The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Pete Miller on 2006-11-16 at 4:29am:
  That robot walking around awkwardly running into things was the absolute best part of this episode. I also loved seeing Tuvok's extreme irritation regarding the whole silliness of the Captain Proton story.
  
  I think this is my favorite of the main holodeck programs that characters in Star Trek use (Sherlock Holmes, Vic Fontaine, Dixon Hill, Leonardo Da Vinci, and that stupid other thing Janeway did at the beginning that seemed like some Jane Austen novel)
• From Tallifer on 2011-04-24 at 9:50am:
  I would religiously watch a whole seven seasons of a series of Captain Proton!
• From packman_jon on 2012-07-05 at 4:02am:
  A holodock malfunction episode? I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE!
  
  Kidding aside, this episode parodied more than just classic Trek: The intro to "Captain Proton" seemed to feel like the serials (like Flash Gordon) of the 1930-40s - especially with the recaps and "chapters." There's a great quote also in the cold open for - "Cliffhangers - the lost art of hyberbole" - very applicable for the 1940s adventures to even now!
  
  (On a side note, Paramount probably really appreciated the intentionally cheap sets!)
  
  Easily one of my favorite Voyager episodes!
• From Zac on 2014-10-24 at 5:35pm:
  One of the best humor episodes I have seen so far in all of Star Trek. Question/problem though: when Paris is introducing himself and Tuvok to the alien, he says "I'm Ensign Paris and this is Lieutenant Tuvok." Shouldn't Tuvok at this point be referred to as "Commander Tuvok" as he was promoted to Lt Cmdr earlier on?

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From McCoy on 2017-09-18 at 3:13pm:
  Qatai was indeed a great character. I would like to see him joining the crew. But that would be a bit out of character for him. Ahab must hunt the whale... I really liked the last scene with him.
• From J B on 2021-06-03 at 11:18pm:
  Finally, a good episode after a run of many in a row that I found unpalatable. I think the framing of this episode, bookended with those scenes of Qatai-as-Ahab, is what makes it land so solidly.
  
  Early on, I also noted similarities to TNG: The Game, but for me the similarities ended when the crew became incapacitated. From there it became its own episode. Best of S5 so far.

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Rob UK on 2013-10-26 at 11:08am:
  I enjoy this episode for the quirky backdoor feelings and insight you get into the crew and life onboard, the confrontation about hearing the intimate relations was great, being on a starship in the future is like living in a tower block in modern day, i could do a nature reserve study on any one of my neighbors with great accuracy.
  
  The key swing comedy factor for me is the doctors slideshow
  
  "Here we see how fortress ovum is besieged by countless little warriors" with all the arm movements and hand gestures is a classic.
  
• From thaibites on 2015-02-14 at 12:56am:
  Another horrendous soap opera episode that gets an 8 rating from HRM Eric Newport. Are you people all gay? Unbelievable...
• From parkbench on 2016-02-12 at 9:54am:
  well, a truly mediocre episode with lackluster pacing and based purely on the novelty of seeing the characters in a banal situation. but rather than explore this in any profound way or use it to get behind some of the themes of voyager, we get more voyager aimless meandering--another crappy love interest episode that star trek is famous for, recycling a hundred stereotypes a minute and wielding them all in the least-thought out, least creative and safest character on the show--seven of nine, unfortunately little more than eye-candy in most of the episodes. it's like they felt bad for having janeway for the first few seasons and had to pander even more than they usually do. so embarrassing.
  
  apparently the writing for this one was so bad that it caused the above commenter to lower several grades of intelligence and equate mediocrity with emotions, and emotions with gay people. the discovery of the century, no doubt. i fear for this (no doubt) man, anyone who must care for him, and whatever offspring he may one day produce. be on the lookout for profound moments like this one. oh, i'm gay, by the way.
  
  anyway, back to seven. really i can't stand most episodes about her, because they read like poor imitations of Data episodes, and even some of those aren't that amazing! i found myself compelled to skip at the beginning and now wish i had.

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Pete Miller on 2006-12-24 at 2:21am:
  I thought that Janeway was really off base in this episode. She has always been something of a hypocrite, but it's really clear here. She will lecture Ransom about being ethical, and then try to execute a fellow officer. She seemed to be insane with revenge, even surpassing Sisko's obsession with Eddington. It's damn scary that she was allowed to continue in command of the ship, despite constant objections from her first and second officers regarding ethics and tactical decisions. She absolutely should have been relieved of duty, not Chakotay.
  
  This leads me to another point about Voyager that I'll keep brief. The structure and order aboard Voyager is pathetic. Janeway regularly has loud arguments with Chakotay, as well as other crewmembers, on the bridge. She NEVER listens to anyone, even (especially) if they are right. The first officer is a really weak person, and just shuts up when he is overruled. (Point in case this episode when Chakotay just goes to his room like he's been bad) Can you imagine Picard and Riker screaming at each other on the bridge, or Picard ranting to Worf loudly while they both walk out of the ready room? Of course not.
  
  Bottom Line: Janeway is a terrible captain. The worst. I'm sorry to all her fans out there, but she's irrational, impulsive, vengeful, and spiteful.
• From Bernard on 2010-03-29 at 9:58pm:
  Just been revisiting some of my favourite episodes of voyager, which isn't many, but anyway.
  
  Just a couple of comments on this episode:
  
  The two parter as a whole is very good. Unfortunately, and as per usual for Voyager as a whole, there are missed opportunities. I love the clash in styles between the two ships, I love seeing a ship that has been in the delta quadrant and under constant threat. The Equinox has obviously suffered major losses and damage, very realistic. I liked the plot in general, Janeway has to stop the renegade captain.
  
  What I don't like is how the Equinox crew are all written to be psychopaths. Why did they have to polarise the episode like that? If the lines had been made more blurry they could even have written some voyager crew as having sympathy with the Equinox crew thus creating tension between Janeway and crew. Also they could have created some sympathy for the Equinox crew from the viewer, making the inevitable ending all the more effective.
  
  I also dislike how Janeway is written for the second part of this two-parter. I agree with all of the points made by Pete. She is out of character, even for Janeway, and it seems ridiculous that Chakotay ends up relieved of duty!
• From Steve Mohns on 2012-08-23 at 4:12am:
  Agreed with the above comments. I was thinking after watching this show again, that the person who should have mutinied was Kate Mulgrew when she saw the script. After 5 seasons she should have known the character and the series well enough to recognize that this was out of character and a good way to ruin the legacy of her version of a Starship captain. The basic Captain Ahab idea of the writers was a good one. We saw it with Picard in "Star Trek: First Contact". We saw it with Kirk in "Obsession". And we saw it with Archer in the Xindi arc. In each of these cases the personal conflict that shaped the actions of those captains was a good one, and the way they responded was believable. All were well executed. But the writers did a poor job on both counts for Janeway and diminished her character in the process. And Chakotay says that mutinying would have been crossing the line? Hardly, with the behaviour she showed. Bones would have relieved her from duty in a nanosecond. Spock or Riker would have hesitated to mutiny out of Star Fleet duty. Archer or Picard would have had her in the brig to stay, and she never have been trusted again.
  
  Entertaining episode, but a major flaw.
• From Jem 5x5 on 2013-10-13 at 10:52pm:
  Just watched this episode on a first-time run through Voyager, and I genuinely thought Janeway must have been somehow possessed by the alien that knocked her over at the start of he episode, she was so wildly out of character.
• From Hugo on 2015-02-18 at 2:23pm:
  I hope we will see some of the adopted Equinox crew in the future! I thought Marla (the engineer) seemed like an interesting character.
  
  Wasn't it odd that there were only humans on Equinox btw?
• From parkbench on 2016-02-23 at 10:56am:
  i was just so absolutely happy with this two-parter. i wish every voyager episode was like this.
  
  i wish they did story arcs, or something like this kind of character depth, transformation, fragility. so many twists and unexpected turns--not in anything "dangerous", as site author mentioned (obviously Janeway was never going to be in danger)--but how the different alignments of good/evil played out, with ransom coming round in the end.
  
  i also appreciated it because it respected the intelligence of the viewer--rather than bluntly hitting us over the head with janeway going a little bonkers you see it happening slowly--and while chakotay vocalises it, other characters make noted faces or brief objections but the point is not belabored. a lot is left to the imagination which is good; there are no gratuitous scenes of people debating how far gone the captain is--still leaving it, in a sense, up in the air, though by that time i was with chakotay.
  
  and that's perhaps the greatest thing about this two-parter: it's the first time in...almost ever (with a voyager episode at least) that i felt like they truly presented the idea of principles vs. a slippery slope and it wasn't cheap or dull.
  
  finally we see what the consequences of just choosing expediency are, not merely because we should "believe" it's wrong (the unfortunately milquetoat conclusion of many lesser ST episodes across all series), but because you can see it qualitatively produces different results.
  
  everything janeway was doing as she was "becoming" ransom could be seen to deteriorate everything: strategy, morale, consistency, ethics itself--and this way the moral quandary, unlike most episodes, is actually way more polarising and tense. it's not just a vague "let's turn the other cheek and not hurt our enemies" plot, but actually mixed and compelling arguments for either approach (though i still am firmly w chakotay), in that you can see that the situation tactically can appear to call for a set of steps that, though logical, are very harmful in the long run.
  
  these are how real-life situations, and real-life violence is. it is very layered and complex. it often deteriorates into bloated, festering situations that go way beyond their original scope and launch a sort of dragnet drawing all kinds of people into its maw that have varying levels of agency and responsibility, as well as being coerced into it. and rather than that all of that being a reason to just abjure responsibility and try to pretend that everyone is right, or that everyone's wrong in some kind of simplistic relativism (because ultimately, action needs to be taken)...we get an episode that tells the hardest story of all: that in the DEPTHS of these moments, in the very hardest of them, is when we must STILL center ourselves, even more than usual, b/c your moral center can get away with you in a blink of an eye, and it will not be dramatic: it will be gradual, until it's sudden. if you catch my drift.
  
  in real-life genocides, massacres, mass sterilisation programs, ethnic cleansing projects, violent statecraft, you name it--this is the dilemma. there is such a complex set of decisions and procedures to arrive at the result--millions of dead beings--that it is impossible for any one person to execute. it requires the consent of and infiltration of massive social structures, which also implies culpability for more than just the "leader". the whole scenario itself becomes a toxic lake baptisiing its swimmers with an unholy burden--enough ethical dilemmas to last a life time, and if one does not take a stand, look for an alternate route, and potentially even face death (a scary thought indeed), one inevitably ends up part of it. the platitudes about german society being partner to the shoah would come right about here.
  
  and on that note, as i have no doubt said before in a million places and on this very site, i will always come back to hannah arendt's "the banality of evil", and say that this is precisely the scary thing: that the question of evil is not one of supervillains, but of its being actually quite banal--something that can appear so simple, and often executed by seemingly "normal" people, that it escapes us if we always think about the Big Bad and not the true evil that permeates the systems that surround us, affecting everyone and leaving no-one untouched.
  
  this is why i don't think janeway was 'out of character', as some people mentioned. if you look carefully, you can see that beneath the cool exterior there is an inner seriousness and sort of uncompromising passion that drives her to do her "job"--even in a situation where there is (potentially) no federation to do a job for. like most people in high places, she is a mix of intelligent (in a calculating sense) and ruthlessly ambitious, not merely a "nice person" who knows how to run a
  bureaucracy, but somebody who had to work incessantly and no doubt beat out other people for her position--such are top-down military hierarchies. and most high-ranking jobs require a certain kind of total sacrifice of the person to the job itself, an insane thing to ask of a person but also why it is so easy to lose yourself and be corrupted in such roles. even if we imagine a rich CEO vacationing and enjoying all their life at a level of luxury almost no one experiences--as in, "how could this be sacrifice?"--you are still losing a piece of your soul, since it is this very luxury that provides the direct incentive to blithely make horrifying, oppressive decisions on the daily (remember that worldwide colonialism almost always began as a business venture, the most famous case being the east india trading company).
  
  the fact the we haven't seen more of this side of her is actually the weirder part. seeing her inner passion, obsession with the federation ideal & image--the only thing she has LEFT in this land far away from her home--totally makes sense to me, and again, when people break, they are not usually "the joker". they break and they act increasingly off until you don't recognise them anymore--and her stubbornness only made me enjoy this more. because frustrating as it was, rather than capitulate to chakotay, she truly had tunnel vision until it was over. and if you've ever gotten yourself into a rut and lost yourself, well...that tunnel vision is real. and it's f'ed up. i do wish she had repented a little more at the end. but at least they sort of tease it out.
  
  now i can only hope--though i doubt--that this sets up the 'maquis dynamic' we always wanted for voyager, with the theme of these new crew members integrating into the crew and janeway's dance with the devil, the other side of the line that marks the prime directive. my god, that would be amazing; halfway through pt. 2 i even imagined a battlestar reboot-style season where they chase the equinox onto that planet and crash land there, leading to a whole season where they have to figure out how to survive on this planet as they repair voyager and interact begrudgingly with the survivors of the other crew, also showing how janeway's heedlessness lead to real consequences--a la bg on caprica...and yes, i clearly am a noob for having seen BG and not voyager first :P.
  
  now THAT would've been brave. but we know that that's not what voyager's about...at least, unless it's about to surprise me...
  
  thanks to kethinov for giving us over-thinkers an outlet for our grey matter.
• From McCoy on 2017-10-09 at 4:40pm:
  I see a problem with The Doctor. Two things: Why he didn't completed his surgery on Seven's brain? He had enough time to turn her into vegetable.
  And second, far more important - just when exactly his ethical subroutines were activated again? On Eqinox he was evil, then after beaming on Voyager boom, and he's good again? Why?
  I was thinking all the time, he's just faking his psychopatic behavior, because he evolved so much, he doesn't need ethical subroutines to act ethically (I was even thinking he uploaded Seven's image into Ransoms "vids" to influence him). Just like human brain can sometimes take over functions of his damaged part - Doctors program could do the same. But well, it's not the case. A bit of wasted opportunity.
• From Mike J on 2023-11-13 at 11:56pm:
  A lot of fair criticisms of Janeway in this episode. One comment above compares this with Kirk, Picard, and Archer in their various "Captain Ahab" moments. And I think someone else added Sisko with Michael Eddington.
  
  The difference between all of those, and this, comes down to writing and acting. Neither Mulgrew nor the writers sold me on the idea that Janeway was consumed by revenge. I got the impression she was just intentionally being stubborn about pursuing Ransom with no real emotional or logical reason for doing so, because that's what was in the script. And I have to say, Beltran didn't sell me on the protesting First Officer role, either. To me, this two-parter illustrates one of the main problems with Voyager: bad acting.
  
  Now, Mulgrew and Beltran are both talented actors, and there are plenty of fantastic Janeway and Chakotay moments in this series. But it wasn't consistent. I feel like there were often breakdowns between the writers and the actors on Voyager, and comments by Robert Beltran in the years since Voyager went off the air convince me that's true, as well as Garrett Wang and a couple others. I think some of the other cast members had frustrations about how their characters were being written.
  
  In any case, this was an exciting two-parter. I also feel like Equinox gave us an example of how things might've turned out for Voyager. As the webmaster said, we rarely got the sense that Voyager was in dire straights during their long journey across the galaxy; Equinox, on the other hand, reflects a formerly noble Starfleet crew that has been reduced to a desperate rabble living on the edge of privation. It was an astonishing contrast that I wish had been more thoroughly explored.

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From badure on 2011-12-15 at 7:02am:
  I actually thought this was easily the best psychological exploration of the Borg in all of Star Trek (much better than TNG's I Borg), and one of the best Seven of Nine episodes in all of Voyager.
  
  The triad's description of what it was like to be intimately and perpetually linked to two others was fascinating and quite compelling.
  
  Basically, by "scaling down" the notion of belonging to a collective intelligence, reducing it down to just a group of three, effectively demonstrates what its really like to be sentient but not fully differentiated...no other episode gets this across as well as this one.
  
  There are other redeeming features in the episode, but that's the main one, and a very important feat. I gave it a 10.
  
  

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From TheAnt on 2013-10-09 at 9:54am:
  This is one of the very best Voyager episodes, and that on several levels.
  One good touch is that we get to experience the development and speculation of the alien race on the nature of Voyager.
  And we are presented with a good idea that provides a sense of wonder.
  
  (Though not completely original, the compressed time theme have been used in at least one novel about life on one neutron star, and this is also to some part reminiscent of "Mission of Gravity" by Harry 'Hal' Clement.)
  
  The problem I see is why the visiting astronauts would be slowed down as much as they are unable to communicate with their mission control. Yet get to see the crew of Voyager frozen to statues?
  But it provide with some cool scenes so I can let that detail pass.
  
  Full score and a must see IMO.
• From Fic on 2014-02-16 at 10:41am:
  I absolutely loved this episode. However, I'm surprised that a rather sizable problem hasn't been picked up.
  
  I'm not sure if the time rate differential is quite consistent throughout the episode.
  
  If one second is nearly a day as Seven points out, then surely a few hours wouldn't represent the "rise and fall of a civilization" as Chakotay says... a few hours would be equal a similar number of decades! Above all: how much time in Earth years would have passed between the primitive civilization we encounter at the start of the episode, and the highly advanced civilization who tug Voyager free? 3000? 4000? Let's say the former - on Voyager, this would correspond to two weeks. Were they really stuck in orbit that long? I guess one could check stardates and all, but my impression was that they were there for a couple of days. The only way to explain this away is to state that the development of the civilization was hugely accelerated by Voyager's presence, such that they went through millennia of Earth's development in several centuries. Possible, but it would have been nice to clarify.
  
  Of course, this doesn't detract from the fact that the episode is one of the Voyager episodes that will stick with me - in fact, on my recent revisitation of the series, I was eagerly awaiting "The weird planet displaced in time"... ;-)
  
  To sum it up, it's a 9 for me.
• From Mike on 2017-06-04 at 2:16am:
  I agree this is fantastic science fiction. This is Voyager's Darmok: an encounter with a unique species (or rather, their unique world) that is difficult to make contact with but ultimately efforts are successful.
  
  The episode is fascinating on many levels. The rapidly rotating world was amazing to see. The progress of a civilization, and how Voyager was perceived at different stages of that progress, was also remarkably shown in such a short time. I also liked the episode's showing how cultural taboos are formed, in this case a taboo developed around the eating of "fire fruit" as a result of Voyager's arrival and the tremors coinciding with an offering containing fire fruits. And like you say the idea of having the inhabitants make contact with Voyager, initially out of sync, was a very nice twist.
  
  In response to Fic: if we assume Voyager is using Earth measurements of time in its conversion, then one "Earth day" seems to be approximately 250 years. That is enough time for a civilization to rise and fall as we've had many in our history that didn't last that long. So Chakotay's assessment is possible.
  
  As for the other point, I think the episode drops a few hints agreeing with your reasoning as to why the species goes from Stone Age to warp-capable in a few centuries. The desire to signal, contact, and eventually reach Voyager has been their collective focus for generations. It fueled their progress. When Voyager is under attack, Chakotay says that they've done enough damage to the inhabitants over the last thousand years. Even if he's using that figuratively, it implies that Voyager has been in orbit for 3 or 4 days. That seems about right.
• From McCoy on 2017-10-17 at 2:58pm:
  Great fiction, but terrible science. I admit, this episode is enjoyable but only if you switch your brain in offline mode:)
  If the planet rotates so fast - what with day/night cycle on the surface? And how the planet orbits sun? Fast too? Or normal?
  Plus Voyager arrives in stone age - too convenient:) And we suppose to believe this planet just exist in space from eons of normal time and life is evolving now? They should have warp capable civilization before Mars lost his atmosphere:)
• From Axel on 2018-06-08 at 10:32pm:
  DOCTOR: "He was my...son."
  
  GOTANA-RETZ: "But you're a hologram"
  
  DOCTOR: "It's a long story. He's dead by now. But perhaps you could discover what happened to him. Maybe he had children, or grandchildren, if you could tell them..."
  
  JANEWAY: "Janeway to Doctor. I hate to ruin a touching moment, but may I remind you WE ARE UNDER ATTACK by anti-matter torpedoes! Shut up and let that guy get back to the planet!!!"
  
  Anyway, I don't think there are as many problems with this as pointed out. It would still have a day-night cycle if it rotates; the speed wouldn't be perceptible to the inhabitants any more than our relatively fast rotation is perceptible to us. Its revolutions around its star aren't mentioned, and don't need to be. The time difference was already explained: Voyager's only been in orbit a few days which is centuries on the planet. Finally, the planet might've had other civilizations that rose and fell, as Torres and Chakotay imply at one point. I don't think you have to shut your brain off to enjoy this. You just have to keep in mind that it's sci-fi.
• From jtax on 2022-02-18 at 8:25pm:
  Janeway: "I'm beaming you down there for three seconds, Doctor. THat's almost two days in their timeframe. Gather seismic charts, meteorological records, whatever you can..."
  
  I'm just trying to imagine gathering that kind of stuff in two days. I know he ends up being there a lot longer, but...what do they expect him to do? Walk into the nearest weather station or research lab and say, "hey, you guys know where I can score some charts or seismic data? I need as much as you can give me, and I'd really appreciate it if you didn't ask me any questions at all about why I need it..."
  
  I also love B'Elanna verbally counting out the three seconds. Sometimes, you just don't need to get all high-tech to get the job done.
  
  I agree though, great episode. One of Voyager's better ones. The series ages well because you can watch the good ones and skip over the bad.

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Tony on 2008-09-04 at 11:03pm:
  A brilliant episode except for one thing: I'd like to either have the aliens in the debris field play a larger part in the story, or have them removed entirely. As is, they seem rather random, almost like the writer(s) said, "Hey, we need some action to fill this part, let's add some hostile aliens." Provided, it would seem odd not including and implant stealing scene, and it would be a dull suene if they just took the implant and left, but I feel that they could have done better. Otherwise a great episode.
• From McCoy on 2017-10-29 at 7:48am:
  I think my ocular implant was malfunctioning while watching this. 10/10.

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Hatstacks on 2008-11-22 at 7:04am:
  Is it bad I liked the 7/Doc better than both 7 of 9 and the Doctor? Best show of the season, hands down.
• From Hugo von Ahlenius on 2015-12-17 at 7:23am:
  Great to see the hard-headed aliens not being so hard-headed!
• From parkbench on 2016-03-07 at 10:10am:
  oh, come on guys...really? this episode had some fun star trek moments, but it was one of the laziest i've seen in awhile.
  
  first of all, somehow a prisoner-captor dynamic becomes 'innocent flirting' that everyone, including other members of the alien ship casually shrug off, with no explanation. even if we assume they're sadistic and don't care about fraternising with those they kidnap, that's not how it's portrayed at all--we're just supposed to take it for granted that 'you get lonely on a ship'. riight.
  
  then, while it was a joy to see jeri ryan do something new--just like w/ reg in the last episode, and the doctor before that--as a plot it was also preposterous. we're to believe a jumble of photons that comes to sentience inherently has a gender identity and sexual expression? just b/c "he" is programmed to look a certain way, look how long it has taken for him to learn and naturally 'feel' other human traits as simple as sarcasm or singing. and somehow one of the most complex of those--sexual attraction and gender expression--which is by no means fixed, is just naturally read (unsurprisingly) as the doctor being a straight male...
  
  yes, we could retcon a decision somewhere along the way to artificially restrict his curiosity to what he perceives as the opposite sex and the 'correct' sexual attraction he feels for "his" gender, but the problem of believability is his disgust when renek or whoever tries to kiss him in 7's body. it just doesn't make sense. if anyone was to have an open-minded view of sexuality, it would be the doctor, who is curious about all human experience. i can't imagine he would have disgust for something which the show hasn't even hinted at allowing him to explore.
  
  and obviously, you can point to "relationships" he's had in the past, which i've had the same issues with--but episodes like this, just like his initial attraction to 7 herself, strain credulity. i'm going to go out on a limb and say that zimmerman didn't program EMH with a sexual drive per se--meaning it is, like many of us, a mix of inclinations and deliberate filtering. since this show would never explore such themes--why take them on? oh yes, it is a lazy, bottom-of-the-barrel technique to get a surefire filler/fan-cruft episode out of the way and keep moving.
  
  but none of that even matters since this weird melodrama is during their captivity! where is this episode going? the writers certainly don't know, other than a heaping mountain of excuses to get jeri ryan to prance around the screen in a skin-tight suit.
  
  so, in conclusion: the scenes jump back and forth and the pon farr plot is totally disconnected. lots of "telling" rather than "showing" moments (the doctor comparing himself and seven's respective traits in the jail cell). a weak sci-fi bro "wink-wink" premise that is barely fleshed out.
  
  yeah...this episode was purely fun for the technical enjoyment of actors doing new things, not for anything else.
• From Dstyle on 2016-03-10 at 4:31pm:
  Just wanted to comment to give parkbench a shout out: I'm loving all of your commentary!
• From tigertooth on 2018-02-23 at 5:09am:
  Even though it goes without saying, the Seven-as-Doctor stuff was great. She didn't totally get the eyes right, but that might have been a restriction due to the prosthetics she had to wear. The vocal tics were fantastic, and the body language was great, too.
  
  I assumed the Doctor was heterosexual because Zimmerman, on whom he was based, was. Seems pretty simple to me.
• From Graham Bessellieu on 2019-09-10 at 2:22am:
  This was a charming and hilarious episode! I re-watched on a whim and was most pleasantly surprised. It's some of the most fun I've seen on Voyager. :)
  
  Wholeheartedly recommended to any fans of Seven or the Doctor. Logged as a personal favorite.

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Pete Miller on 2007-03-26 at 8:11pm:
  So Janeway will use the research from Crell Moset, even though it was obtained through illicit means. Yet she won't use the device that the aliens got by killing some other people?
  
  Seems like another Janeway contradiction to me.
• From Jane on 2012-06-26 at 8:44pm:
  Pete miller you have commented negatively on every Voyager episode omg!! get a life or go back to watching DS9 seriously.
• From Psycroptic on 2013-05-29 at 2:18am:
  He has a point, she's a very inconsistent character
• From Dstyle on 2015-08-10 at 7:29pm:
  I watched this episode over a week ago and I can't stop thinking about those awesome aliens native to the Void. Where did they come from? I imagine they were originally a space-faring species that got stuck in the Void millions and millions of year ago, and over time evolved and adapted to become the species they are today. But there are only so many ships in the Void, so there can't be many of this species around. Fascinating.
  
  You know what else I find fascinating? The discussion that has cropped up in the comments to this episode (if you can call three comments spread out over the course six years a "discussion"). I've been thinking a lot about Janeway as I've watched this series and read reactions to the episodes, and there seems to be a lot of anti-Janeway comments: she's a bad leader, she's inconsistent, she makes bad decisions, etc. Some of this is a result of the show being a bit of a disappointment in general: some great premises, but uneven writing and execution. But you know what other show was sometimes inconsistent and uneven? Star Trek: The Next Generation. I bet we can all think of some bad TNG epsiodes where someone was acting horribly out of character, or someone was terribly inconsistent or made some questionable leadership decisions with zero consequences. Yet you don't see comments about what a bad leader Picard is or how he makes contradictory decisions. I don't see a lot of people who dislike Picard because of these episodes, but I do see people hating on Janeway for the same sins. When Picard makes a frustrating or questionable leadership decision he is either given the benefit of the doubt--the issues are seldom black and white, after all--or the blame is placed on the writers (see TNG 2x15 "Pen Pals" for an example of some of this: a thoroughly awful episode IMO). So what's the difference?
  
  You all know what the difference is. Janeway is a woman. I know folks tend to get all offended and clutch their pearls when anyone dares be so impolite to suggest that maaaaaaybe, just maaaaybe, they're being a little unconsciously sexist. But I definitely see sexism at play when I look at the ways all the different Star Trek captains are discusses by the fans. Picard has a bad episode, people blame the writers. Janeway has a bad episode, she's a bad, inconsistent captain.
  
  Here's a fun game you can try: if you're one of the folks who dislikes Janeway, whenever she does something you don't like pretend it was an episode of TNG and Jean-Luc Picard was the captain. Still a bad decision? Or was it, perhaps, the actions of a complex and fallible character? Or just bad writing? Rinse and repeat as needed.
• From QuasiGiani on 2017-10-08 at 11:35pm:
  Co-operation is logical.
  
  Simply put: this is the litmus test.
  
  Yes, yes, if you do not get this; if you do not recognize this; if you need to get pedantic in the face of this... you are not a true fan.
  
  Clutch* clutch cluck cluck cluck.
  
  It is the truth.
  
  And is The Truth.
  
  Co-operation is logical.
  
  (*DStyle, let the clutchers clutch, let the reactionaries react, as the "cards" are laid bare. You goddamned right.)

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Dstyle on 2015-08-05 at 9:42pm:
  Despite possessing the complete technical knowledge of the Borg Collective, the aliens of the week decide to make Seven of Nine their new Efficiency Officer. Geez, if you're going to criminally underutilize her, why not just put her in charge of handing out paper towels in the bathroom?

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Corporal Crust on 2007-04-01 at 8:54am:
  I felt this episode was quite terrible. It tried to be too much, and in the process was ultimately nothing. Had the writers not banked so much in the knee-slapping hilarity of masterwork, "Photons be Free", we could have had a decent story. I guess we had to get to holo-rights soon or later. Since we're six episodes away from no more voyager, this would be far to much later. Better time would have been spent on the doctor logging time in the holodeck for his first sexual experience, or medical breakthough. Two hyposprays down....way down.
• From Alec on 2010-01-16 at 8:28am:
  I think this episode portrays Tuvok's legal skills (and anyone else who assisted) very poorly if they could not even mention Data's case in TNG: The Measure of a Man. It seems as though referencing that case would be an extremely obvious and effective tactic.
• From zook on 2011-08-22 at 2:14am:
  No matter what you think of this episode, you have to love Tulok's evil Vulcan goatee. Nice nod to TOS.
• From Rick on 2014-02-21 at 11:44pm:
  Same flaw as in Measure of a Man: even if the Doctor was ruled not to have rights, then Starfleet would own the rights because they own the Doctor. There is no way for the publisher to win.
• From MrSoftware on 2023-01-09 at 8:17am:
  Very interesting watching this episode in January 2023, six+ months into the popular rise of AI generated art (Midjourney and Dall-E etc) and a few weeks/ months into the popularity of AI ChatGPT for writing. The issues feel more relevant now than perhaps possible to reviewers in the past - and it was impressive to me how well the episode navigated them and balanced with both humor and an array of turns that all felt true to the characters.
  
  Also found it funny that the “live view” of Earth was ultra famous 1970s photo The Blue Marble.

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From g@g on 2012-01-25 at 8:32am:
  Ok, I'm not quite done with the episode but I think there's a bit of a problem here. On Voyager, the doc acts like he's Neo from the Matrix, aerial kung fu included... then when he's beamed onto the ex-hierarchy vessel, he's quiet and obedient as a lamb. Doesn't really square. That's not even mentioning the fact that photons should probably be able to pass through a force-field, no? Otherwise the forcefield would be opaque (I'm sure there's lots of examples of holograms and the doc in particular going through forcefields in previous episodes, I just can't quite list them at the moment - rather sure he's done so pretty much anytime he's confined someone in sickbay). So, his sudden powerlessness could've been tweaked or explained or something. Both otherwise awesome episode (so far).
• From Vengeance on 2012-07-07 at 2:55pm:
  Photons may be able to pass through a forcefield, but the Doctor's mobile emitter certainly couldn't.
• From Rick on 2013-04-24 at 1:28am:
  More treason from the doctor with no consequences. Special rights for oppressed minorities, where have I heard this before? I do agree with the reviewer that everything the doctor did was stupid but the episode was still pretty good.
• From QuasiGiani on 2017-11-09 at 1:46pm:
  "Special rights for oppressed minorities, where have I heard this before?"
  
  Nazi rallys. Limbaa radio. Reagan/Bush campaign stumps.
  
  Pretty much anywhere AWMs are being suckled and suckered.
  
  ...
  
  Excellent episode.
  
  Loved the death-bed confessions. Especially loved how 7Of9knew what was coming and did her best to get him to stop!
  
  Was hoping they'd "adopt" the guy from Hierarchy.
  
  But what does it matter, dammit?! Only one episode left. I cannot watch it! I cannot look away! Goodbye my friends! Speak well of me!

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From warp factor 10.1 on 2012-08-09 at 4:21pm:
  The reason I was looking forward to a prequel series was that the wonder and excitement of first contact would be so great. It was a big disappointment therefore when species started coming thick and fast and aliens we had never seen before were almost commonplace. All we needed was a subset of the many species found in TOS. There was still plenty of opportunity to discover how we came across them etc. This was done with the Andorians but that was all.
  
  Although two of my favourite episodes of all are to do with time I usually don't like them and basing a story arc on some incomprehensible time story was again disappointing for me.
  
  There was some good stuff in this series but for me it was all to do with finding out more about known alien species.
• From TK8 on 2012-11-07 at 5:33pm:
  As a kid who was a bit of an amateur astronomer and TOS through to the present form of Star Trek fan, forgive a pet peeve here. Rigel was named by Arabic astronomers hundreds of years ago. Archer says, it's called Rigel as if was an alien moniker. How's that for a nerdy niggle? This is the first comment I've posted on the internet since 1996.
• From OmicronThetaDeltaPhi on 2015-02-25 at 12:47pm:
  @TK8 Actually, the "Rigel" thing wasn't an error, but a correction of a blunder made in TOS. The Original Series made several references to a star system named "Rigel" which is fairly close to earth.
  
  For years fans have assumed that this was supposed to be the real (human named) star Rigel, which is problematic because the real Rigel is over 800 light years away.
  
  So the 'Enterprise' writers cleverly solved this decades-old problem, by stating that Star Trek's 'Rigel' is an alien name for a nearby star. A star that has nothing to do with the human-named 'Rigel', except for the coincidence of the two names sounding alike.
  

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Pete Miller on 2006-12-18 at 6:22am:
  The temporal cold war was just a bad idea. WTF are they thinking doing a prequel like this and then going around all cavalier-like and fucking things up?
  
  The whole "We can't get you back to your own time" thing was dumb. Of course he gets back to his own time. Not convincing.
  
  That faceless bad guy is soooo stereotypical. He reminds me of a James Bond bad guy or something. "Do you remember what happened the last time you failed me?" What is this guy, Darth Vader?
• From Zorak on 2016-09-26 at 3:21pm:
  Like most episodes of Enterprise, this was well done and enjoyable despite it's glaring flaws. I definitely agree that the Temporal Cold War stuff really doesn't belong, but it's never the plot that really grates on me. Instead it's usually a combination of Archer being Archer and one specific scene.
  
  Putting the Archer stuff aside (I mean come on, despite all evidence to the contrary he is 100% certain his actions destroyed the colony and refuses to consider any other possibilities), it's the boarding of the Suliban vessel that bothered me in this one.
  
  This scene is far too Star Wars-y for my taste. Archer, T'pol, and Trip are not Han, Luke, and Leia. They shouldn't be running through the Death Star and taking out battalions of storm troopers despite all odds. Star Trek isn't a space opera. It's sci-fi with a heavy focus on social commentary and characterization. Even with support from stun grenades and the Enterpirse, it's completely illogical for 3 officers (the senior most officers at that)to attempt a boarding action against all odds for the sake of action scenes.
  
  I guess the core of what bothers me is the writers relying on Archer making poor decisions to drive the plot and action forward. It makes it very difficult to root for Archer and like him as a captain.

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Wayne on 2009-07-24 at 12:27am:
  Roxann Dawson did the voice of the station computer as well as directed this episode. I built a windows theme using Roxann's voice from this episode and "Dreadnought" from Voyager. I met Roxann at a Star Trek Convention and was a little bit in love with her (ok a lot in love with her.) She's is so tiny, pretty and sweet.
• From Kethinov on 2009-07-24 at 12:54am:
  That's one of the creepiest comments I've ever seen posted here, but I must admit it made me smile. :)
• From TS on 2012-07-28 at 5:14am:
  This episode reminded me of the video for ZZ Top's "Rough Boy"

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From EKH on 2007-05-02 at 8:34pm:
  Why does this movie get so much flak? Sure, it is darker than most Trek, but it is still a good movie.
  And the final confrontation is any spacecraft lover's wet dream!
• From JTL on 2008-01-15 at 7:18am:
  I believe the critics hit TNG:Nemesis too hard.
  
  Yes, the Romulans aren't as captivating as the terror-race of cyborgs that is the Borg, but the movie had a good deal of effort put into it; and a great execution to boot! It is a solid TNG finale.
• From Al Rizan on 2008-05-17 at 7:29pm:
  This movie was horrible. I can't believe there are people actually saying it was good. The director was the same guy who directed U.S. Marshals! He made the movie into an action packed, explosive filled story that doesn't belong in star trek. The plot was okay but the characters and outlook were so dark in their natures it wasn't pleasant to watch.
• From Nick on 2010-09-01 at 12:32am:
  This movie is terrible, terrible, terrible. I was astounded that it got as high a rating as it did.
  
  -Shinzon's motives make no sense.
  -Shinzon's existence makes no sense.
  -B4's existence was retconned and handled far too lightly. It was the only potential for character development here.
  -The Troi mind rape scene was unnecessary and in poor taste.
  -The dune buggy chase was campier than anything in ST:V, and they went camping in that movie.
  -Overall it feels like an action movie with Star Trek terms and themes thrown in, not a Star Trek movie. The last 3 Star Trek films have had that problem.
  -At the end, we learn nothing.
  
  -This film killed the Next Generation film series. No other films will be made in the main continuity of Star Trek now. Only reimagings.
• From tigertooth on 2010-12-14 at 4:22am:
  I thought this was better than Insurrection, and generally good, though it certainly had flaws, as mentioned above. The mindrape thing seemed like it was originally intended to be a bigger subplot. Once they decided to cut it for time (I'm guessing), they just should have killed it altogether rather than give it short shrift as they did.
  
  Honestly, though, I'm mostly posting just to mention the huge missed opportunity:
  
  When Shinzon gets impaled through the chest at the end, I suddenly freaked out and got excited! I expected him to look down at the metal piercing through his heart, then throw his head back and laugh. That would have been a great reference to "Tapestry" (and Picard's history generally). And to those unfamiliar with that detail, it would have simply come across as Shinzon being creepy.
  
  It would have worked perfectly, and I can't believe nobody thought of it. Why on earth did they kill Shinzon via impaling if they weren't going to go that route?
• From Axel on 2015-06-01 at 5:11am:
  I agree about the timing problems and storyline omissions in this movie. It could've actually been more than just another TNG film, incorporating DS9/VOY characters (other than Janeway) and building on those arcs a bit. Voyager especially leaves a lot of unanswered questions, mainly about whether the Borg survived that pathogen at all. Using the Romulans to set up the antagonist made sense. DS9: WYLB mentioned that they and the Federation would be the main powers in the Alpha Quadrant for a while. This movie could've focused more on that than Shinzon's own personal agenda. And, Worf's involvement in this one doesn't make any sense. In First Contact and Insurrection, reuniting him with the Enterprise crew was explained decently. But isn't he the Federation ambassador to the Klingon Empire now? Joining the Enterprise crew just because he was there for Riker and Troi's wedding seems like a real stretch.
  
  But this is honestly the only one of the TNG movies I didn't like. It had an exciting premise, but there were just so many parts of it that seemed very far removed from what made TNG a great TV series. Some scenes just seem like they were contrived action for the big screen, like the high-speed buggy. The fact that there was apparently a fifth movie in the works that was supposed to tie up all the loose TNG threads but which didn't get produced because of Nemesis "franchise fatigue" makes me even more dissatisfied with this one.
• From Graham Bessellieu on 2019-09-08 at 4:05am:
  Honestly, the studio should be ashamed of this film.
  
  It starts out excellent. The wedding scene is a lovely reunion with just the right mixture of humor and camaraderie. Then it's all downhill from there.
  
  The performances and overall tone of the entire film are stilted, monochromatic, and with an air of graveness. There is almost no humor or levity (which First Contact as a fellow action film knew how to balance skillfully). There is no *heart* to the film, which is the essence of Trek.
  
  The rape scene (as Nick mentioned) is in *extreme* poor taste and unnecessary. Shinzon is well acted, but underdeveloped. And unlike Kethinov's reaction, I found Data's death (one of my favorite Trek characters of all time, I might add) to have not much emotional depth, or gravitas to it. Certainly nothing matching the performance of Spock in ST:II. I found it somewhat arbitrary.
  
  Data's sign-off would have been more appropriate in another context and if tied in closer to his ark with both Geordi and Picard.
  
  It doesn't even function well as an action film, in my opinion. I found the second-half drawn out and without the narrative foundation to keep the action justified. Overall, a very disappointing finale to TNG.
  
  Thankfully, with the news of the upcoming "Picard" the TNG narrative finale will have a chance to redeem itself! Crossing fingers.

No fan commentary yet.

No fan commentary yet.

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Dstyle on 2015-10-28 at 2:14pm:
  One of the things that has always bothered me with Vulcans on this show is how transparently emotional they are. They pay lip service to logic and the suppression of emotions, then they act illogically and emotionally all the damn time. Those tempers flare so easily! So quick to show impatience! I have to ignore it to just enjoy the show, but some times it's harder than other times. I mean, I get it: it's hard to have effective dramatic tension when all the characters are speaking about serious matters with seemingly polite, casual disinterest, but that's how Vulcans need to play it. I'm starting to think playing a Vulcan is far more difficult than most actors realize, and we were all just spoiled by the great performances of Leonard Nimoy. The emotional Vulcan behavior was really starting to bother me during this story line, but I think this episode might perhaps be trying to provide an explanation for that, what with the "getting away from the teachings of Surak" and all. I guess we'll see how it all plays out, eh?

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Bob on 2012-03-26 at 11:26am:
  OK... so this annoys me, if you watch Balance of Terror, where the Enterprise fist meets the Romulans, Spock says no human has seen a Romulan, because viewscreens where not availiable during the Earth - Romulan war!!
  
  So...just saying we are not seeing the Roulans now is not enough, because your just ignoring the very reason Spock gave!! Either follow the written history,or dont...on this basis the entire Enterprise series is not canon because they have viewscreens. Also, spock makes it clear the Romulan war is fought with old nuclear(?) technology, not phasers and photon torpedoes....*sigh*
• From Kethinov on 2012-03-26 at 9:56pm:
  Spock's exact line was this: "As you may recall from your histories, this conflict was fought by our standards today with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels which allowed no quarter, no captives. Nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communication. Therefore, no human, Romulan, or ally has ever seen the other."
  
  He didn't say there were not viewscreens. He said there was no ship-to-ship visual communication. That statement allows for Enterprise's interpretation that the Romulans possessed the capability but refrained from using it to conceal their identities. No continuity error there.
  
  As for "primitive atomic weapons," that one is harder to rationalize. Spock did also say "by our standards today" though which could imply that the phasers and photon torpedos of Ent and TOS may in fact be based on some type of atomic power, with Ent's simply being less advanced.
• From krs321 on 2012-11-02 at 3:29pm:
  Yeah, the only thing that's way off is the use of atomic weapons. There is obviously no way this is reconcilable with any timeline. I don't think the writers even wanted to waste time on it.
  
  I don't recall which, but there is an episode where the Enterprise is damaged by an old nuclear weapon and I'm pretty sure by now we'd have heard if the NX-1 used atomic-based weapons vs antimatter weapons (slash the antimatter-engine powered phase-cannons)
• From Hugo on 2020-05-13 at 5:07pm:
  Go Sato!
  
  The whole plot with the insider spy felt unnecessary...

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Dstyle on 2015-11-05 at 7:33pm:
  Gannet: "Travis, I'm not a member of Terra Prime. I'm a member of Star Fleet Intelligence."(at this point every single person watching the show realizes that this is true, because there'd be no reason to include it in the script otherwise)
  Travis: "So why don't you tell Captain Archer? One call to your superior and you'd be out of this brig in a second."
  Gannet: "Sure and have the real Terra Prime operative know who I am?"
  Travis: "Or, you know, just tell Archer anyway, because if there is a Terra Prime operative at large on this ship it'd be incredibly irresponsible of you to not do anything about it. Archer doesn't have to let you out or let anyone other than his senior staff know anything, but if what you're saying is true then you're absolutely telling the wrong person right now. I'm sure you must have some sort of protocol you're supposed to follow in situations like this. Didn't they teach you anything at your space-spy training school?"
  Gannet: <flashes a knowing, come-hither look> "Hey, why did you and I break up again?"
  Travis: <rolls eyes, walks out>
  
  
• From Hugo on 2020-05-12 at 8:54pm:
  I was waiting for the mayor from Buffy to bring out his crazy side... !
  
  The lunar mining facility didn't impress me - it looked more like an alien prison camp. At the time of Enterprise it should have been more factory-like and with more machines/robots...
• From Mitch O on 2021-03-19 at 10:40am:
  Bit of a continuity error in this episode. They talk with surprise that Vulcans and Humans can have a child together, but the characters already know this from the season 3 episode E2. Wh

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Lennier on 2009-05-11 at 5:24am:
  I can't for the life of me figure out when Majel Barrett's voice is used for the computer... Does anyone know when her voice comes up?
• From JRPoole on 2009-05-11 at 10:59am:
  For many years, you were in love with an incredibly smart, beautiful woman. She excited you, challenged you, changed the way you thought about the universe and humanity's place in it, and she gave you hope that maybe, just maybe, everything was going to work out in the end. Most people failed to understand your attraction to this woman. Even you had to admit that sometimes she was embarrassingly corny, and it was often hard to tell whether she was taking herself way too seriously or just making a big joke. But you loved her, and you were willing to forgive her flaws. She came back to you in several different guises over the years, most of them a little different and better than before, but in the end she drifted away. Then suddenly, she comes roaring back into your life. She's got a whole new attitude, and she's sleeker and sexier than she's ever been. But something just doesn't feel right, like the love of your life has been replaced by a pod person, and though you know that you should be happy she's back, you can't help but think about how it used to be. That's what J.J. Abrams' newly "rebooted" Star Trek is going to feel like to many longtime fans of the franchise.
  
  Abrams set out to completely re-imagine the entire Trek universe, and he has succeeded. The script of the film gives him a neat little loophole for doing that, since the events of this movie take place in an alternate time line, an entirely separate reality created when the elderly Spock's attempt to prevent the Romulan sun from going supernova fails. This drags our villain, a newly stylized Romulan by the name of Nero, into the past, where he kills James Kirk's father just as the future captain is being born. It seems that Nero now has a bone to pick with Spock, and devotes the next 25 years to finding the young Spock in order to force him to watch as he creates an artificial black hole to destroy the entire planet of Vulcan.
  
  Abrams has done well with all the characters we've come to love. The now fatherless Kirk, played adequately by Chris Pine, is a more interesting and fully realized character than William Shatner's Kirk. Thankfully, Pine's performance doesn't ape Shatner's much-parodied portrayal of Kirk, and we see Kirk as a cocky, two-bit punk on the verge of becoming the alpha male of the galaxy.
  
  Zachary Quinto's Spock, meanwhile, is in some ways the best thing about the new Trek. Abrams explores Spock's childhood, focusing on the tension created by trying to fit in on Vulcan as a half-human, and casts Spock's decision to join Star Fleet as a rebellion against the very Vulcan culture he has consciously decided to uphold. The new movie, in fact, is the best exploration of Vulcan ideaology in any Trek production yet. The new Spock is also in a torrid secret relationship with Zoe Saldano's smoking-hot Uhura, who plays a meatier role here than ever before.
  
  Fans of DeForrest Kelley's crochety Dr. McCoy will be happy to find that Karl Urban's performance is a virtual clone of the original. Simon Pegg does an excellent job with Scotty, and John Cho seems to be playing Sulu as if his character Harold from the Harold and Kumar movies had gotten stoned and decided to join Star Fleet, but it works. Even Anton Yelchin's Chekov (who diehards know shouldn't even be on the Enterprise yet) is a pleasant surprise, complete with the Cold War accent.
  
  Aside from the characters, the trickiest thing about this production was updating the look of Star Trek. This is, after all, a movie set before the original series, whose technology and style already seem dated. This is another front on which Abrams succeeds. The new/old Enterprise captures the look of the original one but looks entirely more viable, and its hot-rod-esque lines manage a look at once futuristic and vintage. The costumes and uniforms here manage to pay homage to the original series as well, making it seem entirely plausible that 60s-styled fashions come back into vogue in the 23rd century. The new Trek also does a good job of acknowledging the original series' inherent campiness without falling victim to it, though there are a couple of scenes that are obviously played for laughs and don't seem to fit with the rest of the film.
  
  Despite its successes, the new Star Trek has some pretty serious flaws. The first is the villain. It's a bit problematic within the established canon of Star Trek to have a Romulan villian, since the original series made it clear that no one from the Federation had ever seen a Romulan, even after fighting a war with them, until Kirk encountered one near the neutral zone. But Enterprise clouded the continuity issue during its troubled run, and this is, after all, a reboot of the franchise taking place in a different reality from the franchise as we know it, so I'm willing to drop the fanboy grudge. But Nero is a pretty flat character, nowhere near as interesting as Trek's greatest villains like the unforgettable Khan. His motivation to kill Spock doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and his plan is nebulous at best. The technobabble and the science behind the science fiction is also pretty weak here, with black hole singularities acting as time travel portals and the vague mumbo jumbo about the supernova-inducing red matter.
  
  The biggest risk that Abrams takes in his new vision of Trek is a huge one: he destroys Vulcan. The entire planet, along with most of its billions of inhabitants, including Spock's human mother, dies, turned into a massive singularity. Here's the ballsy part: in a movie that plays with time lines and alternate realities, he LEAVES IT DESTROYED. In effect, this renders all the previous films and series (with the exception of Enterprise) completely moot. They never happened, not in the time line established by this film anyway. This is a huge decision, as it changes the very fabric of the Trek universe in a way that can never be explained away as some minor inconsistency. Killing Vulcan sends a message that the Trek franchise is poised to boldly go where it's never gone before, but it remains to be seen if that place is worth going.
  
  All in all, the new Star Trek is a success. it's a big, loud, sleek, brand new Star Trek, a bona fide summer blockbuster with all the trimmings. For longtime fans, that's both the good news and the bad news.
  
• From Orion Pimpdaddy on 2009-05-11 at 3:19pm:
  What made the previous Original Series episodes, Original Series movies, TNG, and DS9 so meaningful to the hardcore fans was the "commentary" about morality, ideals, and the human experience, not the special effects. This sounds boring, but it is not, because those things made the franchise stand out from other shows and movies, and have kept it around since the late 60's. How many other franchises have lasted so long?
  
  The makers of Star Trek (2009) have decided to do away with all of that "moral stuff" and focus on creating a summer action popcorn movie.
  
  The common belief out there is that today's audiences want to see explosions and action, not meaning. I don't hold this belief, and I think the current generation of movie goers are unfairly stereotyped as having severe ADHD. Give people a chance!
  
  HOWEVER, as a popcorn movie, this is pretty fun to watch. The casting is wonderful, and we get to see them in some funny situations. The soundtrack is also wonderful. These, and other strengths almost make me forget about the "moral stuff," .... almost.
  
  What about the plot? In short, it is pretty pathetic, even for an action movie; lots of clichés and pieces similar to the previous movies (especially Nemesis). I don't want to waste too much space explaining specifically what I found dumb about the plot, but there are some real problems that I think people will be talking about for the next 15 years.
  
  I ended up giving this movie a 5. I'm conflicted, which isn't a good thing. I think they have a chance to do something better in the next movie, they just need to remember Roddenberry’s vision.
  
• From elim on 2009-05-11 at 6:00pm:
  E tu, Kethinov?
  
  I actually am in partial agreement with your “bad idea, good execution” assessment of the movie. It was, indeed a bad idea.
  
  The characters, with the exceptions you gave of Chekov and Sulu, to which I would also add Kirk, were decently to well acted, but they were almost all terribly written. The writers were apparently unaware that frustration and vindictiveness are emotions, so they made all of the Vulcans express those emotions all the time. Then to emphasize Spock’s human lineage and contrast it with the already emotional Vulcans, they made him downright Emo. Kirk on the other hand, seemed incapable of expressing any emotion other than smug, and he came off as a complete asshole throughout the movie and offered no reason for anybody to care about him in the slightest.
  
  Scotty’s acting was fine, but his character was wasted on his pet Ewok. Despite the effort they made to show that Uhura was an expert at xenolinguistics, she only did three things during the entire movie: make out with Spock, take off her clothes, and get accidentally groped by Kirk. The only character who was actually done well was McCoy, and a good part of that was due to the fact that he got to torture the thoroughly unlikable Kirk.
  
  For a movie that tried so hard to be funny, the attempted jokes were groan-inducingly awful. Kirk falling on Uhura’s boobs? Scotty’s pet Ewok sitting on the equipment? Seriously? Then there are all the jibes the human characters make against Spock and Spock makes against the other Vulcans for being so emotional, which really doesn’t work when they have such emotional reactions. Finally most of the “nods to continuity” you mentioned were painfully self-aware meta references to various clichés of the various series that constantly broke the fourth wall.
  
  The action scenes were also uniformly awful, from the flashing-lights-and-jump-cuts direction of the space battles to driving a car into the Great Gaping Chasm of the Iowa Plains (did Nero’s time travel escapades cause the Xindi to attack Earth again?), to the button that retracted the parachute back into its case, to the fact that Sulu and Random Romulan Dude both dropped their guns at the same time, but both just happened to bring archaic weaponry with them just in case. By the time Kirk and Nero had their climactic battle in the Romulan ship that was designed for the sole purpose of being dangerous, I felt like Sigourney Weaver’s character in Galaxy Quest demanding that “whoever wrote this movie should be killed.”
  
  To top it all off, the attempts at tugging the audience’s heartstrings with “intense emotion” fall completely flat (unless you count the burning desire to punch a hole through the screen, but I don’t think that’s what they were going for). The big emotional scene, the destruction of Vulcan, was so utterly contrived and unrealistic it was impossible to take seriously.
  
  Just think of the sequence of events. A supernova destroys Romulus (and all the effort done over the course of the years to make the Romulans one of the more interesting species) Spock tries unsuccessfully to save them. Unfortunately, the few Romulans who survive are really, really stupid so they blame Spock for the supernova and decide to go back in time to suck Vulcan into a black hole. Despite that they are complete imbeciles (and terrible architects) they somehow have enough black-hole-making knowhow that they are able to do this. And why did all this happen? The Romulans motivations don’t make any sense, but the writer’s motivation was clear: it was to teach Spock and Kirk a valuable lesson about the importance of friendship. Also, if Spock’s mother had been standing a few feet to the side, she would have survived.
  
  The treatment Romulans is where the movie gets downright offensive. When the Romulans were first introduced in “Balance of Terror” the best episode of TOS, made especially awesome because of how sympathetic the villains were. Then over the course of the franchise, we get things like “Unification” and “In the Pale Moonlight” and other classics, humanizing the Romulans as a race. How does it all end? The majority of the Romulans die an off-screen death, the rest of them become stupid cartoonish supervillains so the good guys can bond and have a bit of a giggle at the species extinction. They come in with “In a different reality I could have called you ‘friend’,” and go out with Spock: “‘Captain, what are you doing?’ Kirk: ‘Showing a little compassion, may be the only way to earn peace with the Romulans. It's logic, Spock. I thought you'd like that.’ Spock: ‘No, not really. Not this time’.”
  
  The question you asked at the beginning of your review would make for an interesting premise, but this movie, contrary to your claim, does not grapple with the question in the slightest. Kirk is told that in the original reality his father survived, but nobody mentions that he was a wimpy bookworm who got picked on by Finnegan. He never actually learns anything about the “non-traumatized” version of himself and audience members who haven’t seen TOS wouldn’t even know that old timeline Kirk was a different character. The time travel stuff barely gets any attention and it serves two main purposes: to provide an extra cog in the Rube Goldberg Vulcan-Destroying Machine, and to provide a cheap excuse for continuity errors.
  
  This is not a clever examination of the consequences of time travel. It’s a repetition of the half-assed attempts at building a coherent DC Comics Universe. There, because the writers made no attempt at continuity for most of DC’s history, they used a cheap multiverse explanation to cover up their tracks. Thus the golden age characters and the modern characters get their own universes. Adam West’s, Tim Burton’s, Joel Schumacher’s and Chris Nolan’s versions of Batman all get their own universes. The result is that the continuity gets extra convoluted to the point where there is no point thinking about it at all.
  
  Until now, Star Trek never messed things up so badly to the point where stuff like that was necessary to maintain a single continuity. There may have been alternate realities, but it was always clear that we were following a single reality, even if they made occasional slip-ups. This movie turns the entire franchise into an incoherent mess. They should have either made a genuine effort to follow continuity or go the BSG route and make it completely separate without even the pretense that the two realities are connected (frankly I would have preferred a female Spock to Scotty’s pet Ewok).
  
  As it is, the newly introduced continuity is atrocious. But even if we chose to go back to the old continuity, the movie screws that up to, by destroying Romulus in a supernova and making the survivors a bunch of idiots. For those of us who wanted to see a movie dealing with Federation-Romulan relations post-DS9, “Nemesis” was a wasted opportunity, but this movie not only crushed those dreams but salted the earth so nothing would ever grow there again.
  
  Frankly, the only way that I could even tolerate this episode as being part of the same continuity as the rest of Star Trek is if it turned out the whole movie was a Holodeck adventure created by a 12-year-old boy. The whole thing was excruciating and unwatchable.
  
• From Kethinov on 2009-05-11 at 7:19pm:
  Elim, your post is well written and touched me. I feel many aspects of your pain. For a moment you convinced me that the destruction of Romulus was nothing more than a cavalierly conceived of plot device, an egregious insult to one of the founding members of the Star Trek universe. Like Federation replicated Romulan Ale, you had me convinced for a moment. But only for a moment. On further reflection, it occurred to me that the destruction of Romulus didn't phase me because it was actually a pretty smart move.
  
  Suppose the original timeline still exists and the Star Trek narrative returns to it some day. The distinct lack of information this film gives us about the events of that timeline is precisely what could make it a compelling drama again. Consider this: we don't know very much about what led to Romulus' destruction. What if the supernova wasn't a natural phenomenon but was the deployment of a weapon created by an enemy of the empire? That's a pretty good premise for a decent continuation of the 24th century right there.
  
  The potential for drama in that premise is nearly endless. Just as one of the Federation's greatest adversaries is on the verge of making peace, one of the empire's rivals from their warlike past destroys their home world. For all we know, the Romulus star was the only star system in the Romulan Empire destroyed. The empire itself could live on in the remaining colonies and the demeanor of the survivors might be something fierce to contend with.
  
  Thinking up fun premises like that are what give me hope that intelligent storytelling in Star Trek can live on. We may have had an immature action romp this time around, but times change. Maybe Star Trek can get back to its roots some day. Thanks for your comment, Elim!
• From MrVicchio on 2009-05-11 at 8:59pm:
  I'd like to say I have been a fan of this site, and reading the reviews of TNG as my wife and I re-watched them, so after watching Star Trek: Galactic Reset as I liked to refer to it, I came here eager to see your views, and to be honest, I was surprised, pleasantly that you didn't rip it to shreds :)
  
  A friend of mine is all discombobulated over this movie. "They've destroyed START TREK!!!" he goes on and on about. I did mollify him by pointing out that there is precedence in Trek for this sort of time travel alternating of the Trek Universe. My prime example? Tasha Yar. They changed history, and here it happens again.
  
  I was impressed with the new look, they updated the Enterprise in a way I that just made it seem more plausible. Main Engineering is no longer a small but cozy office, but a working space.
  
  Spock and Bones were near as perfect as you could get, Scotty was fun to watch, Kirk was manageable and the others were... well weak. Uhura was a typical black smart female with sexy sass.. gee we haven't seen that a million times before. The original was much more respectfully and earnestly portrayed, I was very disappointed in her.
  
  I get why they killed Vulcan, to give Spock an emotional depth he lacked, I don't know if that will work out, but I'm willing to give them another movie to convince me Trek has been reborn.
  
  PS Thanks for all the great reviews, and we'll be back here for DS9 when it hits the mail box!
• From Bernard on 2009-05-14 at 7:17pm:
  I'll get my gripes out of the way first. I have never so far commented on other peoples ratings when I have put a comment on here, but who is giving the ratings of 10 for this movie?? Maybe someone that has could post a message here to explain the reasoning? I would never give 10 unless I consider the episode/movie to be almost perfect in most departments (based on the premise that no production is ever totally perfect in every way)
  Okay, onto the gripes. I hate some of the basic flaws displayed in this movie that have already been mentioned in great detail. For example, we have Delta Vega as close to Vulcan as we are to our moon annoyingly just so that Spock can witness the destruction. Couldn't they just have said that he 'felt' all those deaths, after all vulcans are quite apparently sensitive to other beings with mind melds and such. That would not have been such a large leap of common sense for me. I'll leave it right there for the nitpicky stuff, but we can all agree that simple things were done incorrectly and it's not as if the information is hard to come by regarding the trek-verse is it. I also agree with someone above, that the plot is shaky at best, the movie carries itself off at breakneck pace to hide that particular frailty. I think looking for deep meaning in certain areas will give you a headache though.
  
  I have chosen (and had chosen before I even went to see it in case it was awful) to look at this movie in a completely positive light and ignore everything that I dislike.
  
  The characters, the meat of the movie, are excellently fleshed out for me. The central story of Kirk and Spock is really well done. Spock is how I'd always imagined he could have been, well done to Zachary Quinto. Chris Pine could have so easily fallen into the mire that would have been a parody of Shatner, I know some people will not like him. I think he brings some of the Kirk qualities perfectly and the rest I put down to the difference in his upbringing. He is cocky, but also quite disarming too. I loved the interaction between the two characters.
  I thought the other characters were all great too. Chekov was always a bit of a goof in the original series anyway, I didn't have a problem with him. Didn't see too much of Sulu or Scotty (played by the superb Simon Pegg!). I disagree that Uhura doesn't do much, yes she doesn't have the dignified grace of Nichelle Nichols, but Uhura is finally given credit for being a member of the team and is played with a bit more zest. I don't see mimics paying off in the long run anyway... Except, McCoy. I absolutely loved watching Karl Urban as bones from the first moment he got on the screen. He was amazingly close to copying Deforest Kelleys McCoy. I'm glad they didn't all do the same though. Nearly forgot about Captain Pike, Bruce Greenwood is superb. The movie is let down by the villain a bit, when you hire Eric Bana, use him better! but I realise they had to focus on the relationship between the central characters for the movie to work.
  
  I adore the look of the movie, the starships, planets, black holes, uniforms, aliens, everything. The soundtrack is excellent, I keep listening to it on YouTube. The opening sequence is something that I loved too, probably the only scene in the movie when I felt true menace, fear and it was done slightly over the top for me but also the self sacrifice aspect. Surely a true Star Trek scene? The scenes showing Kirks youth, spocks youth and the academy days are so much of what I was looking forward to. I wish they'd spent longer on that. Kobyashi Maru lived up to my expectations though, I loved that scene. I'm starting to put my finger on precisely what is wrong with this movie. Many scenes are very well done, characters are interesting, but plot is gaping.
  
  I think that they have done a clever thing in wiping the slate clean. By changing everything they can go anywhere they like with the next movie (and the one after?). They don't have to get anybody into the right place for certain aspects of continuity, what a relief! They can develop the characters and species etc. in any way they want now because this universe now bears no resemblence to anything else in the Star Trek franchise. I don't care about canon too much anymore since they made 'Enterprise'. In fact I wish they had simply 'remade' Star Trek without any explanation. Why is one needed? To satisfy all the trekkies that care about continuity and so forth? Well in that case mission.... not accomplished! Many are not satisfied with the way it fits into Trek canon.
  
  I did really like this film by the way and I'm not disturbed by the fact that it overrides the trek timeline in the slightest. It is a fun romp of a movie and really it is only the beginning. What follows should be far better now they have set it up. For the next installment, I want them to forget trying to explain anything and just write a damned good story. Let them loose on an interesting premise and watch the characters grow up.
• From Dave E on 2009-05-15 at 9:42pm:
  You wanted to know why someone would post a 10. I am a 10 poster. Here's why. For the entire duration of this movie, I was 100% engaged in what was going on. I laughed, squirmed, and cared deeply about these characters. I was touched by all the references to the old show. It was great seeing Nimoy. I was mad when the movie ended, because I did not want it to stop. A friend of mine compared this to the feeling he got walking out of the theater in 1977 after seeing Star Wars the first time.
  
  A "10" rating does not mean the entire movie has to be perfect. It's not a "Mint" or "NOS" condition rating like collectibles. A "10" rating for a movie means it's on your list of Best Movies Ever. And, for me, this is added to the list, alongside Star Wars, 2001, and a few non-sci fi flicks.
• From Obsidian Disorder on 2009-05-17 at 6:11am:
  The 3 previews before the film were:
  1) The new GI Joe
  2) The new Terminator
  3) The new Transformers
  
  The previews of all looked similar with lots of explosions and large vehicles/robots/ships blowing up/blowing stuff up. Then we had 2 hours of Star Trek that looked the same and shredded most of Trek history. Vulcan Destroyed? So what! We are going in a new direction for a couple of films! No one cares about TOS, TNG, Voyager, DS9! That's for old folks. I guess they plan to milk their all new Trek universe for some big budget summer movies until one tanks at the box office and then leave it dead on the side of the road. I really wanted to like the film, but I found myself horrified by its assault on all Trek that has come before. Hmmm, one positive: I liked Sulus cool sword.
• From elim on 2009-05-18 at 3:17am:
  Okay, I will accept that it’s still possible to redeem the franchise and still count the movie as cannon. The premise you suggested for a 24th century storyline does sound awesome but, as you said about BSG, “I will not gush all over the show over the mere implication of good stories to come.” The prospect that maybe, just maybe, someone competent will take over the franchise and tell a good story doesn’t make up for two hours of product placement, dry humping, contrived plotlines, casual genocide, and really boring fight scenes between two-dimensional heroes and one-dimensional villains. Especially since Obsidian Disorder’s predictions are much more likely to come to pass than any Coto-ification.
  
  If they gave any indication, either in the movie or in interviews or anywhere, that they intended to follow through with the destruction of Romulus by telling what really happened in a future storyline, I’d be more inclined to accept it as a smart move. However, given the commitment J.J. and co. have shown thus far towards developing the Romulans (none whatsoever) it’s hard to view it as anything more a cavalierly conceived of plot device.
  
  Hopefully, they’ll establish some coherent criteria for canonicity amongst the Star Trek novels and comic books, because it’s looking like that’s where all the good stories will come from now.
  
  
• From Krs321 on 2009-05-20 at 5:53pm:
  1. The reason no one freaked out about the Romulans looking like Vulcans is because besides the ears, these Romulans don't look at all like Vulcans like they do in regular canon.
  
  2. No mention here of the what I assume is an Orion chick? Suddenly they're Star Fleet cadets? Maybe she's a half-breed child raised offworld and doesn't have the intoxicating pheromones? And what's with the inclusion of all the other new races? Annoying.
  
  3. I assumed when Spock said that the supernova "treatened the entire Galaxy", he spoke to the political shockwave that the destruction of Romulus would create. Unintented but potentially useful dialogue line.
  
  4. I echo the comments regarding the treatment of the Romulan race character. The most compelling race is whittled down to little more than alien of the week. I guess the fact that the "real" Romulan empire still exists in the Chris Pine timeline means they're still badass, but excrutiating nonetheless.
  
  
  5. The biggeswt problem with the plot for me isn't the time travelling (abused in Stark Trek, especially in films) or the blandness of Nero, it's Starfleet/the Federation/Vulcan's plan of sending an ancient ambassador on a solo mission into Romulan space with the most dangerous substance this side of Omega particles. WTF?
  
  Side-bar stupidity: Regulation whatever that says a Captain can be relieved because of emotional whatever blah blah blah. Please. "well, we can't have Bones declare him unfit for command because that threat is even more overused than time travel, let's invent something especially damning for Vulcans". Groan.
  
  6. Kirk - C: Chris Pine did alright but he was written too smug and fratty. he just wasn't cool at all. The only reason anyone did what he wanted was that he had the balls to speak up when Uhura didn't. Wouldn't call him a leader really. Reflection on how people define leadership today? Hmm..
  
  I thought they botched the Kobayashi Maru test scene by making it silly and slightly obnoxious; although, I guess we that meshes with the fact that this timeline's Kirk is part douche and less clever.
  
  Spock - A-: The writers seemed to be a little off on what vulcans are like but overall it was pretty interesting to see the alternate reality Spock with a little more emotion. Hated that "no, not this time" line. I felt that betrayed the character and the franchise.
  
  Bones - A-: DeForest Kelly created an iconic character and Urban nailed a younger version perfectly without letting it devolve into parody. I gave him an A- because I like my Star Trek traditional and I loved the nods and thought Urban really hit Bones' cadences and inflections perfectly, but some people might think it's boring and safe to go that route.
  
  The "stallion" exchange between he and Spock is a delightful piece of writing.
  
  Scotty - B+: The original Scotty wasn't funny because he was silly, he just had a knack for the right turn of phrase + scottish accent. Pegg is amusing and I'm waiting to see the character evolve, but not if it becomes the designated forced comic relief. The Ewok character was a bad move but can be quietly disavowed in subsequent installments.
  
  Sulu - D: One of my favorite characters from TOS is suddenly without a shoehorned character with no personality. Not much to say here other than he's asian, at the helm, and uses a sword (katana btw, not an epee, so not exactly fencing, are we? Just say you're trained in swordfighting next time or something). Forgot to take off the space-parking break? Hilarious...seriously.
  
  Chekov - C+, I guess: Meh. Chekov's once delightful accent is suddenly a parody. I liked that the writers had him say that he's 17 thus making it somewhat plausible that he's on the ship when everyone else is just graduating the academy. Not a bad character revamp considering the original was pretty fluffy and somewhat annoying.
  
  Uhura - C: Abuse of generic characterization alert. She's got boobs and a sassy attitude...watch out! Why is a newly minted cadet able to speak 3 dialects of Romulan when the currently stationed officer on the newly minted FLAGSHIP unable to even differentiate between Klingon and Romulan? I guess she's a phenom or something but use her appropriately and not try to make her the Megan Fox of this franchise. I actually thought her relationship with Spock had/has potential, but was too heaviy handed. Chris Pine Kirk's writing also had a hand in making her kind of a waste.
  
  
  
  Overall, I actually enjoyed the movie quite a bit. I liked the new visuals, just ease the pacing and cool it on the punching sound effects (every punch sounded like an Ali haymaker! How does anyone still have a face??) I thought it was still "Star Trek" enough, although I'd rather someone other than JJ direct the next installment. I'm willing to see the franchise move in a new direction as long as it makes sense and is done well.
• From Dio on 2009-05-25 at 10:12pm:
  I have not seen many episodes from TOS or anything before TNG Season 1. I've thoroughly examined the entire TNG and a lot of DS9 however. And I understand what makes Star Trek standout - the episodes that examine emotions and relationships. The fighting and aliens are nice but at the end of the day, I remember "The Inner Light", "Tapestry" and "In The Pale Moonlight...".
  
  That's why, as a fan of the Star Trek universe, I didn't like this movie. The action is all well and good but, as stated above, the emotional side of the story was a complete letdown. Even the main plot was confusing and unnecessarily drawn out - I would have loved to see a lot more introduction between the crew members and how they find themselves onboard the Enterprise.
  
  Also, many people who are unfamiliar with Star Trek believe it to be just about guns, aliens and spaceships. This really applies to all sci-fi of course (I'm an even bigger Star Wars fan, sorry!). I saw this movie with some friends who are new to Star Trek, and it certainly reinforced the idea that action is the main reason why people watch Trek. It just gets on my nerves - I wish they could understand the beauty of "All Good Things..." or Q's games with Picard.
  
  Because I don't feel connected to TOS or the characters before TNG, this movie didn't really upset me and I was able to appreciate it for whatever it is. However, if they try something like this with TNG, they better plan it out A LOT better.
• From ek5a on 2009-06-09 at 8:36pm:
  This definitely is an alternate timeline - Simply because Old Spock exists. If the original timeline is destroyed by the events of this film that will old Spock will wink out existence. The fact that he remains at the end of the movie means that events of TOS, TNG, DS9 and the rest continue to exist, with Old Spock disappearing from their timeline at some point and diverging into this new alternate one.
  
  So basically it's a long thread that continues on and a split occurs that continues on a parallel plane from the Kelvin incident. I wish I could draw this.
• From Kethinov on 2009-06-10 at 4:40pm:
  No ek5a, if that reasoning were correct, then all previous uses of time travel would be alternate universes too, which is not the case.
  
  That said, I am fairly convinced this is an alternate universe, but not for that reason. See my article on the subject linked above.
• From Giuseppe on 2009-10-26 at 10:38pm:
  This movie was pretty much what I expected: very good as a summer blockbuster, but mediocre as a Star Trek story. The special effects are great, the action is what you would expect from a movie made in the late 2000s, but the acting isn't all that great, the story is pretty iffy at times and it relies on too many extraordinary coincidences to be believable.
  Basically, if you're interested in two hours of lighthearted fun then this is the movie for you; if, on the other hand, you're looking for a great work of the science fiction genre then you might as well look somewhere else.
  Personally this movie was a fun, if rather shallow, experience. But that's just my two cents.
• From Kirk 377 on 2010-04-22 at 10:32am:
  @kethinov -Maybe traveling back through a black hole to go back in time had something to do with the alternate reality? (I don't know, just a theory) I'm sure it's a alternate universe, because the movie says so. I think Uhuru says it on the bridge once they have figured things out. Plus the release of the Star Trek Online game(I don't know if it's cannon, I read it was set after Nemesis) So don't worry Star Trek has done alternate realities before-just for a standard episode. So why would they throw away everything, if they didnt have to. I love the new movie and also can't wait for whats to come, but I don't wanna give up everything thats been. And who knows Universe B(Star Trek XI) could use things from Universe A(40 years of greatness). They already kept our Spock. Maybe have a TNG character visit Universe B, a universe where they might not even be born! Ah just a little idea, I know it won't happen. but you get the idea. Plus Universe A could have alot left in it. If they do things right than Star Trek XI just raised the bar, by giving us basically 2 different Star Trek's. If Star trek 12 does reset everything, I'm not gonna count it as my version of cannon.
• From Pemmer Harge on 2010-07-16 at 7:45pm:
  Massively superior to any Star Trek since the end of DS9. Indeed I'd go so far as to say it singlehandedly made Trek relevant again. Bravo.
• From wes on 2011-03-21 at 10:04pm:
  I agree that this movie was great as a summer blockbuster. It felt an awful lot like Transformers with all the action.
  
  JJ Abrams said that he wanted to make this Star Trek movie much more like Star Wars because he felt that the pace of Trek was a bit slow. I enjoyed getting to know the little bit about the characters in this setting that I could, but I sure hope there is quite a bit more of what we all knew and loved in the rest of Star Trek in the next film(s) -- commentary on humanity and morals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Star Wars didn't even really deal much with morals and what it means to be human, did it? The original Star Wars trilogy had some good character development, not great character development.
  
  I really hope Abrams decides to get a real good story pinned down for this next film. Have something that makes more sense and that will allow depth for the characters (i.e. The Empire Strikes Back, The Wrath of Khan, DS9 episodes, etc.).
  
  I understand and will defend that this film was a good way to reintroduce the characters and launch into a new wave of films. However, now let's get back to what made Star Trek great.
  
  Kirk annoyed me at times. He's more of a jerk than he is confident and sure of himself. He didn't really show any leader qualities at all.
  
  Quinto did a MARVELOUS job portraying Spock. I'm glad he has signed on for the rest of the films. He should really get to develop his version of Spock a lot more.
  
  Having lived in Russia, I thought Chekov was great. The way he struggles with his accent and even his "Yomayo!" was PERFECT! I got a huge kick out of him.
  
  Zoe Saldana's Uhura really annoyed me. It seemed almost wrong for Uhura to be a major love interest of anyone. She's always had a quiet dignity about her, which was most appreciated. Now she's sassy and has a big role for no apparent reason.
  
  @Kethinov, How can we let Abrams and his writers hear our voice that he should be sure to go back to what made Star Trek great in the beginning -- social commentary? That's what it seems so many of us want to see.
• From Kethinov on 2011-03-22 at 12:35am:
  @wes The best way I know of is simply to be vocal on the internet about how a summer blockbuster is not the best way to ensure Star Trek's long term health either in the creative sense or in the fiscal sense. This movie may have been a success, but it will not sustain a long term rejuvenation of Star Trek as I have previously argued.
  
  Websites like this one do occasionally influence the creative direction of the producers, but only in extremely rare cases in my experience. I can count on one hand the number of times I have directly interacted with a producer or writer from any sci-fi show. Typically TPTB have their own vision and since most of this stuff is subjective anyway they can be difficult to influence.
• From EvanT on 2011-06-25 at 11:14pm:
  "it is not well understood why Spock can't simply go back in time to stop Nero from destroying the Kelvin"
  
  It's never implied that they can control where in time they'll get thrust. But that's hardly the issue. Consider this: N
  
  ero takes his ship and delivers it to the Tal Shiar of the past along with the hunk of red matter and his ship's historical and scientific database --> The Romulans conquer pretty much the whole galaxy in short order.
  
  The villain in this movie is portrayed as ridiculously stupid (you'd imagine he'd have enough time to cool off in 25+ years of waiting and do something constructive with all that technology and fire power), acts in distinctively non-Romulan fashion and he doesn't even act on the immediate threat (or we're not told about it). You know which star will go nova. Go and destroy it now in the past with the red matter so it's never a threat. There! You're wife's now safe. That's the least he could've done.
  
  Where's the delicious Romulan guile, duplicity and industriousness?
  
  Nope, we're treated instead to an unrealistic and monolithic slab of idiocy. And I might buy it if Nero was alone on the ship. But he had an entire crew with him. Where they ALL morons? No one had a more romulan-like idea on how to use their ship?
  
  But enough of that. All in all, it's sad that the premise had potential and the film was really well-made for an action movie. And it had enough effects and action scenes to please the general audience. But no, we just had to have a plot no longer than a single paragraph.
  
  In short: WASTED POTENTIAL
  
  I'm waiting for the second movie and I sincerely hope it won't be the final nail on the coffin and it won't completely alienate the fan base (and in the mean time, we're still waiting even for a rumour of a new TV show).
• From Cory on 2011-08-27 at 5:46pm:
  I'm sorry the more and more I read about these negative reviews of this movie, the more angry I get. Now listen, I've been watching Star Trek since I was born, literally, I was raised on the Trek Movies, in fact I know them more then I even know Disney!
  
  Now this movie was by no stretch of the imagination perfect, but a lot of things a lot of you bash the movie for just don't make any sense to me.
  
  First the Romulans being one dimensional cartoony villains. What do you expect people? These were miners, a ship full of minors, I'm not expecting General Chang Hamlet quoting here, they were simple minors who witnessed the destruction of there home world, and Romulans are established as emotional as it is, so of course they would try to blame Spock, of course they would be savages, insanity isn't supposed to make sense, honestly what do you expect here?
  
  How can people bash any of the minor characters, in TOS the only characters that were given ANY arcs were Spock, Bones and Kirk, this movie at least gave EVERYBODY some relevance and allowed them to do stuff.
  
  Guys, this next one is simple, Star Trek established thousands of times a multiverse exists. See TNG Parallels to confirm this, this is just a whole new universe they are asking us to follow, a perfect way to introduce a reboot by star trek standards.
  
  How can people bash this movie for not having moral implications but defend movies like Voyage Home? Voyage Home at the time was created EXACTLY for this reason, to bring in more of a main stream audience to Star Trek, and the plot was laughable, but that isn't the issue, the reason Voyage Home was so good was because it was a good movie first, entertaining, funny, and had you invested for most of it, just like this one.
  
  This movie did everything it needed to do, it gave us die hard trek fans something to fan-gasm about with all of the inside references only we can pick up, it gave us a great action popcorn flick which brought star trek into 21st century households, making it relevant again, and its not NEARLY as insulting as all of you make it out to be. Any nitpicks can be made about every, single, trek film, period.
• From Gul Darhe'el on 2012-01-27 at 4:49pm:
  If one’s expectation for any production named “Star Trek” is to be defined by work done prior that had the same label, then by all rights this movie should not be called “Star Trek”. “Star Cowboys”, “Extreme Galaxy Protectors”, or “Fast Times in the Milky Way” would seem more appropriate titles to this film. How could anyone give this movie the same name as a series that produced episodes like “Tapestry” or “The Visitor”? It is akin to labeling an episode of Keeping Up With The Kardashians as “Shakespearian”. For that reason, I think all the debate over whether or not this belongs in the established canon or is an alternate universe is pointless because this movie is simply not Star Trek. It is special effect drenched, soul-less fluff that will be forgotten as quickly as it was watched. The studio may get one or two more sequels out of this before its thrown in the scrap bin with the likes of Thor, Captain America, Transformers, or any of the other short term franchises built around CGI instead of real story-telling. The tragedy is younger generations that this movie was specifically made to target will associate this with Star Trek instead of TNG, DS9, Voyager, or even Enterprise.
• From jonnyskillz on 2012-02-24 at 8:12am:
  What about the erroneous use of the uniform emblem? It's used on the uss Kelvin and two decades later at Starfleet academy. The emblem on Starfleet uniforms (of the period before w.o.k.) is supposed to be referential to ones assigned starship. Ie t.o.s. doomsday machine or ent. In a mirror darkly II. It's possibly reconciled if the uss Kelvin were assigned the enterprise emblem (as no enterprise was commissioned at the time). So with the tragic and sudden destruction of the Kelvin, maybe as a tribute, Starfleet adopted the "enterprise" emblem fleet-wide. In the prime or original timeline, Starfleet adopted fleet-wide use of it to honor the enterprise's heroics with the resolution of the v'ger incident in t.m.p. also, didn't spocks mom die at birth as mentioned in part v (t.f.f.)? Other than that, I found jj abrams trek acceptable and even enjoyable.
• From neoteotihuacan on 2012-03-30 at 5:25am:
  @kethinov Thank you for this site. Its awesome.
  I was thinking that the world can use a Star Trek review site and, upon discovering you (through the Google) you follow through quite well.
  
  Now, about Star Trek 11...I feel I must take issue with some of the criticisms floating around the page here.
  
  - The Romulan ship could be designed anyway that it needed to be...I agree, it is odd (and remarkably, probably purposefully, reminiscent of the Romulan ship in Nemesis, as they are the same species/same time period, so the ship styles would naturally be related). But, importantly, spaceships even in reality have unique design requirements that are very different than craft that are meant to traverse atmospheres. That, combined with a fictional alien race (with its own fictional, alien mindsets) makes it plausible in my mind that an alien ship can be any shape or color it wants to be without any explanation whatsoever. Really, the thing I find most baffling in the universe of Star Trek (and all sci-fi, for that matter) is the covergent evolution of spacecraft design...I mean, does every single species in the galaxy build their starships with a bridge, for example? THAT seems odd to me.
  
  - Concerning your criticism that no one was surprised that Romulans and Vulcans favor, that would be because Earth already met the Romulans in war between 2156-2160.Its true, in canon, that no one human had seen a Romulan until Kirk's time. However, it is safe to assume that Humanity knew somethings about Romulans through intelligence gathering, and through their Vulcan friends.
  
  - As far as Spock's line about the supernova threatening the entire galaxy...I am willing to bet he meant that politically.
  
  - Delta Vega. Ya, they screwed that up. The TOS crew already encountered a Delta Vega, near the galactic barrier, which is NOT in the Vulcan system. But, let's say that there are 2 planetary bodies called Delta Vega. Why would the Vulcans name a moon in their system in a human language? Why not name it a Vulcan name? I thought this was kinda odd. This is a case of the writers not paying enough attention...and they have no excuse really, I mean the internet is right here.
  
  - Delta Vega is too close to Vulcan to NOT be destroyed. There can be no explaining this away. It is an oversight of the laws of physics suspended to show the audience a heartwrenching shot in the movie. And it was heartwrenching...at the time I was watching it I just couldn't believe the writers were that brave.
  
  - As far as the beaming stuff works...we can give fictional Scotty and fictional Spock the benefit of the doubt on that one, right? The Star Trek universe is filled with lots of technology that escapes explanation.
  
  - Agreed on the time of travel between Vulcan and Earth...obviously cut down to move the story along. Although, when they dropped out of warp...man was that a shot! Crazy stuff...
  
  - "The physics behind the portrayal of black holes in this film are a bit fuzzy at times"...to this I say, the physics of Star Trek in general is fuzzy at times!!
  
  
  Like many of you that have commented, I am torn by this movie. I loved watching it! It was really exciting; a great popcorn flick. Afterward, non-trek-types would discuss the movie and its fictional implications and, generally, are interested when I present them with back story. This 3rd Generation of Star Trek, as kethinov classifies it, has reignited the franchise to a degree. And this is worth celebrating.
  
  However, the movie does trample a bit on Roddenberry's golden rules. It stays true excellently to form for some characters, and poorly reinvents others (quite disappointed in Uhura's changes). Quinto's Spock is soooo awesome. Seriously. It does mention the point of Star Trek nriefly, in a bar with Pike and Kirk, but does not put this to the forefront as a good episode might. And the villains are terribly two-dimensional, a fault not just of this film but of almost every Star Trek film (all but I and IV have villains!! And only General Chang did not suck!). It is possible, in Star Trek to put together a great villain...Gul Dukat comes to mind. So, this isn't J.J. Abrams & Crew's fault; they were simply following form.
  
  While I look forward to more of this 3rd generation of Trek, I know that it will not be perfect. If a writer does happen to grace these comments and then goes on to write the next movie or TV series, then please let me say only two things that will put you on the right path to proper Trekdom:
  
  1) Star Trek is about the future of Humanity...it is a vessel to discuss current issues we currently face. It is not about 2D villains. Please reconsider the villain in the Star Trek universe. Its very outdated.
  
  2) Please research everything. Continuity is a pet peeve, I imagine, but it is held in high regard by Trek fans. I suppose it helps us to suspend disbelief. The internet is alive with Trek resources. THIS site is an excellent resource. So is the sprawling memory-alpha site. Google it, and you will please the fans.
  
  Thanks kethinov. The site is very great! Keep up the good work.
• From Glenn239 on 2012-10-19 at 3:12pm:
  QUOTE: I'll get my gripes out of the way first. I have never so far commented on other peoples ratings when I have put a comment on here, but who is giving the ratings of 10 for this movie??
  
  No problem, Bernard. I’ll tell you why I gave this one a ‘10’.
  
  The TNG movies were unmitigated dross from start to finish. VII was the worst pile of junk I’ve ever seen, and the others were not much better. The last good Trek movie was VI, arguably the best ST movie made and the posterchild for the argument that old age, and only old age , finished off the “Kirk” team.
  
  Now, just as Picard and his band of merry morons appear to have ‘double tapped’ the whole franchise out of existence with their painfully bad characters in painfully bad plots, along comes J.J. Abrams. He examined these unqualified atrocities against mankind and decides to ‘punt’ - rebooting the franchise from its original strength, as if Captain Shorty “Surrenderpants” Picard and his Care Bear friends never existed, (which, with a handy asteroid or two on some hometowns in the 2nd film, might even be arranged).
  
  I never cared for Roddenberry’s pompous vision of humanity, and therefore I do not respond to Star Trek’s fantastically tiresome lectures about what the human race shall become. J.J. Abrams got rid of all that pie-in-the-sky TNG ‘huggypants’ stuff and went back to basics. The plot of XI? Terrible. The action sequences? An unending blizzard of over-the-top, completely implausible sequences, (what, the 23rd century cop doesn’t know there’s a cliff coming and so will chase kiddie Kirk right off it? And what cliff like that is in Iowa? C’mon). But all that – beside the point.
  
  I gave this movie a ‘10’ because the rebooted characters are fantastic. The rebooted premise is fantastic. TNG has been expurgated from the face of the franchise. Most importantly, IT HAS BROUGHT THE STAR TREK BACK FROM THE DEAD. It made it cool again. The movie rocked with energy. Kids who walked out of “Nemisis” saying things like, “I wish the bad guy had phasered Riker’s smuggy face off” walked out of this movie saying things like, “That was COOL! When will the next one come out?” If that fact of revitalization, rebirth, of the series, if that alone doesn’t rate this movie at least and ‘8’ or a ‘10’, then one must care not whether the Star Trek franchise lives or dies.
  
• From Bernard on 2012-11-18 at 1:58pm:
  Thank you for your replies Glenn239 and Dave E
  
  These posters made responses to my question, "who is giving this movie 10 ratings?"
  
  So far the reasons seem to be as follows:
  
  1. Because it was better than TNG movies
  
  Well watching paint dry is better than a couple of the TNG movies so to me that's not much of a reason. Besides which I would like to think that you would rate this movie based on its own merits, not the problems of its predecessors.
  
  2. It's a non-stop action piece
  
  Does that mean that the three Bayformers movies are 10/10 movies? No? Didn't think so.
  
  3. The characters are fantastic
  
  I will concede this one, this movie is primarily about how characters deal with situations and how they react to them. But for me, the way you then get a 10/10 movie is to add those characters to a super plot!
  
  4. Fully engaged in what was going on.
  
  Yep, this movie does that. It moves at break neck pace to try to make you forget that it has a terrible plot and everything is horrendously contrived.
  
  
  I would like to mention that I do give this movie its due... it is a fantastic reboot, it is a fantastic summer action blockbuster with action aplenty. It has fantastic characters that you care about deeply after only meeting them briefly. It has emotionally charged and impactful scenes. It pays homage to what went before repeatedly. I do like it a lot! I therefore gave it a strong 8/10
  
  But I cannot give it a 10 because other films have all of these things AND more. Just look at Undiscovered Country or Wrath of Khan. That is why I wanted others to comment to see why exactly they had given it a 10. It seems they are very easily pleased! You guys must give a lot of movies 10's if those are the things you require to but it on your best ever list.
  
  It would be a boring place if we all agreed all the time though wouldn't it. :)
  
  As an aside, just quickly, because I like to look at numbers. Up above the fans ratings show a fan average rating of 6.53. To me, this is skewed by the number of raters that have chosen not to accept this movie as canon by giving it 0. Let's say we ignore all those 0's and also ignore an equal amount of 10's (so now 23 scores of 10). Now the fan rating average would be 7.71. A figure that I believe to be more in keeping with the actual level of this film.
• From k2spitfire88 on 2013-01-16 at 12:53am:
  One of the things I think are consistently overlooked in this movie is something I think is worth examining, that the Star Trek XI did, without being "In your face" about it, so to speak. That is, it addressed the issue of "Nature vs. Nurture". Which is more important to who you are? I think this movie looked at this in a very interesting way. Will Spock continue to embrace logic as he has in the past, attempting to be Vulcan as Vulcan as possible, ignoring his human heritage as much as possible, or will he embrace his human side, now that his mother is destroyed? I think there are some key character questions like this worth exploring. It may not be out in the front like some of the other movies, but they are there if you look for them, I think.
• From DK on 2013-04-25 at 2:12am:
  Wow, a lot to comment on for an old Trekkie like me.  Being an old Trekkie it's not hard to figure where I come down.  I can't imagine there are very many (any?) Trek fans over the age of 45 who appreciated the reboot vision this movie gave (for any of a number of reasons).  I understand why it was done; make a movie that appeals to as wide a range of moviegoers as possible.  
  
  Why make a movie?  Profit is usually highest on the list and the formula is clear.  The action aspect of this movie has been covered extensively elsewhere in this discussion.  I would add however that in this movie we see Kirk getting his ass kicked in the bar, then twice by Spock and also it is Sulu who saves Kirk in the fight on the drill (then it is Chekov who saves them both); even the villain in the movie gets a turn at Kirk.  I liked how Kirk use to win all the fights.  Hell, even Jean Luc won his share of fights.  This difference typifies my take on the rest of the film.
  
  Why wear uniforms and follow a command type structure if this is how everyone is going to act?  I'm not sure I have the writing skills to adequately describe my feelings about this one but was there any respect for the command structure followed by anyone at anytime?  I understand the need to not follow orders or question your superiors when the situation calls for it but shouldn't there be some structure and rules of conduct actually followed by a crew?  Which brings up Uhura.
  
  It's not Kirk, Spock and McCoy any longer.  Take out McCoy and add Uhura plus Kirk and Spock are now equals.  It seems it is now Spock's job to break Kirk like a horse.  Once again, I understand why this was done.  The formula now days must include a strong, sexy female character and we cannot have a solo leader without someone to question him and challenge his authority.  For better or worse, days of yeoman Rand are over.  And can you imagine the criticism TPTB would  have had to endure if they had Uhura just sitting there answering the phone for Kirk?  No, the wider audience now demands that she (or some other woman in the same mold) be front, center and in your face irrespective of previous character history.  Which also relates by the way to Kirk now being the ass-kickee rather than the ass-kicker and getting punked for his maneuver during the Kobayashi Maru simulation; it just doesn't fit with the standard of the day or, more to the point the  money making formula of the day. 
  
   The focus used to always be on how events and situations affect Kirk and to a lesser extent some of the others; you use to always be able to depend upon Kirk killing the bad guy and getting the girl in the end.  Add up all the other changes to the formula including all the continuity history and it's just easier to throw the baby out with the bath water and start over.
  
  But for the record.  Had I had the opportunityk to make the cash from this movie I'd have sold out too.  Hell, I'd have Uhura taking over the whole damn ship and running things her way if I thought I could appeal to just one more demographic (somehow this is likely to happen in the next movie or two anyway).
  
  For those of you who take issue with the tone of my words; your time is coming.  The times are changing on you too.  One day you will wake up to someone perverting something you are familiar and happy with to fit the times or turn a buck. May you have more grace than I.
  
  So, given the realities that must be followed if we are to get fresh Trek stories with Kirk as a character, is it better to have a perverted Trek or no Trek at all?  For me, I will watch the shows as long as I don't have to pay for them.
• From Moi on 2013-05-25 at 4:51pm:
  The worst plot hole is that Nero hangs around the worm hole exit for close to twenty years waiting for Spock but at no time in those twenty years does he take his advanced mining ship back to Romulus to warn them of the impending disaster and save his family.
• From Aki on 2013-11-22 at 6:16pm:
  In my opinion this movie is non canon due to Starfleet tactical mistakes.

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Bernard on 2013-05-17 at 11:05am:
  Unfortunately I don't forgive some of the things that you do in order to give the film a pretty high rating. The fact that this film contained more than one moment that made me face palm myself and also a moment that made me laugh out loud when it was supposed to be a moment of drama says it all.
  
  Shamelessly ripping off some parts of Star Trek II, this film does so with a heavy handedness that is obscene whilst seemingly patting itself on the back for tweaking some of the nuances slightly such as reversing characters. The writers seem to think this is clever... it is not.
  
  There is a mish-mash of ideas that often culminate in a confused plot. Admiral Marcus is a good example. This guy poses more menace than Harrison and seems to be building to be the films major villain... but then he's not. Again, that's not clever and wastes time that could have been spent fleshing out Harrison's motivations and giving the brilliant Cumberbatch more screen time.
  
  Some of the moments that were intended to grab you emotionally just fell flat. The scene where Harrison attacks Starfleet HQ for example just comes across as corny and the less said about the scene in engineering near the end the better. This is the type of thing that boosted up my opinion of 2009 (Vulcan being destroyed, George Kirk's sacrifice).
  
  Into Darkness does do some of the things 2009 did equally well though. From the phenomenally sublime look, feel and effects of the movie to the raging soundtrack. From the stellar moments involving the Enterprise and also other fantastic set piece visuals this film feels even more spectacular than it's predeccesor. The character interaction between Kirk and Spock is also done consistantly throughout the film and it tells a good story between the two. So well done for that writers, but when I'm picking the bones trying to find good things to say it is not a good sign.
  
  I can't be bothered to explain the lazy writing in this movie that causes me to make it a 0 rating (incidentally, I didn't give Star Trek 2009 a 0). But it has to have zero from me. It is ridiculous in parts, enjoyable but ridiculous. I felt like I was watching somebodies parody of Star Trek at points with Bones appearing simply to serve up gruff one liners, bizarre re-enactments of well loved scenes from STII, and lazy rehashing of a well loved adversary. I think most older Star Trek fans will surely only watch this movie to enjoy some of the better moments whilst laughing at it in equal measure.
  
  When I commented on Star Trek 2009 I said it would be ok if they followed it by writing an ORIGINAL story that focused on building on the great foundation they had laid. Instead we get lazy writing that borders on parody whilst hammering us with visual after visual that whilst they may blow our mind are actually quite boring (anyone else get bored halfway through the scene where Harrison and Kirk are flying through space in space suits? That's boring to me, I don't want to watch a computer game... but unfortunately... the masses do and that's who they're trying to satisfy now and because it's working so well that's all we're going to get.
• From Selador on 2013-05-18 at 5:53pm:
  This is a hideous, hideous film. It is epitomized by the scene where Spock punches the "bad guy" in the face, over and over and over again. It is violent, mindless and is everything Star Trek is supposed to not be.
  
  The characterisation is awful. Neo-Kirk in horrible and unlovable, there wasn't a single scene where Spock wasn't emotional, Bones is an idiot and if it wasn't for Simon Pegg's brilliance the Scotty character wouldn't make any sense at all.
  
  Throught the film there's an undertone of righteous, violent indignation. Neo-Kirk is constantly on the verge of beating people to a bloody pulp because he is idiotically convinced that he is the "good guy" and that everyone who disagrees with him deserves nothing but to be contemptibly and repeatedly punched in the face. Everything he does seems to me to be justifying American imperialism - he feels it's fine to intervene and that the moral code doesn't apply to his actions since he is infallibly correct. Never before have I had this feeling when watching Star Trek - and I've seen all the films and series'.
  
  I feel there's no need to go into detail about why the plot doesn't make sense since it's so obvious.
  
  This film put me in a bad mood for about a week, I would recommend and anyone who actually likes Star Trek to avoid it at all costs, despite Kethinov's absurdly generous review. If you've seen the South Park episode where indecent things are done to Indiana Jones you will understand what watching this film is like.
  
  Now, back to lovely DS9...
• From dario on 2013-05-19 at 7:21am:
  one problem you forgot to mention was the klingons had bumpy heads. while during this time their heads were smooth.
• From Kethinov on 2013-05-19 at 12:58pm:
  Enterprise's resolution of the Klingon forehead problem established that while it would take generations for the Augment DNA to no longer suppress Klingon forehead ridges, that some Klingon families may resort to plastic surgery in the mean time. As such, there is no reason to fault this film for displaying Klingons with ridges, just as there's no reason to fault Star Trek I: The Motion Picture for the same reason.
• From Orion Pimpdaddy on 2013-05-19 at 8:07pm:
  I literally just saw it about an hour ago, so I haven't formulated all my thoughts, but here's what I think so far:
  
  I enjoyed the film a lot more than the previous one. Here's some reasons why:
  
  -More homage is paid to the Enterprise itself. Let's face it, the Enterprise is the main character of the franchise. I was happy to see some wide shots of the ship while it was being still underwater and in the space dock. I don't seem to remember seeing the ship more than 2 seconds in the previous movie.
  
  -This movie has more of that idealistic morality we Trekkers love. Throughout the film, the crew was trying to do the "right thing," like stopping a volcano, not participating in secret weapons, etc. I didn't sense any of that in the previous film.
  
  -The part where new Spock contacts old Spock established that this Khan was pretty much the same Khan as before. Not some new Khan that was raised differently because of the new timeline. For some reason, I enjoy knowing this.
  
  -There's no car going off a cliff.
  
  -There's no cave where people bump into each other.
  
  -It was cool to see the Klingon moon half destroyed, consistent with Star Trek VI.
  
  That being said, the movie did some things it didn't need to do:
  
  -The chemistry between Kirk and Spock doesn't seem to be there. They mention to each other they are close friends, but I just don't feel it. If anything, they seem like adversaries.
  
  -Reproducing scenes from the Wrath of Khan was a bad choice. When Spock screamed “Kahn!” I instantly thought of the Darth Vader “nooooo!” part in Star Wars Episode III. I'm telling you right now, that part is going to be controversial for decades to come. The whole Kirk death scene itself had only about 10% of the emotion that the original Spock death scene. Once again, it's because the Kirk/Spock relationship doesn't seem to be there.
  
  -The fistfight on top of the vehicles was ridiculous. Why is Spock the only one beaming down? How can they not get sucked off from the wind resistance? I can only imagine how many scenes like this Abrams is going to insert into Star Wars.
  
  -Why remake the Klingon look? That face looked worse than the makeup job of the TNG era Klingons.
  
  Problems:
  -From what I remember, in the scene where Pike is dressing down Kirk for letting the natives see the ship, he was also mad about them trying to freeze the volcano. Why? Starfleet rescues civilizations all the time. For example, in TOS they were once trying to stop an asteroid from hitting a planet full of Indians. I know, it's a different timeline, but that aspect of Starfleet's mission should still be there.
  
  -I was confused about why they needed Khan to come back to the ship alive in order to resurrect Kirk. All they needed to do is transfuse blood from one of Khan's frozen men.
  
  Overall, I'm giving the film 6 out of 10. The best thing it did was make me forget about the first movie.
• From Wes on 2013-05-19 at 8:56pm:
  Kirk and Bones swam back to the ship. Spock was in the volcano.
  
  I liked it much better than the first one as an adventure and the plot twists. This was entertaining. And it seems they are trying to be more entertaining than anything. Although, there were good classic Star Trek elements in this one.
  
  The time to travel to "Kronos" was dumb. And what's with changing the spelling of the name of the Klingon home world to Kronos!? And yes, the rehash of Wrath of Khan elements was a little annoying (i.e. someone dying in engineering, yelling "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!" and others).
• From Wes on 2013-05-19 at 10:59pm:
  Oh, I forgot.
  
  I look at the title as more of a preface to where this franchise is headed--war with the Klingons and a more militarized Starfleet. I do look for superhuman Kirk going to war with the Klingons in the next movie. Get ready for a rehash of General Chang ;)
• From Jem Hadar on 2013-05-22 at 2:29am:
  I don't understand people who freak out over this film so much. It is a GREAT movie- this is a new generation of Star Trek, modernized- and I think some people are too stuck in the past. Yeah, it could have tackled "the issues" more- but that's not what this film was trying to do. I think the next movie in the series will have a more 'humanitarian' outlook, but for what this film was going for, it did a great job. I loved all the references to past Trek. The Nimoy cameo was fun, though the problem you pointed out was a sound one.
  
  I loved the new Klingon look- the effects were top notch too. Cumberbatch did an excellent job as Khan. Scotty had some great scenes; it was nice to see him have an even bigger role this time around. The new Carol Marcus was really hot too, which was great. I will say, though, that the Spock "KHAN!" scream had me laughing, which I don't think was the intention.
  
  I think the title of the film was perfect, and a good indicator of where the series is going.
• From OmicronThetaDeltaPhi on 2013-05-30 at 8:31am:
  Well, Jem Hadar, if expecting the franchise to retain at least an inkling of the optimism and moral values it held dear for 40 years is "being stuck in the past", then I am proud to declare myself as one of those who are stuck in the past.
  
  I'm really sad to see how the Star Trek franchise has transformed into a mindless sci-fi action franchise. And for what? In order to make it "more popular". As if popularity has ever been a measure of quality.
  
  Into Darkness indeed.
• From Abigail on 2013-06-04 at 7:44pm:
  My main thought about the movie (and this is not especially deep or thoughtful) was that 99% of the plot happened in the first hour and fifteen minutes. Then I watched people jump around on rooftops, fire phasers, and punch each other for the next forty-five minutes. Sorry, but that got pretty boring. That's not really "Star Trek" to me; I need some substance!
  
  I do give them credit for the great special effects, though. I saw it in 3D, which made it particularly fun to view.
• From Pete Oliva on 2013-09-16 at 3:08am:
  It just always bugged me how Khan's ethinc background changed. I know the new actor is British, but still, for continuity's sake, it stinks. His ethnicity wouldn't have been altered by the timeline fork.
• From Rob UK on 2013-09-17 at 8:13am:
  Well where to start??
  
  I just watched this for the third time to try and make some sense of it and do you know what i just realised? Obviously you all don't so here goes.
  
  This is the plot and storyline from that ultra cheesy movie of the 90's The Demolition Man with Stallone (whole Enterprise), except shot in a I-phone store and some cgi thrown in, let me explain.
  
  Future benevolent society ruler afraid of the unknown wakes up cryo frozen 'weapon' to use their powers for his own gain, everything backfires and our hero must save the day joining forces with the 'bad guys' to defeat the real enemy the benevolent leader! lame on so many levels, not even starting on all the swearing, the emotions from Spock acknowledging that his human side even affects him, i could go on and on, this is not the Star Trek standards I have come to expect by a long way, it is a nice cgi movie which I was amazed to find the second half was not directed by Michael Bay.
  
  So am i right in thinking (judging by what we have seen so far) that this is the remake of Star Trek II, the last movie ingeniously titled 09(instantly dating it lol,imagine Star Trek the Movie was called Star Trek 1980, it certainly would not still be being watched now) was the new version of Star Trek the Movie and they are now just gonna churn out a remake of each movie rather than advanced the Star trek universe we have been drip fed the evolution of over the last 30 years? very lame, don't think i'll even torrent them lol.
  
  What happens after the Dominion war, Cisco's evolution to join the profits how did this affect B'jor and the whole sector, what about the Mirror mirror lot who seemed to have almost found a permanent way through to our side, trade with the ferengi?????? Holograms rights????? Lame Lame lame lame so dissapointed
• From Rob UK on 2013-09-19 at 6:04am:
  I think we should all start a fan petition to get some directors and some backing on the continuation of 'our' Star Trek Universe, they could run in parallel just like alternate universes reality theory. One could continue in the world we know and love and the other could churn out sci fi cgi flicks and dumbed down action orientated remakes for the ADHD generation.
• From BrentNorth on 2013-12-15 at 3:41am:
  There is a potentially decent Star Trek film lurking somewhere here, trying to get out, a post-modern story about terrorism and militarism. But it is overwhelmed but the brutally clumsy attempts at Wrath of Khan nostalgia.
  
  Star Trek is supposed to be about new frontiers of exploration and thought, not cheap imitations of what has already been done. For that reason, I am at least partly of a mind to rank Star Trek V: The Final Frontier above Into Darkness. V may be a terrible film, but its concept is at least worthwhile in theory.
  
  On a specific note, the portions of this film that relate to "Khan" constitute an unforgivable sin in my book (and were completely unnecessary). I have rarely if ever watched anything so excruciatingly cringe worthy. Whoever was responsible for the creative decisions behind those parts should have his/her Star Trek license immediately and permanently revoked.
• From Rob UK on 2014-02-17 at 8:48pm:
  I have always loved my Trek fix ever since i was a kid, i am oddly amused at how mentally affected i am that 'they' (the Star Trek PTB)are not continuing the tale telling in regards to the STU as of Stardate 2373 when Voyager got home and after DS9 kicked Dominion ass, so much to work with (please see my above rantings on Cisco the profit and more lol).
  
  It is the same type of mind torment all the original fans must have went through between the end of TOS and the Star Trek movies of the 80's, anyway we eventually arrive to my point in writing
  
  http://www.startrekcontinues.com/episodes/
  
  If you are a fan of TOS and you never wanted it to end with Turnabout Intruder s03e24 then you would be crazy not to follow the link i just posted (webmaster permitting of course), I only just found the show a couple of weeks back and they've got my interest hanging on for ep3 coming soon.
• From Kevin on 2014-06-07 at 2:27am:
  I tried to like it, and honestly bit here and there were good. Good visuals and music and pacing. But the story and all of the silly moments and things that made no sense took over and I realized it was simply a crappy big budged action movie, with no care taken to make a quality movie.
  None of these complaints have ANYTHING to do with liking or not liking old star trek.
  
  It was simply a lame, and lazily written movie, that nobody read the scrip and thought, wow this does not make sense.
  
  There are literally about 4 dozen really noticeable plot issues. Things that just do not add up. It was as if they were trying make scenes simply to get to the next action part.
  
  Really squandered their chance to make a quality lasting movie. Instead they took the easy, lazy and silly way out. A comic book parody of Star Trke, and a really not well thought out movie on its own.
  
  Bad not only as star trek, but bad as a movie in general.
• From Kelly on 2014-06-07 at 11:07pm:
  Really not sure what to say. I get why some like it sort of. But to me as a woman, in my 30's it felt like I was totally the wrong audience. It was very juvenile feeling many times. The plot was not so much confusing, but silly and nonsensical. It seemed okay when I watched it, but later as I thought about it, so much made no sense. Decent acting and filming and all the technical stuff, but it needs someone to double check the science and the script. I rolled my eyes many times.It made me crinnge. I laughed at stuff that was supposed to be serious. That stuff with Spock and Uhura was beyond embarrassing, as was him yelling "Khan". Kirk is not a captain, but a teenager jock in space. Really a bit insulting to me as an adult.
• From Bronn on 2014-11-26 at 6:46pm:
  This film has many, many problems, which led to me scoring it a 2 (ST[2009] received a 6, Nemesis received a 1, and Final Frontier a 0, just for comparison). Before explaining the flaws that destroy this film, I'll start with what works well.
  
  1) The visual effects are pretty stunning, and the visual style is actually an improvement on the flaws of the previous film. It has a futuristic style without the antiseptic look of the 2009 film (the same kind of problem the Star Wars prequels had, in which CG backgrounds had an unsettling fakeness about them) so it was easier to immerse. JJ Abrams also stopped with the lens flare nonsense.
  
  2) The basic premise actually works for me. I don't mind Khan re-entering as a villain, and I don't mind that there's actually a secondary villain who is trying to steal control of Starfleet for the military-industrial complex. As a pair of plot devices, they work fine, and would have provided a fine story. Unfortunately, they failed to properly realize either plot.
  
  3) The acting from the main cast is spot on. Chris Pine is extremely talented and believable, and I am a big fan of Quinto's abilities. Simon Pegg is nearly a show-stealer as Scotty, just as he was in the 2009 version. I also have no problems with Zoe Saldana as Uhura, even if she's a big intrusive at times.
  
  Okay, now onto the problems.
  
  The biggest failing of this film is the writing. The characters aren't believably written. We accepted the original Kirk and Spock as great friends because we saw that actively develop during their adventures together. We saw Spock nearly emotional at Kirk's fake death in "The Amok Time," and we realized there was an emotional bond there. However, at the end of Star Trek: 2009, this Kirk and Spock were closer to adversaries than friends-which is fine. They didn't HAVE to be friends, since this is a new universe; the writers could do whatever they wanted with this relationship. If they wanted to show them becoming friends, it would be something we could follow during the subsequent films.
  
  That's not what happened, though. We're simply (and CONSTANTLY) told that these two are friends. I would accept that they've had plenty of off-screen adventures in which they've become close, even though it removes that interesting character development, except for what happens in the plot. It's clear that Spock and Kirk are very different people who don't even know each other that well. Kirk lies to Starfleet about their mission, and is surprised that Spock was completely truthful. How does he know so little about his friend that he simply assumes Spock will lie to keep him out of trouble? And if they're so close, why did Spock not anticipate Kirk's obfuscation? They have so little in common. It's like the writers simply went from "Well duh, they're Kirk and Spock, they HAVE to be best friends," and didn't bother actually portraying that.
  
  Furthermore, Kirk's lie irritates me. It starts with ending the previous film with him as captain of the Enterprise when he's clearly got no experience or maturity and hasn't earned that post yet. I kept imagining Picard locking the door to his office and telling Chris Pine that "The first duty of any starfleet officer is to the truth!" It's not like violating the Prime Directive is automatic dismissal from Starfleet, since Picard and the original Kirk did so several times when they felt they had a moral imperative to act. Saving an entire civilization from catastrophic destruction should not be hard to justify. But Kirk just lied about it, and behaves like a spoiled brat when his lie is called out and he gets in trouble for it. Again, he thinks that saving Spock's life is sufficient to get Spock to lie on his behalf, even if lying (and especially a dishonorable cover-your-ass lie) goes against Spock's nature. It was very early on that this mischaracterization grated on me, and it continued through the rest of the film.
  
  This poor characterization was even more deeply demonstrated during the mission to Qo'nos. Kirk asks Spock and Uhura, very frankly, if their personal issues are going to get in the way of the mission. They promise him that it won't, and he believes them because they're professionals, Starfleet officers, and one is a Vulcan to boot. I expect them, on a mission which is supposed to be serious (in which they could easily be killed) to actually get past personal issues, which were frankly fairly petty. I mean, Uhura's whining about the Vulcan she's dating refusing to share his feelings...seriously! And it happens almost as soon as the mission starts. I mean, not only is unprofessional, it's a bit childish. It makes me think of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined), in which there were deeply flawed individuals who sometimes had severe personal conflicts, even open hatred, with people they worked with, but they were able to get past personal issues in life-or-death situations. Here we have Spock, of all people, drawn into an argument with his girlfriend on a life-or-death mission. It doesn't help reassure me that this junior crew, with an immature captain, is somehow still professional enough to get the job done.
  
  I've rambled about the characters so much that I won't get into the plot very much, but let me say this: Why is it that the climax of the film has two starships blasting each other right next to the moon? I mean, are those the only two ships in starfleet? Why weren't other ships all over the place since they were literally minutes away from star fleet headquarters? They were closer to Starfleet headquarters than the freaking SHIPYARDS at Utopia Planetia. Yet somehow, nobody intervened, and both ships were completely at liberty to blast each without talking to anyone else. If nothing else, wouldn't Starfleet wonder why Marcus killed everyone on the Enterprise rather than have them face the law? Wouldn't other ships arrive to see if they could assist in the situation? Why is Spock able to send a subspace message to future Spock, but incapable of sending a message asking for help from other people in the vicinity of earth? I honestly don't know why this fight had to be near earth, except that they wanted Khan to threaten to destroy Starfleet headquarters at the end of it-would have made more sense if they'd been fighting near Qo'nos or anywhere OUTSIDE of the Federation, when these logical failures would not have existed.
• From Axel on 2015-07-13 at 5:10am:
  I wish it could just be a thing that all Star Trek movies have their own canon separate from the TV series. I mean, going all the way back to Star Trek I, The Motion Picture. For whatever reason, Star Trek films always seem to fail to capture what the TV shows got right. Maybe it's the fact that the films have to appeal to a wider audience. But the transition to the big screen has always been bad for Star Trek, IMO.
  
  So obviously, I'm not a fan of most Star Trek films and this is one of the worst ever created. By now we've established that the Prime Directive exists solely for the purpose of being violated. We have JJ Abrams pretty much lifting portions of Wrath of Khan's script and not even trying to hide it. We have a ridiculously convoluted timeline in which Old Spock is warning Young Spock about Khan and who knows what else. We have Young Spock going over the deep end with his emotion time and time again. We have utter nonsense like this superblood and the ability of people to transport from one planet to another (maybe someone hacked the Iconians' program centuries before it was discovered?). But mainly what we have is something so far removed from the original concept of Star Trek that it barely justifies staying in the franchise. What was wrong with having the crew explore the galaxy and encounter some entirely new phenomenon or species that they must work together to address? I mean, it worked for three decades worth of TV shows now, didn't it?
  
  I just couldn't enjoy it, despite the noble intentions behind the reboot and the stunning visual presentation. Then again, stunning CGI is no longer that big a deal in modern sci-fi, so oh well. The 2009 film was pretty good, but this just took a turn for the worse. Maybe we'll all live long enough to see the TNG reboot in 2037 and they will learn some lessons from this.
• From Jadzia Guinan Smith on 2015-07-19 at 1:56am:
  I’m not even getting into a detailed critique or bring up any specific issues. The whole thing just makes me sad.
  
  @ Selador – I should’ve taken your advice and not watched this horrendous thing. @Jem Hadar, if being “modernized” means lacking any discernible moral center, then human civilization is in big trouble.
  
  @Rob, yeah, I’d like to join your petition to continue into the future in the prime universe as well. In fact, I’d like not to even acknowledge this gawdawful new universe – meaning I want a prime universe where Romulus still exists (instead of having been needlessly and causally destroyed offstage)! I want this whole Nero idiocy to have happened in an entirely separate universe (not just an altered timeline). Maybe we can have a "reset" movie, where the JJ Abrams fiascos turn out to be a bad holonovel series by someone or other...
  
  However, this is highly unlikely to happen. Given that the rebooted franchise has made more money than all of the offerings of our old beloved one, I doubt very seriously that anyone is going to heed our “petition” or our sentiments.
  
  We have to accept that Star Trek, for better or worse, is now just another mindless action franchise meant only to churn out summer blockbusters. Gone is any attempt at philosophical depth. The old, cerebral and idealistic Star Trek I loved is now a thing of the past... something for Blue Ray box sets and Netflix streaming sessions, to be indulged in occasionally, like an old, worn copy of War and Peace.
  
  The final frontier is closed. It’s over.
  
• From Axel on 2018-07-02 at 2:22am:
  Despite their rebooted makeup/costume design making them appear more badass, the Klingons once again get completely smoked. This movie further supports my theory that the Klingons are the most overrated villains in all of Star Trek, supposedly a race of fierce warriors but in reality getting conveniently destroyed whenever they face humans. At least the Borg and Jem'Hadar win sometimes.
  
  To me, this movie, like all of Abrams' ST movies, is a compromise. It collects all the names and labels familiar to old-school Trekkies-Kirk, Spock, Bones, Enterprise, Khan Singh-and throws them into the kind of visually thrilling, action-oriented movie that is typical of modern science-fiction. So, as a result, it did great at the box office. What it doesn't do is what Star Trek originally did: explore the galaxy while at the same time, exploring humanity, our issues and our ethical and moral dilemmas. It's not a thinking Trekkie's movie. It's a movie to watch and go "whoa, look how amazing that crash into San Francisco was!"
  
  I'm not saying this as the bitter Trekkie. It's not like Star Trek movies were solid gold and Abrams ruined it. We all know that at least two of the TOS movies and two of the TNG movies were crap. And maybe this movie succeeded in connecting a new generation to the Star Trek tradition. But it just seemed underwhelming to me. Visually spectacular, but...then again, if a movie's greatest strength is its visuals and not its story, then you can honestly enjoy it just as much by watching a few highlights on YouTube.
  
  I didn't mind that it seemed a repeat of Wrath of Khan. In today's cinema, the thing to do seems to be to recreate classics but with better visuals to indulge the nostalgia of an older audience while thrilling a new one. just look at Star Wars: The Force Awakens. It may be lazy story writing, but it's modern movie-making.
  
  As for the characters, the main problem for me was Spock and Kirk. After watching the 2009 film, I thought that in this Star Trek universe, these two were going to have a relationship that more closely resembled rivals or adversaries that grudgingly respected each other. But this movie, out of nowhere, seems to manufacture this close bond between the two mirroring TOS. It's just not plausible given what we've seen so far. Far more believable in this series so far has been the Bones-Kirk relationship, which does an excellent job of imitating its TOS counterpart and to me, has been one of the more enjoyable aspects of these new films.
  
  Overall, I disagree with fellow Trekkies that this is the worst of all time, but it's certainly toward the bottom. It offers more than ST V: Final Frontier, or Nemesis. But, it's still little more than a dazzling 21st century copy of Wrath of Khan with timeline issues and no substance.

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Kail on 2017-09-26 at 10:00pm:
  "It is established in TOS: Turnabout Intruder that women cannot be captains in Starfleet. This was a difficult thing to suspend disbelief on at the time, but since women were shown to be captains not much later during the TOS films, it was assumed this sexism existed prior to the late 23rd century only. Star Trek: Enterprise further complicated this by depicting female captains in the 22nd century, narrowing the window of time for this sexist period in Star Trek's history to only the 23rd century. With Star Trek: Discovery, the issue is complicated even further by depicting a female captain (Georgiou) grooming a female subordinate (Burnham) to rise to the captaincy only a decade prior to TOS: Turnabout Intruder. This narrows the window of this sexist period of Star Trek's history to only a small number of years, making the episode even more difficult to rationalize."
  
  I have ALWAYS taken Lester's comment "Your world of Starship Captains doesn't allow women" as Kirk's obsession with becoming a Captain left no room for her, not that female Captains are not allowed.
• From KosstAmojan on 2017-09-28 at 12:23am:
  You're konwn as a reviewer not only of Star Trek series but also of some other SF series. Did you also planning reviewing of The Orville?
• From Kethinov on 2017-09-28 at 3:48am:
  I have been struggling with that question. I was leaning towards not reviewing it assuming it would be strictly parody, as I have no interest in reviewing things that feel like Galaxy Quest. But having seen some early episodes of The Orville, I'm starting to think it might be worth reviewing, as it's not strictly parody.
  
  FWIW, I am also planning to review The Expanse, Killjoys, Dark Matter, the Star Wars films, Stargate, Babylon 5, Extant, and update several of the old reviews with expanded content. So stay tuned for, uhh... years to come. As this will take time haha. This site will also be relaunching with the brand new design I've been promising Real Soon Now™?. It's close to being finished, but not quite there yet...
• From KosstAmojan on 2017-09-29 at 1:43am:
  Wow! Just wow. Nice to read :).
• From John C on 2017-10-02 at 2:08pm:
  Just to say..glad to see you keeping up with it all! Been looking at your reviews since we started watching TNG two or three years a go and now we're half way through Voyager. We had a peep at this episode also, my son liked it "because it was modern".
• From Claus on 2017-10-02 at 6:25pm:
  Fantastic! This is the first time in history, that I have seen a Star Trek episode when it was brand new. TOS was never broadcasted in Denmark, and the other shows were broadcasted (or sold on DVD's) with years of delay.
  
  Star Trek Discovery looks amazing, and I really like the new darker tone. As one could expect, the pilot has a lot of action. And although it looks great, it is also a little bit boring. I would rather have all the characters introduced first in a slower paced episode. But is is certainly a very promising start.
  
  It is very clear that Kethinov LOVES continuity. Over the last 2 years I have seen/revisited all episodes in all the Star Trek series (TOS and DS9 for the first time). And after each episode I read all the comments in here. Often I agreed, but also many times an episode gets a much too low ranking, just because of some continuity problems.
  
  As for this new series, no one can expect that designs on spaceships, uniforms, weapons etc. would be consistent with the older series. Also, no one can expect that younger viewers have seen TOS. So I think it is very natural to update all of this and not take into account how klingons looked like 50 years ago when the budget was very limited. Furthermore, who really cares what Spock said back then about female captains or mutiny...
  In short, I think most of the issues in your "list of problems" should be rephrased "design and reboot updates".
• From kevin on 2017-10-03 at 12:52am:
  Some good, but overall was a bit hard to watch with how it was filmed. Odd camera angles, lens flares that were not even from the lens, and a lot of zooming in and out. Need to watch a few more to decide. Right now "The ORVILLE" seems to be closer to real Star Trek.
• From Kethinov on 2017-10-03 at 3:10pm:
  Claus, I strongly disagree that continuity problems should be papered over as "design and reboot updates." In fact, I just finished an entire article outlining why it is terrible storytelling to ask your audience to treat aesthetic canon as disposable here: http://kethinov.com/startrek_selectivenostalgia.php
• From Claus on 2017-10-04 at 3:01pm:
  Kethinov, I have read your article, and it's very well written. However, it is also a bit disturbing how seriously you view things. I think it's possible to be a Star Trek fan without being a fanatic. In the end it's all about entertainment, it's not a religion (even though many trekkies might see Star Trek as a kind of a religion).
  
  You are right about that there are too many remakes out there (especially regarding movies). But not all remakes are bad. I love it when somebody dares to break convention and try out a whole new path. Just look at the very much alternative X-Men series Legion. Incredible! Or Twin Peaks The Return. I salute you Lynch.
  
  In my mind nothing is sacred. To say otherwise is to restrict the creativity of the artists.
  
• From Kethinov on 2017-10-05 at 2:16pm:
  This disregard for aesthetic canon is bad storytelling, not "religion" or "fanaticism." If you think about it beyond the surface for just a few minutes, it's easy to see why.
  
  What if each season on Discovery they "updated" the uniforms with a new design? What if they redesigned the interior sets? Or the exterior design of the ship? What if they totally overhauled the makeup for Saru? What if these changes persisted in flashbacks?
  
  Wouldn't it eventually get to the point where your "nothing is sacred" attitude about aesthetic canon would reach its breaking point?
• From Claus on 2017-10-06 at 8:40am:
  Well, we can discuss from now on and forever, but I don't think that will change anything. The main reason is, that I simply don't buy the concept of an "aesthetic canon". It's good fun to watch how the older series looked like, but that's it. I'm not attached to it. So if anyone wants to bring things closer to how it "should have looked", then go for it.
  
  Example: I'm a HUGE Game of Thrones fan. And of course I noticed that the look of the Children of the Forest was changed significantly from season 4 to season 6. I was like, ok, that is also a good interpretation. They looked good before, and now they look even better (but in a very different way).
  
  We are all glad that we now actually have a new Star Trek show. So let's enjoy what we have, instead of being upset about what we don't have.
  
• From Kethinov on 2017-10-06 at 2:34pm:
  That's a pretty good analogy, because visually rebooting the children of the forest in Game of Thrones is another good illustration of this kind of shoddy storytelling, and you're right that your indifference to it (whereas it bothered me and plenty of others) captures the core our disagreement pretty well. Where I'd quibble with you there is the visual changes there were pretty subtle. Nothing like the total overhaul we're seeing today on Star Trek.
  
  What's happening on Star Trek would be closer to if Game of Thrones suddenly totally reimagined the dragons to look more like European dragons (with four legs and wings) than the present Chinese-like dragons for no reason, or recast an actor to someone who looks totally different, e.g. what happened Daario Naharis. Sometimes this stuff is unavoidable (e.g. if actors become unavailable), but they could've at least recast him to a similar looking actor. They didn't even try.
  
  Those things are all good illustrations of bad storytelling because this is a visual medium, not a novel series. Good stories on visual mediums take visual continuity seriously. And a lot of people value it. Their anger at this is valid, and you should not go around telling people to stop caring about aesthetic canon simply because you don't see why it matters to so many.
  
  You said you shrugged when Game of Thrones made those minor visual tweaks, as if that sufficiently answers the question I asked you about when you'd reach a breaking point if the changes became more frequent and with greater magnitude. But that doesn't really answer my question. So I encourage you to reconsider the question, and take it more seriously this time:
  
  What if each season on Discovery they "updated" the uniforms with a new design? What if they redesigned the interior sets? Or the exterior design of the ship? What if they totally overhauled the makeup for Saru? What if these changes persisted in flashbacks?
  
  Wouldn't it eventually get to the point where your "nothing is sacred" attitude about aesthetic canon would reach its breaking point?
  
  Or, put another way:
  
  What if each season on Game of Thrones they replaced all the actors? Changed the anatomy of the dragons? Totally overhauled the makeup for the White Walkers? What if these changes persisted in flashbacks?
  
  Wouldn't it eventually get to the point where your "nothing is sacred" attitude about aesthetic canon would reach its breaking point?
  
  You tried to indirectly answer "no," but that's hard to believe. Most people have a breaking point with this stuff. Many Star Trek fans have reached theirs. And justifiably so.
• From Claus on 2017-10-06 at 10:07pm:
  Sorry I didn't answer your questions. I just thought they were meant as rhetorical. Because, it goes without saying, that everybody has a breaking point to what they can accept. I'm just more flexible than you.
  
  If Discovery updated the uniforms, interior sets and exterior design each season, I would properly frown upon that. But if it was done nicely, I could certainly live with it. And as for Saru, they are very welcome to change his make-up. His current face does not really look alive. It should be improved.
  
  If the look of the dragons and the Others (White Walkers) in GoT were changed to the better, I also wouldn't mind. I think my breaking point would be if the dragons were changed so they looked like the fellbeasts from LOTR (the Nazgûl dragons). Or if Tyrion was replaced by a non-dwarf. :-)
  
  However, I don't think it's fair to compare changes BETWEEN tv series 50 years apart (from TOS to Discovery) to changes WITHIN a single tv series (from Discovery season 1 to the next season). It is obvious that the show runners have more freedom of creativity when a whole new show is being produced, than when producing the next season of an existing tv series.
  
  Finally, I would like to point out that the attitude of "nothing is sacred" is quite common in my country. I have never met anybody who would be upset by things from your "list of problems". We prefer to just enjoy the show and to shrug off inconsistencies.
  
  Apparently, you are also able to shrug off things, since you gave the first two episodes very high rankings at 8 and 9 respectively. That's kind of admirable. If it were me, and I was very annoyed by something in an episode, I would punish it by a low ranking ;-)
  
• From Kethinov on 2017-10-07 at 12:46am:
  It's important to note that the high ratings Discovery's pilot received here are not a tacit approval of how they're handling aesthetic canon. A good reviewer will separate critiques of the premise from critiques of the execution. Discovery is getting high ratings here because while the premise (with regards to setting and aesthetic canon) is bad, the story is good. Good reviewers should always give a good grade to a good story, even if it's just a well executed bad idea.
  
  Meanwhile, the critique of the premise as articulated in the separate article still stands. Throwing out two generations of painstakingly maintained aesthetic canon will serve only to damage the long term health of the broader Star Trek franchise for no real gain.
  
  Future generations who watch Star Trek in chronological order will be subjected to unnecessarily painful transitions, going from Enterprise, to Discovery, to TOS. Before Discovery aired, the transition from Enterprise to TOS was relatively smooth, due to context clues about the upcoming change in industrial design aesthetics that were foreshadowed in various episodes, most notably when Ent: In A Mirror, Darkly foreshadowed the transition by having 22nd century characters interact with (accurately portrayed) 23rd century technology and comment on the differences.
  
  Likewise in the Star Wars franchise, you can watch the prequels, then Rogue One, and then the original trilogy and it works incredibly well because the producers carefully managed the aesthetic transitions between episode 3, Rogue One, and episode 4. Three generations of Star Wars films can be watched in rapid succession, but they feel aesthetically consistent. What a remarkable achievement!
  
  That's an ideal Star Trek should've aspired to. But Discovery takes Star Trek in the opposite direction because the producers were too lazy to do this right like the Star Wars folks did with Rogue One, or even like Gene Roddenberry did with the original series films and TNG by setting them further in the future each time he wanted to update the look. The producers of each of the five previous series understood this and worked hard to integrate visually into their predecessors' aesthetic canon. After fifty years of doing it right, Discovery comes along and demolishes all that hard work in a single episode for absolutely no coherent reason whatsoever.
  
  I think that sad and unnecessary decision has irrevocably damaged the Star Trek franchise's future. And I don't think history or future generations will look kindly on it whether Discovery's actual story turns out to be good or not.
• From McCoy on 2017-10-25 at 2:25pm:
  I've watched first 4 episodes and I'm done... Sorry.
  Wasn't expecting much after trailers but this is... Wow... I must admit, Discovery is better than Abrams reboots but it's still bad.
  I agree completely with every complain about continuity/design errors. I've studied literary theory and I know what a consequence in fictional worlds is. You can't "redesign" C3PO, because "hey, he looks and walks silly, nowadays nobody will take this kind of robot design serious". It's a matter of consequence inside fictional world. If they wanted "updated" visual style, they've should move timeline 10 years after Voyager and no one would complain. But nooo... Let's make prequel... Oh my...
  But even in after-Voy times nothing justify new look of Klingons. If you think Klingons looks not enough "alien", then make new aliens instead of messing with existing ones.
  And honestly, it's a boring show. I don't see much problems or curious sf ideas. Just generic shooting in space plus "modern" dark themes and killing characters to force tension.
  Don't want to spoil, but there is also a "mushroom" concept. And it's stupid as hell. Worse sf than legendary Threshold. I though for a moment they're kidding. Is this suppose to be a parody?
  What I like? Burnham, Georgiou, Saru and Lorca are well played. But it's not enough. Good actor won't save the show, if he won't get good scenario and dialogues.
• From Inga on 2017-12-26 at 1:06am:
  First of all, I want to mention that the 60s sexism is in no way a piece of continuity worth preserving (just like I never understood the need to justify the lack of Klingon ridges in the 23rd century in-canon). In addition to that, as Kail, the first commentator said, it is arguable whether it really was the case at all. When you really think about it, the male-female dynamic in the entire show is pretty archaic because of the times the series was filmed. Should the creators of any TOS prequel try to emulate the 60s gender roles as well?
  I also disagree that Discovery had to be present in the pilot. The format of this show is a bit different, which makes a later introduction seem a bit more organic.
  Other than that, I’m very glad you’re reviewing this show as well! I used to read your reviews a lot when I first discovered Star Trek (which was pretty late in my life, I have to admit) and I found them very helpful!
  I’d also add McCoy’s comment about Klingons. Not only are the new designs unnecessary, they kinda make Klingons less likable. It has already been established that all humanoid species come from the same ancestor, so there is no need to make them look more alien. The make-up is so heavy that their faces look contorted and the female Klingon’s lips don’t always move in full (a part of her lower lip always sags).
  As for their language, although I usually love it when aliens speak their own language, the actors were speaking sooooo agonizingly slowly… There is no way an actual species would all speak at such slow pace. Most native speakers of any language speak faster due to language economy – the desire to convey as much info with as little vocalization, which is the reason why we shorten our words.
  
• From Graham Bessellieu on 2019-07-14 at 7:02am:
  Overall, I found this DIS pilot lacking character development. While I'm not as concerned about "aesthetic canon" as Kethinov, the high-tech display does make it a stretch to imagine it pre-TOS. It feels more a re-imagining of the ST universe, (peppered with nostalgia). The showcased performances felt contrived and flat.

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Abigail on 2018-01-11 at 7:11pm:
  I feel like Star Trek has overdone parallel universes in which we all have an evil duplicate. Much like time loops, I am no longer interested. Give me something new, people!
• From Dstyle on 2018-01-18 at 12:50am:
  As soon as I realized this was going to be a mirror universe episode I had a similar reaction to Abigail's, but that was quickly replaced by a surprising giddiness. Sure, Trek has done it to death, but I just can't help but LOVE mirror universe episodes. Long live the Emperor!
• From Rob UK on 2018-01-18 at 6:49am:
  I am amazed they wasted 10 episodes to set up a Mirror Mirror story line in a weak attempt to do the Joss Weddon style with the series long evolving story line and character arcs, you know unlike Star Trek of old they and their world will change drastically and evolve or devolve due to events that happen in their lives and world.
  
  Star Trek usually wraps up a Mirror Mirror story line with 2 episodes, 1 in the early seasons to set up a ripple effect in the Mirror Mirror and then another episode in the later seasons to fix or make worse those ripples.
  
  I have hung in there watching diligently but i sadly have zero emotional or human connection to any characters in this Trek Verse except the nerdy awkward girl as she is the only close to believable character in the whole bloody show, I was very surprised and could not believe how I felt zero about the doctor getting his neck snapped, I didn't even enjoy the surprise violence as it was tee'd up so much you knew the character had to act in an extreme manner to allow the story arc to continue down it's very obvious and so far predictable path.
  
  Then we have the multi verse Stamets's having their own battle between themselves that everything hangs in the balance with in all parallel worlds, if evil versions of Stamets prevail doom doom doom, but which Stamets do we currently have on the ship, is he good or bad the suspense is definitely not killing me
  
  yawn yawn yawn but for some reason i am hanging in there still watching.
  
  On a happy note i am genuinely looking forward to the return of The Orville
• From Dstyle on 2018-01-18 at 4:29pm:
  Rob UK: I assume the "good Stamets vs evil Stamets" faceoff you're referring to occurs in a future episode? It certainly didn't occur in this one. I personally am not too upset by minor spoilers, but perhaps you should confine the discussion of plot points from future episodes to the comments of those particular episodes.
• From Kethinov on 2018-01-19 at 7:46am:
  I have no plans to enforce a no spoilers policy in the comments section. That said, I don't think Rob's comment is necessarily a spoiler unless he is aware of plot points beyond 1x11 that I am not aware of. There is some pretty obvious hint dropping starting with 1x05 about the mirror universe and a probable confrontation between Stamets and mirror Stamets which this episode all but confirms.
• From Rob UK on 2018-01-19 at 8:42pm:
  Sorry folks i definitely had no spoilers at all, it was purely my own speculations based on watching, i thought everyone here was kinda thinking down the same or similar paths based on Kethinov's reviews and the fan comments.
  
  I never read ahead if stuff gets leaked about anything, i don't even like to watch movie trailers and i always read the book before the movie comes out, my genuine apologies if anything i wrote felt like spoilers i was just having a mad midnight ramble about my thoughts on the show like most of my comments on here, check about my other commenst I am always Rob UK and I have been posting on here for about 3 or 4 years now and i have never ever spoilered, my comments are usually so off topic i am sure Kethinov only posts them because of their weird occasional comic value and you can definitely tell i love the Trek.
  
  I'm gonna have a re-read of my post, i might be onto something if it seemed like a spoiler :D it was about 4am when i posted and all i remember is ranting about not being upset when the doctor got killed
• From Dstyle on 2018-02-02 at 6:15pm:
  Fair enough. :)

No fan commentary yet.

No fan commentary yet.

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From Alex on 2020-02-24 at 12:58pm:
  This was the episode that made me rethink whether I really want and need to further watch this series. And the decision is rather not in favour of the series.
  
  Let's see, so far ST:Pic has almost more violence on screen than *all* previous Star Trek *combined*. Or is it *really* more? (That's not counting Discovery, frankly I didn't finish even season 1 and I just... I don't count it.)
  
  We had the series start with some brutal killings right away, people melted with acid, people melting themselves with acid, rogue plastic people shooting real people through the neck in slow burning death, and now an ex-borg butchering with all the graphic detail. Maybe I'm too sensitive? Could be. I thought Star Trek always managed to be provocative and even shocking without resorting to just plain visuals of shock-value stuff. And close to the end we have another person turned into red mist. Even if she was built up as deserving to die (right after Picard argues otherwise... so... I don't agree either)
  
  And in the very end when we just rescued Bruce Maddox, after all that setup and introduction (well, his older self, of course we already were introduced to him 30 years ago), he's just killed. Right away. And it showed his agony in full HD for good 30 or 40 seconds. How his blood vessels collapsed, organs failing, eyes darkening, all that.
  
  Just have us wait for the character's reveal for 5 episodes now and then crunch him without any mercy.
  I didn't want that. Especially (!) when it happened *right after* Picard got his next lead, his next quest mark out of the professor.
  
  That also brings up a few questions - if the EMH is capable of "background processing" so to speak, as to response to individuals onboard being in some alarming condition - psychologically or physiologically (interestingly the former was made to seem more immediate?) - then... what about security? Was there not one alarm signal going off on the captain's board? That someone was dying right now in sickbay? When they come in, say, 30 minutes later, for some usual business, does Agnes tell them "oh he died because injuries", won't they have any sort of security recording? Or is she gonna erase the evidence?
  
  Bottom line, that was pretty frustrating. First the episode turned me away with the graphic butchery (I get it, things are bad, did I really need to see that much of it?), then it admittedly built some good tension and humor, then it made my stomach turn into a knot as I was watching Raffi's scene with her son (it was painfully good, in a sad way), and then it slapped me with the killing of Bruce Maddox as if he was a scripted NPC that Picard had to meet and talk to once in order to continue on the quest.
  
  Was I supposed to equate and resolve the maturation of the franchise with inevitably turning darker, more shocking? Well, it sounds more like GoT than ST. And I'd rather not.
• From Mathalamus on 2020-02-24 at 10:31pm:
  I stopped watching picard after ichebs eye was torn out. apparently, i didn't miss out on a lot after that. sorry, but i cannot consider picard to be a good trek series. its just way too different from what i think star trek should aspire to.
• From JD on 2020-02-25 at 10:00am:
  I thought this episode was bloody excellent.
  Icheb... ouch... but there needed to be something properly serious to make Severn go vigilante.
  
  Some people seem to be a bit unhappy about the Star Trek Universe being a bit of a bleak place... however, we've only really seen it before through the lens of Starfleet which is always going to be absolute best of the universe.
  
  What we're seeing in Picard is more akin to what we saw in Gambit or the bar we saw in Unification. Hey, even DS9 was a bit of a sketchy place and that was under Federation control!
• From Alex on 2020-02-27 at 12:15pm:
  @JD
  
  "Something properly serious to motivate Seven"
  
  A valid point in itself but his death would be equally serious regardless. Actually, the eye scene was for the audience *alone*. She wasn't even in the room when that happened.
  
  If he were to die on some hooks with wires injected into him or something, it would be cruel, it would be motivating, it wouldn't be as shock-value-y.
  
  And, in the end, the most painful part for her was not being able to save him, which could've been provided without us viewers seeing that sort of stuff.
  
  "First Contact" had plenty of people dying in similar circumstances, but it didn't become "Saw".
  
  The episode could've been both fun and gut-wrenching but for me personally that was lost behind "Picard" trying to GoT the franchise. It was already sad to watch Picard being a shadow of his former self, rejected, powerless, fumbling around somewhat, his housekeeper saying he's demented. Now it went into just being too graphic. :(
• From Rick on 2020-03-25 at 3:08am:
  I agree completely with Alex. Gene is rolling over in his grave with what has been done to trek.
• From Gary on 2020-03-28 at 4:55pm:
  First: Thanks so much for carrying on reviews, now of ST:Pic... I've always found your reviews thoughtful and balanced, and they add to my enjoyment of the episodes.
  
  Even when, sometimes, it's hard to enjoy the episodes. While I agree with some complaints that the ramped-up gore is pushing ST's envelope in ways that aren't welcome, I can hope they use it sparingly and get back to discussions of morality.
  
  Agnes' murder of Maddox did rely on some sadly-common ST tropes. On his death, surely Picard and the others would want to ask the expert - the EMH - about the details, NOT the roboticist. But in ST, scientists are all physicians and vice-versa. But I suspect that any of the former Starfleet personnel on the ship (3 of them!) would have more medical training than Agnes.
  
  In any event, in past situations they'd look at the "readouts", the data, not just listen to an amateur's description and move on. And finally: should a passenger (that's all she is) be able to disable the EMH during a medical emergency?
• From Axel on 2024-03-12 at 1:34am:
  I'm glad you brought up the advertising holograms appearing in the ship. This scene is clearly supposed to be humorous. But IMO, it continues the Star Trek tradition of showing us technologies that may not be far in our future. Is what these holograms do much different than how modern social media advertising works? Our Insta, Facebook, and other feeds show us products based on our search histories and browsing trends. Marketing that is tailored to individuals based on data that many people would probably prefer to keep private, but have accepted that it no longer is. Our devices sync with other devices and share information about our profiles. Give AI and holographic technology some time, and I think this is exactly where things will go.
  
  Overall, this was one of the better episodes so far. I can't believe it's taken me this long to watch "Picard" but I'm very glad they used the format they did for this show, making it a continuous story rather than standalone episodes. It also makes me appreciate DS9, which did this long before it was the norm.

No fan commentary yet.

The following are comments submitted by my readers.

• From rhea on 2008-04-27 at 6:07pm:
  Some additions to your review, which I totally agree with otherwise (especially the absurdities):
  - another problem: the peak of the absurdness in this episode is how easily Spock gets off the hook. Last time I checked this was a military organisation, and stealing a starship, insubordination and mutiny, for whatever cause other than protecting the lives of millions against an evil superior is still punishable. So now all of a sudden it is ok because it was an act of compassion? Yeah right.
  
  - another highlight: Kirk, acting as a jury member in the trial against Spock. This is one of the very few occasions we see what a hardass military commander he can be - calm, cool, deadly, convicting Spock to death because this is what military law calls for. We tend to forget this side of him because most of the time he is all chummy with the crew and all angry and emotional with the enemy. Now I understand why he got to command a starship with a crew of 400+.
• From Old Fat Trekkie on 2011-12-06 at 9:02pm:
  Great site. I do wish to participate in the future.
  Here is my comment.
  
  There is a scene where Pike continues to signal "No". Commodore Mendez states that he could be questioned for days, without determining the issue. If I assume he can respond "Yes" or "No" to any questions, then any child who has ever played, "Is it bigger than a breadbox?" clearly knows that this is false. Let me ask 50 questions ...
• From Mike Meares on 2012-02-26 at 12:30pm:
  I thoroughly enjoyed the Menagerie! And I totally agree with Kethinov’s review! I still remember watching it for the first time and being in shock at what was unfolding right before my eyes! And
  I still enjoy watching it today.
  
  I really can’t separate Part One from Part Two, they are linked together and that is the way I will review them. Although I do agree with Kethinov as far as Part One being far superior to Part Two.
  
  However, like Kethinov pointed out there are numerous questions that pop up about both episodes. I am not sure I would call them “trivial” as he does, but as he correctly pointed out in his review they could be explained away. Well most of them but not all. I just wish the writers had spent a little more time on explaining them.
  
  I apologize in advance to anyone who takes offense at this, but just because I have questions about the Menagerie doesn’t mean I don’t think it is a terrific episode. I just feel it isn’t the best written Star Trek episode.
  
  I could name quite a few “mistakes” in both episodes but I will limit my criticism to just two mistakes or problems. And they are whoppers.
  
  The biggest problem with the Menagerie is that it is based upon the court martial of Mister Spock. Why is this a problem you say? Because in order to conduct a court martial you have to have three officers of command rank onboard. Since leaving Star Base 11, Commodore Mendez was an allusion created by the Talosians. Therefore you did not have three officers of command rank onboard; Ergo, Mister Spock could not have been court martial!
  
  However, this raises an even bigger and more serious issue to the story.
  
  If the Talosians could send their allusions all the way to Star Base 11 then why all the charade? When the Enterprise got to Star Base 11 the Talosians could have just created the allusion that everything was normal and Spock could have taken Captain Pike to Talos and gotten back to Star Base 11 and nobody would have been the wiser!
  
  Granted, it would have been difficult to stretch that into a two part episode! LOL!
  
  Nitpick: I could say something about Star Base 11 having back to back episodes( based on the way the episodes were filmed ) of a Court Martial against Kirk and then one against Spock, but I won’t! LOL! It is a good thing the Enterprise never went back to Star Base 11. Dr. McCoy or Scotty would have been next! LOL!
  
  More Nitpick: When they were questioning Pike did anyone ever think of asking a Vulcan to Mind Meld with him? Just asking.
• From Old Fat Trekkie on 2012-02-29 at 9:45pm:
  Mike, we don't need a mind meld. See my last comment. 50 intelligent questions that can be answered "Yes" or "No" will get to the bottom of almost anything. I do believe we may assume that in the 23rd century, folks will still be able to ask intelligent questions.
• From Schreck on 2013-05-23 at 9:41pm:
  The first and only two-parter of TOS that gives us a nice storyline about what happened to Pike and it gives us some nice continuity in the series which is lacking. I give it a 7 and my brother a 6.5