[karajorma]

I fail to see any of this massive "disregarding of believability" when applied to the movie's characters or plot progression, or at least not nearly on the sort of scale you're implying.

Kirk is sent to a planet and lands 18 miles from a Fed base (probably not a chance but still pretty stupid). On the way he gets chased by a monster who just happens to be attacked just as he's about to be caught by a bigger monster who just happens to decide to leave dinner behind and chase after the hors d'oeuvre instead. He then just happens to hide in a cave which Spock, with an entire world to choose from, just happens to be hiding in.

The worst thing about it is that there was no need for it. They could have simply had Spock be at the base to begin with, unconscious perhaps. When abandoned on the ice world it's exactly what he should have headed for anyway. There are numerous ways that Spock could have gotten Kirk aside for the bit of exposition he had to give and the movie could have moved on without that entire bit of rampant stupidity.

[General Battuta]

Agreed.

The writing in general threw me out of the story a little too often.

I was really put off by the two-man boarding operation on the Narada. The movie fell victim to villain decay - the henchmen were unable to perform in a situation where they really should have, making it clear that our heroes survived only due to their character shields.

[Snail]

I was really put off by the two-man boarding operation on the Narada. The movie fell victim to villain decay - the henchmen were unable to perform in a situation where they really should have, making it clear that our heroes survived only due to their character shields.

That was among the weakest parts of the movie IMO. I don't know about other people, but massive gunfights in which not a single good guy dies and every villain gets killed just throw me straight out of the story and into cynic mode.

[butter_pat_head]

they detonated the warp core to seal a subspace tear in Insurrection.  Perhaps this was a similar situation.

Don't get me started about Insurrection.  And besides, I never got how that worked.  How would detonating a couple of fuel injectors, metal, magnetic coils and dilithium (which doesn't explode at all) seal a subspace rift?  Maybe if it was a warp core from a Romulan warbird perhaps (they use black holes).

Oh, one last thing.  Warp core != warp drive.  The warp core provides the energy to run the warp drive and while I am not in any way trying to defend Trek'09 it is completely possible that the Nu'Enterprise had sufficient reserves to run the warp drive for a long enough amount of time for the warp cores to explode and give the ship that needed push.

Give me a few hours and I could probably come up with some authentic sounding genuine treknobabble to explain it all in a more detailed fashion...

[Angelus]

It also should be noted that ejecting the warp core and diverting all power to sustain the warp field even for a short time, raises another problem - the coffee machines aren't running until power is redirected/ restored.
I wonder how Star Trek handles this problem.

[karajorma]

Tea, Earl Gray, Hot.

[Roanoke]

Yep. I view this as a Star Trek : The Motion Picture vs Wrath of Khan situation. The first movie was all about creating the demand, the second is where they actually do something good with it.

Or maybe the first was just really really suck-y 

I fail to see any of this massive "disregarding of believability" when applied to the movie's characters or plot progression, or at least not nearly on the sort of scale you're implying.

Kirk is sent to a planet and lands 18 miles from a Fed base (probably not a chance but still pretty stupid). On the way he gets chased by a monster who just happens to be attacked just as he's about to be caught by a bigger monster who just happens to decide to leave dinner behind and chase after the hors d'oeuvre instead. He then just happens to hide in a cave which Spock, with an entire world to choose from, just happens to be hiding in.

The worst thing about it is that there was no need for it. They could have simply had Spock be at the base to begin with, unconscious perhaps. When abandoned on the ice world it's exactly what he should have headed for anyway. There are numerous ways that Spock could have gotten Kirk aside for the bit of exposition he had to give and the movie could have moved on without that entire bit of rampant stupidity.

Well it would be pretty dull if Kirk walked into a cave without the big monster thing chasing him, saw it was empty and went home. 
I haven't seen it yet BTW.

[karajorma]

Without the monster they wouldn't have needed the bloody cave in the first place.

Which is the entire point I was making.

[Snail]

I think the monster thing was cool. Kinda like a little thing they threw in just for fun. Like the Ferengi episodes...

[Mongoose]

All encounters with Ancient Gurus must by necessity take place in a cave, and so the plot must bend in every way required to allow said encounters to take place.  It's Storytelling 101.

But seriously, yes, it was completely contrived for the sake of plot/atomsphere, but as I said, so very many elements in movies and stories in general are.  Let's go back to the beginning of the film, where the autopilot on the Kelvin happens to fail just before Kirk Senior was about to get down to the hangar and escape with his wife.  Or how McCoy managed to drag along an unauthorized, clearly-sick cadet onto the fleet's flagship without anyone stopping to ask for credentials.  Even something as generally acclaimed as Lord of the Rings, which I count as my favorite book, has at least a half-dozen moments I can think of that featured such meetings of convenience.  (Tom Bombadil's not one, but two dei ex machina?)  The way I see it, elements like that are part and parcel of telling a story, and I'm generally willing to give the writer plenty of leeway to use them as necessary in order to keep the plot moving.  If I weren't so willing, I'd have a difficult time enjoying some of my favorite books and movies nearly as much as I do, which seems a hefty price to pay.

[Mikes]

All encounters with Ancient Gurus must by necessity take place in a cave, and so the plot must bend in every way required to allow said encounters to take place.  It's Storytelling 101.

But seriously, yes, it was completely contrived for the sake of plot/atomsphere, but as I said, so very many elements in movies and stories in general are.  Let's go back to the beginning of the film, where the autopilot on the Kelvin happens to fail just before Kirk Senior was about to get down to the hangar and escape with his wife.  Or how McCoy managed to drag along an unauthorized, clearly-sick cadet onto the fleet's flagship without anyone stopping to ask for credentials.  Even something as generally acclaimed as Lord of the Rings, which I count as my favorite book, has at least a half-dozen moments I can think of that featured such meetings of convenience.  (Tom Bombadil's not one, but two dei ex machina?)  The way I see it, elements like that are part and parcel of telling a story, and I'm generally willing to give the writer plenty of leeway to use them as necessary in order to keep the plot moving.  If I weren't so willing, I'd have a difficult time enjoying some of my favorite books and movies nearly as much as I do, which seems a hefty price to pay.

The basic conundrum here is that while yes, many a movie may have moments like these in any movie or story... the new star trek movie consists of little else BUT such moments and happens to rub the stupidity right up into our faces to make it all as glaringly obvious as possible.

Nope, Lord of the Rings is not without flaws and one could even say that Tolkiens writing and pacing of the story especially took quite some patience at times.
However, frankly, i would be ashamed to even name an outstanding achievement in worldbuilding like Tolkiens in the same sentence with utter crap like that ...

If anything... then a comparison to Tolkien makes it even more glaringly obvious what this movie is lacking. There is no worldbuilding there. No immersion. No consistency. No depth or richness.
Pretty much the only thing that is there is a glaring lack of understanding of the pre-existing Star-Trek universe that they are mangling left and right, which is not only stupid, but quite uneccessary.

The main issue here is that there really is no reason for the stupidity and inconsistency except outright carelessness or lazyness. And again... while i will hardly mind an "occasional slipup" in a well crafted plot... the amount and range of "slipups" this movie bombards its viewers with is simply ridiculous and just screams of writer incompetency.

[General Battuta]

Mikes, calling things 'utter crap' is probably not a great way to make your points. It rubs people the wrong way, and that irritation is going to make it less likely that they'll listen to your real, important arguments.

I say this with my mod hat off - just unsolicited personal opinion.

[Mikes]

Mikes, calling things 'utter crap' is probably not a great way to make your points. It rubs people the wrong way, and that irritation is going to make it less likely that they'll listen to your real, important arguments.

I say this with my mod hat off - just unsolicited personal opinion.

I understand what you are saying here and quite agree.

My apologies, ... however, when talking about "world building" i really don't know how else to label that movie, not when featuring Tolkien in the same sentence anyways lol.

I guess you could call it anti-worldbuilding, seeing that they don't really build anything on their own at all, while happily blundering through a pre-existing world like a bull in a china shop.

[ssmit132]

while happily blundering through a pre-existing world like a bull in a china shop.

That analogy doesn't work anymore, but we get what you're saying anyway.

I haven't watched the new Star Trek movie myself, because I prefer the older movies, but I would need to watch it myself to have a proper opinion.

[Mongoose]

Nope, Lord of the Rings is not without flaws and one could even say that Tolkiens writing and pacing of the story especially took quite some patience at times.
However, frankly, i would be ashamed to even name an outstanding achievement in worldbuilding like Tolkiens in the same sentence with utter crap like that ...

My reference to Tolkien's writing was purely mechanical in nature; I certainly didn't mean to imply any sort of relation between world-building at all.  But as far as world-building goes, as you said, there isn't a great deal of need (or room) to build a world with a 40-year established background in a 2-hour movie, even if said world will differ from what came before from here on out.  And again, I'd disagree with your assertion that the creative staff had a "lack of understanding" of pre-existing Trek, because what I got out of the film was a great deal of knowledge of and respect for what had come before.  There were any number of little Easter eggs and cameo references, the world as a whole felt like what we knew of the Trek universe at that time, the original crew's personalities were allowed to evolve to match their original series versions, and most importantly of all, the core spirit of what "Star Trek" really means was left intact.  What I saw in the film managed to take the best parts of what had come before and present them in a refreshingly new fashion for a whole new generation of fans, and I think they succeeded spectacularly in that goal.

And as Battuta mentioned, saying something like "It was all crap" does absolutely nothing for anyone.  That statement is your opinion.  In my own opinion, I saw very little about the movie that I'd call "crap."  Obviously, our opinions differ, and as opinions about a subjective fictional work, neither of us can be objectively correct or incorrect.  If you want to try to break things down in a more point-by-point fashion, I might be interested in playing along, but I don't see anything to be gained in attempting to argue against vague generalities.

[Mikes]

And as Battuta mentioned, saying something like "It was all crap" does absolutely nothing for anyone.  That statement is your opinion.  In my own opinion, I saw very little about the movie that I'd call "crap."  Obviously, our opinions differ, and as opinions about a subjective fictional work, neither of us can be objectively correct or incorrect.  If you want to try to break things down in a more point-by-point fashion, I might be interested in playing along, but I don't see anything to be gained in attempting to argue against vague generalities.

As you will see above, i would agree that it was not "all crap". The acting and casting was quite good. The pacing was fast, which is not necessarily a bad thing, just turns out to be a bit of a double edged sword in this movie. And the special effects were also quite good, even tho the new Enterprise design will likely appeal not to everyone and... as others point out, the overshaky camera can be seen as an issue.

"Utter crap" refers to a storyline with more holes than actual plot in it with contradictions. And again, it's not even just about the "tech", it's much worse and extends to basic character motivations, chance, et cetera.
If that distinction wasn't clear then i'm sorry, but that was pretty much my argument all along lol. You will find a quite detailed presentation of that argument, from several angles, on the previous pages.

And yes... this basically does prevent me from enjoying the movie at all, as it just appears to scream lazyness and/or stupidity all the way through and no amount of decent actors or fast pacing can really cover it up.

I realize you didn't aim at doing a "fullblown" comparison to Lord of the Rings. But you said that you could enjoy Lord of the rings despite it having some flaws too. So far, so good, i agree fully up to that point.
However, i felt it needed to be pointed out just how far of a stretch such a statement is. You are talking about a truly astonishing piece of worldbuilding "with some flaws" on one the one hand... and about a movie that features a plot consisting of little else BUT flaws on the other.

It's pretty obvious what the writers did there too: Trying to fit a preconceived "to-do list" of action scenes into some semblance of plot, with little regard to logic and consistency. Quite a few movies have that problem to some extent, but few... go there as boldly (and obviously) as the new star trek Movie does. lol.  

Seriously... tell me what words there are for a plot like that when you put it up with the likes of Tolkien. (Even if you just compare the flaws and not the plot itself )

[Kosh]

Agreed.

The writing in general threw me out of the story a little too often.

I was really put off by the two-man boarding operation on the Narada. The movie fell victim to villain decay - the henchmen were unable to perform in a situation where they really should have, making it clear that our heroes survived only due to their character shields.

To be fair they were just miners, not military. Facing them in the ship took away the Narada's tech advantage, especially since both Kirk and Spock were trained and very capable. They probably should have had some red shirts go in though.......

[watsisname]

All encounters with Ancient Gurus must by necessity take place in a cave, and so the plot must bend in every way required to allow said encounters to take place.  It's Storytelling 101.

Just like a certain huge expulsion of technobabble schemeplotting was made just so they could use a shot of Enterprise ascending through the haze of Titan backdropped by the pretty Saturnian ring system.  Ruffles have ridges.

[TrashMan]

Good acting
Good CGI.

Terrible, horrible plot.
This describes it the best:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DarthWiki/ptitlew9bltta3dv6n?from=Main.SoBadItsHorrible




But let's say:
- Nero's ships doesn't look like it's romulan or designed for mining. Neither from the inside or the outside

- of what use are shrapnel torpedos to a mining ship that had a super-mining beams?

- Supernova threatening the Galaxy?

- How did Nero remain undetected for 25 years? How did he keep the crew supplied and together? Must have been a hulluva of a commander to pull that feat (seriously, Nero needed more screen time)

- Actually, Neros action make no sense at all from the start. He could just go to Rumulus and warn them, thus changing the timeline. Heck, just giving them his ships would have made Romulus insanely powerful.

- Romulans knew their sun was going nova - why didn't they evacuate or initiate some preventive mesures of their own?

- Drilling a hole to the center of the planet? no earthquakes, no lava, no nothing?

- Vulcan high council acts as retards when under attack. No evacuation is in progress, the council into a crumbling mounting, without means to communicate and escape? Height of logic. Shocking!

- A cadet under suspension made a first officer????

- the ship that Kirks father was on survived for a good couple of minutes when attacked by Neros ships. A vulcan and Federation fleet of newer ships destroyed in 30 seconds?

- does anyone beside the enterprise crew shoot at the torpedoes?

- How do you stay in warp if you ejected the warp core?

- a warpcore explosion is more powerful than a supernova? etc, etc...

you get the general idea.

[Turambar]

Supernova is a bad name for the anomaly that was threatening Romulus (and later a good deal of that area of space)

pretty much all your questions are answered by that prequel comic thinger.

except for the vulcans not being too clever about where they keep their council and pike making kirk first officer.  those dont make much sense.  I suppose pike liked kirk's attitude or something, or he was indeed ****ing with spock.