. Which is actually another strike against point #2. How do you let someone remain in command who so constantly breaks your PRIME directive?

[rcrush]

43. Reminds of that DS9 episode

With the guys from Temporal Investigations debriefing Sisko. He mentions seeing The Entprise and They react "HIS SHIP!" "James T Kirk. Seventeen temporal violations. The most on record! The man was a menace!" lol

[lunamagica]

45. Wonderful analysis. I like it less and less upon reflection

The first thing was new-Uhura, and her relationship with Spock. Everyone jumps on me for this, because they loved seeing the romance.

I complained about Uhura losing all her class and dignity in this movie. I was told that Uhura was always a minor role, and it was great to see her get elevated here. Elevated to what? To be the girlfriend who you get to see strip down to her underwear? That was a big step up for her?

Not to mention She and Spock kissing in front of everyone...no way. Mr Spock, the REAL Spock would have never acted that way.

Besides, I hate to think of Vulcan being completely gone.


Just too many things. I wish they weren't making another one.

[Rabrrrrrr]

46. When I'm president of the US, I will make a law that nothing Star Trek gets done without my approval

I think that's the only way to ensure that Star Trek stops being abused.

And if there's any reason to run for president, it's to save Star Trek.

[Orrex]

68. Because "Spock's Brain" and "Catspaw" were the pinnacle of artistic achievement

Who was the asshole in charge of Star Trek when those steaming turds were inflicted upon the viewership?

Oh, wait. Now I remember. It was Gene something...

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[arcadian]

34. I friggin laughed my ass off when they waxed the red shirt.

[Initech]

36. I highly enjoyed it - but then again I'm a n00b when it comes to Star Trek.

I kinda want to get that Blu-Ray box set of the original films and watch them in order.

[applegrove]

37. I think the casting was excellent. Especially the captain. I usually don't like

sci-fi but heard such good things about this version of star trek that I went.

[Rabrrrrrr]

44. That might be why you liked it - you're not a sci-fi fan.

I think Abrams intentionally destroyed everything that was good about Star Trek so that it would appeal to people who don't like science-fiction.

And clearly, it does - tremendous amounts of non-sci-fi people went and loved it.

Because it has nothing of science-fiction about it, except the superficial trappings of sci-fi: spaceships, shit blowing up, and alien sex.

But science-fiction - the real, honest, solid science-fiction - has never been about spaceships, shit blowing up, or alien sex: it was always about story being used as social commentary and allegory for the time it was written. Science-fiction writers could get away with talking about WWII, or Vietnam, or whatever else they wanted to talk about because they used allegory. That was the beauty of the original Star Trek - at its best, it was direct critique (and sometimes very serious critique) of the bad shit of the 1960s: war, corporations taking over, corrupt politicians, loss of rights, xenophobia, fear-mongering, and so on.

[GaYellowDawg]

47. Why, how very elitist of you.

Both Leonard Nimoy and Eugene Roddenberry disagree with you about the quality of the movie, by the way. But back to the main point: really good science fiction isn't always about social commentary/allegory. It's also about telling a good story, or setting stories in a wildly imaginative setting. What you're tossing out there is a classical "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Not all TOS Star Trek was about social critique. Not even close. There wasn't any commentary to be found in any of the Harry Mudd episodes, or the episode with the space hippies, or the episode of the planet full of gangsters (or Nazis, or Romans). Not to mention the truly awful episode where they steal Spock's brain, or the really sucky one where Kirk loses his memory and becomes a space Native American.

[Rabrrrrrr]

48. I didn't say EVERY Star Trek managed it - I said Star Trek at its best.

And of course the story has to be good FIRST - otherwise it's not worth watching or reading, no matter what "message" it might be trying to get across.

But one that makes a story good - beyond the technical aspects of being coherent, understandable, believable, and internally consistent - is that there is room for the reader/viewer to enter into the story AND to have that story speak to the human condition.

And I disagree on the Muss and Gangster episodes: Mudd is a good story that's also (humorous) allegory of narcissism and casual disregard of social norms; the gangster episode is a good allegory of how insignificant-seeming interference in a culture can have catastrophic effects (a continuing theme in much of Trek).

Stories that are enjoyable on their own, but which also mean something - sometimes more, sometimes less, but at its best, Trek (and all good science-fiction, as well as all good literature) speaks about the human condition.

In the best writing, that speaking of the human condition is more by-product of good storytelling than intentional (the intentional stuff tends to be preachy, heavy-handed, and not so good - look at much of contemporary Christian fiction; it's awful because the agenda is so severely obvious, with the story being a mere accident of the agenda - much like the last Trek movie, which had an agenda not to tell a compelling and wonderful story, but an agenda of "let's have shit blow up, lots of dead people, boobs, some sex, and as many cliche-laden soundbytes as possible).

[GaYellowDawg]

54. OK, so that was a lucid, thoughtful response.

Just wanted to compliment you on that.

That said, I disagree with your assessment of the Mudd and gangster episodes - I think you're stretching things there. One could as easily assert that Abrams' movie was an allegory of revenge ultimately being self-defeating, and that it's a good caution against weapons of mass destruction getting into the hands of extremists.

But otherwise, that was a good post. I especially agreed with what you said about contemporary Christian fiction. Not, of course, with your assessment of the Trek movie :-) - Wrath of Khan blew a lot of shit up and Kirstie Alley was there for eye candy, ST6 blew up an entire Klingon moon (resulting, presumably, in lots of dead Klingons), ST4 was full of soundbytes, ST5 was Star Wars prequel bad, and ST6 was good right until I got really tired of the Klingon quoting Shakespeare over the intercom. I thought the opening sequence of the last Trek movie was one of the best sequences I've ever seen in any science fiction movie. I do wish that Vulcan hadn't been destroyed, and I do wish that Kirk hadn't gone straight from cadet to captain of the Enterprise.

[Orrex]

67. You have a pointlessly elitist and arbitrarily narrow perception of science fiction.

Sure, "tremendous amounts of non-sci-fi people loved" Star Trek, and the fact that you choose to exclude these fans that way demonstrates once again your elitist view on this matter. Sorry to break it to you, but tremendous amounts of sci-fi people (whatever that means) loved it, too. Does that mean that they aren't "real" sci-fi people, or maybe that they're not really as sci-fi as you are?

Incidentally, here's a tidbit from a minor science fiction author who disagrees with what you identify as the righteous duty of "real, honest, solid science fiction":

Question 8: Do you believe that an effective (science fiction) novel requires a message or a moral? Please comment.

Absolutely not! The notion that a novel needs a moral or message is a bourgeois concept. In the days of the aristocracy it was recognized that art did not need to instruct or elevate; it could be a success by merely entertaining. One should never look down on entertainment; Mozart string quartets do not instruct--show me a moral message in, say, the late Beethoven. Music is pure; literature can be, too; it becomes more pure it if drops its intention of improving and instructing the audience. The writer is not a bit superior in morals than his audience anyway--and frequently he's inferior to them. What moral can he really teach them? What he has to offer is his ideas.

From "The Double: Bill Symposium": Replies to "A Questionairre for Professional SF Writers and Editors" (1969)

[Bennyboy]

38. It was exactly like a Bruce Springsteen concert!

A little bit cheesey, sometimes hearltfelt, sometimes obvious, funny, sad, dangerous, desire and non stop entertainment.

[burrfoot]

49. Absolutely loved it.

I've been into Star Trek since I was little, and this one was just as enjoyable as any of the rest.
Was it a little less "mature?" Sure. But wasn't that the point? This is the young crew, the young Starfleet. Of course they're going to be raw and impulsive and...well...dumb.
FWIW, this also makes the fact that the cast doesn't have that smooth camradery- they weren't the grown up, polished team that they had already become in past movies.

Also- someone please correct me if I'm wrong- but I thought that at the end of the movie they had set things up so that they did not have to follow the footsteps of the future that already was. I thought they'd done this on purpose, so that this "reboot" franchise-to-be didn't have to worry about being remakes, or working around, the old material. They're free to have their own, totally unique stories.
If I misunderstood the end, can somebody let me know? :)

[InvisibleTouch]

52. Your take on the ending is correct.

I for one am looking forward to seeing elements of the original series explored in the upcoming movies in a whole new way. The new timeline is no longer tied to the old continuity, but we've seen that lots of elements from one universe cross over into the other. So maybe there's a Horta out there, and a Gorn, and maybe even a Trelane/Q, whom we could meet again under different circumstances.

How about a retake on "Wrath of Khan"? Now that would be ... interesting. I don't think anything could ever match the excellence of the original, but it would be fun to explore the story from a different angle and see what a new creative team would come up with. And if we hate it ... well, there's still the original which nothing can diminish.

[burrfoot]

69. Oh, Q....that would made me happy, to see him/it/them again. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

53. I really enjoyed it, but was disappointed by the degree to which women were ignored. nt

[Generic Brad]

55. Best Star Trek Evah

It was right up there with "Wrath of Kahn".

[PJPhreak]

56. Loved It!

The thing about "TimeFuckkery" is that not only is the timeline changed,but so would be the characters personalties,attitudes and outlooks on life...As is so often stated here,"You are a product of your upbringing"

[texanwitch]

57. I am watching the movie for the first time right now.

I reallly like it.

[Frank Cannon]

59. I'm a lifelong Star Trek fan, and I loved it.

If that means I have to turn in my Lincoln Enterprises Star Trek Fan Club card, then so be it.

I thought the movie recaptured a lot of the magic of the original series. The Star Trek franchise had devolved into a lot of robotic people spouting nonsense technobabble dialogue in completely uninteresting galactopolitical stories. Another movie like that would have buried the franchise forever. And rightfully so.

[kedrys]

64. Saw it once on the big screen, bought it Tuesday

It was every bit as good as I remembered it, and then some. :hi:

[Paladin]

66. Hey, It Wasn't Any "Starship Troopers," But It Was Alright...... (n/t)

[burrfoot]

70. FWIW, I think

Star Ship Troopers was brilliant. Slap together some cool guns, ugly aliens, campy dialog and get that retro-50's science fiction feeling. Heat to boiling. Sprinkle in a dash of beautiful, pointlessly naked women for "zest."

Serves millions.

[Kutjara]

72. It was fun action sci-fi, but they seem to be jettisoning one of...

...the core values of Trek: how Federation society works. Ever since the beginning, Trek's moral core has been the idea that humanity has overcome its petty divisions and pursuit of power in favor of personal and collective self-improvement. The original series implies these values, while TNG and the newer stuff laid them out explicitly.

Yet in the new movie, Nokia, Jack Daniels and Budweiser are prominent brands, and Dr McCoy has apparently been cleaned out by his recent divorce. Why would a world in which replicators can make anything you desire, in which money no longer exists, in which people are concerned with personal growth rather than material possessions, have corporations and alimony?

I always considered the idea of how the Federation works to be one of the more unique and interesting aspects of the franchise. Unfortunately, it looks like the new Trek universe is basically just ours with starships. We'll probably be seeing sponsorship decals on the Enterprise soon.

[bikebloke]

73. I'll be watching it this evening.

To avoid spoilers, I've posted without reading the other replies. Though I've already read that Shatner gives a great performance.