The ultimate, all-important question for Star Trek movie.

[Heraclitus]

One thing I noticed was that they completely disregarded the Romulan Empire's history with the Federation that was presented when the Romulans were introduced in TOS. Then, it was stated that no one had ever actually seen a Romulan, and that the peace negotiations were conducted via subspace communications, so neither party met face-to-face. So it shocks everyone, including Spock, when the Romulans are finally revealed to look like Vulcans. It also sparks some not-so-subtle bigotry from a crew member whose father was killed in the Romulan war.

In the reboot, everyone is aware before engaging Nero's ship that it's a Romulan and that they are related to the Vulcans. How'd that happen?

You are forgetting the first attack by Nero.

[Dis]

Just saw the movie tonight, and being a long-time fan, I'm undecided on the whole reboot thing. Mostly because it's like now the events in the original series never really happened. Maybe I wouldn't be as bothered if they had only changed minor details.

Spoiler:

But instead, they went and blew up (well...imploded) the planet Vulcan. And killed Spock's mom. And put Pike in a wheelchair instead of a box with a blinking light .

Anyway, the movie was quite enjoyable as a standalone film. It's a good setup for a revival of the franchise.

I thought the casting was well done, except for Harold playing Sulu. He didn't even make any attempt at Sulu's baritone voice. And Chekov had wavy hair instead of the Monkees hairdo.

As others mentioned, the shipyard on the planet's surface was weird. Maybe if it had only made shuttles instead of full-sized starships... But I guess that wouldn't have had the effect the movie was going for.

I did like the nod to the "Enterprise" series. (Admiral Archer and his beagle.)

Overall, I rate it a

I don't remember Archer and his beagle. Where was that in the film?

[Dis]

and I must protest. Has this forum really devolved to the point we are discussing geology of Iowa of all places? A 7 page discussion on Iowa?

[Q Classic]

I don't remember Archer and his beagle. Where was that in the film?

It was. A single, throwaway line for that misbegotten, throwaway series.

[Xorbon]

It was. A single, throwaway line for that misbegotten, throwaway series.

I enjoyed that series. And it was much better than Voyager.

So

[Xorbon]

To answer the question, "Admiral Archer" was mentioned by Scotty when he first met Kirk at the outpost on the ice planet. He was talking about beaming living matter from one planet to another.

[Q Classic]

I enjoyed that series. And it was much better than Voyager.

So

*shrugs* There's no accounting for poor taste. After all, people also like "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here".

And high praise indeed, comparing it to Voyager.

That's like saying American Dad is better than Sit Down, Shut Up.

[Xorbon]

I prefer the term "to each his own", but whatever.

I also liked Quantum Leap, so maybe I'm just a Scott Bakula fan.

And high praise indeed, comparing it to Voyager.

Valid point. The comparison is a bit vague. If you would like a more precise idea of my opinion on the show:

Enterprise: 7 out of 10
vs.
Voyager: 4 out of 10
TNG: 8 out of 10
DS9: 9 out of 10

[Ben Kenobi]

Never seen Enterprise.

My ratings:

TOS: 8
TNG: 10
DS9: 9
VOYAGER: 7

[Darius871]

I'm sure I just missed something, never having really been a big Star Trek fan, but if a single drop of this "red matter" can create a black hole that will swallow a planet or star in a matter of seconds, how the hell does Spock's ship carry around a big glob of it with no problem.

FWIW, I'd assumed that the material had to be exposed to extreme heat and/or abruptly perturbed to be "triggered," much like nitro glyceride. Thus, much like nitroglyceride, keeping it a stable, controlled environment like that nice plastic bulb would be safe enough. There are way bigger plot holes than this.

[Wernazuma III]

I love ratings:

TOS: 10
TNG: 7
DS9: 9
VOYAGER: 6

[Alinestra Covelia]

FWIW, I'd assumed that the material had to be exposed to extreme heat and/or abruptly perturbed to be "triggered," much like nitro glyceride. Thus, much like nitroglyceride, keeping it a stable, controlled environment like that nice plastic bulb would be safe enough. There are way bigger plot holes than this.

I have noticed that Spock's rational and logical manner also appears to cause dangerous materials to behave more inertly. There was that one movie where he uttered the famous phrase "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and went boldly into the reactor of the ship to fix it.

The dialogue should have read:

Scotty: Spock ya crazy bastard ya cannae go in there! There's one billion zillion squillion rems of radiation sleeting through there. You'd be vaporized in an instant!

Spock: Don't worry, Mr. Scott. I've got gloves!

The only possible conclusion is that Spock is awesome.

[Xorbon]

Scotty: Spock ya crazy bastard ya cannae go in there! There's one billion zillion squillion rems of radiation sleeting through there. You'd be vaporized in an instant!

Spock: Don't worry, Mr. Scott. I've got gloves!

Have you ever thought of becoming a movie script writer?