Review: Star Trek

by John Sickels on May 9, 2025 11:45 AM EDT Comment 11 comments

Jeri and I saw the new Star Trek movie last night, and are taking Nicholas to see it this afternoon. My general impression as a moviegoer was that it was an excellent action-adventure flick that I enjoyed.

My impression as an original series Star Trek fan was more mixed. On the positive side, I think the acting and characterization was very good, particularly Quinto as Spock and Urban as McCoy. They did a fine job reflecting the job the original actors and writers did, but without being parodies or imitations. Pine as Kirk was solid, especially in the second half of the movie. They finally did Uhura justice. On the negative side, I thought they didn't do enough with Sulu, and I thought Chekov was a bit too much of a parody (although the original wasn't exactly a fleshed-out character). I did not at like the way they played Scotty for comic relief; the original character, especially in the first two seasons, was far more serious. This wasn't Simon Pegg's fault; it was the way it was written. On the other hand, I thought Bruce Greenwood was excellent as Christopher Pike.

The story was okay; with some very poignant moments. I wasn't super-impressed with the villain; I thought his motivations and background needed to be fleshed out more. Without getting into spoilers, there were huge plotholes, I hated the way Kirk's Kobayashi Maru test was played for laughs, and the science was awful even by Star Trek standards. The canon Nazi in me has some quibbles, particularly some things that can't be explained by the "alternative timeline" handwave the writers used. I understand that most people don't really care about that, but it bugged me.

I think the thing that bothered me the most was the "reimagined" ship itself. Obviously you can't expect an exact duplication of the 1960s TV ship on the 2000s big screen, but I just really hated the production design in general, especially the interior of the Enterprise, which seemed much more Galaxy Quest than Star Trek. The bridge was awful. Frankly I liked the USS Kelvin interiors (and exterior for that matter) a lot more than the Enterprise. I don't think Abrams took the Enterprise seriously enough. . .the ship itself is a character, as important as Kirk or Spock. It needed to be updated and more detailed than the 60s ship. But as far as I'm concerned, what they did to the ship was the equivalent of changing Spock's blood color from green to purple because purple is a cooler color.

My beef ultimately is that the "fun thrill ride" and the strong character moments could remain exactly as they are, but that a lot of the flaws could have been fixed with a bit more thought given to the script, and much better thought given to the ship. They did a great job updating the uniforms, for example. . .so why does engineering look so stupid?

Overall it was a very good film and I recommend it if you like the action-adventure and sci-fi genres. But I have to admit, I left the film feeling rather. . .old, I guess. The film was flashy and glitzy and fun, but I felt sort of empty afterward. Wrath of Khan remains the best of the Trek films in my opinion, and there are many first and second season episodes with much more depth than this film. But I guess that's really not what summer moviegoing is about.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

1st!!!

This write up is actually linked on google news. Pretty cool.

by UrRoleModel on May 9, 2025 12:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My two cents

Saw it last night. First thing that came to my mind when leaving is that the time just flew by. On one hand, that’s a good thing - the script is VERY taut and very little screentime is wasted. On the other . . .I think they might’ve taken expediency as a priority just a little too far. As you mentioned, the villain really needed more work and more to the point, more screentime. I wouldn’t have minded a bit more time to get to know any characters not named Kirk and Spock, for that matter. They could’ve added an extra half hour of dialogue-based scenes to the movie without a problem.

John, I do break with you on Scotty. Something I really appreciated about the movie is that when it didn’t need to, it didn’t take itself too seriously. Trek to me (although I am admittedly an “interested fan” rather than anything remotely close to a diehard fan) goes back to the idea of the “space Western,” with tongue-in-cheek humor, fantastical science that can’t be explained by us and doesn’t need to be, and plenty of action. Perhaps Scotty will be a somewhat more serious character in the movie(s) to come, but I just don’t see what expressing that side of his character at this point would have done for me.

I give the movie a pretty strong endorsement. It’s fast, fun, original without being heretical, and totally sets us up for several more movies to come. If there is anything I didn’t like about the movie, it’s that in a way, it only really gets started when it’s time for us to go.

by mrkupe on May 9, 2025 1:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Haven't seen it yet

but I do disagree with your take on the science aspects of Star Trek. Good science fiction is based in good science “fact” or at least solid science ideology. Gene Roddenberry was way ahead of his time in that regard. Things you see in Star Trek have always been theoretically possible for the most part - there was at least some scientific merit to a lot of concepts found on the show / movies, unlike some of the things we saw in Star Wars. Trek didn’t really just throw a bunch of outlandish/fantastical stuff out there and expect you to buy it because it was sci-fi. Roddenberry was very attuned to having his concepts grounded in some sort of scientific theory, where George Lucas relied more on you being willing to suspend your disbelief with such things as force powers and light sabers, etc…

Anyway, glad to hear the movie is receiving a lot of positive feedback. I’m going to see it on IMAX later this week.

by slurve on May 10, 2025 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Glad to know im not the only one who thinks Khan was the best one.

The World Series Crisis - Ranger fans held hostage; Game 5892
Magic Number- 132

by red3biggs on May 10, 2025 12:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ST

IV was the best one.

I need to see this one again before I know where it fits. I too was a little thrown for a loop from the canon deviations. But I don’t remember looking at my watch, the movie moved at a great pace. I was a huge Scotty fan from the original series and I loved Pegg as Scott in this movie. I could buy that he would act like that after 6 months of being almost marooned.

by elricsi on May 10, 2025 9:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

A couple of things

This is Star Trek made for Star Wars fans.

And that’s altogether not a bad thing.

John’s quibbles about the set designs are valid. Abrams has noted that he wanted the bridge to look more like an Apple store (hence the stark sterile lighting) and engineering to look like the bowels of the Titanic. Those were his choices, and personally I didn’t have a problem with them. Aesthetics aside, the f/x and costumes are very good.

I disagree on Chekhov. I think Yelchin did a great job with the character. I also think every character had a moment to shine, which was nice to see since there was so much other stuff happening plotwise.

Scotty is far and away the biggest divergence from the original portrayal. I agree that it was way over the top, and closer to the parody that James Doohan was doing in the later movies. I’d like to see something closer to the more serious, capable Scotty shown in The Wrath of Khan, where Doohan completely kills in every scene he was in.

But the biggest question mark going into this turned out to be the biggest plus, in my opinion. Chris Pine is just terrific as Kirk. I think they really nailed the motivations for and essence of the character, particularly when viewed through the perspective of the altered timeline. Bruce Greenwood is equally super as Pike. I really hope that they figure out a way to work Pike into the inevitable sequels; he is that good.

Spock was a mixed bag for me. Quinto does an admirable job…probably better than 90% of the other actors out there. But there’s something that doesn’t fit. Its probably the voice. His voice is too soft for Spock. Then again, there are not many people in the world with as distinctive a voice as Nimoy, so I guess I have to give Quinto a pass for bucking up against 40 years of precedent.

I got chills during Nimoy’s “I have been and always shall be…” line, too.

by samjjones on May 11, 2025 11:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Scotty

Well I always liked the Scotty we see early in the first season and second season of the show….in episodes like “The Corbomite Maneuver” and “Mudd’s Women”…, “A Taste of Armageddon,” “The Doomsday Machine”, and “Friday’s Child” when he comes across as very serious, and very capable, a guy who could have been a starship commander himself if he had not loved engineering so much. By the beginning of the third season he was turning into something of a parody and comedy relief, and the way he was written in the movies was spotty. . .great in The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Khan, but increasingly weaker as the movies progressed. So I didn’t care for Abram’s take on the character at all.

by John Sickels on May 11, 2025 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One more question for John

Since John has done more than anybody to develop the history of the Romulans…how does he feel about their portrayal in the movie? About what happens to Romulus?

by samjjones on May 11, 2025 11:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Roms

Well the Romulan background I wrote for the Star Fleet Universe is based almost entirely on what we see in TOS, with some stuff from the novels, a lot of non-canon Star Fleet Universe stuff, and my own inventions. I don’t have a problem with the 24th century romulans seen in the new movie. I DID have a big problem with the “Remans” we see in Nemesis, which just came out of nowhere canonwise.

by John Sickels on May 11, 2025 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My take

I’m a longtime Original Star Trek fan. I’m in my early 40s so watched most of the episodes after school as reruns. I own the complete original series on DVD and have watched every episode multiple times. My 3 young sons have watched the entire series and love them also, although unlike me they prefer Next Generation. Anyway I was a bit worried about the rumored changes to Star Trek canon in the new movie, but really loved it. To me the reason Star Trek worked was always about the characters and their unique interaction with each other. Yes there were episodes with great writing, but to me it was always about the characters. Abrams nailed that. He seemed to understand who these people were and what made them so beloved by the fans. Sure I have complaints. I thought Chekov’s accent got very annoying. I also wasn’t crazy about Scotty’s character being played a bit too much for laughs. Didn’t really like the look of the bridge or engineering either, but these are minor problems for me. All in all though Abrams seemed to grasp the spirit of the original show and the dynamic between the characters that made it so special. I thought the the casting was for the most part excellent and the actors turned in very good performances in most cases. I loved it and so did my 3 kids. Can’t wait to see the next one.

by eastin on May 11, 2025 3:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with the original post

This is another example of a Star Trek movie that failed to be everything it could of—and should of been…and considering what a great movie that it was, I can only imagine what would of happened if the writers had taken just a few moments to fix a few of the smaller details that would of made the movie that much better for the true fans.

I loved McCoy…and the Orion cadet was a nice touch. And I also appreciated the Tribble.

by OscarDog on May 12, 2025 6:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs