Star Trek 09 review thread

[Manus Celer Dei]

Flipped through the novelisation today at Waterstones, and noticed there was a scene right at the very end that wasn't in the film, featuring another TV character cameo. Spoiler

Once the Enterprise is underway at the end, the transporter activates unexpectedly, and someone is beamed onto the ship...

...A beagle.

[Anguirus]

^ Probably just a case of an author liking dogs/getting one last gag in.

[Drooling Iguana]

It can't have been Porthos, unless the Federation has developed technology to keep dogs alive for more than 100 years. Keeping Beagles and serving in Starfleet must just be a tradition for the Archer family (since if the "Admiral Archer" mentioned earlier in the movie is the same guy as in Enterprise he'd be even older than McCoy was at the beginning of TNG by this point.)

[The Romulan Republic]

It can't have been Porthos, unless the Federation has developed technology to keep dogs alive for more than 100 years. Keeping Beagles and serving in Starfleet must just be a tradition for the Archer family (since if the "Admiral Archer" mentioned earlier in the movie is the same guy as in Enterprise he'd be even older than McCoy was at the beginning of TNG by this point.)

Given that this is a completely new timeline, isn't it possible that the Federation invented better life-prolonging technology, and/or Archer was just born at a slightly later date?

[Zablorg]

Wasn't the dog in the transport buffer though? Couldn't it just keep being in potentia forever?

[Erik von Nein]

Considering Scotty did it in his lifetime and he got exiled to that station for it I would say the answer to that would be "no."

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

While stupid, it also has another referential nerdirony level since it foreshadows how Scotty would spend 80 years of his own life before being re-constituted by the Enterprise.

[Havok]

As this is obviously a new universe, it could simply be Archer that was born at a later date, or it could simply be his son or daughter.

[Drooling Iguana]

Possibly, but I'd prefer to think of the differences between AbramsTrek and TOS that can't be explained as being the result of Nero's interference as being caused by the Temporal Cold War, which means that Archer's mission has to have occurred pretty much as we saw it.

[Samuel]

As for the "Narada crippled" being cut, I didn't know that was ever in the film. Nor do I see how it changes a single point I have made. Kirk had a plan, Spock was not a coward, Spock was not nessissarily portrayed as rational in the scene to which you refer, Earth should not have been abandoned if the Enterprise was the only ship that could reach it in time, we have no clear knowledge of how well the Federation fleet would have done against the Narada due to iggnorence of the fleet's strength, some chance of saving Earth was better than none.

Of course, for Spock to be logical, the writers themselves must be capable of writing a logical scene.

Which reminds me, has there ever been a movie that is logical from the start to finish?

Depends on your meaning. Internally consistant always happens with historical stories. Fiction has problems with that, but it can be done as long as it is small enough. A big enough stage and the complications get out of the authors control.

[Havok]

Possibly, but I'd prefer to think of the differences between AbramsTrek and TOS that can't be explained as being the result of Nero's interference as being caused by the Temporal Cold War, which means that Archer's mission has to have occurred pretty much as we saw it.

GAH! It is NOT the same universe! The Temporal Cold War doesn't have to ever have happened. You don't have to try mash everything that isn't explained or seen in the new movie in with it. It is a CLEAN SLATE! That is the old Trek U, this is the NEW Trek U.

[Themightytom]

Flipped through the novelisation today at Waterstones, and noticed there was a scene right at the very end that wasn't in the film, featuring another TV character cameo. Spoiler

Once the Enterprise is underway at the end, the transporter activates unexpectedly, and someone is beamed onto the ship...

...A beagle.

oh come on thats hilarious! they should have stuck it at the end of the credits.

It probably wasn't Porthos anyway, and for all we know "Admiral Archer" could be the daughter of Jonathan Archer or whatever.

If TNG past is altered, First contact is altered and enterprise could very well ahve either never happened or happened different. The ships were already being made differently prior to nero's arrival, we don't have to interpret the arrival of the beagle as a Portent Of Doom.

Certainly not on the scale of something like a young neelix getting chucked at the Solar system by an irritated carefaker

[Starglider]

The dog is obviously the one that Scotty accidentally beamed into nonexistence, in the incident that got him exiled to that outpost. I doubt that was more than a couple of years ago, probably just a few months.

I thoroughly support forgetting about Enterprise as quickly as possible, but the studio probably said 'hey that's what was on TV most recently, so if you're going to reference anything other than TOS, that's what the viewers are most likely to understand'.

[Jade Owl]

According to this McCoy was 137 years old when he visited the USS Enterprise-D , and Jonathan Archer would be 146 years old in 2258 if still alive, which is only a difference of 9 years. Furthermore, it also says that Archer Prime may have died in 2245. So there’s a reasonable chance that the Admiral Archer that Scotty pissed off was him.

Besides, he only needs to have lived as far as 2255 for Kirk to have met his dog before Scotty disappeared it.

[Patrick Degan]

WHY TIME TRAVEL?

Many (including myself) have wondered what the point was of going to such great lengths to reconcile existing Star Trek cannon with a new story. Why bother with all this alternate-timeline hooey? If you’re rebooting the franchise and starting over, then just start over! The problem with that, according to Kurtzman & Orci, is that audiences might have assumed this new movie was simply an attempt to tell a story about Kirk & Spock from back before the original series, and everything that happened in Trek lore is still destined to happen. Where’s the fun in watching this crew take on the galaxy if we know Kirk will eventually be killed by Soren, Spock will become an ambassador to Romulus and everyone else lives? By history being altered, nothing has yet been written – Kirk really could die on the next mission and Khan might end up selling shoes. With a whole new timeline, stories are no longer beholden to “established” history and while everything we know and love is still there, how it plays out is no longer written. If you’ll pardon the cliche, essentially it means that everything old is new again!

AKA audience is too stupid, we need to make it as easy as possible.

What is truly pathetic is that the writers believe that Star Trek fans cannot cope with the sort of reboot of a series which comic book fans have experienced multiple times and have always come to accept. Did Superman fans go into shock because the comic was no longer set in the 1940s?

[Anguirus]

^ They're right though. Many fans are going into conniptions already. It's not "pathetic" to make a film that is obviously appealing to the average guy while still tossing a bone to the fans who like the old timeline (and that Spock Prime is still around).

[Patrick Degan]

^ They're right though. Many fans are going into conniptions already. It's not "pathetic" to make a film that is obviously appealing to the average guy while still tossing a bone to the fans who like the old timeline (and that Spock Prime is still around).

How many? And enough to derail the movie? There were Superman fans who went into conniptions when Johnny Byrne wrote a new continuity after Crisis On Infinite Earths but most readers actually followed the new series as eagerly as they did the old ones and the new continuity was accepted as if it had been around always. The plain fact is that Star Trek is no different and given that the original cast are starting to die off now, a reboot was inevitable. I could be considered a TOS purist but I saw the writing on the wall clearly enough to have gone to this film with my prejudices on hold and ended up liking what I saw, even as I could also recognise that it was a flawed movie. The fact is that STXI managed to do the job it set out to do: to establish a new cast in the classic roles. This could have been accomplished without Leonard Nimoy's presence in the film or any of the other remaining cast. Nor is there any real reason why TOS and neo-Trek cannot co-exist with one another.

It really is past time for Star Trek and a segment of its fandom to fucking grow up already.

[Darth Wong]

I think the pseudo-religious aspect of hardcore Trek fandom is the culprit here. They treat Star Trek continuity a lot like the Bible. Imagine going to a typical Christian and saying "We want to write a new Bible. It will have the same characters, but it will feature newer, better stories and better writing quality!"

[The Kernel]

On my second trip to the new Star Trek film, I noticed something interesting: on no less than three occasions throughout the film three ships which were fully shielded were dealt severe levels of damage by ramming tactics. I know that after Nemesis this should have come as a big duh moment, but there are plenty of people who still have insisted that down shields were involved in every ramming situation.

Here were the situations in question:

1) During the opening sequence the Narada and the Kelvin are duking it out when George Kirk (after the Kelvin's weapons had virtually no effect) decides to ram into the Narada to cover the shuttle escape. This collision was clearly shown to cause chunks of the Narada to be blown off into space, although we don't know the exact extent of the damage.

2) When the Enterprise dropped out of warp around Vulcan (after having explicitly raised their shields a few seconds prior) is caught in a debris field of destroyed Federation ships. A piece of one of the ships scrapes against the nacelle of the shielded Enterprise causing the outer layer of hull to be shorn off and go flying into space.

3) Spock flew the Jellyfish into the Narada during the final battle with the intention of creating a black hole with the red matter. The Jellyfish went crashing through the hull of the Narada bypassing any shields.

It's clear that ramming tactics are still the most powerful form of attack in Star Trek, even when done on a ship from the future like the Narada.

[Bounty]

Lucas liked it

Many have already pointed out the similarities between J.J. Abrams's box-office-conquering Star Trek reboot and another popular space-based movie franchise. But what does Star Wars creator George Lucas think about the film? We ran into the man himself last Saturday — albeit very briefly — at a pre-event reception for the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, and we asked. "I liked Star Trek growing up and I've seen the new one," Lucas told us, shortly before taking off at warp speed in the opposite direction. "It's good. I liked it." But, we wondered, was there anything he'd have changed about the movie? "No, because I would never do a Star Trek." Sounds like a rave!

[Stark]

Those three instances of 'severe' damage from 'ramming' include on instance of superficial damage from a huge object scratching and one of a supertech future ship blasting a hole then flying through the damaged area. Weak.

[The Kernel]

Those three instances of 'severe' damage from 'ramming' include on instance of superficial damage from a huge object scratching and one of a supertech future ship blasting a hole then flying through the damaged area. Weak.

1) The damage caused by the Kelvin to the Narada is unknown but large visible pieces of the hull started flying off that were clearly not from the Kelvin. Furthermore if you go from the script, the Narada being heavily damaged by this incident was the end result showing that this sort of damage is clearly implied.

2) There only reason the damage to the Enterprise wasn't more severe from the collision with the debris was because of the angle. Watch the scene again, it's clear that the debris is cutting through the shields and hull without much resistance.

3) I'm pretty sure the Jellyfish didn't fire on the Narada during its suicide run, it only fired to blow itself OUT of the Narada's bay and to down the drill.

[tezunegari]

As this is a new universe the shields could work with a different principle.
Maybe they are unable to stop physical attacks but have a greater protection against energy weapons.

The weapons the Narada used against the Kelvin and the Enterprise looked more like mining charges turned into rockets than the typical torpedo.

And somehow I doubt that the rockets are the only weapon the Narada has because when we see them Neros objective was to cripple the opponent and take prisoners. And both times (against the Kelvin and the Enterprise) the target is in front of the Narada.
Maybe the klingon fleet at Rura Penthe was destroyed by different means but they didn't show that battle (though they should have in my oppinion to show how powerfull the Narada really is and that Nero lost because he left Spock junior alive instead of killing him instantly)

Though that would lack an explanation why Nero didn't use all his weapons in the final fight. (too many of his crew dead? battle damage from the klingon fleet?)

[ray245]

It can't have been Porthos, unless the Federation has developed technology to keep dogs alive for more than 100 years. Keeping Beagles and serving in Starfleet must just be a tradition for the Archer family (since if the "Admiral Archer" mentioned earlier in the movie is the same guy as in Enterprise he'd be even older than McCoy was at the beginning of TNG by this point.)

Didn't Archer survive in the old time line till the day Enterprise(NCC 1701) was commissioned?

[Oskuro]

Maybe the klingon fleet at Rura Penthe was destroyed by different means but they didn't show that battle (though they should have in my oppinion to show how powerfull the Narada really is and that Nero lost because he left Spock junior alive instead of killing him instantly)

Actually, that's the thing, we don't see how powerful the Narada actually is. When facing both the Kelvin and the Enterprise, Nero holds its fire in an attempt to capture both ships.