Yeah, I can see what you mean. I think JJ Abhrams was trying to combine the revenge plot of Star Trek II and the over all comedic nature of IV, with a little bit time travel thrown in for good measure. It feels like a hybrid of multiple trek themes and the serious revenge and suspense behind Nero was heavily compromised as a result.

I knew Suspense would come into the discussions.

In particular, the "Scientific" meaning of the term.

What this Trek does is crossing a treshold beyond suspense and above archetypes, and i'll prove it by these observations of Orci/Kurtzman storyline;

- That Foe is intra-dimensional... Nero goes inbetween timelines which nullifies the suspense at the concept stage for a good reason; unless Vulcan isn't destroyed while both the parachuting scene fails AND *two* Spocks witness their "shares" of coincidental events, Earth becomes a no-go.

- Irrational as it may seem, not even the Enterprise plays an active role against Nero *until* they are in Saturn's orbit and Kirk+Spock leave. Thus, above archetypes since they act now against the threat but not the anti-hero.

- The dialogue line is clear; Kirk offers to save him from the Horizon at some high risk as demonstrated by the BlackHole collapse. Thus, beyond suspense.

Sure after 25 years one can agree that the screws might become loose. But at the time he surely must have been trust worthy ( by Romulan standards) or he would not have been in command. Additionally one would think he would orient himself to the new timeline almost immediatly.

It's possible that Nero dismissed the idea of saving Romulus by acting in the present because his family is still dead in the future, and he has no guarantee of making it back to that future once he's prevented Romulus' destruction.

He also was waiting for Spock, so he wasn't going to leave that area until he had Spock. That meant two and a half decades of constant vigilance.

OK i am writing this as a watch the movie.

>> chick from house? come on... (-)

>> beastie boys? come on... (-)

>> i am sick of the gay music and the stupid chase cameras already... (-)

>> at least kirk likes to fight and seems to be a womanizer... (+ +)

>> Bana, as almost always usual, is bad ass... (+)

>> spaceships look bad ass... (+)

>> Chekov cool, Spock douche... (+ -)

>> i don't know why people were complaining how the romulan ship caused the debris, they explained it well... ( = )

>> transporters are gay now... (-)

>> Nimoy Spock's story, awesome... (+)

>> i like the retro throwback of the phasers and tricorders and stuff and throwback uniforms... (+)

>> i dislike Scotty's actor... (-)

>> Nimoy's ending made it great... (+)

So that is -6 and +8; therefore, I like the movie. I still think I prefer TNG, but that being said, I can get on board with this crew, as long as it doesn't get any more gay.

that's my $0.02

I don't think movies can have a sexual orientation.

Well, except for porn, but if you think I'm going to get into THAT.......

Seriously, though, this "gay" thing is getting a bit out of hand. I don't want these forums to wind up like my health class.

It's true though, the Transporter can now beam people anywhere it seems. That is bad. Wonder if they can do it through sheilds too.

They have done that too, cant remember the episode though. The issue usually is that it takes a lot more energy and computing power to do those tricks with the transporter then the standard we all usually see.

Liked it as a stand-alone movie, hated it for the way it radically alters the established Trek timeline and blows overs so many established details and relationships. In too many ways, this movie has absolutely nothing to do with the Trek we fans know and love. They pretty much simply ignored 43 years of established Trek history.

I think they're going to have to write another movie, where they go back and patch up the timeline, so it falls back in with the established history of the Star Trek universe. Trek has a huuuuuuuuge, and obsessed, fan base; they're seriously screwing with that fan base here, and that's a big risk.

Very much liked it as a stand-alone movie, absolutely hated it for the way it radically alters the established Trek timeline and blows overs so many established details and relationships. In too many ways, this movie has absolutely nothing to do with the Trek we fans know and love. They pretty much ignored 43 years of established Trek history.

I think they're going to have to write another movie, where they go back and patch up the timeline, so it falls back in with the established history of the Star Trek universe. Trek has a huuuuuuuuge, and obsessed, fan base; they're seriously screwing with that fan base here, and that's a big risk.

I might add that this "altering" of the timeline is one of the reasons "Enterprise" was never fully accepted by the fans.

I don't think this can be compared to Enterprise, though.

ENT made a handful of changes to established continuity in TOS and TNG, but for the most part the only continuity it messed with was "fanon/licensed continuity". An example would be the Klingon ridges. An unofficial explanation was provided in a book somewhere, and at that point people just accepted it because it was never really established in the official continuity. Suddenly it is established officially though, and people might get a little annoyed about ENT messing with 'established' continuity. Not saying there aren't changes in ENT, but I don't think there are drastically more than, say, any other ST series.

Whereas this... I get the feeling it was designed as a reboot, but the producers realized it would be better to pitch it as an alternate universe story. So they created the blanket 'alternate universe' explanation for all their changes- but made additional changes that aren't really explanable by the alternate universe explanation. So the alternate universe doesn't look like an alternate timeline really should.

For what it's worth, I agree- great movie. But not as good as a Star Trek story.

There were other things in "Enterprise" that messed with continuity, though. I could deal with the different Klingon look; but, for example, the show took place about 150 years before TOS, yet, they had "phase pistols" and "phase cannons".

However, in "The Cage" which takes place just a few years before Kirk's 5-year mission, they had lasers.

The writers changed the term between times, because the term "laser" had become common knowledge by 1966.

Also, in the "Enterprise" era, Earth would just have been coming out of the last of the Romulan Wars. Yet, they encountered a Romulan vessel and didn't recognize the ship. I can't remember if they met the Romulans face-to-face, but if they did, this, too, was a continuity error. In the first-season TOS episode, "Balance of Terror", it was established that, despite the brutal war they fought, neither race had ever seen the other until then. There were other errors, too, and it just bugged me. You don't screw with the details, y'know?

Are we all forgeting about Keenser? HEY YOU GET DOWN FROM THERE! :Shakes head:. Great action movie, with great humor.

Transporter wavy white streams is another obvious mistake you may think?

I have another question for those who really watched that film.

Was Spock kneeling as a form of respect to the Vulcan council chamber, out of a spontaneous guess that his mother would stand there, incapable of controlling his youth emotions about the risky situation that may kill him too?

I dunno, but Zachary Quinto made me realize that Spock struggled all his life for logical explanations of defending one's truth. No matter how far it may be.

Cannon driven argumentatives were dismissed as soon as the Kelvin failed against a ROMULAN warbird prototype caught by and within a timeline on purpose -- fair enough?

The error is not from design(s), it is by fans' interpretation of *A* different future or past, uncloaking when it matters.

I should point out that the idea that lasers are less advanced than phase weapons is your own idea. I never really liked the lasers in The Cage anyway, but I can accept them as a stepping stone between basic beam weaponry (phase pistols) and more advanced ones (phasers). All three techs could be very similar, just with different nomenclature (speaking GalCiv-ish, they'd be Laser I, Laser II, and Laser III).

Also, you are incorrect about the Enterprise era. It took place before the war, in 2151. The UFP was founded 10 years later- the war started in 2156-ish. I heard the series was supposed to end with a Romulan war arc- it might have lived longer if it had been about this from the beginning, some have argued- but that wouldn't have been until Season 6. Also, they never met the Romulans face-to-face, it was entirely audio-only.

I admit, there are a handful of things I don't like about every series, and in some cases many handfuls, so I understand where you are coming from.

The only thing that I didnt understand was why you have to drill a hole to the center of a planet THEN release a black hole in the middle of it.

Wouldnt drilling a hole to the center of a planet pretty much destroy it anyhow?  And probably in a particularly more unpleasant way, which would most likely appeal to someone hell-bent on revenge.

Or why couldnt you simply release the red matter NEAR the planet.  As long as the planet was inside the event horizon, it would still get consumed, you dont have to put the black hole IN the planet.

Of course, its a movie, and what good would a movie be without long, drawn out plots to kill the good guys.  Here's to you ever James Bond film ever made!

Gravity & energy "supply"... Why can't divers go below a certain depth in oceans for example.

Core magma is mostly magnetic Iron in our case.

Now, that i've seen the film for myself - i can only blame a few seconds of inattention on your part Spooky, just like the "young" couple 10 seats to my left who were mostly kissing for the entire movie (Why did they have to hide in a dark place is their business, but if Cinemas took the cell-phones out i think they should resolve such issues because i TOO like sound effects but from dolby speakers.)

Engineering? With that much crew aboard, spaceships probably have the molecules to clench a thirst for long period of times.

Beaming? Scotty got some of these tricks from a stranded Ambassador Spock.

Story? See Beaming.

That doesnt explain anything at all...even in Zyx-world.

Divers cannot go below a certain depth because the pressure causes all sorts of problems.  Yet if I had the capacity to create a black hole say, 5000 ft above the surface of the planet VS drilling a hole and placing it at the center of the planet, the overall effect would be the same, total destruction of said planet.  And the 1st scenario would be easier done.  Of course, in the movie they were a "simple" mining vessel, so of course they had to have some reason to use the drill bit.  To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Near as I can figure, Nero probably wanted to make a big impression and flaunt his advanced technology. Plus he had a few screws loose. In my opinion, it comes down to "I'll make this thing that will pretty much destroy you before you knew what was happening" versus "you are going to know what I'm trying to do but be powerless to stop it and watch your doom aprroaching for hours or even days before you finally die muahahahaha.... ". I apologise if I have gotten some of the facts wrong, it has been -4 days since I saw the movie.

UPDATE: I think what Zyx is saying is that he thinks the black hole would somehow expend its energy before it reached the ckore, which DOES make a strange sort of sense when you consider Hawking radiation and the fact that electrical charges CAN "strip" a hole. However, it does not stand up to the math, at least not for Earth and probably not for a lot of planets.