Re:Bleah. Not impressed (Score 1)

Just to counter your comment on the science. Most of the series were logial in their application of science, transporters were limited by sensor range, warp drive worked based on real world theories of FTL (disproven recently), they used terms like dark matter and protons/gravitons/etc.. correctly and alot of the phonemon mentioned exist as theoretical ideas. The film seemed to ignore science, we had "red matter", "lightening storms in space" aparently a ship can survive being in the middle of a black hole for a couple of minutes with no problems. Transporters can work over infinite distances, and little logical errors abounded. During their trip out they make a point of saving it will take three minutes, yet a more advanced ship from the future seems to make the same journey in a day. I liked the movie but between saying f*** you to the ten years of star trek tv shows I grew up with and the complete inattention to the science or sticking with rules the film creates just annoyed the hell out of me. I'd rather they let the whole franchise have fizzled out than that film.

I have to agree on the plot. For the first half of the movie, the had me and I truly believed I was learning how Kirk got into starfleet, etc. Then I saw Vulcan explode and started feeling something was wrong. After the revelation about this being an alternate reality, they lost me. So basically, the plot had really little at all to do with the history of all the trek series and movies. In other words, Kirk's father didn't die, so he would have turned out differently, maybe entered star fleet the regular way. The chances of him meeting the same friends would be very low and how we he have ever met Scotty? I would really like to see a true prequel where at least history is preserved and not reinvented. I also found the movie really went downhill when Spock send Kirk to the snow planet. Is that really per regulation, or even something a Vulcan would find logical? Didn't the enterprise have a brig or could confine him to quarters? Also, this part about 'let's invent transporter technology to beam you aboard a ship traveling at warp by glancing at some equation and whoala! Reminded me of ST4 and the invention of transparent aluminum. Can't we spend at least a full minute story time when it comes to revolutionary technology. On old Spock. Although I'm a big fan of Nimoy, I really would have preferred seeing his absence in this movie. He came across way too human and it really bugged me about the recycling of old movie moments ' I have been and always shall be your friend' and even the regurgitating of the no-win scenario and simulation. Couldn't they just have added a footnote (watch ST2 for more detail). This has been done much better before and to rehash it like this was a waste. On Humor in the movie, I agree with the comment before about appealing to a Disney audience. In fact, the other movie previews I saw before the show started seemed to mostly be for 12 year olds (except terminator). Personally, my favorite sci-fi flics have all been nearly humorless (Alien, Matrix, 2001). Even the best ST movie, 2 of course, had very little humor as I recall. I would suggest the studios and writers spare the cheesy jokes and improve character and plot development -- take some tips from BSG! My rant is over. My updated top 4 ST order is: Best->Worst ST2 ST6 ST3 ST4