Anyway, didn't they just completely invalidate the rest of the Star Trek Universe, with the exception of Enterprise, in that movie?
No in the Star Trek 'world' sense because the events of the new movie are still a linear progression from the original Star Trek (and all that followed). Star Trek (2009) doesn't exist if the original series, Next Generations, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, etc. haven't previously happened and ultimately given birth to Nero in the first place.
... and no by any reasonable measure because it's idiotic to think that one story can "invalidate" another in the first place by being set at a particular time irrelative to it. How could it possibly work? Oh no, i saw the new Star Trek movie and now 'A Private Little War' isn't a commentary on the Vietnam War anymore! Golly, now that I've seen this movie, 'The Visitor' isn't a touching emotional piece anymore, etc., etc.
Anyway, I thought it was great. The main crew casting-and-characters were universally perfect and everyone left the theater wishing they could go right ahead and see Star Trek II now that the crew had come together properly.
GOOD
- The movie had its own entirely new style, which is something Star Trek movies have often been recalcitrant about. That is to say that cinematographer or costume designer on Star Trek III through Nemesis was probably a pretty sweet gig -- they just dusted off the previous production's sets, props and style and moved on. Abrams' movie with all the fast cuts and the lens flair and so on built an important stage for making the movie its own.
- Similarly, a big hand for the art style... because I think it was designed to be obsolete in 2030 in the same way the original series is dated today. The "Apple store" bridge is going to be a product of its times... but the Enterprise with the same beautiful lines and the intentionally-retro-timeless new aspects (big Buck Rogers-styled nacelles) will still feel like the original did.
- I liked that they essentially showed the water-navy fetishizing of the previous films to the door. It was a crutch that TNG also tried to drop (with less success). Changing the definition of Captain harkened back to the original show and made it a much more satisfying (and 'realistic') goal for Kirk.
- The lengths to which it went to respect the original continuity were excellent without being overbearing. It's a story that relies entirely on the previous Star Trek history having happened but still seamlessly gives us a fresh start for the future, and it's a lot more believable than I would have thought possible. At the same time, it kicked things out for the sake of its story rather than simply to change up the Star Trek footprint...
- The simplicity:complexity ratio. Star Trek here is like a great video game... it's a simple linear action experience for anyone looking for such a thing and it's also a complex tapestry of timelines and off-screen history for anyone who wants more. It doesn't go out of its way to explain *anything* about the timeline switch, but everything is there for older fans to latch onto.
- Try picking the standout cast member -- you can't do it because they all did such a great job of making the original roles their own.
- Evolution. The movie did a wonderful job of moving from everything that was a little awkward (product placement, teen angst, plity Kirk) to that incredibly satisfying last scene. The music gets a big thumbs up here, supporting that exactly - how cool was working up to the original Alexander Courage music, played once the crew had come together at the end?
NOT AS GOOD
- Nero wasn't very interesting and you could feel he was just a few inches away from being a compelling villain. We needed a better sense of how tortured he was, which would have really improved him. As he is, he's a very simple villain with the occasional touch of interest (the comm greetings, for instance). The story wasn't *about* him, so it wasn't too important... but it still feels like a missed opportunity.
- New star date on the Jellyfish. I know it wouldn't work, but Spock's ship should have read a TNG stardate rather than the new makes-sense type. (For the record, I think the new star date system is great... but then I've been using it in Wing Commander for years!)
- Nods to the original serieses were absolutely stellar throughout (Pike's sweater, 47 Klingon ships destroyed, the complex salt shaker prop, Admiral Archer's Beagle, the post-Enterprise Kelvin uniforms, etc.) so I feel bad putting this in 'Not as Good'... but there were one or two that missed the nail. Specifically, the
- Coincidences, small universe syndrome. The script is full of connections that should have been a little more subtle -- dropping Kirk on Delta Vega next to Spock Prime, the various cadets being at the bar in Iowa, etc. Obviously it's a movie *about* coincidences, so it's hard to criticize entirely... but still, it felt off.
- Star Fleet Regulations -- Old Spock knowing one particular regulation was the solution to putting Kirk in charge? Really? It seemed cloying -- I think it would have worked a lot better without the specific numbered rule that would cause Spock to resign if he reacted to Kirk's taunting.
- The angry, aging Trekkies in back of us at the theater who were furious because Kirk was born on a shuttle instead of in Iowa and also because there weren't any Tribbles in the movie. Really. These are exactly the people Abrams told not to go see the movie, which is a pretty great thing for a director who wants to make money to say.
- Where was Keri Russell?!
We hired JJ Abrams for a reason, people... (seriously, did she flash by in the bar?)
BAD
- Urg, Nokia logo. I actually like a touch of product placement in Star Trek (it connects you to the world - it's entirely appropriate for Scotty to use the Yellow Pages in 1980 in Star Trek IV and Kirk to order a shot of Jack at the bar in this one) but this one was blatant and stupid. There's nothing timeless or necessary about a little glowing Nokia logo. Chris said: Nokia still exists? When was the last time you saw a Nokia phone? Answer: ten years ago in the Wing Commander movie, where they bought a similarly stupid advertising hole...
- The car chase. Young Kirk is a great example of why kid actors should be shot into the sun. It seemed unnecessary -- just have the same scene with Kirk as a rebel teen and I wouldn't go into it wanting to gouge my face off. I really feel like the Iowa scenes were shot as San Francisco scenes and then supertitled into confusion to appease some awful fans unnecessarily. Not many giant narrow car-dropping pits in Iowa, guys... and what was Star Fleet Academy doing there in the first place? Worlds most boring field trip? It's a layer of coincidence for the sake of making sure Kirk was in Iowa even though the events of his life to that point must have been completely different...
OTHER
- After we got home from seeing it twice we took out the chronology and tried to figure out exactly what's what in the new timeline. The coolest thing is that Kirk is, indeed, born at the same point at the nexus between the two (in 2233). The big differences are that the Enterprise enters service much later (Pike mentions Star Fleet losing its way, I think that was the touchstone for explaining that) and that Kirk enters the Academy five years later (obvious in the events of the film). The movie itself takes place in (I believe) 2258, which would have been during Pike's second Five Year Mission in the original timeline (so when the movie ends and the original crew is assembled it's still five or more years before Kirk would have become Captain in the original timeline).
- *Is* this a completely new style of design for everything, or did the Enterprise actually look like that during one of Pike's missions? It's entirely possible...
- If you love continuity, check out the two prequel comics ('Countdown', now in a graphic novel and then the short six-pager in this month's Wired). They're almost essential to the movie, explaining Nero's backstory and connecting the Next Generation to the events that lead up to this film. Both are written by the screenwriters behind this movie and it's totally cool that they're Star Trek fans who are into this sort of thing.
- I want my own Kelvin salt shaker *yesterday*.
Oh, pfffffft. Star Trek was never about social commentary. It happened to have a few social commentary episodes along the way, but there's no way anyone could seriously claim social commentary was the purpose behind the show. Star Trek was supposed to simply be a western in space - it was literally pitched as Wagon Train (1957) in space. Just a different adventure every week. The social commentaries appeared along the way for much the same reason as they did in the new Battlestar Galactica - because they're easier to write than a coherent, fun and interesting stand-alone story.
Star Trek wasn't about social commentary (and it *especially* wasn't about many of the things people insist today -- the whole utopian aspect we all associate with it for some reason is nowhere in the original show and then has nothing to do with pretty much any of the later stories either)... but I think you're also being a bit too cynical. Social commentary - at least the way the original Star Trek did it on the occasion that it... did do it - wasn't easier to write than a simple action piece. Star Trek had a stable of socially conscious 'lit' science fiction writers who were used to writing such stories and it must have evolved from there.
As for Wagon Train to the Stars, it's worth noting that was the *pitch*... to get money from network executives at a time when westerns and Wagon Train especially were making all the money. I once saw a Privateer remake, identical to the original in gameplay, pitched to EA as "Battlefield 1942 meets Grand Theft Auto". Which is to say that the network pitch isn't especially genuine so much as it is reflective of what's making money at the time. TOS *is* pretty clearly Hornblower in space -- coming from people who grew up with Forester writing a series of adventures rather than something that was tied together (and prequelized) later.