Ah, mundane geek arguments. My husband and I decided to have the Borg cube versus Star Destroyer debate while on a road trip. Then we hit a deer. We've never had the guts to resume the argument since.
If you follow the 1985 frank miller story "The Dark Knight Strikes Back" then anything after the death of Jason basically didnt happen. Which means that all the top Batman stories never happened. Of course now the series is rebooted again so basically nothing at all has ever happened.
The debate between cannon and non-cannon never seems to ever end.
Related note: based on the new timeline can we assume the Mirror universe is still around? The first time the regular universe and the Mirror one interacted was with Kirk. So logically in the new timeline the evil universe is still the same.
Everything in proper Trek still happened, just in another timeline. Real Trek has now simply become an alternate universe, just like the Evil Universe where Spock has a goatee.
The 2009 Star Trek was an awful film. Firstly, you have to accept that it happens in a different universe from the Star Trek one as it does not fit the Star Trek theme, or 'canon' as I have just learned to call it.
Secondly, it was riddled with stupid mistakes.
Oh no, not the going-back-in-time thing, again. Oh dear.
Why wasn't Spock's wife rescued when she fell six feet but Spock was rescued while exploding in a 'Red Matter' fireball?
Why wasn't the Enterprise able to escape the singularity when "We're already at warp speed"?
How the **** did the Romulan vessel and Spock's vessel go through a black hole? Give over.
Why should one vessel going through a black hole go back in time a convenient 25 years, and the other not at all?
Of all the moons of all the planets of all the systems in the galaxy, Kirk gets abandoned within a few hundred yards of Spock.
What was Spock burning on that fire? It looked like wood to me. What wood would that be on that ice world?
The Enterprise warped into Titan's atmosphere then conveniently ended up next to the Romulan ship just above the Earth's atmosphere. We'll just pretend the few light minutes' distance doesn't exist then, yes?
Why was Vulcan just 3 minutes from Earth at warp speed, yet Earth hours and hours from Vulcan?
When the three of them plummeted through the atmosphere (and didn't we just know what would happen to the red shirt?) why was there no burning up on re-entry?
When the two of them were beamed up just before they hit the ground, they hit the transporter floor with the same force. Why weren't they killed? Why wasn't Spock's mother rescued under easier circumstances?
The singularity created at the end of the film was created at the edge of the Earth's atmosphere. So that's the Earth destroyed then.
When the medal gets dished out at the end, why is the Academy full of students? 7 out of every 8 were killed at the start of the film by the Romulan mining ship.
Why is Spock flying around in a ship that holds a huge ball of 'Red Matter' when one drop can cause a black hole?
Why are these rule-breaking children allowed out in a star ship again?
Why was the bridge of the Enterprise so unlike the bridge of the same Enterprise of the TV series?
Messages were sent out about the Romulan mining ship; why did the Enterprise have to go to join the fleet at Wotnot, rather than the fleet just go straight to Earth?
And that is just off the top of my head. There was plenty more.
It was seriously dire pants.
Note from Scott: I disagree strongly with your opinion but I'm approving your post it in the spirit of bi-partisanship.
"While there are many drawbacks, self-righteousness can also be heady, seductive, and even... well... addictive. Any truly honest person will admit that the state feels good. The pleasure of knowing, with subjective certainty, that you are right and your opponents are deeply, despicably wrong. Sanctimony, or a sense of righteous outrage, can feel so intense and delicious that many people actively seek to return to it, again and again."
Glenn Reynolds made a similar observation 10 years earlier in "A Critical Guide To the Second Amendment" (1995) at www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html
"Being right once is not the same as being right always. That is easy to forget, of course, as there are few pleasures more insidiously addictive than the belief in one's own moral and intellectual superiority."
Just in case anyone has any interest in reading the Batman storyline mentioned above:
I'm pretty sure Isiah is referring to Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. It was released in 1986, and not 1985. Isiah may be getting the "Strikes Back" from The Dark Knight Strikes Again, TDKR's 2001/2 sequel. (The "Back" part probably crept in because of how deeply Empire Strikes Back is woven in to pop consciousness.) I didn't care all that much for The Dark Knight Strikes Again. I don't think many people did.
I don't mean to post this as a catty correction. I just figured it would save the uninitiated some confusion if they decided to seek out the title.
The short review is simply using a metaphor to describe what the movie did to Star Trek fans. The longer review is similar to his "Star Wars" reviews, in that he carefully deconstructs what is wrong with the plot. Given his review, I was actually shocked that he liked the movie. I do agree that like many bad movies, watching "Star Trek" (2009) is a "guilty pleasure."
My objection to the reboot is that, like most other prequels (the new "Star Wars" trilogy and "Babylon 5: In the Beginning" come to mind), J.J. Abrams shoe-horned every character into the story, even though it's not logical that the characters would have been contemporaries, all knowing each other since the beginning. ie, Kirk should not have been at the Academy the same time as Uhurua, Checkov, Sulu, etc. Or even as Spock and Scotty. And as a doctor, McCoy was not a line officer, and would not have been to the Academy at all. This is clearly stated in the "Starfleet Academy Reunion" comic book (around 1991), and obvious to anyone who knows how the Navy works.
As for The Original Series, recently I have found that I simply cannot watch them anymore. As a product of 1960s network television, many of the plots and story lines are not just way too cheesy and corny, but pretty bad. For whatever reason, I just can't overlook those flaws anymore. Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical?
I think that what many of us love about "Star Trek" (and I still do) is (1) the characters and (2) the myth. The idea of couple of cool dudes like Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty exploring outer space while sitting in a big chair in front of a big screen TV appeals to a lot of us *, even if the individual episodes weren't that good. The premise makes it possible to invent all sorts of stories and back-stories. This probably explains why "Star Trek" fan fiction has been a genre since the end of the series. The characters and the myth provide wonderful material for our imaginations to work with.
I also think that this is why at least half of the movies still hold up well: not because of the action or better special effects, but because they were character stories about characters we grew up caring about. The themes of life, death, dealing with change, growing up and growing old run throughout the movie series. "Wrath of Kahn" and "The Undiscovered Country" weren't about cool looking space battles.
And speaking for myself, the problem with the 2009 movie, in addition to all of the plot holes, is that I don't care about the characters. They're not the characters we grew up caring about, because they have been changed too much. For example, in the original, it was reasonable to assume that Kirk was hard-working and ambitious, always wanted and earned his captaincy. In the new movie, he's a whiny trouble-making self-centered teenager. Even though appointments to the Academy, and command billets, are highly competitive with no shortage of willing candidates, Starfleet comes begging to young Kirk: "Please please please, juvenile delinquent Kirk, join the Academy. If you do, we'll give you the keys to a star ship in a few years." Yeah, right. New Kirk isn't going to be a captain with a solemn sense of responsibility to his command, but a sense of entitlement.
* Back in the late 20th century, when I was working a tech support job and had access to a video projector hooked up to a computer, one of the first things I did was get a big office chair, placed it in front of the projector's screen on the wall in the conference room, and turned on the Windows 95 "star field" screen saver. It was a dream come true.
Simes, I think you would enjoy Star Trek more if you followed the advice in the original MST 3K theme song: "If you're wondering how he eats and breathes, and other science facts, fa la la! then repeat to yourself, 'It's just a show, I should really just relax!'"
The new Star Trek movie was very silly, and therefor completely in the spirit of the original series.
And where do I get a wife who will arge Star Destroyer vs Borg Cube? (Borg Cube by the way. Step 1: Slice up shield generators. Step 2: Teleport at will - in, out, all about... they can't stop you...)
The 09 ST was fantastic filmmaking. You Trekkies, all so enthralled with the OG ST, well guess why Star Wars was always more popular? Cuz the original ST was mad super boring.
Oh no, not the going-back-in-time thing, again. Oh dear. Bollocks you, that was handled really well.
Why wasn't Spock's wife rescued when she fell six feet but Spock was rescued while exploding in a 'Red Matter' fireball? How did Spock's MOTHER (pay attention homes) fall only six feet when .5 seconds after she fell they panned out to reveal the cliff face falling hundreds of feet away into oblivion?
Why wasn't the Enterprise able to escape the singularity when "We're already at warp speed"? Because it's hard as all madness/virtually impossible to escape a singularity maybe?
How the **** did the Romulan vessel and Spock's vessel go through a black hole? Give over. How is any of this possible? It's Sci-Fi. Give over.
Why should one vessel going through a black hole go back in time a convenient 25 years, and the other not at all? Because they wanted it that way. Obviously red matter doesn't exist, you can't create black holes in the heart of supernovas and it wouldn't lead through time. Again, suspend your disbelief if you're walking into a Star Trek movie.
Of all the moons of all the planets of all the systems in the galaxy, Kirk gets abandoned within a few hundred yards of Spock. Clearly Spock was marooned on a planet within view of Vulcan so he can see it be destroyed. HE EXPLAINS THIS. It is not at all a stretch that this would be the planet, and even the same side of the planet, where Kirk is jettisoned just as they head away from where Vulcan used to be.
What was Spock burning on that fire? It looked like wood to me. What wood would that be on that ice world? They have spaceships and all the aliens look like humans and speak English to each other on their homeworld, but you're worried about wood? Seriously?
The Enterprise warped into Titan's atmosphere then conveniently ended up next to the Romulan ship just above the Earth's atmosphere. We'll just pretend the few light minutes' distance doesn't exist then, yes? Sure--as long as we're pretending people can warp around the universe in almost no time flat, why not?
Why was Vulcan just 3 minutes from Earth at warp speed, yet Earth hours and hours from Vulcan? They were clearly taking their time to formulate a plan.
When the three of them plummeted through the atmosphere (and didn't we just know what would happen to the red shirt?) why was there no burning up on re-entry? If they create dropsuits for entering the atmosphere, you don't think they would engineer them to reduce friction and eliminate incineration? You can even see flame trails as they fall. Come on.
When the two of them were beamed up just before they hit the ground, they hit the transporter floor with the same force. Why weren't they killed? Why wasn't Spock's mother rescued under easier circumstances? It's safe to say they hit the ground with force, but clearly not the same force, or they WOULD have been killed. Weak complaint.
The singularity created at the end of the film was created at the edge of the Earth's atmosphere. So that's the Earth destroyed then. Fair enough.
When the medal gets dished out at the end, why is the Academy full of students? 7 out of every 8 were killed at the start of the film by the Romulan mining ship. Obviously not as when the ship was attacking San Francisco, you see cadets racing around in a panic. Is it so stretchy to say those were cadets not yet well trained enough to serve on a starship? Where do you pull 7 out of every 8 from??
Why is Spock flying around in a ship that holds a huge ball of 'Red Matter' when one drop can cause a black hole? Cuz he needed to use it to create a black hole, obviously.
Why are these rule-breaking children allowed out in a star ship again? Because they needed every trained hand available. Also, they're not children. Also, only Kirk broke a rule. ALSO they hadn't even reached the formal ruling that he cheated yet. ALSO he wasn't GOING to be allowed on the ship, except that McCoy did him a favor. Again, pay attention.
Why was the bridge of the Enterprise so unlike the bridge of the same Enterprise of the TV series? Because they didn't want the movie to be as boring and mundane as the TV series.
Messages were sent out about the Romulan mining ship; why did the Enterprise have to go to join the fleet at Wotnot, rather than the fleet just go straight to Earth? Why would they go straght to Earth?
None of your complaints make sense. Abrams accomplished the hard task of rebooting ST in a way that appealed to a wide audience, rather than the same clan of Vulcan ear-wearing Trekkies that have been lapping up increasingly boring series and terrible movies since the 70s.
I'm in favor of the 70's cartoon but against the 2009 movie. I won't go into as many details as the previous commenter, though. It just felt like a generic sci-fi action flik with some Star Trek references thrown in.
Oh, I LOVED the Star Trek cartoon when I was a kid.
As to "canon," (excepting the Kzinti dudes), I agree with the Agony Booth:
"No, the real reason I consider TAS canon is that it's a TV show called Star Trek, and it was made with the input of Gene Roddenberry, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Deforest Kelley, James Doohan, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, Majel Barrett-Roddenberry, Walter Koenig, TOS story editor D.C. Fontana, TOS director Marc Daniels, TOS scriptwriters David Gerrold and Stephen Kandel, and TOS guest stars Mark Lenard, Roger C. Carmel, and Stanley Adams. Honestly, if that's not Star Trek, then I don't know what is.
"It would be tantamount to making an album with performances by John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr, produced by George Martin, engineered by Norman Smith and Geoff Emerick, with an album cover drawn by Klaus [f.....g] Voorman, and not calling it a Beatles album."
TOS still happened or else Spock-prime would not have existed to go back in time. From all the other characters' perspectives it was an aborted potential future, but as far as shaping Spock's experience it was all necessary events.
Although I would have to agree with Simes' articulated points, I just chalk all of it up to poor writing due to a script writer that has no idea of physics or science fiction (instead of future fantasy) and leave it at that. My biggest gripe with the 2009 movie was the massive lens flares everywhere. Good grief; Hollywood spent tons of money to eliminate that kind of annoying camera "effect" (i.e: problem) and Abrams has to stick it in there on purpose.
As for Enterprise, in its defense, I recently watched the entire series on Netflix. Yes, there are some bad episodes, but the same could be said for the Star Trek TOS. I rather liked some of the later episodes that tried to explain things, like why TOS Klingons looked all too human, or how come Vulcans seem more intolerant than in chronologically later shows. On the whole, I'd have to say I've seen worse, so give Enterprise a break.
But I will say the opening song suuuuuuuuucked. What were they thinking?
Simes, perhaps you should pick up a nitpickers guide for one or more of the Trek series? If you have this much of a problem with the "equipment oddities" and writing room conveniences from the 2009 film, I can't imagine you being a fan of any of them.
I understand many of your criticisms, what I really want to know is... What (Science) fiction *DO* you like?
Anyone could answer that question actually. If you liked a specific episode of a long running series, say which one, as there are more people involved in TV than the cast, quality writing, directing, etc. are also important to the end product.
As for myself, I don't really care about oversights if the story is well written and characters engaging. (Not that the 2009 film was top in either of those categories)
Uhm...er...Wow. A lot of those complaints about 2009 Star Trek aren't even correct.
Nevermind that, apparently nobody has ever spoken this about stories, which also include movies and books and whatever:
—What makes a story is exceptionalism. That is, the reason a story happens the way it does is because it's full of events that conveniently happen to justify something else happening later. That's the only consistent logic to stories.—
So, if you tell a story without any exceptions (i.e. anything contrary to expectations), then it's not a story.
A flashback happens because the author forget to mention something, especially when using a typewriter. Flashback may also happen when the middle of the story is much more interesting and people wouldn't wait around if they had to go through the beginning first. When a story is really boring, they tell the ending first and hope you'll want to know the rest. Similarly for flash forwards. (This assumes a story is told in a universe with linear time.)
And, last but not least, a story is never the same when told more than once. Recall the stories about fishing and the fish getting bigger after each telling. Therefore, it should be no wonder why a story in a book isn't the same as a story a movie, or cartoon.
As such, a story is the stuffing of legends, and sometimes a legend is quite foul, though what kind isn't always apparent.
If we had a real culture, one that didn't make up stories willy-nilly and sell them, then we'd have more consistency. Though, history wouldn't be any less fictional.
December 25, 2011
Reader Comments (50)
Surely you don't mean to imply Star Trek 2009 sucked?
Note from Scott: No! Just most episodes of Enterprise. I loved the 2009 Star Trek.
Ha ha, awesome.
This must be why I haven't seen the new movie yet.
Ah, mundane geek arguments. My husband and I decided to have the Borg cube versus Star Destroyer debate while on a road trip. Then we hit a deer. We've never had the guts to resume the argument since.
Have had the same argument about Batman cannon.
If you follow the 1985 frank miller story "The Dark Knight Strikes Back" then anything after the death of Jason basically didnt happen. Which means that all the top Batman stories never happened. Of course now the series is rebooted again so basically nothing at all has ever happened.
The debate between cannon and non-cannon never seems to ever end.
Related note: based on the new timeline can we assume the Mirror universe is still around? The first time the regular universe and the Mirror one interacted was with Kirk. So logically in the new timeline the evil universe is still the same.
There's only one logical conclusion: The '70s cartoon was canon but the 2009 movie was not.
Everything in proper Trek still happened, just in another timeline. Real Trek has now simply become an alternate universe, just like the Evil Universe where Spock has a goatee.
The 2009 Star Trek was an awful film. Firstly, you have to accept that it happens in a different universe from the Star Trek one as it does not fit the Star Trek theme, or 'canon' as I have just learned to call it.
Secondly, it was riddled with stupid mistakes.
Oh no, not the going-back-in-time thing, again. Oh dear.
Why wasn't Spock's wife rescued when she fell six feet but Spock was rescued while exploding in a 'Red Matter' fireball?
Why wasn't the Enterprise able to escape the singularity when "We're already at warp speed"?
How the **** did the Romulan vessel and Spock's vessel go through a black hole? Give over.
Why should one vessel going through a black hole go back in time a convenient 25 years, and the other not at all?
Of all the moons of all the planets of all the systems in the galaxy, Kirk gets abandoned within a few hundred yards of Spock.
What was Spock burning on that fire? It looked like wood to me. What wood would that be on that ice world?
The Enterprise warped into Titan's atmosphere then conveniently ended up next to the Romulan ship just above the Earth's atmosphere. We'll just pretend the few light minutes' distance doesn't exist then, yes?
Why was Vulcan just 3 minutes from Earth at warp speed, yet Earth hours and hours from Vulcan?
When the three of them plummeted through the atmosphere (and didn't we just know what would happen to the red shirt?) why was there no burning up on re-entry?
When the two of them were beamed up just before they hit the ground, they hit the transporter floor with the same force. Why weren't they killed? Why wasn't Spock's mother rescued under easier circumstances?
The singularity created at the end of the film was created at the edge of the Earth's atmosphere. So that's the Earth destroyed then.
When the medal gets dished out at the end, why is the Academy full of students? 7 out of every 8 were killed at the start of the film by the Romulan mining ship.
Why is Spock flying around in a ship that holds a huge ball of 'Red Matter' when one drop can cause a black hole?
Why are these rule-breaking children allowed out in a star ship again?
Why was the bridge of the Enterprise so unlike the bridge of the same Enterprise of the TV series?
Messages were sent out about the Romulan mining ship; why did the Enterprise have to go to join the fleet at Wotnot, rather than the fleet just go straight to Earth?
And that is just off the top of my head. There was plenty more.
It was seriously dire pants.
Note from Scott: I disagree strongly with your opinion but I'm approving your post it in the spirit of bi-partisanship.
All this hasn't happened before, and it won't happen again.
Are recreational arguments an attempt to channel addiction to self-righteous indignation?
As David Brin noted in an "Open Letter to Researchers of Addictiion" (2005) at www.davidbrin.com/addiction.htm
Glenn Reynolds made a similar observation 10 years earlier in "A Critical Guide To the Second Amendment" (1995) at www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html
# # #
More T'pol can't be that bad. Especially when combined with more blue decontamination showers.
MY GOD WHAT HAVE I BECOME!?
Just in case anyone has any interest in reading the Batman storyline mentioned above:
I'm pretty sure Isiah is referring to Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. It was released in 1986, and not 1985. Isiah may be getting the "Strikes Back" from The Dark Knight Strikes Again, TDKR's 2001/2 sequel. (The "Back" part probably crept in because of how deeply Empire Strikes Back is woven in to pop consciousness.) I didn't care all that much for The Dark Knight Strikes Again. I don't think many people did.
I don't mean to post this as a catty correction. I just figured it would save the uninitiated some confusion if they decided to seek out the title.
Simes,
Have you seen Red Letter Media's reviews of the 2009 Star Trek film?
redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09-short-film/ 2 minutes 16 seconds
redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09/ 1 hour 7 minutes long
The short review is simply using a metaphor to describe what the movie did to Star Trek fans. The longer review is similar to his "Star Wars" reviews, in that he carefully deconstructs what is wrong with the plot. Given his review, I was actually shocked that he liked the movie. I do agree that like many bad movies, watching "Star Trek" (2009) is a "guilty pleasure."
My objection to the reboot is that, like most other prequels (the new "Star Wars" trilogy and "Babylon 5: In the Beginning" come to mind), J.J. Abrams shoe-horned every character into the story, even though it's not logical that the characters would have been contemporaries, all knowing each other since the beginning. ie, Kirk should not have been at the Academy the same time as Uhurua, Checkov, Sulu, etc. Or even as Spock and Scotty. And as a doctor, McCoy was not a line officer, and would not have been to the Academy at all. This is clearly stated in the "Starfleet Academy Reunion" comic book (around 1991), and obvious to anyone who knows how the Navy works.
As for The Original Series, recently I have found that I simply cannot watch them anymore. As a product of 1960s network television, many of the plots and story lines are not just way too cheesy and corny, but pretty bad. For whatever reason, I just can't overlook those flaws anymore. Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical?
I think that what many of us love about "Star Trek" (and I still do) is (1) the characters and (2) the myth. The idea of couple of cool dudes like Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty exploring outer space while sitting in a big chair in front of a big screen TV appeals to a lot of us *, even if the individual episodes weren't that good. The premise makes it possible to invent all sorts of stories and back-stories. This probably explains why "Star Trek" fan fiction has been a genre since the end of the series. The characters and the myth provide wonderful material for our imaginations to work with.
I also think that this is why at least half of the movies still hold up well: not because of the action or better special effects, but because they were character stories about characters we grew up caring about. The themes of life, death, dealing with change, growing up and growing old run throughout the movie series. "Wrath of Kahn" and "The Undiscovered Country" weren't about cool looking space battles.
And speaking for myself, the problem with the 2009 movie, in addition to all of the plot holes, is that I don't care about the characters. They're not the characters we grew up caring about, because they have been changed too much. For example, in the original, it was reasonable to assume that Kirk was hard-working and ambitious, always wanted and earned his captaincy. In the new movie, he's a whiny trouble-making self-centered teenager. Even though appointments to the Academy, and command billets, are highly competitive with no shortage of willing candidates, Starfleet comes begging to young Kirk: "Please please please, juvenile delinquent Kirk, join the Academy. If you do, we'll give you the keys to a star ship in a few years." Yeah, right. New Kirk isn't going to be a captain with a solemn sense of responsibility to his command, but a sense of entitlement.
* Back in the late 20th century, when I was working a tech support job and had access to a video projector hooked up to a computer, one of the first things I did was get a big office chair, placed it in front of the projector's screen on the wall in the conference room, and turned on the Windows 95 "star field" screen saver. It was a dream come true.
Simes, I think you would enjoy Star Trek more if you followed the advice in the original MST 3K theme song:
"If you're wondering how he eats and breathes, and other science facts,
fa la la!
then repeat to yourself, 'It's just a show, I should really just relax!'"
Congratulations, Scott.
Panel four is a Jeffries tube-full of awesome, but you have just proved that logic and rational arguments suck, and should be avoided.
The new Star Trek movie was very silly, and therefor completely in the spirit of the original series.
And where do I get a wife who will arge Star Destroyer vs Borg Cube? (Borg Cube by the way. Step 1: Slice up shield generators. Step 2: Teleport at will - in, out, all about... they can't stop you...)
The 09 ST was fantastic filmmaking. You Trekkies, all so enthralled with the OG ST, well guess why Star Wars was always more popular? Cuz the original ST was mad super boring.
Oh no, not the going-back-in-time thing, again. Oh dear. Bollocks you, that was handled really well.
Why wasn't Spock's wife rescued when she fell six feet but Spock was rescued while exploding in a 'Red Matter' fireball? How did Spock's MOTHER (pay attention homes) fall only six feet when .5 seconds after she fell they panned out to reveal the cliff face falling hundreds of feet away into oblivion?
Why wasn't the Enterprise able to escape the singularity when "We're already at warp speed"? Because it's hard as all madness/virtually impossible to escape a singularity maybe?
How the **** did the Romulan vessel and Spock's vessel go through a black hole? Give over. How is any of this possible? It's Sci-Fi. Give over.
Why should one vessel going through a black hole go back in time a convenient 25 years, and the other not at all? Because they wanted it that way. Obviously red matter doesn't exist, you can't create black holes in the heart of supernovas and it wouldn't lead through time. Again, suspend your disbelief if you're walking into a Star Trek movie.
Of all the moons of all the planets of all the systems in the galaxy, Kirk gets abandoned within a few hundred yards of Spock. Clearly Spock was marooned on a planet within view of Vulcan so he can see it be destroyed. HE EXPLAINS THIS. It is not at all a stretch that this would be the planet, and even the same side of the planet, where Kirk is jettisoned just as they head away from where Vulcan used to be.
What was Spock burning on that fire? It looked like wood to me. What wood would that be on that ice world? They have spaceships and all the aliens look like humans and speak English to each other on their homeworld, but you're worried about wood? Seriously?
The Enterprise warped into Titan's atmosphere then conveniently ended up next to the Romulan ship just above the Earth's atmosphere. We'll just pretend the few light minutes' distance doesn't exist then, yes? Sure--as long as we're pretending people can warp around the universe in almost no time flat, why not?
Why was Vulcan just 3 minutes from Earth at warp speed, yet Earth hours and hours from Vulcan? They were clearly taking their time to formulate a plan.
When the three of them plummeted through the atmosphere (and didn't we just know what would happen to the red shirt?) why was there no burning up on re-entry? If they create dropsuits for entering the atmosphere, you don't think they would engineer them to reduce friction and eliminate incineration? You can even see flame trails as they fall. Come on.
When the two of them were beamed up just before they hit the ground, they hit the transporter floor with the same force. Why weren't they killed? Why wasn't Spock's mother rescued under easier circumstances? It's safe to say they hit the ground with force, but clearly not the same force, or they WOULD have been killed. Weak complaint.
The singularity created at the end of the film was created at the edge of the Earth's atmosphere. So that's the Earth destroyed then. Fair enough.
When the medal gets dished out at the end, why is the Academy full of students? 7 out of every 8 were killed at the start of the film by the Romulan mining ship. Obviously not as when the ship was attacking San Francisco, you see cadets racing around in a panic. Is it so stretchy to say those were cadets not yet well trained enough to serve on a starship? Where do you pull 7 out of every 8 from??
Why is Spock flying around in a ship that holds a huge ball of 'Red Matter' when one drop can cause a black hole? Cuz he needed to use it to create a black hole, obviously.
Why are these rule-breaking children allowed out in a star ship again? Because they needed every trained hand available. Also, they're not children. Also, only Kirk broke a rule. ALSO they hadn't even reached the formal ruling that he cheated yet. ALSO he wasn't GOING to be allowed on the ship, except that McCoy did him a favor. Again, pay attention.
Why was the bridge of the Enterprise so unlike the bridge of the same Enterprise of the TV series? Because they didn't want the movie to be as boring and mundane as the TV series.
Messages were sent out about the Romulan mining ship; why did the Enterprise have to go to join the fleet at Wotnot, rather than the fleet just go straight to Earth? Why would they go straght to Earth?
None of your complaints make sense. Abrams accomplished the hard task of rebooting ST in a way that appealed to a wide audience, rather than the same clan of Vulcan ear-wearing Trekkies that have been lapping up increasingly boring series and terrible movies since the 70s.
I'm in favor of the 70's cartoon but against the 2009 movie. I won't go into as many details as the previous commenter, though. It just felt like a generic sci-fi action flik with some Star Trek references thrown in.
Mainly, I'm just prematurely old and cranky.
Oh, I LOVED the Star Trek cartoon when I was a kid.
As to "canon," (excepting the Kzinti dudes), I agree with the Agony Booth:
"No, the real reason I consider TAS canon is that it's a TV show called Star Trek, and it was made with the input of Gene Roddenberry, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Deforest Kelley, James Doohan, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, Majel Barrett-Roddenberry, Walter Koenig, TOS story editor D.C. Fontana, TOS director Marc Daniels, TOS scriptwriters David Gerrold and Stephen Kandel, and TOS guest stars Mark Lenard, Roger C. Carmel, and Stanley Adams. Honestly, if that's not Star Trek, then I don't know what is.
"It would be tantamount to making an album with performances by John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr, produced by George Martin, engineered by Norman Smith and Geoff Emerick, with an album cover drawn by Klaus [f.....g] Voorman, and not calling it a Beatles album."
Nothing happened after the TV Star Treck of the 1960's. Except Seven of Nine and maybe any of the other women characters you care to throw in...
TOS still happened or else Spock-prime would not have existed to go back in time. From all the other characters' perspectives it was an aborted potential future, but as far as shaping Spock's experience it was all necessary events.
On the plus side, V'ger never needed to happen.
Although I would have to agree with Simes' articulated points, I just chalk all of it up to poor writing due to a script writer that has no idea of physics or science fiction (instead of future fantasy) and leave it at that. My biggest gripe with the 2009 movie was the massive lens flares everywhere. Good grief; Hollywood spent tons of money to eliminate that kind of annoying camera "effect" (i.e: problem) and Abrams has to stick it in there on purpose.
As for Enterprise, in its defense, I recently watched the entire series on Netflix. Yes, there are some bad episodes, but the same could be said for the Star Trek TOS. I rather liked some of the later episodes that tried to explain things, like why TOS Klingons looked all too human, or how come Vulcans seem more intolerant than in chronologically later shows. On the whole, I'd have to say I've seen worse, so give Enterprise a break.
But I will say the opening song suuuuuuuuucked. What were they thinking?
I know it was arguably necessary exposition, but I refuse to believe that Rick didn't know what "canon" meant.
Simes, perhaps you should pick up a nitpickers guide for one or more of the Trek series? If you have this much of a problem with the "equipment oddities" and writing room conveniences from the 2009 film, I can't imagine you being a fan of any of them.
I understand many of your criticisms, what I really want to know is...
What (Science) fiction *DO* you like?
Anyone could answer that question actually. If you liked a specific episode of a long running series, say which one, as there are more people involved in TV than the cast, quality writing, directing, etc. are also important to the end product.
As for myself, I don't really care about oversights if the story is well written and characters engaging. (Not that the 2009 film was top in either of those categories)
Uhm...er...Wow. A lot of those complaints about 2009 Star Trek aren't even correct.
Nevermind that, apparently nobody has ever spoken this about stories, which also include movies and books and whatever:
—What makes a story is exceptionalism. That is, the reason a story happens the way it does is because it's full of events that conveniently happen to justify something else happening later. That's the only consistent logic to stories.—
So, if you tell a story without any exceptions (i.e. anything contrary to expectations), then it's not a story.
A flashback happens because the author forget to mention something, especially when using a typewriter. Flashback may also happen when the middle of the story is much more interesting and people wouldn't wait around if they had to go through the beginning first. When a story is really boring, they tell the ending first and hope you'll want to know the rest. Similarly for flash forwards. (This assumes a story is told in a universe with linear time.)
And, last but not least, a story is never the same when told more than once. Recall the stories about fishing and the fish getting bigger after each telling. Therefore, it should be no wonder why a story in a book isn't the same as a story a movie, or cartoon.
As such, a story is the stuffing of legends, and sometimes a legend is quite foul, though what kind isn't always apparent.
If we had a real culture, one that didn't make up stories willy-nilly and sell them, then we'd have more consistency. Though, history wouldn't be any less fictional.
Both true and also, horribly depressing.