Rate the new Star Trek Film

[Mallus]

... but it has been firmly established that two Warp nacelles is the optimal configuration for a starship.

I'd disagree that its firmly established.

Of course, this isn't the first time I've seen single nacelled or triple nacelled ships in Star Trek shows, but it drives me nuts everytime I do. I believe there was a single nacelled ship in Star Trek: TMP.

My beloved copy the first Star Trek Technical Manual (circa 1975) had single-nacelled ship configurations.

I just wish there would have been a little more effort to stick to how things are supposed to be, instead of making changes just to make ships that look cool.

'How things are supposed to be' varies wildly in the Trek universe(s). There's not as much continuity in the continuity as we were led to believe . Especially when it comes to the bullsh*t science/engineering. Which isn't to say you should like the new movie more than you did.

FYI, I was watching the new Blu-ray of The Wrath of Khan last night. Scotty keeps referring to the main 'energizer', which apparently powers the ship. First time and last time I recall hearing that specific term (wasn't it called a 'matter/antimatter reactor').

 

[Rhun]

I'd disagree that its firmly established.

I guess "firmly established" could be a point of contention. Perhaps merely "established" or "commonly thought" might have been a better way to put it.

My beloved copy the first Star Trek Technical Manual (circa 1975) had single-nacelled ship configurations.

I'll just smile and nod that everything from that particular source is actually from established continuity and canon. However, it was used as the basis for Star Fleet Battles, I believe, which is why many of the FASA technical game manuals also had single nacelle ships.

'How things are supposed to be' varies wildly in the Trek universe(s). There's not as much continuity in the continuity as we were led to believe . Especially when it comes to the bullsh*t science/engineering. Which isn't to say you should like the new movie more than you did.

True, I've seen many times were continuity and canon have been departed from. It is a matter of having so many different writers, I guess. It is one of the main reasons I didn't like Star Trek: Enterprise much either. They kept changing the established timeline. In a universe as big as Star Trek, you shouldn't have to rely on changing established canon and continuity to write a good story.

Also, I'm a fairly harsh judge of movies. And this one did entertain me. I just don't think it was an 8+ that the vast majority seem to think it was. And while I guess I am a trekkie/trekker, I also differ from the norm; for example, I personally think DS9 was by far the best Star Trek series.

FYI, I was watching the new Blu-ray of The Wrath of Khan last night. Scotty keeps referring to the main 'energizer', which apparently powers the ship. First time and last time I recall hearing that specific term (wasn't it called a 'matter/antimatter reactor').

I think the term energizer was also used in TOS episode The Doomsday Machine. But those are the only two times I've heard "energizer" used in the Star Trek. Not sure why they the decided to all it something different. Perhaps one of the writers just liked the sound "energizer" better than the term reactor or core or such? I've tried finding some information on this online, but so far I've come up with nada.

 

[Mallus]

I also differ from the norm; for example, I personally think DS9 was by far the best Star Trek series.

I got your back on that one. DS9's great.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I got your back on that one. DS9's great.

I used to think that was controvserial, but it doesn't really seem to be, at least not on EN World.

 

[delericho]

It was okay.

The things that I thought would really bother me, notably the extreme youth of the cast, turned out not to be an issue at all. I could definately get behind seeing this cast in action in Star Trek movies. In particular, Spock and McCoy were really well done. (Simon Pegg really needed to settle on one particular Scottish accent, but that's a very minor quibble.)

But I didn't rate the rest of the film at all. It kept moving at a relentless pace, which almost but not quite masks the silliness of the plot, the poor characterisation, the plot and logic holes, and so forth. It beggars belief that they'd all just happen to be assigned to the Enterprise as their first mission all together (could have fixed that really easy, too - Bones and Scotty are both older than the rest, so make them 'old hands'). And the way Kirk took command just didn't work - you can't do that in front of everyone and expect them to follow you.

Plus, time travel, prequels and origin stories all suck.

Hopefully, "Star Trek 2" will be the film this should have been - they're a new but integrated crew away on the start of their five year mission, when something happens that demands attention.

 

[drothgery]

I used to think that was controvserial, but it doesn't really seem to be, at least not on EN World.

Does anyone really disagree? DS9 was both more fun and more interesting than any other Trek series. Characters actually developed, had serious relationships, important people died... plus DS9 ought to have blown up any notion that Trek couldn't do war.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Does anyone really disagree? DS9 was both more fun and more interesting than any other Trek series. Characters actually developed, had serious relationships, important people died... plus DS9 ought to have blown up any notion that Trek couldn't do war.

Well, I've always preferred TNG to DS9 by a long shot, so there's one person that disagrees. Possibly because I abandoned DS9 by season 3 or 4, but I could never get behind the characters in it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, I've always preferred TNG to DS9 by a long shot, so there's one person that disagrees. Possibly because I abandoned DS9 by season 3 or 4, but I could never get behind the characters in it.

Hmm. You either abandoned it before it became really great - or you abandoned it when you learned that it really wasn't to your liking.

TNG wasn't bad, either. I think it influenced my moral compass greatly. There were a lot of real "stinkers" in the first seasons especially - neither characters nor story really worked, and it was all pretty cheesy. I think DS9 is standing up a lot better in that regard, but it had the problem that it was very different from TNG (or TOS) and it took me some time to get into it.

But TNG also had a lot of great episodes, and interesting characters - they were just used in a very static manner compared to DS9...

 

[Rhun]

Hmm. You either abandoned it before it became really great - or you abandoned it when you learned that it really wasn't to your liking.

Season 3 is when it started picking up, and by Season 5 it completely rocked.

TNG wasn't bad, either. I think it influenced my moral compass greatly. There were a lot of real "stinkers" in the first seasons especially - neither characters nor story really worked, and it was all pretty cheesy. I think DS9 is standing up a lot better in that regard, but it had the problem that it was very different from TNG (or TOS) and it took me some time to get into it.

But TNG also had a lot of great episodes, and interesting characters - they were just used in a very static manner compared to DS9...

Agreed. I think the coolest thing about DS9 is that they were able to develop one large, over-arcing story plot, where they couldn't do that with TNG. They were also able to do a much more in depth look at some of the cultures and such (Bajorans, Cardassians, etc) than TNG, because of the stationary presence of the station.

 

[Rackhir]

It was okay.

The things that I thought would really bother me, notably the extreme youth of the cast, turned out not to be an issue at all.

Actually they aren't all that much younger. Most of SToS was in their mid/late thirties and most of the new cast is in their early thirties.