You know, I really do agree with you. In my opinion, the new film was an amazing science fiction movie. It had all the elements that make a good sci-fi movie (action, kick-ass effects, time travel, alterative timelines, ect), but as a Star Trek film, it simply did not come close to being anything remotely near Star Trek. All throughout I was picking apart plot holes and a lot of major cannon was just ignored. Awesome article, by the way.
i would recommend reading the book adaptation of the film. it fills in the bits of the film that were left unexplored and manages to fill in all the details that make up these so-called plot holes. i understand that many people wouldn't allow this to be used as an excuse, but i personally like to think that a film should not have to explain every single detail, unlike a novel. for example, the book explains that by accepting the call to duty, the cadets had thereby accepted graduation from the academy, as graduation was to be the next month.
but i mean no disrespect, of course; your article is very well written : )
I've seen it three times now and I still enjoyed it. I enjoyed it because it was a good SciFi flick with solid action and some fun. As far as it being a Star Trek movie.... meh. I could have dealt with a LOT of plot holes. After all, they are all over Star Trek, but the alternate time line??? WHY??? I just honestly don't get it. There are MILLIONS of hardcore Star Trek fans out there who would have helped to keep the continuity straight for free! Hell, they would have paid, to help with it. But instead they chose to have people write it who were too afraid to step into those big shoes. They had lots of funding, a great cast and people who wanted this to work. It's a shame they didn't turn it into something more.
A couple things we have to remember. This is the military of the future and George Kirk is the first officer. As ranking officer, he probably had the right to have his wife aboard the vessel, whether or not she was Starfleet personnel.
Also, yes, we know Kirk was born in Iowa, BUT... it's the whole concept of "it's a lot of little tiny changes in the timeline that add up to the big changes". *shrugs*.
The boy walking down the road was supposed to be Kirk's older brother, George. (He is, in the novelization.) Don't know why that was changed at the last minute in film editing.
Another problem I had with the film was the manner in which Kirk joined Starfleet Academy. ... He shows up at a Starbase the following morning on his motorbike . . . without even encountering one sign of security. Then he boards a shuttle for San Francisco . . . just like that. He never submitted an application. Nor was he wearing the uniform of an Academy cadet. Come to think of it, neither did Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban).
( ... )
A couple things we have to remember. This is the military of the future and George Kirk is the first officer. As ranking officer, he probably had the right to have his wife aboard the vessel, whether or not she was Starfleet personnel.
In the original timeline, George Kirk was a Security officer, not the XO. And it was established in the original timeline that Winona Kirk was definitely on Earth at the time of Kirk's birth. Also . . . where was George Jr., Kirk's older brother by three years?
In the novelization of the movie, the kid (I think Sam you said earlier? Idk) walking along the side of the road when Little Kirk steals the car is George Jr. No idea why they changed that in the movie. It doesn't make sense at all. XD
btw as much as I loved the movie this article is exceptional. :D
Comments 21
In my opinion, the new film was an amazing science fiction movie. It had all the elements that make a good sci-fi movie (action, kick-ass effects, time travel, alterative timelines, ect), but as a Star Trek film, it simply did not come close to being anything remotely near Star Trek. All throughout I was picking apart plot holes and a lot of major cannon was just ignored.
Awesome article, by the way.
Reply
but i mean no disrespect, of course; your article is very well written : )
Reply
I could have dealt with a LOT of plot holes. After all, they are all over Star Trek, but the alternate time line??? WHY??? I just honestly don't get it. There are MILLIONS of hardcore Star Trek fans out there who would have helped to keep the continuity straight for free! Hell, they would have paid, to help with it. But instead they chose to have people write it who were too afraid to step into those big shoes.
They had lots of funding, a great cast and people who wanted this to work. It's a shame they didn't turn it into something more.
Reply
A couple things we have to remember. This is the military of the future and George Kirk is the first officer. As ranking officer, he probably had the right to have his wife aboard the vessel, whether or not she was Starfleet personnel.
Also, yes, we know Kirk was born in Iowa, BUT... it's the whole concept of "it's a lot of little tiny changes in the timeline that add up to the big changes". *shrugs*.
The boy walking down the road was supposed to be Kirk's older brother, George. (He is, in the novelization.) Don't know why that was changed at the last minute in film editing.
Another problem I had with the film was the manner in which Kirk joined Starfleet Academy. ... He shows up at a Starbase the following morning on his motorbike . . . without even encountering one sign of security. Then he boards a shuttle for San Francisco . . . just like that. He never submitted an application. Nor was he wearing the uniform of an Academy cadet. Come to think of it, neither did Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban). ( ... )
Reply
In the original timeline, George Kirk was a Security officer, not the XO. And it was established in the original timeline that Winona Kirk was definitely on Earth at the time of Kirk's birth. Also . . . where was George Jr., Kirk's older brother by three years?
Reply
btw as much as I loved the movie this article is exceptional. :D
Reply
Leave a comment