star trek 2009 is bad

Things you buy through our links may earn  Vox Media  a commission.

Why Trekkies Don’t Like J.J. Abrams — And Why Star Trek Into Darkness Might Make Them Reconsider

J.J. Abrams brought Star Trek back into theaters, but not all fans were eager to board his redesigned Enterprise . The 2009 film continues to polarize longtime Trekkies, many of whom feel that it failed to capture the spirit, scope, and intelligence of classic Star Trek . Arnold Blumberg, a University of Baltimore media studies professor and Star Trek aficionado, was firmly in that camp — until he saw Star Trek Into Darkness . “Everyone who knows me knows: I really hated that first movie,” he tells us. “And now that I found this one rather enjoyable, I’m seeing all these reviews rolling in from websites and friends and colleagues, saying, ‘wow, this one is really dumb.’ It’s like living in a Bizarro World.” The conventional wisdom springing up around Into Darkness is that it alienates fans. (“Star Trek Into Dumbness,” reads the headline on io9’s review .) But is it possible that the film could win over Trekkies who hated the first film? Since Blumberg was game, Vulture asked him to make a case for giving Abrams another shot.

Talk to me about your personal relationship with classic Star Trek. Star Trek was a part of my childhood right from the very beginning. I’m in my forties, so I actually am of the first generation after the show had already left the air. I saw it as a child in repeats. During most of my childhood, I was deeply into Star Trek . If there was a novel, I’d read it. I’d get the books about the show. It was one of the things I really cared a lot about. So I have an emotional investment in it that obviously is going to color my reactions. It’s tough to step away from.

Did you object to the decision to relaunch the series with the original characters? One of the inevitable things that’s going to happen with any media franchise if it lasts long enough is that it’s going to outlast the actors; it’s going to outlast the people who began it. I think, in essence, the choice they made was a perfectly understandable one and, already I hate that I’m falling into something this cliché, a logical choice. To go back and use those original iconic characters, rather than simply doing what they’ve been doing for years, which is keep introducing a new crew — that made total sense. You say “Kirk and Spock” and even people who don’t know Star Trek well understand what that means.

So you went into the first Abrams film with an open mind, and hated it. I genuinely still believe that the 2009 Star Trek is one of the stupidest movies I have seen in my entire life. That movie is awful on almost every conceivable level. The plot, the structure of the film, the characterization, the action set pieces — it’s one of the rare occasions I’ve ever sat through a movie where I felt it was insulting my intelligence at every turn. The entire plot hinges on one of the silliest McGuffins in cinematic history, this “red matter” that basically does whatever they want it to do, whenever they want it to do it, in contradiction to the very rules set up for it, just because they wanted to do something to keep the plot going. That’s not playing fair with the audience. It has nothing to do with Star Trek ; it has to do with telling a story. So then add to that the fact that it’s supposed to be a reinvention of characters that you grew up emotionally invested in. And it felt like, well, this is not Star Trek .

Was J.J. Abrams the wrong person to relaunch the series? I find it interesting that J.J. Abrams is moving on to the Star Wars franchise, because that is clearly what he has a personal passion for. He’s been very open in interviews that he was never a Star Trek fan, and he basically reinvented Star Trek with much more of the visual and action and emotional structure of the Star Wars films.

Tell me what you mean by the movies having more of a Star Wars than a Star Trek sensibility. I realize this argument can often sound silly. If you look around online, every time a quote-unquote Star Trek fan talks negatively about any of this stuff, people automatically start going, “Well, Star Trek had a lot of stupid stuff in the show.” Yes, absolutely. It’s hard to argue scientific accuracy, or even the differences between Star Trek and Star Wars , when Star Trek had episodes with Kirk fighting the lizard guy and McCoy putting a colander on his head and learning everything he needed for brain surgery.

The argument I would make, though, is that Star Trek was always scientifically based. Even when they made up their gobbledygook — or by the time you get to The Next Generation , they called it technobabble — they tried to create the illusion of something making sense. Star Trek exists in a world in which science is real. And it’s still science fantasy; you can’t have the transporter without it being science fantasy. But it had an element to it of being in a semi-realistic extrapolation of the future.

And Star Wars isn’t about a technologically plausible future. Star Wars is a sword and sorcery movie. Take away the technology aspect of Star Wars and it’s the Arthurian legend. It’s space opera, but it’s most definitely fantasy. Nothing in Star Wars needs or tries to behave in a way that’s technologically logical. Star Trek had a different sensibility about that. “Red matter” is a perfect example; red matter is something that is absolutely magical. Although, I’m trying to anticipate the inevitable reactions on 5,000 comment threads, which will be people pointing out that the Genesis Planet and the Genesis Effect in the original Star Trek movies are kind of magic too.

Should the 2009 film have tried harder to cater to original Star Trek fans? Actually, I think maybe one of the worst mistakes that the filmmakers made in 2009 was in feeling they had to pander to fans of Star Trek at all. And by that I mean, the extremely convoluted time-travel plot they come up with in that movie. Because they somehow felt they needed to say, “No, no, Star Trek has always existed, that time line is real, and we’re now going to change it, but we’re changing it within the fiction of that reality.” So they felt they desperately needed to try to make fans feel okay about it. If they had simply gone ahead and started that movie from scratch, dropped us into that universe, said, “We’re just starting again, there’s no need for an explanation — here is a young guy named Kirk, here is a young guy named Spock, they’re going to be on the Enterprise one day, let’s watch them grow up and have adventures” — then, in many ways, it would have been easier for classic Star Trek fans to say, “Okay, well it’s not mine. It’s something new.”

Okay, any other issues with the 2009 film that we haven’t covered? If I spent time talking about all the things that are terrible about that movie, we’d be here all night. But in terms of its relationship to the original Star Trek , here’s one thing I found interesting. As we were talking about before, the most obvious corporate choice for the filmmakers was, “Let’s go back to the beginning and pick up the characters that have the most iconic stature and the most cache to them.” Okay. So you go back to Kirk and Spock. And then you proceed to tell a story in which those two men have completely different childhoods than the original characters. Now they’re deeply damaged individuals: Kirk becomes a rebel and a troublemaker and a fighter and a boozer, and the movie becomes about trying to save that man and make him realize that it’s his destiny to be in the captain’s chair. And then you have a Spock who loses his mother and his entire planet, and basically experiences an origin in the 2009 Star Trek that’s more akin to being the last son of Krypton.

So: If Kirk and Spock are such powerful heroic figures in pop culture that have stood the test of time for nearly 50 years, and you’re reintroducing a modern movie-going audience to those characters, why turn them both into extremely damaged orphaned individuals who bear so little similarity, except physically, to the original heroes that they’re derived from? Why would you do that? They’re not even Kirk and Spock anymore. Stepping back from it, though, it’s interesting, because I teach a lot of stuff about superheroes and comics. And one of the things that happens frequently in superhero mythology is that the characters are orphaned.

The fairy tale trope. Yes, exactly. And notice what that also means: Once again, Abrams is not doing Star Trek , he’s doing Star Wars and fairy tales and superheroes. He’s taken the basic trappings of Star Trek and dumped them into other genres that apparently he’s more comfortable with, or maybe likes more. And let’s face it, the fact that the 2009 Star Trek was demonstrably a hit proves that it worked for millions and millions of people. So, forgetting my emotional point of view as a kid who grew up with the original version, what I would then say is: Well, what does that say about us as a culture? Is it that we need a Kirk and Spock today who have these flaws and this damage? Is that what speaks to people today?

What were your expectations going into Into Darkness ? I read it in advance, so I actually knew every single plot beat, down to some of the minutiae in the film, and, I was completely expecting to be mortified. It sounded atrocious.  And I sat and watched the movie last night. And I enjoyed it quite a bit — so much so that a few friends of mine, including a couple people from some other media websites, told me they were deeply, deeply sad and disappointed in me. [ Laughs ]  For daring to enjoy the movie!

So what turned you around? While there are still a lot of flaws, it felt like the characters and the actors in Into Darkness were moving closer to something that felt a bit like Star Trek . There are themes that come up in this movie that finally felt like that’s the kind of thing Star Trek would deal with. There are several moments throughout the film when Kirk deals with very deep moral and ethical issues related to, is Starfleet an instrument of exploration, or is it an instrument of war? And does he want to be a part of that? And he has to step up. And in essence, while that cartoonish, impulsive Kirk who always disobeys the rules is a joke that they built on and not the original Kirk, the Kirk in this movie is more the one who will disobey the rules when he knows it’s morally and ethically right to do so. And I was happy to see that.

Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry always wanted the show to send a message, and that’s something that was definitely absent from the first film. Into Darkness is a movie about: We choose to be above war. We choose to be the people who make the thoughtful decision, the moral decision, rather than simply bash and explode. Now, that message is a Star Trek message. And yet, I will say, Into Darkness also features an extraordinary amount of punching. [ Laughs ] I can’t tell you how many scenes in this movie involve a character just punching another person over and over and over again.

One of the fan criticisms about Into Darkness is that it borrows heavily from elements of Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan . From my perspective, they didn’t so much steal it, as take it and twist it. For instance, they took a lot of things that had to do with Spock in Wrath of Khan , and gave them to Kirk instead. And by flipping that dynamic, I think it actually gives you a fresh look at it. And a lot of other Star Trek fans are criticizing this movie already for relying on those emotional beats, saying that these two haven’t earned that because they don’t have the 30-year friendship that Kirk and Spock in Wrath of Khan had. That’s true. However, I thought, in watching Into Darkness , that the emotional beats in this one played pretty well for this version of Kirk and Spock.

If you’re going to steal from a movie, you could do worse than Wrath of Khan . Exactly. And I did feel by the end of the movie that the plot hung together better, there was less of that red-matter-sized plot hole you could drive a spaceship through. The characterization was better. There was a sense of more emotional involvement. There were more moral and ethical issues to deal with. As someone who grew up with the original Star Trek , I might find things to appreciate in it; clearly, I did this time. But the way I see it is: It’s not Star Trek . It’s something different with that name stuck on it. And that’s not necessarily a good or bad thing. It’s just the way media works. It’s difficult when things get reinvented because people have an emotional investment in it and it’s hard to get past that. But you just have to realize that Star Trek as we know it ended in 2009.

• star trek into darkness
• fan service

Most Viewed Stories

• Heidi Gardner Couldn’t Prepare for What She Saw
• Cinematrix No. 35: April 12, 2024
• A Hidden Sexual-Assault Scandal at the New York Philharmonic
• Bluey Gives Us a Sign
• Saturday Night Live Recap: Ryan Gosling Breaks Up With You

Editor’s Picks

Most Popular

What is your email.

This email will be used to sign into all New York sites. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy and to receive email correspondence from us.

Sign In To Continue Reading

Create your free account.

Password must be at least 8 characters and contain:

• Lower case letters (a-z)
• Upper case letters (A-Z)
• Numbers (0-9)
• Special Characters (!@#$%^&*)

As part of your account, you’ll receive occasional updates and offers from New York , which you can opt out of anytime.

FutureDude Entertainment

Return to Imagination

Welcome back to the world of tomorrow. Venture into spectacular realms of future possibility — inspired by the leading edge of science and the furthest reaches of the human mind.

Star Trek (2009) is not Star Trek

I’ve had an interesting relationship with Star Trek films over the years. Many people think that the odd–numbered ones are bad. Based upon my earlier article ( Why The Motion Picture is my Favorite Star Trek Film ) the first one has the deepest significance for me. I’m also partial to number three, The Search for Spock . So, obviously, I think the odd ones are fine.

A Franchise in Trouble

As for Trek on TV, like a lot of fans, I was pretty frustrated by the latter years of Rick Berman’s tenure as Executive Producer (although I blame Brannon Braga far more than Berman). I facetiously called Voyager ‘Star Trek Lite’ — and don’t even get me started on Enterprise . While the narrative that 24 producer Manny Coto brought to the final season was a bit more on track, it was really too late.

The modern Star Trek franchise was becoming recycled, trite, and creatively bankrupt. I was happy to see the 18-year run — that began in 1987 with The Next Generation — come to an end. It was time to give it a rest. But, deep down, I felt that production would return eventually.

I was right. A year later, in 2006, the announcement came that J.J. Abrams was taking over the property with a new film. The teaser poster featured the emblem of the original series. Oooh, a reboot! That was exactly what the forty–year–old series needed.

Mixed Signals with a Hint of Hope

When the teaser trailer appeared in January of 2008, I had some questions. While I loved the audio of JFK, I was deeply concerned about the Enterprise being constructed on Earth. It just didn’t make sense. I didn’t see why a ship that big would be built on the surface of a planet.

But again, I remained open-minded. The production values were excellent. I read it had the highest budget ever for a Trek film. Cool. Maybe we would get something truly epic — that didn’t feel like a glorified TV episode on the big screen.

Once I saw the first full-length trailer, it didn’t look too bad. I was not that impressed with Chris Pine’s Kirk, but the other actors looked pretty good. Especially, Karl Urban as Bones.

I was NOT enthused by the quick shot of Zoé Saldana’s Uhura taking off her top. It seemed like gratuitous pandering to teenage boys: “If you come watch our movie, you will get to see explosions, killing, and breasts!” Lame…

However, the film’s final trailer showed real promise — great music, emotion, and stunning visuals. It looked like the film was going to gel. I was stoked! “Fire everything!”

The Sober Reality

I finally saw the simply-titled Star Trek at a free advanced screening a week before its debut. I was not enthused or impressed. In fact, I was a little angry. I’m glad I didn’t spend any money.

Why? Where do I begin?

The problems started with video I saw of the PR tour before the film’s release. J.J. Abrams was always quick to point out to the press that he was never a fan of Star Trek . He said it as if he was almost ashamed to be associated with such a geeky phenomenon. Abrams’ first love was Star Wars .

Well, he managed to finally make his own version of George Lucas’ classic. That’s exactly was what Star Trek (2009) became — a Star Wars ripoff. The visual effects team jettisoned all of the Trek traditions, like the Warp streak and flash, and instead imitated the Star Wars hyperspace jump. Gone were the passing star fields that, to me, always exemplified the name of the show!

The new film’s key plot points — like a fatherless farm boy challenged by an elder to leave his home and venture into space, and an entire planet being destroyed halfway through — were completely derivative of Star Wars . The only problem is that the two franchises have nothing to do with one another and never should! They are based on totally different foundations.

Science Fiction without that pesky Science

In fact, the pseudo–science of Trek was what rooted the series for me. While they definitely stretched the physics and made things up via significant ‘technobable’ (especially on The Next Generation ) there was still some sense of reality and possibility. That was totally thrown out the window on Abrams’ reboot.

First off, the film starts off with a ship emerging from a weird space anomaly that looked like a black hole. I had heard that the lead scientist for NASA’s Cassini mission, Carloyn Porco, was the science advisor for the film. I’m sorry, but she did not do a very good job.

The entire film is riddled with horrible science. I mean horrible! A supernova that threatens the entire galaxy? Maybe a gamma ray burst could do that, but a not a supernova. And what about Red Matter?

At the end of the film, a black hole forms INSIDE a Romulan vessel! The crew sends messages back and forth while the spacecraft is slowly being consumed. I thought black holes sucked up everything — even light. Surely, it can stop radio signals. Just a drop can destroy Vulcan, but a huge ball of the stuff takes forever to dissect a ship?

What’s Up with the Sets?

The set designs were atrocious. The Kelvin was hideous inside and out. There are clear PLASTIC curtains inside a shuttlecraft? Engineering and other parts of the Enterprise were shot in a brewery. That’s right, a brewery. And it looked like it. The film had a $150,000,000 budget and it was shot in a brewery?!

What about the bridge? It looked like an ADHD Apple Store. Who could possibly work with all of those lights and lens flares glaring at them all the time? Why wouldn’t the film’s designers give even a little sense of the original design?

I had absolutely no sense of how the outside of the ship corresponded to the interior. The sets were incongruous and inconsistent. A 2001 hallway connected to what looked like a steam plant. A turbolift that takes you from engineering to the bridge in two seconds. What the heck was going on with the production team?

Lastly, the design of the ship itself — which was more than twice the size of the original. The new look completely destroyed the aesthetic of Matt Jeffries and Andrew Probert.

The Story was a Mess

Enough on the design. How about the narrative?

The story was virtually incomprehensible. It tried to be both the old Trek and some new conglomeration. Things made no sense, if you knew anything about the Trek canon. And, sorry, since they weren’t actually starting the story over from scratch — the presence of Leonard Nimoy precluded that — I had to take the old canon into consideration.

A few questions that plagued me: How would a ship come out of a black hole? And, then, why would it just start shooting at you for no reason? Why would Kirk run into old Spock in the one cave he was hiding in on an entire planet? That’s the same as being randomly dropped off on Earth and chased by a mugger into the one McDonald’s where your best friend is eating.

Speaking of that: why would the new Spock jettison Kirk in an escape pod? Why not just put him in the brig? Then, once on the surface of Delta Vega — Kirk is chased in a lame, derivative ( Star Wars: Episode One , YUCK!), and very pointless action sequence.

Plus, why would a leather-skinned lizard creature exist on an ice planet? AND how far away was Delta Vega from Vulcan? Old Spock could see it destroyed like it was as far away as the Earth’s moon. Closer even!

The whole Romulan subplot was pointless and lacked any real motivation. Nero had to be one of the weakest bad guys in the history of Star Trek . Blathering, murdering, and scene–chewing. It was simply awful. And, can I add that the little gremlin assistant to Scotty was out of left field and just plain stupid?

Ultimately, I think that many scenes were contrived for sensationalism — to keep viewers from getting bored. For example, Kirk’s big hands and Scotty beaming into a water pipe.

Any Redeeming Qualities?

You may wonder if there was anything I liked about the film. Actually, I did enjoy some of character interactions. I liked the visual realization of Vulcan — especially the school and stalactite buildings — and Ben Cross played a fine Sarek.

The bottom line for me: Star Trek (2009) was awful, and it really causes me to worry about the future of my favorite sci-fi franchise. I have had this argument with a lot of people. They say, “But it was fun and it reminded me so much of the old show!” Really? I find that hard to believe.

If the film had not been called Star Trek and played on the pop cultural zeitgeist and good will that the franchise had built over so many years, people would have thought the film was utter nonsense. Folks went in with a feeling of warmth and nostalgia that kept them from truly seeing that mess for what it was.

I’m completely fine with the idea of a reboot. But, then, actually reboot it and do an intelligent job. Don’t act like all that came before is irrelevant. After all Star Trek had been around for four decades when the keys were handed to Abrams. Clearly something must have been going right for it to have endured that long.

Production is underway on Star Trek 2 . Again, I will try to have an open mind, because Abrams’ Trek is currently the only game in town. I think it’s still possible to have an intelligent and comprehensible story — filled with action and effects — that can reach a broad audience. No matter what, though, let’s hope that they build their own engineering set this time and stay away from Budweiser.

Oh, one final thought: why would a third-year cadet be promoted to first officer? I would like to see that happen on one of our naval vessels! Images: WanderingSpace , Listal , Collider , CrazyThemes, Broadsheet , MemoryAlpha BrookstonBeerBulletin , ChristianTom, TrekBBS, DVDBeaver , and TrekMovie

All Site Content © Copyright 2015-2019 FutureDude Entertainment All rights reserved. Terms of Use / Privacy Policy / Site by Studio2

Professor Nerdster

Star Trek (2009) Thoughts & Analysis

The Surprise Approach: J.J. Abrams knows how to surprise people. When the island on ‘Lost’ started dancing, we were all surprised…The point is that J.J. Abrams’ approach is nothing like dramatic irony, or other narrative devices that intrigue, it is built on the foundations of Steven Spielberg’s career: withhold over 75% of the valid information from audiences. Q: How close is Sulu from being impaled in this scene? A: It seems really really close from this angle….but wait!….not actually: you’ve just been Spielberg(ed). Limiting valuable contextual information leaves the audience guessing, it constructs mental puzzles in the viewers mind. What will Nero do to Captain Robau onboard the Romulan mining vessel? We do not know but it is suspenseful simply watching an elevator travel to the battered USS Kelvin’s docking bay…most importantly what’s inside this Mystery Box ? (above)

Vulcans As Analogous to Actual Victims of Mass-Murder: Just one demonstration of Star Trek being social commentary; the destruction of Vulcan creates a new historical narrative for Vulcans & Spock. Spock has always been treated as a unique outsider then he becomes more isolated when 6 Billion Vulcans are murdered by a violent imbecile who has the power to exact revenge against an entire group of people: this sounds familiar. J.J. Abrams et al have created a similar subtle social commentary in Star Trek. The use of an analogous narrative to remind audiences of the very real human tragedy of the Holocaust or any Genocides may not seem obvious because the destruction of Vulcan is too abstract. It does, however, produce emotional depth serving as a new Spock character dynamic since his Vulcan rationality could not retrieve the people, history and family he has lost: a common crisis of identity after horrendous crimes against humanity: see (for example)

None Of The ABOVE Matters: that’s because this film was too GOOD. Star Trek (2009) is easily among the top five greatest science fiction films ever released. When you leave the cinema having been thrilled, having possibly laughed and even cried, you realize that this is what going to the movies should be about…. & After having grown-up with Star Trek Next Generation, After having made countless cardboard, duct-taped, plastic models of the USS Enterprises as a kid, After seeing Star Trek VI and subconsciously falling in love with Shakespeare before I knew who the Bard was, After being ridiculed for wearing a Star Trek costume on Halloween, for riding my bike into warp-speed, After being teased by everyone I knew as a kid…. AFTER ALL THAT, a film that non-Trekkies are talking about enthusiastically makes me (professor nerdster) feel like part of the diplomatic armada that “ has always been & always shall be your friend “; Star Trek. I’m a nerdster, after all….

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

This publication is dedicated to finance, politics and history

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, the franchise on the edge of forever.

Now streaming on:

“Star Trek” as a concept has voyaged far beyond science fiction and into the safe waters of space opera, but that doesn’t amaze me. The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action. Like so many franchises, it’s more concerned with repeating a successful formula than going boldly where no “Star Trek” has gone before.

The 2009 “Star Trek” film goes back eagerly to where “Star Trek” began, using time travel to explain a cast of mostly the same characters, only at a younger point in their lives, sailing the Starship Enterprise. As a story idea, this is sort of brilliant and saves on invention, because young Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty and the rest channel their later selves. The child is father to the man, or the Vulcan, and all that.

Don’t get me wrong. This is fun. And when Leonard Nimoy himself returns as the aged Spock, encountering another Spock ( Zachary Quinto ) as a young man, I was kind of delighted, although as is customary in many sci-fi films, nobody is as astonished as they should be. Holy moly! Time travel exists, and this may be me! It’s more like a little ambiguous dialogue is exchanged, and they’re off to battle the evil Romulan Capt. Nero ( Eric Bana ).

Time travel as we all know, is impossible in the sense it happens here, but many things are possible in this film. Anyone with the slightest notion of what a black hole is, or how it behaves, will find the black holes in “Star Trek” hilarious. The logic is also a little puzzling when Scotty can beam people into another ship in outer space, but they have to physically parachute to land on a platform in the air from which the Romulans are drilling a hole to the Earth’s core. After they land there, they fight with two Romulan guards, using ... fists and swords? The platform is suspended from Arthur C. Clark’s “space elevator,” but instead of fullerenes, the cable is made of metallic chunks the size of refrigerators.

But stop me before I get started. I mention these details only to demonstrate that the movie raises its yo-yo finger to the science, while embracing the fiction. Apart from details from the youths of the characters and the Spock reunion, it consists mostly of encounters between the Enterprise and the incomparably larger and much better armed Romulan spaceship from the future. It’s encouraging to learn that not even explosions and fires can quickly damage a starship. Also that lifeboats can save the crew, despite the vast distance from home base.

That would be because of warp speed, which for present purposes consists of looking through an unnecessary window at bright lights zapping past. This method of transportation prevents any sense of wonder at the immensity of outer space and is a convenience not only for the starship but also for the screenwriters, who can push a button and zap to the next scene. The concept of using warp speed to escape the clutches of a black hole seems like a recycling of the ancient dilemma of the rock and the hard place.

But there are affecting character moments. Young Spock is deliberately taunted in hopes he will, as a Vulcan, betray emotion. Because Zachary Quinto plays him as a bit of a self-righteous prig, it’s satisfying to see him lose it. Does poor young Spock realize he faces a lifetime of people trying to get a rise out of him? Nimoy, as the elderly Spock, must have benefitted, because he is the most human character in the film.

Chris Pine , as James Tiberius Kirk, appears first as a hot-rodding rebel who has found a Corvette in the 23rd century and drives it into the Grand Canyon. A few years after he’s put on suspension by the Academy and smuggled on board the Enterprise by Bones McCoy ( Karl Urban ), he becomes the ship’s captain. There are times when the command deck looks like Bring Your Child to School Day, with the kid sitting in daddy’s chair.

Uhura ( Zoe Saldana ) seems to have traveled through time to the pre-feminist 1960s, where she found her miniskirt and go-go boots. She seems wise and gentle and unsuited to her costume. Scotty ( Simon Pegg ) seems to have begun life as a character in a Scots sitcom. Eric Bana’s Nero destroys whole planets on the basis of faulty intelligence, but the character is played straight and is effective.

The special effects are slam-bam. Spatial relationships between spaceships are unclear because the Romulan ship and the Enterprise have such widely unmatched scales. Battles consist primarily of jump-suited crew members running down corridors in advance of smoke, sparks and flames. Lots of verbal commands seem implausibly slow. Consider, at light warp speeds, how imprecise it would be to say “At my command ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...” Between “2” and “1,” you could jump a million galaxies.

I thought about these things during “Star Trek” because I could not help myself. I understand the Star Trek science has never been intended as plausible. I understand this is not science fiction but an Ark movie using a starship. I understand that the character types are as familiar as your favorite slippers. But the franchise has become much of a muchness. The new movie essentially intends to reboot the franchise with younger characters and carry on as before. The movie deals with narrative housekeeping. Perhaps the next one will engage these characters in a more challenging and devious story, one more about testing their personalities than re-establishing them. In the meantime, you want space opera, you got it.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

Veselka: The Rainbow on the Corner at the Center of the World

Brian tallerico.

High & Low – John Galliano

Niani scott.

Knox Goes Away

Robert daniels.

Kim's Video

Ricky Stanicky

Monica castillo.

Dad & Step-Dad

Carlos aguilar, film credits.

Star Trek (2009)

Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content

127 minutes

Chris Pine as James Tiberius Kirk

Zachary Quinto as Spock

Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime

Eric Bana as Capt. Nero

Bruce Greenwood as Capt. Christopher Pike

Zoe Saldana as Uhura

John Cho as Sulu

Anton Yelchin as Chekov

Ben Cross as Sarek

Winona Ryder as Amanda Grayson

Chris Hemsworth as George Kirk

Jennifer Morrison as Winona Kirk

Directed by

• J. J. Abrams

Screenplay by

• Roberto Orci
• Alex Kurtzman

Latest blog posts

The Overlook Film Festival 2024 Highlights, Part 1: Fasterpiece Theater, Exhuma, All You Need is Death, Me

What You Do is Who You Are: Irena's Vow Screenwriter Dan Gordon on Telling the Story of a Teenager Who Saved Jews During the Holocaust

Chicago Critics Film Festival Announces Full 2024 Lineup with Sing Sing, Ghostlight, Babes, I Saw the TV Glow, More

Celebrating the Tenth Anniversary of Our Managing Editor Brian Tallerico at RogerEbert.com

• Become a Critical Movie Critic
• Movie Review Archives

Movie Review: Star Trek (2009)

• General Disdain
• Movie Reviews
• 9 responses
• --> May 6, 2009

I didn’t think I would ever say it this is my lifetime, but it looks like the science fiction obsessed, dressing up and convention going social outcasts known as Trekkies are now getting their due. J.J. Abrams has finally dropped Star Trek into the theaters, a movie which may be the most highly anticipated reboot in years ( James Bond and Batman had restarts that were salivated over by their fan bases too).

It was no small task either. Abrams and the writing duo of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (responsible for Transformers ) deserve the utmost credit for what was, no doubt, an incredibly tedious developmental process. They needed to create a movie that kept true to the source so as to not alienate the existing rabid fans, while at the same time reinvigorating it to draw in new movie-goers. A lot can go wrong with this scenario and, increduously, they’ve walked the tightrope without falling.

It all starts with an intense, 15-minute space battle between the U.S.S. Kelvin, commanded by George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth), and the Narada, a Romulan warship helmed by the Khan-like Nero (Eric Bana). It ends poorly for the good guys, but is surely puts a taste for more in our mouths, especially when Nero scampers off in wait of his real target . . .

At the same moment, a skirt chasing James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is contemplating his next move and ultimately decides, at the behest of Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), to follow in his father’s footsteps and join the Starfleet Academy. He eventually finds himself on the majestic and technically awe inspiring U.S.S. Enterprise with fellow cadets: Spock (Zachary Quinto), Leonard “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin). It’s all fun — Kirk wants to get friendly with Uhura (who wouldn’t) — and “friendly” competition — Kirk and Spock each look to one up each other — until Pike goes down and they’re forced into action.

There is no shortage of action or adventure in Star Trek but what was a most unexpected treat was at how well the two main roles were defined and acted out. Kirk, played extremely well by relative unknown Pine, gets to show off multiple facets of his character as he matures — cocky, uncaring playboy to daring, resolved leader. Spock, played just as well by Quinto, is especially complex as he deals with internal anger stemming from his half-blood roots. The two believably portray contempt and ultimately admiration for each other, as if this is the fourth installment they’ve starred in together and they’ve been through it a thousand times. The rest of the crew do a good job (some more so than others), albeit, mostly for well placed tension breakers with humor or sexual innuendos. I suspect, and hope, they’ll play a larger part in upcoming sequels. Adding Leonard Nimoy in as future Spock was a great touch too.

But how dare I simply gloss over the effects and action. The ships are modeled with great precision and it was good to see the U.S.S. Enterprise looking better than ever. Future San Francisco with its towering towers is a civil engineers wet dream. The fight and chase sequences are jam-packed and well choreographed. The explosions are big and many. The film starts off with a bang and rarely slows down enough for you to catch your breath; J.J. Abrams knew what this franchise needed and delivered it.

Although I tend to cringe into the fetal position when I see or hear the words “reboot”, “remake” or “retelling” attached to a movie (they usually signify the lack of creative juices in Hollywood), even I felt the Star Trek franchise needed a new beginning. Star Trek is a great start over. So much so that I even look forward to the sequel due in 2011.

I'm an old, miserable fart set in his ways. Some of the things that bring a smile to my face are (in no particular order): Teenage back acne, the rain on my face, long walks on the beach and redneck women named Francis. Oh yeah, I like to watch and criticize movies.

Movie Review: Ghosted (2023) Movie Review: Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020) Movie Review: Fantasy Island (2020) Movie Review: Snatched (2017) Movie Review: Horrible Bosses 2 (2014) Movie Review: ABCs of Death 2 (2014) Movie Review: Life After Beth (2014)

'Movie Review: Star Trek (2009)' have 9 comments

May 6, 2009 @ 11:14 pm Gaviin

Thanks for the nice review. I’m anxious to see this.

Log in to Reply

May 7, 2009 @ 9:55 pm Ray

I’ve never been much of a Star Trek fan but with all the positive reviews, I think I’m going to have to check this out over the weekend!

May 10, 2009 @ 4:01 am Nomad

I dare say this new Capt. James T. Kirk is a more accurate embodiment of all that is Capt. James T. Kirk (better than the original)

May 10, 2009 @ 6:22 am Cohen

I’d go further than the previous commenter – this movie is better than the orginal Star Trek.

This is what Gene Roddenberry envisioned.

May 11, 2009 @ 5:39 pm O'Neel

I wouldn’t exactly say Spock and Kirk go through a friendly competition considering Spock tries to get Kirk thrown out the Academy and beats his ass..

May 12, 2009 @ 9:44 pm BlaznXazn

Love it! Saw it at the IMAX. Well worth it! Saw it a second time with friends who couldn’t make it to the IMAX, not as good, but still really good. Action! Lots of it!

July 8, 2009 @ 11:48 am Rosie

After second viewing, I came to the realization that STAR TREK is one of the most badly written movies I have seen in years. Very disappointing.

August 11, 2009 @ 2:13 pm Alone?

Why does everyone love this movie? I wanted to like it. I tried HARD to like it. It looked good, it sounded good, the characters and acting were good. The story was STUPID. I suspended disbelief as long as I possibly could, but please… Kirk gets beamed onto a random planet, chased by a pointless monster that should have caught him in 3 steps, falls into a cave… and happens to bump into… Spock?!?!? Who then explains the convoluted and ridiculous plot to him?!?! And the bad guy was 2 dimensional and silly; “I’m going to travel back in time and make Spock watch his planet explode??? Really??? That was his plan??? The space scenes looked cool, but the bridge of the Enterprise looked like a health spa. And the Enterprise has a water slide now??? A good start at reviving Star Trek. Go ahead and add all the action you want, change the rules, alter history… FINE; but next time try to have it make sense.

March 31, 2012 @ 10:00 am Jackrabbit Media

Probably one of my favorite installments, liked your review. I think I enjoyed this version more than any of the others.

Privacy Policy | About Us

 |  Log in

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

• For Parents
• For Educators
• Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

• Get the app
• Movie Reviews
• Best Movie Lists
• Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

• Best TV Lists
• Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
• Common Sense Selections for TV
• Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

• Book Reviews
• Best Book Lists
• Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

• Game Reviews
• Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

• Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

• Podcast Reviews
• Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

• App Reviews
• Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

• YouTube Channel Reviews
• YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

YouTube Kids Channels for Gamers

• Preschoolers (2-4)
• Little Kids (5-7)
• Big Kids (8-9)
• Pre-Teens (10-12)
• Teens (13+)
• Screen Time
• Social Media
• Online Safety
• Identity and Community

Explaining the News to Our Kids

• Family Tech Planners
• Digital Skills
• All Articles
• Latino Culture
• Black Voices
• Asian Stories
• Native Narratives
• LGBTQ+ Pride
• Best of Diverse Representation List

Celebrating Black History Month

Movies and TV Shows with Arab Leads

Celebrate Hip-Hop's 50th Anniversary

Common sense media reviewers.

Classic franchise gets new life; OK for older kids.

A Lot or a Little?

What you will—and won't—find in this movie.

Even with its sci-fi action and occasional flirty

Almost every character in the film puts aside some

The sci-fi military-style action violence is plent

Some suggestive talk and kissing; two female chara

Some language throughout including "arse" (in the

The movie is set in the 24th century, but somehow

Characters drink beer, wine, and hard liquor, some

Parents need to know that although this slick, upbeat sci-fi adventure isn't much more violent than the earlier Star Trek movies, there's a heightened feel that gives Star Trek a little bit more edge. While the action is (mostly) bloodless, it's also intense; expect lots of fights, battles, and hand-to-hand…

Positive Messages

Even with its sci-fi action and occasional flirty sexuality, the movie has positive, welcome messages about individual responsibility, collective accomplishment, institutional tradition, and working for the greater good.

Positive Role Models

Almost every character in the film puts aside something -- regret, pain, selfishness -- for the ultimate mission, with teamwork as its own reward. Zoe Saldana's Uhura is a strong female role model. Good cast diversity.

Violence & Scariness

The sci-fi military-style action violence is plentiful but not especially bloody. At one point, an entire planet (with a population in the billions) is destroyed. The crews of various starships are pummeled by explosions, struck with torpedoes, sucked out of hull breaches into space, and generally assaulted. A character is impaled with a sharp-ended staff; another falls to her death; another receives several harsh pummelings. Some fistfights. Humanoid aliens are shot close-up; a monstrous beast threatens a character.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Sex, Romance & Nudity

Some suggestive talk and kissing; two female characters are seen in their underwear. An underwear-clad couple makes out on a bed, though it initially seems like they're having sex. There's a joke about "farm boys having sex with animals."

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Sex, Romance & Nudity in your kid's entertainment guide.

Some language throughout including "arse" (in the context of kicking), "damn," "ass," "hell," "oh my God," "bulls--t," "goddamn," and "whore." One clear (though not particularly noticeable) use of "f--king" in the lyrics of a Beastie Boys song played during a scene.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Products & Purchases

The movie is set in the 24th century, but somehow Nokia and Budweiser manage to make appearances.

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Characters drink beer, wine, and hard liquor, sometimes to excess.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Drinking, Drugs & Smoking in your kid's entertainment guide.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that although this slick, upbeat sci-fi adventure isn't much more violent than the earlier Star Trek movies , there's a heightened feel that gives Star Trek a little bit more edge. While the action is (mostly) bloodless, it's also intense; expect lots of fights, battles, and hand-to-hand combat. At one point, the villains destroy an entire planet of humanoid aliens. Some of the comic relief scenes have a flirty, playful sense of sexuality (Kirk has always been a ladies' man), but that's balanced by the mature depiction of a relationship. There's also a bit of language ("bulls--t," etc.) and some drinking. To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Community Reviews

• Parents say (82)
• Kids say (127)

Based on 82 parent reviews

Star Trek 2009

Good film for adults, what's the story.

Re-starting the Star Trek franchise from its very foundations, STAR TREK begins as a time-travelling bad guy comes from a far-flung future to the early days of the Trek universe. Seeking to avenge a future tragedy, unstuck-in-time villain Nero ( Eric Bana ) attacks the very foundations of the Federation, including Vulcan and Earth. The only ship that can stop him, the Enterprise , is in the hands of untested Starfleet officers Spock ( Zachary Quinto ), McCoy ( Karl Urban ), and a rebel who just barely made it on board, James T. Kirk ( Chris Pine ).

Is It Any Good?

Rocketing at warp speed without ever slowing down, J.J. Abrams directs this reboot as a smart, speedy thrill ride that doesn't indulge in nostalgia for its own sake. Star Trek welcomes newcomers while still delivering every moment fans might want from of the crew of the Enterprise . Quinto and Pine are both excellent in their own right and also have a real chemistry between them, while Zoe Saldana turns the thankless role of communications expert Uhura into a vital part of the story.

The film isn't perfect -- there are a few minor missteps -- but at the same time, it's also lovingly made, speedily paced, and completely aware of its job: to entertain audiences without leaning too heavily on speeches or sadness, opting instead to deliver action, adventure, and (perhaps a little too much) comedy. Still, in an era when too many summer blockbusters think they can get away with being dumb by claiming to be "fun," it's a pleasure to see a movie as well-made, clever, and charming as this actually seem to want to earn our money by putting on a real show.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about the enduring appeal of Star Trek -- what makes people become such faithful fans? Why do you think the studio decided to make a new version? How does it compare to the older movies and TV shows?

Talk about revenge, which is a major theme in the film. Ask kids whether it's ever justified to hurt others in the name of revenge. How much of the movie's violence can be traced back to that motivation? How much impact does it have compared to the violence in other action movies? Why?

There is a good amount of diversity in the cast, both mirroring and improving on the original series . Why does having diverse media role models matter?

How do the characters in Star Trek demonstrate teamwork ? Why is this an important character strength?

Movie Details

• In theaters : May 8, 2009
• On DVD or streaming : November 17, 2009
• Cast : Chris Pine , Eric Bana , Zachary Quinto
• Director : J.J. Abrams
• Inclusion Information : Gay actors
• Studio : Paramount Pictures
• Genre : Science Fiction
• Topics : Adventures , Space and Aliens
• Character Strengths : Teamwork
• Run time : 126 minutes
• MPAA rating : PG-13
• MPAA explanation : sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content
• Last updated : March 3, 2024

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

Our editors recommend.

Star Trek: The Original Series

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek: Generations

Star trek movies & more, space movies, related topics.

• Space and Aliens

Want suggestions based on your streaming services? Get personalized recommendations

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

Den of Geek

Star Trek Just Inched Closer to Its Biggest Movie Mistake Yet

The new Star Trek movie has a release date, but an origin story completely misses the appeal of Trek films.

• Share on Facebook (opens in a new tab)
• Share on Twitter (opens in a new tab)
• Share on Linkedin (opens in a new tab)
• Share on email (opens in a new tab)

As much as we love them, the Star Trek movies have their share of mistakes. God stealing a starship, John Harrison revealing himself as Khan, McCoy shaving off his beard in The Motion Picture . But it looks like the movie franchise is about to outdo them all.

Paramount has officially added the next Star Trek movie to its 2025 release schedule. According to TrekCore , the project currently called Untitled Star Trek Origin Story will begin production this year, with Seth Grahame-Smith writing and Toby Haynes directing. The film will take place decades before the 2009 Star Trek reboot from J.J. Abrams .

And it’s a terrible idea.

First of all, there’s the question of the timeline logistics of the film. Although one would assume that the film will occur in the Kelvin Timeline, the alternate universe in which Star Trek (2009), Star Trek Into Darkness , and Star Trek Beyond take place, the Kelvin timeline branched from the Prime Timeline when the Romulan Nero went back in time and destroyed the USS Kelvin, killing George Kirk and setting James T. Kirk’s Enterprise adventures on an alternate course.

Ad – content continues below

Because Nero destroys the Kelvin on the day of Kirk’s birth, that means that there was no Kelvin timeline a few decades before most of the events of the 2009 movie. So what the heck is the origin story going to be about? Is it about the origin of the Federation? We already saw that on Enterprise , which takes place a century before The Original Series . Is it about the Enterprise before Kirk? We got that in the first two seasons of Discovery and in Strange New Worlds .

To be sure, these entries didn’t completely mine all the possible stories of the era, but that generation has received so much attention already. Between movies, TV shows, and all of the non-canon novels and comics, fans have seen plenty of looks at the early days of Starfleet, the Federation, and especially the USS Enterprise.

That’s even true of some of the best current Star Trek series. While Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks have a lot of fun putting new twists on familiar ideas, they offer little new to the larger tapestry of Star Trek stories. Contrast those in-jokes to learning about Janeway looking for her one-time Voyager shipmate Chakotay on Prodigy , or seeing a mature Seven of Nine take the Captain’s chair at the end of Picard . Look how much better Discovery became after launching into the undiscovered country of the 32nd century instead of filling gaps (or making new gaps) in the TOS era.

These constant returns to the past violate the basic premise of Star Trek . Sure, some of the best Trek entries involve trips to the past. But the core mission of the franchise is about moving forward, boldly going into a future we can only imagine in the present. Viewers don’t want to see a past that’s already been explored so thoroughly over the last few decades. We want to see how this universe has progressed, how the actions of Kirk, Picard, and the other Captains have affected the universe in ways good and bad.

In short, a Star Trek origin movie is wrong headed, mining nostalgia and references instead of seeking out new life and civilizations.

Joe George | @jageorgeii

Joe George’s writing has appeared at Slate, Polygon, Tor.com, and elsewhere!

• Episode Lists
• Rating System
• About the Authors

Saturday, January 23, 2010

• The Horrendously bad science of Star Trek(2009)

17 comments:

To be fair, Discover Magazine wasn't saying all science in Star Trek was good. It was only pointing out the scene at the beginning of the movie where space is shown as silent. The same article list Deep Impact as both good and bad science. I'm surprised that the black hole treatment in Star Trek didn't land it on the bad science list. I guess maybe scientists are used to pop culture misrepresenting black holes by that point.

I know this is an old blog post, but I just found out about your blog and just posted on Kevin's FB wall that I'm stymied by the level of bile I see directed towards the 2009 film. He then directed me to post to your blog, that wily fox. I'm not one who usually posts comments on blogs, but I suppose that testifies to the degree of my curiosity about your guys' position on the movie. I will start out by admitting that my level of Trekkie-ness reaches nowhere near your guys' hardcore limits, so my opinion is easily dismissed. I'm just surprised that one can't accept what I thought was an exciting 21st century reboot of a franchise that desperately needed rebooting since, in my own opinion, the very last episode of TNG. (No, sorry, not a fan of DS9, Voyager, or Enterprise. I'm sure I'd like them enough if I gave them a chance, but there are soooo many things on the bucket list before that.) Like I said, my hardcore-ness is nowhere near the level of your own, so I've yet to know what issues it is that you seem to take, other than the points you list above, and several bitter asides in various other blog posts. My confusion was ratcheted up several notches by what I felt was a comparatively benign review of ST:TMP. I mean, seriously -- the one with the bald chick got NOWHERE near the level of anger I read in this particular post?! (When did "serious" Trek fans start to give the odd-numbered ST movies a pass?) Like I said, stymied. Stymied and confused and interested. I could wait until you guys review the 2009 film, but I feel I have to know now. But I'm asking: please be gentle. :-9

Correction to my prior post: The ST franchise probably needed rebooting BEFORE the last episode of TNG. One must be willing to admit that the last couple of seasons were kind of lamers. Ha ha ha.

First, feel free to respond to a post regardless of age. Matt and I get email notices when someone comments anywhere. Second, there is no entry bar to Star Trek or the blog here at Treknobabble. One of our metrics for gauging a good episode is how accessible it is to a casual viewer. We tend to go gaga over episodes that honor continuity without requiring previous viewing to enjoy the episode. Third, Matt and I agree that the odd-number "curse" has pretty much got to be the invention of a reporter looking for an easy way to review the movies. I agree that the twenty superfluous minutes of effects shots come within an Angstrom's length of derailing the whole film, but the basics were otherwise solid. It's a very Rodenberry plot, anchored by the familiar and well displayed relationship of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. And Search for Spock is flatly an excellent film, with our only major complaints being the lack of Uhura and a fairly drawn own denouement. Final Frontier sucked really hard, but no one is defending it. And Nemesis was an even numbered one that may or may not be more hated by Matt and me than ST2009. Lastly, and I will admit my vitriol is less intense than Matthew's, but there is a fundamental shift in tone and construction of the universe in the new film. If you review our reviews (heh) of TOS, something we keep coming back to is how much the Enterprise, Starfleet, and the Federation feel like a real place with real people. Once you accept as read the existence of FTL engines, the rest of the universe is pretty realistic. People have careers and friends and understandable motivations and responses to events. It makes the show better that Kirk is a real person, albeit in an unreal situation. ST2009 altered that. The characters had the jobs they had at the end of the film because the script said so, not because their careers would organically be at that point. No matter how talented, a third year cadet is not going to be given command of the flagship. There's a decade or two of learning the day to day grunt work of being a leader he can't possibly know. It pulls me out of the story, and it shows a lack of respect to the viewer. Why not have them return to the Academy, and trust the audience will understand we will pick up the story later in their careers and we're smart enough to understand the non-filmed intermediate events that would have taken place? It's not that ST2009 reset continuity, something I could have lived with; it's that the way this universe is portrayed, it seems that continuity is not important at all. Characters don't have complicated partially revealed back stories that play off each other; there's just the two line description from the back of the action figure package. Even if they were to paint themselves into a narrative corner, they can just get some more "red matter." I will concede that while the movie was on the screen I was entertained. It was possessed of a certain energy that Enterprise, certainly in its earlier seasons lacked. But if re-watching Seasons 3 and 4 of TNG has shown us anything, it's that dramatic, high-energy story-telling is enhanced, not handicapped, by credibly developed three dimensional characters, and attention to continuity related detail. See Yesterday's Enterprise . PS: I just saw the additional comment. Seasons 6 and 7 may lack the breakneck pace of awesomeness that 3, 4, and 5 had, but there are some great episodes in there, and none of them destroy the good things about the universe, so there is no need for a reboot. Also, I would hold "All Good Things..." against the series finale of any series, sci-fi or not. The only series finale that moved me comparably was the series finale of Golden Girls. I will defend DS9 at a later date, after I have some coffee.

Emily, I won't pretend to speak for Matthew, although I have certainly heard Matthew talk about the 2009 movie enough to know a lot of what he would say. (We walked 8 miles home from the theater after seeing that movie, and he spent the entire time talking about it, and that was just the beginning!) I will say for me, a relatively new Trekkie with nowhere near the Trek chops that others have, that the 2009 movie is *okay* as an action film. It's not great, but then, neither are any of the other action films out there. It's probably not as bad as the Transformers movies (although, to be fair, I haven't seen those), but it's not as good as something like Inception. Where is fails miserably is as Star Trek. Say what you will about ST:TMP (which I liked a lot, other than the pacing), it's Star Trek to its core. It's a great sci-fi story, and I like the characters. Also, yeah, the odd/even thing is ridiculous and doesn't bear out. I wouldn't agree at all that Star Trek needed re-booting. You really need to give Voyager, DS9, and even Enterprise (especially Season 4) a chance before saying that the series needed re-booting. The great thing about the Star Trek universe is that you can keep creating new content *without* re-booting. There's always more timeline and more of space to explore. Someday we'll post all of the ideas we've thought of for new series, and every one of them manages to keep the universe intact. Kevin already said it, but honestly, they could have saved the 2009 movie for me in the last 5 minutes by sending them back to school. It would have been that easy, and I honestly expected that to be what happened. It's ludicrous that Kirk is given command of the Enterprise at the end. Why? I don't care about a universe where that can happen. I *like* Chris Pine as Kirk (although not as much as I like Shatner as Kirk), but he's not written well. In the end, I'd rather re-watch anything in TOS, TNG, or Voyager (even the clunkers) than the 2009 movie. It's not the kind of movie I'd enjoy without it being Star Trek, and I like it even less as Star Trek. (Note: I'm not a huge fan of DS9, but it's a personal preference thing, and I do think Enterprise was underrated, but I'll grant that it has problems.)

This is a clip from my review of ST2009 on Amazon.com. I spend the first half of the review talking about the Blu-Ray, and the fact that it's a competent, noisy, entertaining action movie. ---------------- Now, for the Trekkies: "Star Trek (2009)" is the product of Hollywood corporate committees, shedding "baggage" in such a way that it dilutes some of the core concepts and appeal of the show which gave rise to the Trekkie faithful in the first place. The characters from the original series are brought together in a way which feels quite far from organic, presumably because Hollywood executives were worried that a slower tale that realistically developed their relationships would fail to satisfy audiences unused to thinking and realism. Instead of being members of a logically coherent military organization, each with careers and internal lives of their own, all of our principal characters are roughly the same age and have the same amount of experience, despite the fact that by the end of the film, they all have different ranks and specialties. Especially galling at the end is the instantaneous promotion of Kirk from 25-year-old Starfleet cadet (not even a graduate, as he is in his third year of studies) directly to Captain of the fleet's newest and most advanced flagship. It would be akin to a fresh West Point graduate being given command of the invasion of Afghanistan, or an Annapolis cadet being given command of an aircraft carrier. Why would anyone who had invested a lifetime in this organization respect any order that escapes his lips? Equally puzzling are the promotions of all the other crew members at the end as well - why is Kirk a Captain, but McCoy a Commander, Uhura a Lieutenant, Chekov an Ensign? They all have the same amount of experience and "seasoning" (i.e. none). This is the sort of world-breaking contrivance that litters the film (want some more examples? "Transwarp Beaming" immediately springs to mind...). Which is too bad, because "Star Trek (2009)" ably captures the feel of the previous shows, mixing humor, fisticuffs, and dazzling gadgetry in nearly the perfect proportions. It fails, however, to add the integral piece - a logically consistent world, one that creates and follows its own rules, one that is similar enough to our own to be comprehensible, but different and better enough that it inspires admiration and wonder, and makes you yearn to live in it. It is a bit of a tragedy, since just a few tweaks and edits could have turned a story full of world-breaking holes and missteps into pretty much the best Trek movie ever. The quality of special effects is above that of the other films and series, and will definitely impress Trek veterans who are used to less. Many in-jokes and subtler references abound, and will no doubt elicit smiles and chuckles from those who are "in the know." But that certain something is missing. That special thing which makes something "Trek," and not just "Generic Space Opera #12." There isn't much "Real" science fiction, for one thing - black holes and space ships could have been substituted with quicksand and stage coaches - they are not concepts that drive the plot or the characters or the world, instead they are generic perils, and devices to surmount those dangers. But heck, that could be said of some of the other films, those films that, despite their failings, we would still call "real" Trek. What is missing is the logical consistency of the world. Continuity. "Baggage." In stripping "Star Trek (2009)" down to something that will appeal to a "mass" audience, the producers of this film have denatured it into something reminiscent, but not recognizable. -----------------------------

And here is one of my comments on the same review (which spawned a nearly 100 comment-long discussion): ------------------------- The level of story illogic here is sickening. -What do the Romulans do for 25 years? Seriously: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. Why not build a second ship in that time? Or a hundred, for that matter? Why not equip the entire Romulan empire with future weapons? Even with the prison cut-scene, these questions fail to be answered - Why didn't the Klingons reverse engineer the Narada and take over the galaxy? -Why does every Romulan on board agree with Nero's plan to kill TRILLIONS of people? Seriously? There was no debate? No one stood up and said "let's go home, warn Romulus, and have sex with pretty Romulan ladies?" -Why does Nero sabotage his 25-years-in-the-making master plan by dumping Old Spock on a planet with a Starfleet base on it? -How does destroying your only means of propulsion rescue you from a Black Hole? -Why does ONE DROP of "red matter," cause a reality-distorting, time traveling singularity, while an ENTIRE BUCKET of it doesn't do something much worse? -If you can beam yourself across interstellar distances, why do you need starships any more? -What the hell is the whole fleet doing in "the Laurentzian system" while EARTH is being threatened with destruction? (Besides filling a need in the plot, that is...) This whole plot seems to take a good 2 or 3 days. They really didn't tell anyone to head back? None of these are issues of canon. All of them are issues of poor writing. Any first year intern could have asked these questions, and any screen writer worth their salt could have answered them in 2 minutes of expository dialogue. But this sort of crap-tastic writing is a feature of everything Abrams has ever done. No doubt it will be on glorious display in the sequel, as well. PS - I'm okay with reinvention. I'm not okay with a wholesale dumbing-down. Make no mistake, that's what this movie is. ------------------

One of the most egregious sins of "writing by committee" was the clear decision to "sex it up" by putting Spock and Uhura together. But what does that do to the characters? Instead of being a shy, revserved, and internally conflicted person (not to mention ENGAGED to t'Pring), who is isolated by his own choice, Spock becomes a creepy lecherous college instructor who bangs one of his own students, WHILE she is his student. Really listen to the dialogue they exchange. Uhura wants the Enterprise for some reason, and Spock demurs because he does not want to show "favoritism." This kind of bullshit is being perpetrated by people who don't give a fuck about Star Trek or its characters. There is no love. It is all formula. Look at what these three (Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman) have created. Felicity. Alias. Lost. Hawaii Five-Oh. Fringe. Cloverfield. What marks all of these productions? Not good writing, that's for sure. In fact, in every one of these shows or movies, characters speak in unrealistic ways, only revealing what is needed for the scene, as opposed to talking like humans. Plots advance by the creakiest, most contrived logic possible. "Twists" are sprung on the viewers with no precedent, and forgotten when they become inconvenient. The simple fact of the matter is that these people are bad writers. And they've brought their bullshit rodeo to Star Trek, and fucked with things they don't care a whit about. They've jammed something wonderful into their sausage-maker of a formula, and cranked its carcass through a grinder to turn it into the kind of chum that passes for entertainment these days.

I don't want to be one of those nerds who balks at any change that is introduced into the thing he loved when he was 12. I really don't. And I don't think I am. I think Star Trek is a vital thing that can change and grow over time. It did in the 80s, and it did in the 90s. There were people then who hated every second of it because it "changed" the 60s iteration, and I think they missed out on a lot. But I'm not going to eat shit and call it ice cream. The movie was stupid, stupid, stupid, and no number of pretty pictures is going to make me turn off the kind of brain for drama and science fiction that previous Star Trek had helped me to cultivate. I'd like to think we're just as hard on "real" Star Trek that fails to adhere to sound principles of writing and characterization. What do you think, Kevin?

By the way, Emily, I should take pains to stress that a diversity of opinion is not only tolerated at Treknobabble, but is desired. Even favorable opinions of the 2009 movie. :)

I like Star Trek, especially TNG, but a few things bother me... 1. The Enterprise can go from a standing start to Warp 1 (speed of light) almost instantly. This would require an almost infinite acceleration and infinite g forces on the crew - totally not survivable. Even if you restricted yourself to pulling 10g, from a standing start it would take about 3 X 10(7) seconds, or about 347 days. Nobody could survive 10g for that long. 2. No matter how much battering the Enterprise takes, or no matter how low its energy level become, there is always exactly 1g of gravity in the entire vessel. 3. Every planet the Enterprise visits is Class M, and has a perfectly breathable atmosphere. I would like to see them wearing suits at least some times because the atmosphere is not breathable. Also, the planets always seem to be exactly 1g of gravity. 4. Almost every alien or life form is humanoid. What an amazing coincidence this is. Mulga Bill Australia

That's a really great point on number 1. I take it that "inertial dampeners" are the hand-waving explanation of this, just as the Heisenberg Compensator "compensates" for the impossibility of determining both the position and the motion of a subatomic particle during transport.

Number 4 is explained in TNG's "The Chase" as being the result of world-seeding by a progenitor race of humanoids. Of course it is explained in the real world by limited budgets and a decided lack of non-bipedal actors.

And the same real world explanations apply to 2 and 3. The difference is that the writers were forced into these situations by budgets and technology. Abrams et al *chose* their scientifically bogus situations despite having practically unlimited budgets and time.

Items 1 and 2 in this article were what stood out to me the most as the most egregious representation of the science. I will attempt to stick to the good ideas of the plot and provide an alternative to the monkeying around with the science that would allow for similar story-beats. Good ideas: -- Deus ex machina red matter that can generate black holes. This is a neat concept; but their motivation for the existence of the stuff was lacking. Bad Idea: -- A galaxy destroying Supernova. Erm... what!? There are a few things that we know about that could threaten the galaxy; another rogue galaxy or galaxy sized black hole that is on a collision course with our galaxy. (This kind of an issue would probably be beyond the technical capability of the Federation) Or... something that messed with the gravitational stability of our galaxy, given that our current understanding of astrophysics really doesn't explain how our galaxy is held together very well (Newtonian physics doesn't explain it, and even from the perspective of General Relativity, the orbital speed of stars at the outer fringes of galaxies is too damn high, and we do *NOT* know why); which would make this an interesting story point. Story Idea (feel free to criticize): -- What if Ambassador Spock was a key advocate for a research program that would perform a perturbation study of the Galactic center. All of their computer models suggested that the perturbation study would be perfectly safe. The mechanism for perturbation was to be the Red Matter; a newly synthesized substance from some of the most highly decorated scientists in the Federation. The reason for the study is that it has the potential to reveal a revolutionary new form of Warp Drive that could take the federation much further than ever previously thought possible. It has the potential to form warp gates to take the Federation beyond the Milky Way galaxy. The key thing to understand about the Red Matter is that 'Red Matter' != 'Black Hole'. The Red Matter is it's own substance with it's own mass that is substantially less than that of a black hole. It is a substance that acts as a catalyst in a reaction that creates a bridge between multiple existing realities. It has to be held together in a chronometric matrix to keep it apart from the current space-time in order to prevent it from interacting with the current surrounding space-time. It is through that interaction with the surrounding space-time The 'Red Matter' is used in the perturbation experiment with the Milky Way's Galactic Core. But, due to reasons unknown, unforeseen, and unpredicted; the 'Red Matter' interacts much more strongly with the surrounding spacetime than what had been predicted in the simulated models. A secondary Galactic Center ends up being formed in the perturbation experiment; and the interaction between the two Galactic Centers leads to gravitational shockwaves that threaten to tear the Galaxy apart. The shockwaves could be compared to plate tectonics. Two immense bodies are interacting with each other to produce shockwaves (like earth quakes from plates). In addition to the shockwaves, gravitational solitons are formed and are sprayed in random directions across the galaxy. One of the gravitational solitons collides with Romulus - destroying it immediately and providing Nero with motivation to want to attack Spock and the Federation. Ambassador Spock races to the center of the galaxy in a last ditch effort to release the Red Matter with the improved metrics from the perturbation experiment to use the Red Matter to create a bridge to close the gap between the two galactic centers. Nero pursues Spock's research vessel with vengeance on his mind. Spock successfully manages to close the gap between the two galactic centers; but generates a wormhole in the process, with parameters that throws him and Nero back in time.

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

"It is through that interaction with the surrounding space-time" ... I never finished this sentence: It is through that interaction with the surrounding space-time that a black hole is formed.

Search This Blog

• DS9 Season 1 (20)
• DS9 Season 2 (27)
• DS9 Season 3 (27)
• DS9 Season 4 (26)
• DS9 Season 5 (27)
• DS9 Season 6 (28)
• DS9 Season 7 (26)
• DSC Season 1 (16)
• DSC Season 2 (15)
• DSC Season 3 (13)
• ENT Season 1 (26)
• ENT Season 2 (27)
• ENT Season 3 (24)
• ENT Season 4 (22)
• Is Star Trek Dead? (1)
• LD Season 1 (10)
• Movies (14)
• podcast (179)
• PRO Season 1 (10)
• Rating system (1)
• Round Table Discussion (2)
• Short Treks (4)
• Should I Let My Kids Watch Star Trek (1)
• SNW Season 1 (10)
• SNW Season 2 (5)
• STP Season 1 (12)
• STP Season 2 (1)
• STP Season 3 (10)
• TAS Season 1 (17)
• TAS Season 2 (7)
• TNG Season 1 (27)
• TNG Season 2 (24)
• TNG Season 3 (29)
• TNG Season 4 (28)
• TNG Season 5 (27)
• TNG Season 6 (27)
• TNG Season 7 (26)
• Top 5 Trek (6)
• Top Ten List (4)
• TOS Season 1 (32)
• TOS Season 2 (27)
• TOS Season 3 (25)
• Trek Interviews (3)
• VOY Season 1 (16)
• VOY Season 2 (27)
• VOY Season 3 (27)
• VOY Season 4 (28)
• VOY Season 5 (25)
• VOY Season 6 (26)
• VOY Season 7 (24)
• Why I Love Star Trek (9)
• Why Star Trek Is Better Than... (1)

Blog Archive

• ►  July (5)
• ►  May (4)
• ►  April (7)
• ►  March (9)
• ►  February (7)
• ►  January (10)
• ►  December (12)
• ►  November (10)
• ►  October (9)
• ►  September (6)
• ►  August (24)
• ►  July (12)
• ►  June (7)
• ►  May (7)
• ►  April (1)
• ►  March (4)
• ►  February (1)
• ►  December (1)
• ►  November (2)
• ►  September (1)
• ►  July (1)
• ►  June (2)
• ►  May (3)
• ►  March (2)
• ►  January (3)
• ►  December (3)
• ►  November (5)
• ►  October (5)
• ►  September (5)
• ►  August (6)
• ►  July (2)
• ►  June (4)
• ►  February (6)
• ►  January (4)
• ►  December (6)
• ►  November (4)
• ►  October (2)
• ►  September (2)
• ►  August (1)
• ►  May (2)
• ►  April (4)
• ►  March (5)
• ►  February (5)
• ►  January (5)
• ►  November (1)
• ►  October (1)
• ►  June (3)
• ►  May (6)
• ►  February (2)
• ►  December (5)
• ►  October (8)
• ►  September (3)
• ►  August (2)
• ►  June (1)
• ►  January (6)
• ►  October (3)
• ►  August (3)
• ►  July (4)
• ►  April (3)
• ►  March (1)
• ►  February (4)
• ►  November (3)
• ►  August (4)
• ►  April (8)
• ►  January (7)
• ►  December (2)
• ►  September (4)
• ►  March (8)
• ►  November (6)
• ►  October (6)
• ►  September (8)
• ►  August (9)
• ►  July (10)
• ►  June (9)
• ►  May (13)
• ►  April (11)
• ►  March (11)
• ►  January (12)
• ►  December (9)
• ►  November (9)
• ►  September (9)
• ►  July (9)
• ►  May (8)
• ►  March (10)
• ►  February (10)
• ►  January (14)
• ►  September (10)
• ►  August (14)
• ►  July (20)
• ►  June (13)
• ►  May (9)
• ►  April (13)
• ►  March (13)
• ►  February (13)
• ►  November (12)
• ►  October (18)
• ►  September (16)
• ►  August (13)
• ►  July (11)
• ►  June (11)
• ►  May (11)
• ►  March (16)
• ►  February (16)
• Trek's Hottest Women
• Why I Love Star Trek, Essay #6: Glenn-Paul Nehlsen
• Has Star Trek's "Padd" finally arrived?
• The Original Series, Season 1: The Corbomite Maneuver
• My Favorite Character, Essay #1: Matthew Weflen
• The Original Series, Season 1: Dagger of the Mind
• Fun Links from Wil Wheaton
• The Kindness of Strangers
• Why I Love Star Trek, Essay #5: Kelly Pollock
• Star Trek (2009) garners a WGA nomination
• The Original Series, Season 1: Miri
• Jean Simmons, 1929-2010
• How to Convert a friend into a Trekkie
• Why I Love Star Trek, Essay #4: Kevin Curran
• The "true story" of MLK and Uhura...
• The Original Series, Season 1: What Are Little Gir...
• Why I love Star Trek, Essay #3: Richard Lorenc
• The Original Series, Season 1: Mudd's Women
• Why I love Star Trek, Essay #2: Elizabeth Calderon
• The Original Series, Season 1: The Enemy WIthin
• Why I love Star Trek, Essay #1: Matthew Weflen
• The Original Series , Season 1: The Naked Time
• So I've Got Halloween Covered From Now On...
• Technobabble on Treknobabble
• This is not a paid advertisement for CBS, I swear.
• The Original Series, Season 1: Where No Man Has Go...
• Mission Update
• The Original Series, Season 1: Charlie X
• The Original Series, Season 1: The Man Trap

Contributors

• matthewweflen
• phoenixbeth

Facebook Badge

Twitter Updates

• My Quiz Activity
• Newsletters
• Sports Betting
• MY FAVORITES
• Add Sports/Teams
• Arizona Cardinals
• Atlanta Falcons
• Baltimore Ravens
• Buffalo Bills
• Carolina Panthers
• Chicago Bears
• Cincinnati Bengals
• Cleveland Browns
• Dallas Cowboys
• Denver Broncos
• Detroit Lions
• Green Bay Packers
• Houston Texans
• Indianapolis Colts
• Jacksonville Jaguars
• Kansas City Chiefs
• Las Vegas Raiders
• Los Angeles Chargers
• Los Angeles Rams
• Miami Dolphins
• Minnesota Vikings
• New England Patriots
• New Orleans Saints
• New York Jets
• New York Giants
• Philadelphia Eagles
• Pittsburgh Steelers
• San Francisco 49ers
• Seattle Seahawks
• Tampa Bay Buccaneers
• Tennessee Titans
• Washington Commanders
• Arizona Diamondbacks
• Atlanta Braves
• Baltimore Orioles
• Boston Red Sox
• Chicago White Sox
• Chicago Cubs
• Cincinnati Reds
• Cleveland Guardians
• Colorado Rockies
• Detroit Tigers
• Houston Astros
• Kansas City Royals
• Los Angeles Angels
• Los Angeles Dodgers
• Miami Marlins
• Milwaukee Brewers
• Minnesota Twins
• New York Yankees
• New York Mets
• Oakland Athletics
• Philadelphia Phillies
• Pittsburgh Pirates
• San Diego Padres
• San Francisco Giants
• Seattle Mariners
• St. Louis Cardinals
• Tampa Bay Rays
• Texas Rangers
• Toronto Blue Jays
• Washington Nationals
• Atlanta Hawks
• Boston Celtics
• Brooklyn Nets
• Charlotte Hornets
• Chicago Bulls
• Cleveland Cavaliers
• Dallas Mavericks
• Denver Nuggets
• Detroit Pistons
• Golden State Warriors
• Houston Rockets
• Indiana Pacers
• Los Angeles Clippers
• Los Angeles Lakers
• Memphis Grizzlies
• Milwaukee Bucks
• Minnesota Timberwolves
• New Orleans Pelicans
• New York Knicks
• Oklahoma City Thunder
• Orlando Magic
• Philadelphia 76ers
• Phoenix Suns
• Portland Trail Blazers
• Sacramento Kings
• San Antonio Spurs
• Toronto Raptors
• Washington Wizards
• Anaheim Ducks
• Arizona Coyotes
• Boston Bruins
• Buffalo Sabres
• Calgary Flames
• Carolina Hurricanes
• Chicago Blackhawks
• Colorado Avalanche
• Columbus Blue Jackets
• Dallas Stars
• Detroit Red Wings
• Edmonton Oilers
• Florida Panthers
• Los Angeles Kings
• Minnesota Wild
• Montreal Canadiens
• Nashville Predators
• New Jersey Devils
• New York Islanders
• New York Rangers
• Ottawa Senators
• Philadelphia Flyers
• Pittsburgh Penguins
• San Jose Sharks
• Seattle Kraken
• St. Louis Blues
• Tampa Bay Lightning
• Toronto Maple Leafs
• Vancouver Canucks
• Vegas Golden Knights
• Washington Capitals
• Winnipeg Jets
• Entertainment Home
• Lifestyle Home
• More Sports
• YB on Facebook
• YB on Twitter
• YB on Flipboard
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service
• College Basketball
• College Football
• Entertainment
• Formula One
• Horse Racing
• Motor Sports
• Premier League
• Sports Business
• Track and Field
• More Sports ▸

Entertainment News

20 facts you might not know about 'Star Trek' (2009)

Since the 1960s, Star Trek has been part of the pop-culture filament. That show sparked a series of movies, and then more series were on TV after that. Eventually, with William Shatner and Co. no longer holding onto the roads, time for a Star Trek reboot came around. In 2009, Kirk, Spock, and Co. were introduced to a new generation of sci-fi fans. We’ve beamed up 20 facts you might not know about this particular iteration of Star Trek .

The idea of a prequel came early

Star Trek takes place, storyline-wise, before the events of the original TV show. The idea of a prequel originated with Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek . Oh, and he had that idea in 1968. However, his plan never came to fruition.

A prequel resurfaced in the 1980s

With the development of  Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home , Ralph Winter and Harve Bennett pitched a prequel film. It laid fallow for a while, but in 1991, Roddenberry got around to nixing the idea. Instead, they made Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country . 

The prequel concept finally got its footing after 'Star Trek' hit a wall

The 10th film based on the franchise, Star Trek: Nemesis , was a flop. The TV series Star Trek: Enterprise was canceled. This led longtime Star Trek producer Rick Berman and screenwriter Erik Jendresen to write a script for Star Trek: The Beginning , which was going to introduce entirely new characters to the Star Trek universe.

There was a ticking clock on the project

Paramount had a reason to want to get a Star Trek  movie into production. It had to do with business stuff involving Viacom, CBS, and Paramount and who owned what rights. What you need to know is that Paramount had to make a Star Trek movie, or they would lose the rights to the franchise. Gail Berman, the President of Paramount (and no relation to Rick), reached out to screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman to tackle the script and got J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof on board as well.

Abrams wasn’t always going to direct

At first, Abrams was just going to produce the film. Eventually, he was talked into directing. Abrams admitted to being more of a Star Wars guy than a Star Trek guy, but he did like the dynamic of Kirk and Spock. He also wanted to make an “optimistic” movie in the wake of the success of The Dark Knight .

Chris Pine almost blew his opportunity

Pine has admitted to totally flubbing his first audition to play the role of James T. Kirk. Apparently, it was so bad that Abrams wasn’t even shown his audition. Then, Pine’s agent met Abrams’ wife, and one thing led to another. Pine got to audition opposite Zachary Quinto , who ended up playing Spock. Quinto threw his backing behind Pine, and he got the role.

Pine had inspiration beyond William Shatner

Pine watched a little Star Trek but eventually stopped, not wanting his performance to end up being an imitation of Shatner. Instead, he turned to Maverick from Top Gun , Han Solo, and Indiana Jones for inspiration.

Another actor could have played Spock

Quinto was riding high when he was cast as Spock, thanks to Heroes . However, a bigger name was also in the mix — an Oscar winner. Abrams had talked to Adrien Brody about playing Spock before casting Quinto.

Something new about Uhura was unveiled

Uhura, played legendarily by Nichelle Nichols, has been around as a character for years. And yet, there was still something new and fundamental to learn about her. In this movie, we learn Uhura’s first name for the first time. It’s Nyota.

Simon Pegg got a bit of a comeuppance

Pegg, who had been in Abrams’ Mission: Impossible III , took on the role of Scotty. Before his rise to movie stardom, Pegg had co-created and co-starred in the cult British sitcom Spaced . In said show, his character said that all odd-numbered Star Trek movies are “sh-t.” This was the 11th Star Trek movie. On this matter, Pegg quipped, “Fate put me in the movie to show me I was talking out of my a--" (h/t Wired ).

Eric Bana created a lot of his character

Bana said he was a huge fan of the original Star Trek TV series, though he said he never saw any of the films. His character Nero has a distinct look, which was the work of the makeup artists, but he also had a different way of talking. That was all Bana, who improvised the way that Nero speaks.

Two more original cast members could have been in it

One of the triumphs of Star Trek is the return of Leonard Nimoy as Spock, or Spock Prime as he is called. William Shatner was offered a cameo as Kirk, but he wanted a bigger role, one on par with Nimoy. Abrams declined. Nichols also wanted to play Uhura’s grandmother, but this came during the Writer’s Guild strike, so Abrams could not write that scene without crossing the picket line, so it didn’t come to fruition.

Orci and Kurtzman got academic

People are, shall we say, passionate about Star Trek . When writing the screenplay, Orci and Kurtzman read several graduate school dissertations on the original Star Trek series for inspiration. They were also inspired, funnily enough, by Star Wars .

They shot the ice planet in…a parking lot

California served as different locations for the movie. Kirk’s hometown in Iowa? Bakersfield, California. The Starfleet Academy? CSU Northridge. The Enterprise’s engine room? A Budweiser plant in Van Nuys, of all things. Perhaps strangest, the ice planet of Delta Vega scenes was shot in the parking lot of Dodger Stadium. Thank god for digital effects.

The WGA strike made things awkward

We mentioned the WGA strike earlier, which caused problems throughout the film's shooting. Abrams, Lindelof, Orci, and Kurtzman could all be on set because they were producers, but they couldn’t write anything. They also couldn’t alter lines or throw out alternate pitches on set, which counts as writing. Orci and Kurtzman’s efforts on set primarily consisted of being able to “make funny eyes and faces at the actors whenever they had a problem with the line and sort of nod when they had something better.”

They delayed the movie for half a year

Originally, Star Trek  was going to be released on Christmas 2008. However, Paramount decided to delay it. For a positive reason, though! They wanted to make it a summer release, thinking more people would see it then. The release date was moved from Christmas to May 8, 2009.

The move probably paid off

Star Trek had the biggest opening weekend of any film in the franchise, even adjusted for inflation. Made for a budget of $150 million, Star Trek  made $385.7 million worldwide. Domestically, it was the seventh-highest-grossing movie of the year.

It won an Oscar

Star Trek  was nominated for four Academy Awards: Best Sound, Best Sound Editing, Best Makeup, and Best Visual Effects. It won for Best Makeup, making this the first Star Trek movie to win an Oscar.

There have been two sequels

In 2013, Star Trek Into Darkness  was released. While there was a weird attempt to keep people from knowing Benedict Cumberbatch was playing Khan, the movie still made $467.4 million worldwide. Then, in 2016, Star Trek Beyond was dropped. Justin Lin replaced Abrams as director, but the movie dropped to a box office of $343.5 million from a budget of $185 million.

We might get a fourth movie

Around the release of Star Trek Beyond , Abrams said there would be a fourth film in the series. He even said Chris Hemsworth , much more famous than when he shot his part in Star Trek , would return as Kirk’s father. Additionally, Abrams said that the role of Chekov would not be recast after the untimely death of Anton Yelchin. However, there has been no movement on this front in years, so perhaps it has been nixed.

Chris Morgan is a sports and pop culture writer and the author of the books  The Comic Galaxy of Mystery Science Theater 3000  and  The Ash Heap of History . You can follow him on Twitter @ChrisXMorgan .

More must-reads:

• The definitive Led Zeppelin playlist
• The definitive Pink Floyd playlist

Trending in Entertainment

Customize your newsletter.

Get the latest news and rumors, customized to your favorite sports and teams. Emailed daily. Always free!

• April 15, 2024 | Actor Talks “Authentic” Scotty On ‘Star Trek: Strange New Worlds’; Season 3 Production Passes Milestone
• April 15, 2024 | Review: ‘Star Trek: Lower Decks’ Season 4 On Blu-ray Brings It All Together
• April 15, 2024 | Preview ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Episode 504 With New Images And Clip From “Face The Strange”
• April 12, 2024 | Interview: Wilson Cruz On How “Jinaal” Sets Up The Rest Of The Season For Culber On ‘Star Trek: Discovery’
• April 12, 2024 | ‘Star Trek: Strange New Worlds’ Renewed For Season 4; ‘Lower Decks’ To End With Season 5

Recap/Review: ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Tries Too Many Connections In “Jinaal”

| April 11, 2024 | By: Anthony Pascale 59 comments so far

Star Trek: Discovery Season 5, Episode 3 – Debuted Thursday, April 11, 2024 Written by Kyle Jarrow & Lauren Wilkinson Directed by Andi Armaganian

Strong performances and fun moments of lightness and lore make up for a mixed bag of stories jumbled into a single episode.

Yes, you can come on the mission… to the friend zone.

WARNING: Spoilers below!

“Connection isn’t a skill, it’s a choice.”

As Discovery preps to head to Trill for the next quest clue, the crew settles into their season positions. Culber and Book brief the captain on the adversaries, with new details on Moll thanks to Book recognizing a personal connection in the previous episode. Michael’s felonious ex is trying hard to get his life back, so he really wants in on the Trill landing party even though he isn’t Starfleet—as if that has ever stopped them before. Adira and Tilly have identified a Trill spots pattern on the map puzzle piece found last week, leading them to a 24 th- century Trill named Jinaal (episode title alert), and maybe his Bix symbiont is still around. Former Captain—now Commander—Rayner comes aboard, and Burnham orders her new first officer to get to know the crew whether he likes it or not. As for Stamets, he continues to be a bit lost, so he’s focused on trying to unlock the secrets in Dr. Vellek’s old tricorder, ignoring Adira’s clear discombobulation over seeing Gray again. It takes Reno going full “woo-woo a-hole” to snap spacedad out of it. So things are more or less running smoothly until they arrive on Trill, when Guardian Xi goes full Monty Python bridge-keeper . Thankfully, Michael answers the riddle quickly (it’s Betazed!) and she pops down to the Caves of Mak’ala with Adira, Culber, and (of course) Book… where they meet what may be the oldest Trill ever.

Kalzara Bix tells the gang she has been waiting nearly her whole life for a “worthy seeker.” For more questions, they can ask Jinaal directly via that Trill ritual we all remember from DS9. Culber steps up as a temporary vessel since “Emotionally overwhelming is what I do best.” Et voilà, Hugh is a whole new man, who immediately comments about how he really works out (someone has been tracking his Gram ). This very jaunty Culber-Jinaal says the next clue is nearby, and today is a great day for a walk, so he takes Burnham and Book with him. Upon their arrival at the canyon, Jinaalber opens up with some exposition about himself, Dr. Vellek, and four other scientists who found the Progenitor tech but decided it was way too dangerous to hand over to the Federation in the middle of the Dominion War. So they created a fun quest, planting a “path” of clues to be followed. He’s skeptical the 32 nd century is ready for the awesome power (despite Starfleet’s snazzy new uniforms), but Michael makes the case that the good outweighs the bad. BTW, they are being hunted by giant “Intronok” predators, so the quasi Trill recommends phasers ready. Once they arrive at the clue’s location, a plasma-spewing monster gets in their way… and Hughbix peaces out. Dude!

You two go ahead… I’ll just strategically hide behind you.

“We literally used to be connected.”

Back at Starfleet HQ the newly minted Ambassador Saru is settling into his new office with a little help from his Vulcan fiancé. They plan their wedding announcement before heading into a resource meeting, where he successfully argues for more allocations to the small worlds he represents, forging a compromise with others who are worried about the Breen (hmm). T’Rina’s aide Duvin takes Saru aside to say he is concerned about how the wedding announcement will impact delicate Ni’Var politics, but when the Kelpien brings this up with his beloved, she doesn’t take it well. “What would have given you the impression that I am in need of a caretaker?” she asks. Ouch. Navigating Federation diplomacy (and a starship) was a lot easier than understanding a Vulcan heart.

On the Disco, Saru’s replacement isn’t having it any easier. For some reason, temporary science consultant Tilly is organizing Rayner’s one-on-ones. He really doesn’t want to do them, but agrees for the sake of “crew cohesion” and gives everyone “20 words” to reveal something interesting about themselves. Cue the montage as we learn fun new tidbits for the folks at Memory Alpha to add to the pages for Rhys, Christopher, Linus, Pollard, et al. When Stamets shows up and actually shows some enthusiasm for the first time this season (he was able to crack Vellek’s PADD), Rayner practically ignores him and Tilly has finally had enough. She lets the new XO know he is being a giant… well she ran out of her 20 words so we will have to fill in the blank.

One person who misses out on this (not) quality time with Rayner is Adira. They are busy reconnecting with Gray on Trill, who is loving life as a trainee Guardian. Now that each of them has their own body, they realize they both have been growing apart and following separate paths. So season 5 gets its second breakup following Mike and Book… could T’Rina and Saru be next? Noooooo.

What do you mean, no diving?

“Analyzing is not the same as connecting.”

Back to the important stuff, Book tries his glowing forehead empathy connection but all he gets from the monster is that it’s “really pissed off.” Duh. In a replay of the action from last week, Book does some distracting under fire while Michael heads to the rock with the clue symbol on it to get the big prize. Things do not go as planned, and he gets hit. They are pinned down as a second monster shows up. But the creatures aren’t looking at the Starfleet duo as food, just protecting their nest of monster eggs. Aww. Time for Plan B. Michael again remembers her xenoanthropology and holsters her phaser, showing respect to the now calming Intronoks. Book does the same and communicates they just want to leave as they slowly back off… and soon enough they find Dr. Hugh Jinaal casually lounging on a rock, quipping, “I see you survived.” Michael sorts it out: He drew them to that nest after suggesting they arm phasers. By connecting instead of shooting, they passed another test. He was willing to let them die just to see if there was “goodness” in them, but they survived, so they win the prize: the clue and the second map piece, hidden under a totally different rock. Sneaky Trill.

After Culber gets swapped back he heads back to the ship to decompress from a big day of being possessed. Michael catches up to him in the lounge, where they contemplate the spiritual implications of the journey they are on, seeking the technology of the gods. Tilly is also there, and Rayner arrives to let her know he gets it—there is some value in showing respect to the people under his command. Oh and back at HQ, Saru apologizes to T’Rina for Kelpiensplaining Vulcan politics, and she’s totally cool about it, so they’re fine. Things wrap up in the Trill caves with Bix returning to the symbiont pool and Adira and Gray saying goodbye as well. But wait, what’s that? It’s Moll! Disguised as a Trill, she surreptitiously puts something onto Adira’s sleeve before the ensign beams back to the Disco. Dun dun duuun !

What about a four-shift rotation?

After two strong episodes, things are more mixed for episode 3. The blend of plot, character, and action was not as finely balanced, mostly due to carrying the load of four separate storylines. This kind of multi-POV storytelling has always been a challenge for Discovery , but there were some big highlights that kept the episode a winner overall. The MVP is Wilson Cruz, who finally got the opportunity to step out of his Hugh Culber and play a different character, a time-honored Trek tradition. His Jinaal was believably a unique individual, down to his speech pattern and gait, with a clear motivation. This storyline tied into all of the others with the not-very-subtle theme of connection; however, there was a more nuanced exploration for Culber and Burnham about the season’s bigger questions about science and faith that was more interesting. And the riddle for passage bit was a nice classic quest beat, evoking ancient adventures. The action sequences felt a bit repetitive after last week, but they made up for it with some fun as Sonequa Martin-Green and David Ajala again demonstrated their playful chemistry.

The Rayner storyline was also a high point.  He continues to be a great addition to the show, bringing all sorts of Jellico, Lorca, and even some Shaw vibes, but still being his own man (sorry, Kellerun ). Callum Keith Rennie and Mary Wiseman showed they have their own delightful dynamic. It may not have made sense for Tilly to act as HR for the ship (especially as she’s only on loan as a science advisor from the Academy), but all of these scenes were still refreshing as we got to add little bits of dimension to members of the crew from Linus’ pride over three clutches of eggs to Rhys lusting over the fine curves of old Constitution classes… and the gruff-off between Rayner and Reno was all too brief. But there was a point to all of this, showing welcome growth for both Rayner and Tilly and the rest of the gang too, although it is not clear why the new characters of Gallo and Asha had to sub in for Owo and Detmer.

Contemplating the meaning of life?… Or if he can skip leg day?

Things started going off the rails with the Saru and T’Rina storyline, which started to feel like an unnecessary distraction. Giving him this new post as ambassador is a good way to shake things up as well as to do some world-building for the show, something that may prove useful for the upcoming Academy series as well. But instead of Federation West Wing, things got more alien I Love Lucy with Ambassador Saru having some ‘splaining to do. Doug Jones and Tara Rosling did their best with the material but the rigmarole about their marriage announcement was low stakes at best, even if this bit about Vulcan purists is setting something up for later. As for the Gray and Adira storyline, it felt like this was mostly just going through the motions, but at least it established that Adira is now fully independent, confirming their new agency. Blu del Barrio’s performance was grounded, making all of this more relatable. But trying to balance these two extra storylines definitely did not help the episode when it came to pacing.

Even with all these character stories, there was some season plot development. We learned key bits about Moll, while L’ak remains a mystery, but that’s okay for now. The origins of the quest are also coming into focus with the story of the six scientists and a reasonable explanation for why they can’t just jump to the end. It feels like we will learn more about the other four scientists as we pick up more pieces of the map. And there was also a bit more worldbuilding as another hint of a coming Breen threat was mentioned. And dare we hope the mention of the Tzenkethi means we will finally see them in canon? Fans were rewarded with plenty of nods to lore, with the main plot structured around the Zhian’tara ritual from DS9’s “Facets,” and the addition of new Trill canon. Nods to Tongo and Bynars along with deeper cuts to Selay , Vavinit plants , cabrodine , Slug-o-Cola , bore worms , and more should have resulted in plenty of Rick Dalton meme moments , especially for Deep Space Nine fans. While it all seems like a lot, these were mostly Easter eggs to reward fans without turning into the dreaded “fan service.”

Now on the runway, Ambassador Saru sporting the new Diplomacy in Blue line.

Final thoughts

Even with all the juggling, episode 3 still was self-contained while carrying on the serialized story. While not as strong as the first two episodes, season 5 still remains entirely entertaining. The show has nicely pivoted with clearer themes, a fun tone, and better connections to lore while still servicing the characters and their emotional stories.

You can really taste the algae.

• A USS Locherer could be seen at Starfleet HQ, named in honor of camera operator J.P Locherer , who passed away in 2022.
• The previously unnamed bar lounge is called “Red’s,” possibly named for the Ferengi bartender, who got their first line in this episode.
• The Osnullus bridge officer’s name is Lt. Arev.
• Lt. Christopher confirmed that Lt. Commander Nilsson has been reassigned to the USS Voyager-J .
• Christopher also reassured Rayner his pet tribble (a gift from Nilsson) was neutered.
• The Trill canyon was shot at Lafarge Quarry , which Discovery (and Strange New Worlds ) have used before on a few occasions.
• Trill spots are as unique as human fingerprints, as are Saurian dorsal ridges.
• In addition to the Selay, the ambassador meeting also included a Facian .

The Selay ambassador is upset this committee doesn’t warrant those cool floating chairs.

More to come

Every Friday, the TrekMovie.com All Access Star Trek Podcast  covers the latest news in the Star Trek Universe and discusses the latest episode. The podcast is available on Apple Podcasts ,  Spotify ,  Pocket Casts ,  Stitcher and is part of the TrekMovie Podcast Network.

The fifth and final season of  Discovery debuted with two episodes on Thursday, April 4 exclusively on Paramount+  in the U.S., the UK, Switzerland, South Korea, Latin America, Germany, France, Italy, Australia, and Austria.  Discovery  will also premiere on April 4 on Paramount+ in Canada and will be broadcast on Bell Media’s CTV Sci-Fi Channel in Canada. The rest of the 10-episode final season will be available to stream weekly on Thursdays. Season 5 debuts on SkyShowtime in select European countries on April 5.

Keep up with news about the  Star Trek Universe at TrekMovie.com .

Related Articles

Preview ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Episode 504 With New Images And Clip From “Face The Strange”

Discovery , Interview

Interview: Wilson Cruz On How “Jinaal” Sets Up The Rest Of The Season For Culber On ‘Star Trek: Discovery’

All Access Star Trek Podcast , Discovery

Podcast: All Access Goes To Trill With ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ For “Jinaal”

Analysis , Discovery

‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Season 5 Preview Offers Intriguing Clues And The Return To [SPOILERS]

I really enjoyed this episode it had alot of character moments/growth and it was great to see the Trill again espicially gray as i miss his charcter.

Wilson Cruz was on fire this episode as he really pulled off the charcter of Jinaal.

Raynar is still a bit of a jerk but hopefully what Tilly said to him get through to him.

Looking forward to the next episode and i hope we get to see the Tzenkethi.

“ it was great to see the Trill again espicially gray as i miss his charcter. ”

Wow, you don’t read that very often .

This made me smile some. Thanks.

I enjoyed this one, but anyone else thinking animals that can cloak themselves are becoming a bit too common?

I think in this era, current showrunners meet and share an idea and are tempted to grab it for another show. Synths, Picard and Discovery. Copy and Paste Starships, Picard and Prodigy. From previous shows is more natural, but for current productions is amusing.

It was more of a “cut and paste” Trek story idea. They watched the Devil In The Dark..Oh yeah! they’re protecting the eggs! That’ll satisfy the dumb Trekkies.

And even there the Horta was not just some animal. Spock even commented that it was not behaving like one at all.

The thing is, these are animals. In fact, they came across as borderline insects. They should not be reacting like a sentient being would. They would only be operating on instinct. There is no reason whatsoever they would let Book and Burnham go. They simply wouldn’t comprehend anything beyond ‘these creatures are near our eggs’.

Now if they were a sentient being who share the planet with the Trill, that would be another matter. But that’s not how they were presented to us.

See, using Dax here would have been perfect. Imagine it; Jadzia Dax finding the Progenitor tech with Vellek.

I feel this season they want to avoid all kind of risks. I would also would love to see Dax. But for sure, critics will complain about it.

Hitchcock said, “What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out” – I think this was a wasted opportunity to not reintroduce the Dax symbiont and give Discovery an intimate connection to the greater Star Trek universe. For those who say it’d just be fan service: how does the ISS Enterprise get a pass , but a Dax at the Trill pools is jumping the shark? Just saying, it wouldn’t have been dull. And yes, if a quahog can live for hundreds of years in the ocean, I think Dax can survive 1,000 years in Hugh Hefner’s former grotto.

An unnamed Romulan played by an unknown extra being given more importance than Jadzia Dax is weird…

I don’t think that’s weird. It speaks to a greater universe than just the named characters in the opening credits of those shows we know. Those on the periphery, they’re people too.

After the way Jadzia was unceremoniously killed off, though, she deserved better. This was a chance to increase her importance.

Add to that that by having her in Discovery in one form or another it would have really tied up several Trek series since she was also present during TOS twice; once as the host of the Dax symbiont at the time and again during Trials and Tribble-lations.

With the potential era of the initial investigation being the Dominion War it would’ve been awesome for Dax to be revealed as one of the scientists. It’s give her a stronger legacy than being killed by possessed Dukat.

Exactly. Having her literally take the secret to the grave would have been perfect.

I’d love to see Dax too, but I think it would have just been to unbelievable for Jadzia to have taken a sabbatical from DS9 during the Dominion War (and right after her wedding) to go on a secret mission with a bunch of scientists to set up an elaborate quest.

What about after the Dominion took over DS9? That is a large-enough window of time for her to have been off on such a mission.

I can’t see her leaving the Defiant at such a critical time.

Or Starfleet letting one of its officers most experienced with the Dominion/Jem’Hadar go off on sabbatical in wartime. But then again, Sisko did exactly that a year later.

The timetable would have been hard to work, as Jadzia was seen throughout the Dominion War on DS9 and wasn’t off on some quest for weeks/months.

Great episode. I really enjoy the new tone/vibe/pace of the show. The script as well. Big improvement from previous seasons.

We used to watch these relationship dynamics in almost every episode of Star Trek, but what I watched in this episode, reminds me STNG and DS9, with Discovery fast pace.

Really like these relationship/character growth balance between scenes. Great lines for Tilly, the writers nailed it giving all characters exactly what they needed.

Three great episodes. Can’t wait for episode 4.

Totally missed to add…great GREAT ending. They are wrapping up each episode nicely!

Didn’t we see Lt. Commander Nilson in a Twitter post?

After the exciting first 2 episodes, this one was a letdown.

I have to agree that this episode turned out to be a “mixed bag of stories jumbled into a single episode”.

Also, I’m still not liking the very unprofessional vibe of Discovery’s crew. That ship literally has no command structure as evidenced by Tilly’s example. It really destroys any feeling that they are even a Starfleet crew. But this is Discovery so whatever, I guess.

I hope the next episode is more coherent.

but they connect and feel and live their own truth so – like, that’s just your opinion man….

I can only speak from my experience, but when I was an Air Force officer, our unit’s general vibe was pretty similar to what we see on Discovery . I wouldn’t go so far as to say we had “no command structure” but things were pretty loose. As a matter of fact, we tended to get a bit annoyed when someone acted “too military”. I can give you an example: myself and another second lieutenant were walking into our wing HQ building when we passed a guy who had just “pinned on” first lieutenant. He demanded we salute him and we just kind of told him “c’mon, man” and went our way, because there’s just no real distinction between a second lieutenant and a first lieutenant. Broadly, lieutenants and captains (at least the ones a few years out from making major) tend to view each other as peers.

I guess I am too used to what has previously been shown on TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT as the standard of professional behavior on Starfleet ships, that the loose and casual office behavior on DSC seems out of place.

I Get it can be relaxed, as Will is relating.. but it’s not always one or the other. I woul like to see more nuance in all characters. Tilly doesn’t always need to be always funny and freewheeling. I’d like to see her be more professional. Most people in any walk of life aren’t one way all the time. But most of these are written as charactures and not actual people.

It’s a fair point about Tilly. She’s a lieutenant with limited experience and she’s telling off a superior officer in a way that would make even Will Riker blush. Imagine her meeting Captain Jellico…

I get it, although it could ebb and flow. One of the things Roddenberry supposedly didn’t like about the Gene Coon era of TOS was the characters’ loose, familiar attitude. During the brief period of time he actively worked on the third season, he insisted on changing all that. The characters are much more formal in season 3.

See I disagree with the review- I thought the episode balanced its four plot strands really well and it was a wonderful character focused episode. Each to their own, I guess.

It was a bit meh, but still better than most of Season 4.

This was a connector episode, and not a lot happens. I go back to.. when you only have 10 episodes, you better make best use of your time. This was a relationship stuff… it would help if it covered relationships I cared about, but it’s just overly emotive junk that isn’t interesting to me at all. Which is funny when you consider one of those relationships features a Vulcan. While I like Sara and T’rina as a couple, they are boring. Gray and Adira, it’s just a lot of awkward teen stuff. I get it.. they’re having trouble.. just way too much time spent on that. At least Stulber has chemistry.. Book and Burnham have chemistry. But this was a waste of an episode.

Gray and Adira were miscast physically. I’d like to explain that DSC is a big visual show. When there is a wide shot, both Gray and Adira seem too small and too far away. We get to see their acting talents in the scenes where they are in a two-shot or a medium-shot. In my opinion, Blu’s acting is MUCH better this year. Ian Alexander’s acting is just too small for me. It must be difficult to frame the shots he is in, due to his physical size, which is a testament to the show’s production challenges. When you see how athletic Culber is compared to Gray? It’s just too jarring for me. His character doesn’t grab your attention. Let me be clear: I’m beyond happy about the LGBTQ representation DSC is showing. I’m glad the LGBTQ community can see themselves on TV. FWIW, I notice the same things in SNW. Peck and Mount are very athletic buff actors. In a wide shot, they can tend to dwarf smaller actors.

Part of the issue is the widescreen format though. It makes it harder to get actors of disparate heights in a great shot together. SMG and Doug Jones have wildly different statures and often the camera isn’t able to be wide enough to make that not look awkward too.

Sorry was not a big fan of this one at all. So many cringy moments and it went back to the usual stalling with barely any real plot at all. I had so many problems with this one but happy others liked it.

But per usual it moved at a snails pace with a lot of mostly forgetful dialogue.

And when did Trill turn into the cave and quarry planet? It’s a very developed planet with cities and people living in houses. But the two episodes we seen of it on this show you would think Trill is one big national park or something.

I think Trill’s budget was spent on the cloaking monsters.

Yeah I think that segment ran a bit too long for me. I feel like the point about the cloaking monsters could have been made sooner and they could have spent their time on giving some screen time to others.

Overall, this episode definitely struggled with too many plot points. The individual pieces weren’t bad but together they didn’t always form a cohesive whole. I like Rayner as a character and I like his more professional take on being a Captain vs. Burnham’s more personal take. Neither is inherently wrong, just different. I feel Tilly etc are too quick to judge him. He clearly had a reason for his 20 words or less and I got what that was. Although I didn’t like that the background actors only got some throwaway facts told about them. Then again they usually don’t get that! Culber did a great job portraying Jinal. He really felt like a different person. Adira and Grey wrapped up which I think is a good thing. They are better apart than they are together. I am still not sure about Book’s loyalty to the ship and its crew. Glad Saru and T’Rina are moving forward and we are getting some more backstory to this time period.

Stalling is a great way to put it. I think it boils down to if you like the characters and relationships they’re focusing on. If you’re going to focus on character, it had better be compelling but it was pretty banal and uninteresting. Saru and T’rina are focused on a wedding.. seriously? Gray and Adira are having your normal teenager type trouble. Both sets of circumstances were so blah.. if this were the best they can do with portraying whats happening with young people, Academy is in serious trouble.

Yeah this one frustrated me a bit. I am fine with a character episode but the character work was too telegraphed (Gray browbeating the theme of the episode at the end and Stamet’s ongoing arc where he obsesses over his legacy were feeling especially contrived). At least the Rayner scenes worked for me and made for a better use of Tilly than usual.

…although if they lead to Rayner just embracing the tactic of being an emotional support First Officer, I’ll be annoyed. Butting heads with Tilly worked, I just am probably on the losing side of, “His POV is valid and they could all learn a little from him. Not every connection needs to come from laying bare emotional trauma and being super chummy.” Characters who keep a professional distance but have personal depths that shine through are compelling and a Trek staple.

I actually liked this episode better than the first two. It felt more like a story and less like a bunch of action setpieces strung together.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with our eminent reviewer where he says, “ It may not have made sense for Tilly to act as HR for the ship (especially as she’s only on loan as a science advisor from the Academy).” No, that’s EXACTLY why it makes sense for HER to be the one to let Rayner know his style won’t work with this particular crew. She won’t have to work with him in the future, so she’s the one who can tell him he’s being a jerk without poisoning their future relationship.

I REALLY liked it that the true test wasn’t “Can you hike this canyon” but rather “Can you empathize with the creatures who live in it?” Very Star Trekky!

I loved the Saru/T’Rina stuff, both her standing her ground when Saru tried to be protective, since she’s the PRESIDENT of a freaking PLANET, for heaven’s sake. And also her saying that conflict was inevitable and not to be feared.

Wilson Cruz! So good! More of him, please.

I thought Rayner’s twenty-words thing was a little over the top; it made him seem like a parody of a crusty old guy, rather than a real person. I don’t mind being emotionally manipulated by Star Trek, but the wires shouldn’t be quite THAT visible. :-)

So, how could Moll possibly have gotten to Trill long enough before the Discovery to go undercover as one of those red-robed people? She and La’k didn’t dig up the thingy that gave them the fifth line of the poem until long after Burnham and Saru did, so how did they even know to go to Trill, much less get there so fast? Doesn’t Discovery’s spore drive get them places MUCH faster than any other ship?

The one thing I really didn’t like was that the lighting in the canyon was so dark that I couldn’t SEE anything during that whole scene. I’m glad the dialogue told me enough about what was happening that I didn’t have to actually see it to know what was going on.

Very astute observations Corylea, and well stated as usual. Couldn’t agree more!

Aw, thanks so much!

Oh.. and the repeat of the Fal Tor Pan ceremony really was annoying. They really could have mixed it up q lot better. It felt like a cliche.

Engaged couple bickering over their wedding announcement… This is exactly the sort of thing that’s kept me tuning in to Trek for all these decades…

And I don’t care how exaggeratedly mean the Rayner character is written, there is no way in real life that a Lieutenant speaks to a Commander/superior officer the way Tilly did. Totally strains credulity.

Starfleet is different from modern militaries. Starfleet officers’ feelings aren’t so fragile that they get upset when a subordinate speaks impolitely to them.

I think TMP nailed how these interactions are supposed to go down and it avoids this perception of insubordination: “Permission to speak freely, sir?” Done and done. The answer is almost always going to be yes.

I thought this was a very strong episode…and I didn’t like the first two of the season at all!

The character dynamics almost all worked for me this time. Burnham seemed like a real person rather than a screenplay with limbs; Rayner was great; Culber, who I have loved even when this series was at its worst, was great. Heck, I even liked Tilly this week, which is not typical. I got some chuckles out of Saru stepping in it, too.

I’ve loved and defended Disco since day one, but I have to say I’m having a hard time getting excited about this season’s Big Hunt For The Puzzle Pieces. But I was thrilled to see Wilson Cruz get to really shine as an actor in this one.

I believe this is the standard now, and it’s very very low .. the story is starting to be so boring .. always the same cave .. everybody keep sharing their emotions in every scene .. and the stubborn unfriendly character destined to change.

If only there wasn’t the “Star Trek:” in front of the series title I would had bailed long ago.

I am really loving this season. The latest episode really took on a lot, but it delivered for me. The pacing was good for each story and keep the mystery alive. Loved the adventure on Trill. Wilson Cruze did an amazing job in the episode with his portrayal of Jinaal. I absolutely love the addition of Rayner – the opposites of Rayner’s tough command style and the way Discovery is – works for me. Already looking forward to the next episode.

Yes, a very scattered episode. The twenty-word bit with Rayner was a poor writing choice. I don’t see how someone would rise to Captain without listening to his senior crew.

I think the bar scene got across that he was astute in learning about his crews quickly. He just didn’t hold their hands and talk about how much of a family they all are.

In other words, Discovery discusses their feelings ad nauseum yet again

I have never posted on one of these comment boards so I hope it is okay to share guesses for what might happen this season. I just wondered if it still canon that no one has ever seen a Breen (sans helmet). If that is true, and considering the dialog about helmets in the first episode of this season, I wonder if L’ak could be at least part Breen. Just a theory.

Star Trek (2009)

Full cast & crew.

Directed by 

Writing credits ( wga )  , cast (in credits order) complete, awaiting verification  , produced by , music by , cinematography by , editing by , casting by , production design by , art direction by , set decoration by , costume design by , makeup department , production management , second unit director or assistant director , art department , sound department , special effects by , visual effects by , stunts , camera and electrical department , animation department , casting department , costume and wardrobe department , editorial department , location management , music department , script and continuity department , transportation department , additional crew , thanks .

Release Dates | Official Sites | Company Credits | Filming & Production | Technical Specs

Contribute to This Page

• Full Cast and Crew
• Release Dates
• Official Sites
• Company Credits
• Filming & Production
• Technical Specs
• Plot Summary
• Plot Keywords
• Parents Guide

Did You Know?

• Crazy Credits
• Alternate Versions
• Connections
• Soundtracks

Photo & Video

• Photo Gallery
• Trailers and Videos
• User Reviews
• User Ratings
• External Reviews
• Metacritic Reviews

Related Items

• External Sites

Related lists from IMDb users

Recently Viewed

10 Best Sequels to Bad Movies, Ranked

The sequel will forever be a part of the film industry for as long as it exists, with the concept of being able to add upon and continue a story always too enticing to producers and audiences. While many people will swear by the original always being better than the sequel, numerous exceptional sequels released over the years are on par or even better than the original. However, even this can make sense, as the same creative team is usually behind a sequel on top of the original, and seeing them continue to hone their craft usually produces better results.

What is always jarring, however, is a film deemed by many to be a complete critical disaster that still earned enough money to guarantee a sequel. Against all odds, some of these sequels can go out of their way to right the wrongs and massively improve on a failed original product, becoming akin to phoenixes rising from the ashes. Although certainly rare in the film space, these are the sequels that vastly improved upon their predecessors , proving that sometimes, all a movie needs is a change of direction.

'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan' (1982)

Original film: 'star trek: the motion picture' (1979).

The original Star Trek: The Motion Picture was far from an outright terrible film. Still, especially compared to the brilliant and still relevant source material, it flounders in nearly every opportunity. The film simply didn't understand what made Star Trek so impactful to audiences across the nation, focusing too much on large action setpieces instead of character dynamics and world-building. Combined with some notoriously slow pacing, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was never going to live up to the mastery of the original series.

On the contrary, the follow-up, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan , quickly became the blueprint and premiere example of how to adapt Star Trek to film . It had higher stakes, more interesting characters, and more emotional moments. The Wrath of Khan has more human story than the original could ever hope to be, expertly brought to life by a brilliant cast at the top of their game. For many, it is still the finest Star Trek project to date, a powerful statement of just how much of a legacy this film still holds, especially over its predecessor.

Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan

Release Date June 4, 1982

Director Nicholas Meyer

Cast Walter Koenig, William Shatner, George Takei, Leonard Nimoy, Deforest Kelley, James Doohan

Runtime 113

Genres Sci-Fi, Thriller, Action, Adventure

Writers Samuel A. Peeples, Jack B. Sowards, Harve Bennett, Gene Roddenberry, Nicholas Meyer

Watch on Max

'Annabelle: Creation' (2017)

Original film: 'annabelle' (2014).

The original Annabelle was the first spinoff of what would eventually become the full Conjuring universe of films , telling the story of a haunted doll terrorizing a family. While the film found success at the box office, many critics were quick to write it off, thanks to its considerable decrease in quality from the first Conjuring film, falling into many of the tired clichés and pitfalls of early 2010s horror. Thus, Anabelle became nothing more than just another cheap, jumpscare-filled horror movie that repeated the same tired story beats of other, much better supernatural horror films.

Horror is a genre built upon sequels, thanks to its lower budgets and massive profit returns, so the prequel, Annabelle: Creation , was only an inevitability. In a surprising twist of fate, and under the guise of Lights Out director David F. Sandberg , Annabelle: Creation massively succeeded where the original Annabelle failed . The film features great and satisfying scares, genuinely likable and nuanced characters that are enjoyable to watch, and what could easily be considered some of the best twists and payoffs from a horror film of the era.

Annabelle: Creation

Release Date August 3, 2017

Director David F. Sandberg

Cast Alicia Vela-Bailey, Anthony LaPaglia, Talitha Bateman, Lulu Wilson, Stephanie Sigman, Miranda Otto

Runtime 109

Genres Mystery, Thriller, Horror

Writers Gary Dauberman

'The Angry Birds Movie 2' (2019)

Original film: 'the angry birds movie' (2016).

Adapted from the highly successful mobile game, The Angry Birds Movie attempted to translate what was already a barebones story into a full-feature film. Outside of very young children and the most die-hard fans of the game, there's very little that the original movie has to offer to a general audience, paralleling many other generic family movies of the era. For some reason, the film also has some strangely problematic messaging and themes that have made it age like milk that's been left out to dry.

However, The Angry Birds Movie 2 finds more critical success as a cinematic experience by completely abandoning any pretense and connection to the game and going all in on absurdist comedy. Under the directorial vision of Thurop Van Orman , best known as the creator of The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack , The Angry Birds Movie 2 is a nonstop comedic force that pleasantly surprises more often than it disappoints . It still has its occasional pitfalls as a generic family movie, but its comedic highs more than compensate for its occasional lows.

Angry Birds 2

Release Date August 2, 2019

Director Thurop Van Orman

Cast Josh Gad, Bill Hader, Leslie Jones, Awkwafina, Rachel Bloom, Jason Sudeikis

Genres Animation, Comedy, Adventure

Writers Jonathon E. Stewart, Eyal Podell, Peter Ackerman

Watch on Fubo

'The Wolverine' (2013)

Previous film: 'x-men origins: wolverine' (2009).

Throughout the 2000s and before the MCU truly took off, Marvel's golden franchise was easily the X-Men, with X-Men Origins: Wolverine acting as the first step in a full series of prequels for the iconic characters. While the potential was certainly there for a Wolverine origin story, the execution completely botched all possibilities for greatness, instead acting as a painful slap in the face for fans of the comics. Combined with dismal special effects that looked worse than the first X-Men film, Origins: Wolverine quickly attained status as one of the worst X-Men films of all time .

While Origins: Wolverine killed off any chances of any additional Origins films to be made, the character of Wolverine received a chance at redemption in James Mangold 's standalone sequel, The Wolverine . Following Wolverine traveling to modern-day Japan to face off with both powerful foes as he struggles with the death of Jean Grey, the film immediately washed away the bad taste of Origins: Wolverine . The Wolverine featured exceptional action setpieces and set the stage for the massively acclaimed Logan .

The Wolverine

Release Date July 26, 2013

Director James Mangold

Cast Svetlana Khodchenkova, Brian Tee, Rila Fukushima, Tao Okamoto, Hiroyuki Sanada, Hugh Jackman

Rating PG-13

Runtime 126 minutes

Genres Sci-Fi, Action, Adventure, Fantasy

Writers Mark Bomback, Scott Frank, Christopher McQuarrie

'Ouija: Origin of Evil' (2016)

Original film: 'ouija' (2014).

As far as by-the-numbers and painfully mediocre horror movies of the 2010s from major studios go, the original Ouija is up there as one of the worst. Its attempts to create scares and horror out of the classic board game created nothing more than boredom and disappointment in nearly everyone who saw the film, earning it a notorious 6% on Rotten Tomatoes . Being the only horror movie offering during the Halloween season of 2014, it still earned $100 million worldwide on a $8 million budget, guaranteeing a sequel.

In what could easily be the greatest increase in quality in a follow-up to its predecessor, Ouija: Origin of Evil is a genuinely great prequel that stands on its own merits as a horror tour de force. It's one of many brilliantly crafted horror experiences from director Mike Flanagan , best known nowadays as one of the leading visionaries in horror. Ouija: Origin of Evil somehow manages to take the lackluster concepts of the original film and weaves a beautiful tale of sadness, dread, and evil that every horror fan should watch.

Ouija: Origin of Evil

Release Date October 21, 2016

Director Mike Flanagan

Cast Lin Shaye, Doug Jones, Kate Siegel, Annalise Basso, Henry Thomas, Elizabeth Reaser

Runtime 99 minutes

Genres Drama, Mystery, Horror

Writers Jeff Howard, Mike Flanagan

'Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey 2' (2024)

Previous film: 'winnie the pooh: blood and honey' (2023).

The original Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey was largely lauded as a critical catastrophe and even considered by some to be one of the worst movies of all time . The blatant usage of the newly public-domain Winnie the Pooh character to create a cheap and shocking horror film was not lost on many audiences, but Blood and Honey was a painful experience even for cheap horror standards. It doesn't even attempt to have fun with the concept of murderous childhood icons, with drab lighting and an all too serious tone that makes it a complete slog to sit through.

While many other amateur filmmakers would crumble under pressure and give up hope after such a critical reception, director Rhys Frake-Waterfield did the opposite. Buckling down and taking criticism into account, he made the sequel a true delivery of the concept. Giving credit where it's due, Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey 2 found a way to succeed where the original failed. While far from perfect, the film is much more tongue-in-cheek and effective in its approach to horror , finally having fun with the absurdity of its premise while also making its violence and carnage fun to watch.

Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey 2

Release Date March 26, 2024

Director Rhys Frake-Waterfield

Cast Eddy MacKenzie, Ryan Oliva, Tallulah Evans, Scott Chambers, Simon Callow

Rating Not Rated

Runtime 100 Minutes

Genres Thriller, Horror

Writers Matt Leslie, Rhys Frake-Waterfield, A.A. Milne

Watch in Theaters

'Fast Five' (2011)

Previous film: 'fast & furious' (2009).

The Fast and the Furious franchise has seen a multitude of ups and downs across its decade-spanning existence, with the fourth film in the series, Fast & Furious , acting as the most notorious low. Despite reuniting Vin Diesel and Paul Walker for the first time since the first film, Fast & Furious is extremely bogged down and dated by the conventions and trends of late 2000s filmmaking. It features what was easily the worst story of the series yet and paints an overall dour picture of things to come.

However, the blueprint and possibilities for a return to glory for the franchise were certainly visible from the outlook, and it simply took until the next entry to realize it. The Fast saga is as big of a franchise because of the impact and legacy of Fast Five , a no-holds-barred thrill ride action film that cut all the fat and delivered wild moment after moment in what some still consider the best of the series. Fast Five was a game-changer , featuring an exceptional antagonist in Dwayne Johnson 's Hobbs, who kept the film grounded in what was easily a career-defining film for the star.

Release Date April 29, 2011

Director Justin Lin

Cast Paul Walker, Tyrese Gibson, Gal Gadot, Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson, Sung Kang, Ludacris, Jordana Brewster

Runtime 130 minutes

Genres Thriller, Action, Adventure

'Thor: Ragnarok' (2017)

Previous film: 'thor: the dark world' (2013).

While the vast majority of MCU films throughout the 2010s were widely beloved and continue to earn praise from critics and audiences, the Thor films always felt like the exceptions. While the first film held its place as a decent fantasy film, Thor: The Dark World was a major low point for the MCU, especially compared to every other film in Phase 2. Its boring story, uninteresting character dynamics, and drab, gray color palette have made it one of the most forgettable movies of all time , as well as the worst film in the MCU.

The Thor series needed a boost of energy to keep up with the rest of the colorful and comedically charged MCU series, and the solution came courtesy of director Taika Waititi . It's hard to understand just how impactful his work on Thor: Ragnarok was to the MCU. The influence and style seen in Ragnarok , mixing colorful high-concept visuals, quippy improvised dialogue, and deeper overarching themes, quickly became a template for blockbuster filmmaking . Even as many have tried and failed to replicate the magic of Ragnarok (even Waititi himself could recreate it with Thor: Love and Thunder ), Ragnarok still holds up as one of the best MCU films.

Thor: Ragnarok

Release Date November 3, 2017

Director Taika Waititi

Cast Tessa Thompson, Mark Ruffalo, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Idris Elba, Chris Hemsworth

Genres Superhero, Comedy, Sci-Fi, Action, Adventure, Fantasy

'The Suicide Squad' (2021)

Previous film: 'suicide squad' (2016).

Since the ending of the DCEU, its continuous legacy remains one of corporate mismanagement and a complete lack of focus and vision. No film embodies these negative aspects like the original Suicide Squad , which was famously butchered in the editing bay and completely changed in reaction to the success of Guardians of the Galaxy . While audiences may never see David Ayer 's original vision for Suicide Squad , the final product is lacking in soul, hobbled together by test screenings and spreadsheets instead of genuine passion.

The film was still a success at the box office, but it didn't receive a sequel per se. Instead, the quasi-reboot spiritual sequel The Suicide Squad would find massive improvement thanks to James Gunn , the director of the Guardians of the Galaxy films. Gunn has a distinct directorial vision and love for comic books that shines through perfectly on screen, creating a blissful mixture of violence, absurd creativity, and genuine heart. While it disappointed at the box office, The Suicide Squad is still considered the highest point of the DCEU , a step up from a film that was in contention for the lowest point of the DCEU.

The Suicide Squad

Release Date July 28, 2021

Director James Gunn

Cast Jai Courtney, Joel Kinnaman, Margot Robbie, Idris Elba, John Cena, Viola Davis

Runtime 132

Genres Action, Adventure, Fantasy

Writers James Gunn, John Ostrander

'Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith' (2005)

Previous film: 'star wars: episode ii - attack of the clones' (2002).

Enough time has passed that many people forget just how reviled and disappointed the masses were in the Star Wars prequel trilogy, with many seeing them as a bastardization of the franchise. Attack of the Clones may just be the worst of this trilogy, with its underwhelming performances, boring story, and painful special effects making it one of the worst Star Wars films. While the film isn't completely devoid of positives, it isn't exactly what people have come to expect from Star Wars .

However, despite all the odds and expectations, Revenge of the Sith actually stuck the landing, preserving the legacy and importance of the entire prequel trilogy . While it's commonplace nowadays for there to be a more positive outlook and revisionist history for the prequel trilogy, the vast majority of this love is placed upon Revenge of the Sith over the other two films. The third film has a lot going for it, from its wild and over-the-top action sequences to its effective payoff to storylines built upon throughout the entire trilogy and some of the most iconic moments in Star Wars history.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

Release Date May 17, 2005

Director George Lucas

Cast Ian McDiarmid, Samuel L. Jackson, Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Jimmy Smits, Hayden Christensen

Runtime 140 minutes

Writers John Ostrander, George Lucas, Jan Duursema

NEXT: 25 Best Movie Sequels of All Time, Ranked

A Star Trek Origin Movie Is Coming in 2025 From 'Andor' and 'Doctor Who' Director Toby Haynes

'Star Trek' (2009) director J.J. Abrams is attached to produce.

The Big Picture

• A new Star Trek prequel film, an "origin story", is in development, at Paramount.
• The Star Trek history before Kirk's missions on the Enterprise is largely unwritten, leaving room for creativity with the new film.
• Director Toby Haynes, known for Andor , is working on the film alongside writer Seth Grahame-Smith; a 2025 release window was announced at CinemaCon.

Star Trek may finally be coming back to the big screen. A prequel to the 2009 J.J. Abrams reboot of the franchise is in the works from director Toby Haynes . The news comes from Paramount's presentation at CinemaCon today, as reported by Collider's Steve Weintraub and Britta DeVore . With Haynes, who recently helmed six episodes of the acclaimed Star Wars series Andor , at the rudder, the film will be written by Seth Grahame-Smith .

So far, other details on the new film are scarce, but it will reportedly be an "origin story", taking place decades before the 2009 Star Trek film, which took place in 2255. That likely means that it will not feature the cast from the 2009 reboot, which has so far been difficult for Paramount to wrangle together for a fourth film, despite numerous attempts to do so . That doesn't necessarily mean that a fourth movie isn't happening: back in March, Paramount hired The Flight Attendant scribe Steve Yockey to pen a new script for the film. For their part, the cast is game as well, with Zoe Saldaña recently stating her willingness to return for a fourth mission on the USS Enterprise .

What Happened Decades Before Kirk's First Missions on the Enterprise?

The history of the Star Trek universe prior to the celebrated voyages of the Enterprise is largely unwritten. The first starship Enterprise 's adventures in the 22nd century were chronicled on the UPN prequel series Star Trek: Enterprise . That series ended with the founding of the United Federation of Planets in 2161, which leaves almost a century of mostly unexplored history between that and the history now being charted on Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (and the first two seasons of mothership show Star Trek: Discovery ).

At some point, the nascent Federation faces a devastating war against the Romulan Star Empire , while also engaged in a Cold War with the Klingons. The USS Enterprise will eventually be launched in the 23rd century, under the captaincy of Robert April, who has been briefly glimpsed on Star Trek: The Animated Series and Strange New Worlds , before being handed off to Christopher Pike . Apart from that, however, Haynes and Graeme-Smith have a near-blank canvas upon which to make their mark.

In addition to Andor , Haynes has also helmed episodes of Doctor Who , Sherlock , and Black Mirror ; his work on the latter series includes the episode " USS Callister ," a loving pastiche of Star Trek . Graeme-Smith wrote the novels Pride & Prejudice & Zombies and Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter ; he worked on the story for the upcoming horror comedy sequel Beetlejuice Beetlejuice .

A new Star Trek prequel film is in development; no date has yet been set beyond a 2025 release window . Stay tuned to Collider for future updates.

The most beloved modern Star Trek shows are both getting renewed, but there's sad news for one of them

The Trek giveth, and the Trek taketh away

It's a big day of good news and bad news for Star Trek fans, as Paramount giveth and Paramount taketh away. First the good news - Star Trek: Strange New Worlds is coming back for a fourth season. The beloved Star Trek prequel series has been greenlit for season 4 even before the third season has aired.

In the kinda bad news column, Paramount has also offered up the doubled-edged sword that Star Trek: Lower Decks season 5 will premiere in fall 2024 - but it will also be the animated streaming series' final season. 

Both announcements were made on social media, with a pair of graphics, seen here:

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds will return for a fourth season.The final season of Star Trek: Lower Decks arrives on @paramountplus this fall. pic.twitter.com/FaRy7X8NnI April 12, 2024

As a fan of both shows, I'm obviously torn. I'm delighted that Strange New Worlds is continuing - it's been a delightfully campy but still sincere throwback to the best of classic Star Trek. And I'm excited to know that Lower Decks will be back sooner rather than later.

But I'm still slightly crushed that Boimler, Mariner, Tendi, Rutherford, and their ever expanding cast of crewmates are reaching the end of their journey. It takes a lot to sell me on animated comedies, and Lower Decks hit the mark with both its humor and its loving approach to Trek lore.

That said, the best Star Trek characters have a way of living on. Strange New Worlds itself proves that, with a throwback cast of characters including Captain Christopher Pike, James Kirk, Spock, Uhura, and more.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks had a fan-favorite crossover episode in SNW season 2 in which Jack Quaid and Tawny Newsome portrayed their Lower Decks voice characters in live action in a time travel episode.

Sign up to the GamesRadar+ Newsletter

Weekly digests, tales from the communities you love, and more

Star Trek: Lower Decks season 5 will premiere this fall on Paramount Plus. No premiere date for Strange New Worlds season 3 has been set. 

A new Star Trek prequel movie set in the timeline of JJ Abrams' 2009 Star Trek film was also announced this week.  

I've been Newsarama's resident Marvel Comics expert and general comic book historian since 2011. I've also been the on-site reporter at most major comic conventions such as Comic-Con International: San Diego, New York Comic Con, and C2E2. Outside of comic journalism, I am the artist of many weird pictures, and the guitarist of many heavy riffs. (They/Them)

Fallout TV show didn't need to use CGI to create the Wasteland because it found the perfect real-life location

First look at Ncuti Gatwa’s Doctor Who season 2 confirms the return of Millie Gibson and introduces a new companion too

Truly our most anticipated city builders becomes the world's most anticipated video game as it tops Hades 2's Steam wishlists

Most Popular

Screen Rant

15 things wrong with star trek we all choose to ignore.

Think Klingons have honor? Think the Prime Directive even matters? It turns out Star Trek has been lying to all of us for years!

Star Trek has always been a show for the fans. It started as a kind of love letter to fans of sci-fi literature, as they had very little in the way of good sci-fi television or movies. Eventually, the show had an immense fan-following of its own right, and write-in campaigns helped keep the show on the air much longer than it otherwise would have lasted.

And, of course, the fans were what brought it back. The show's fanbase grew during its syndication in the 1970s, and the public's love of both Star Trek and big budget sci-fi (hello, Star Wars ) helped bring Trek to the big screen.

Part of being a fan of Star Trek , though, means looking past its flaws. There are lingering issues with characters and sometimes with the entire series that threaten to take you out of the moment and ruin your enjoyment. However, true fans keep on keeping on, whistling past the graveyard of everything wrong with their favorite shows.

Don't believe us? Fortunately, you don't have to ask an all-powerful alien or an all-knowing android to find your proof. Instead, just keep scrolling to check out  15 Things Wrong With Star Trek We All Choose To Ignore !

Do they have money or not?

On paper, the Federation is a post-scarcity society that has no money. If you had any doubts, Captain Picard gives a nice, long speech about this in First Contact . While having no money in a world where you can replicate anything you want makes a certain amount of sense, Star Trek is all over the place regarding this topic.

For instance, the Kirk of Star Trek IV discusses how they no longer use money, but the Kirk of The Original Series offered money for things like dilithium. We see Dr. Crusher buying scarves and Captain Picard buying a Horga’hn on Risa. And Deep Space Nine is filled with instances of Starfleet officers somehow buying things from Quark.

It seems very obvious that money is still around, and our favorite captains are full of it when they say humanity has transcended the need for cash!

Uniforms make no sense

It’s an open secret that the uniforms of Star Trek have never made much sense. First, the uniforms typically offer no real protection. This gets especially weird when we see the war with the Dominion, and Starfleet is basically fighting armored warriors while wearing pajamas. Second, they offer no real convenience— it’s not until we see prequel series like Enterprise and Discovery that the uniforms have so much as a pair of pockets.

The uniforms are inconsistent.

This has been notable lately because Star Trek: Discovery , which takes place only slightly before Kirk’s famous voyage, has completely different uniforms. But even the Original Series had Kirk and crew wearing different variant outfits from season to season. As for Picard’s crew, we saw them wear no less than four different kinds of outfits in a ten-year span! Maybe fashion is the final frontier after all.

 The Klingons Keep Changing

Sometimes, Star Trek is so inconsistent with something that the shows have to spend an episode later giving a retcon explanation. This is what happened to explain the difference in appearance between the Klingons of the Original Series and the Klingons that we see in The Motion Picture and Next Generation . However, their look has kept evolving (and sometimes devolving) with no real explanation.

The Original Series Klingons had smooth foreheads and the later ones had bumpy foreheads.

An episode of Enterprise explained how the descendants of Klingons who were treated for a mutating virus would have smooth foreheads. However, we get a different look for the Klingons in their brief Into Darkness appearance, and a very different look for Klingons in Star Trek: Discovery .

It seems their design is destined to change as time goes on, and we’re not likely to get additional explanations.

The Prime Directive is meaningless

The Prime Directive is ostensibly the most important rule in Starfleet. This is why it’s known by another name: Starfleet General Order One. The Prime Directive is the rule that keeps Starfleet from interfering in the development of other cultures. While it’s a good rule to have, it’s an open secret that our favorite characters violate this directive constantly and receive no punishment.

To be fair, there are justifications for the violations. We see Picard violate the Directive to save the life of an alien “pen pal” of Data’s and to save the life of Wesley Crusher from a planet’s arbitrarily lethal justice system. And we see Kirk doing things like shutting down a computer that periodically makes an entire planet do their best The Purge impression. We cheer for these moments, but they also prove the Directive is something to be ignored when something more important comes up.

Data has always had emotions

Before he gets a special chip designed by his creator, the android Data is unable to feel emotions. And if we ever forget it, Data’s every other line of dialogue is about how he doesn’t feel human emotions. However, anyone who has seen an episode or two of Next Generation understand that Data has always felt emotions.

It’s true that we don’t see overt things like laughter or tears until he gets the chip. However, he is driven by an ongoing quest to become human. Furthermore, we see him hold onto special Starfleet commendations and even a memorial hologram of his one-time lover, Tasha Yar. Hell, he even longs for companionship enough to get a pet cat!

Looking back, the “emotionless” Data was inspired, proud, motivated, and driven. These qualities cannot come from the algorithms that drive him and help prove he’s had emotions (of some stripe) all along.

It's filled with awful stereotypes

Star Trek has always been known as a progressive franchise. This goes back to Gene Roddenberry deliberately ensuring that the Original Series had characters representing various races, ethnicities, and nationalities. Admittedly, Trek’ s stories have gone a long way towards spreading its progressive message, but the franchise has been filled with some awful stereotypes along the way.

The most obvious example is in the Next Generation  episode "Code of Honor", where the crew encounters an all-black planet. This was already a problematic conceit, and then the show went and made the planet seem culturally backwards and primitive. Meanwhile, the Ferengi were introduced with the solo trait of greed, and many felt their earliest appearances uncomfortably drew upon Jewish stereotypes. Finally, the show has a long-running strain of sexism stretching back to The Original Series , a show which made Uhura a bridge officer but explicitly stated that women could never captain a ship!

How many ships do they have?

Despite all of the encyclopedias, technical manuals, and internet debates, certain things about Star Trek remain kind of fuzzy. One of the big questions that still remains is how big a fleet Starfleet is actually supposed to be. While this number is never explicitly stated, we get onscreen clues that make it seem like the size of the fleet is constantly expanding and then shrinking again.

For instance, when the Borg first attack Earth, Starfleet loses thirty-nine ships. This is treated like a massive loss, and characters discuss how it will take a year to recover from this loss. Later, during the Dominion War in Deep Space Nine , there are battles where Starfleet loses hundred ships at a time.

Where did all these ships come from? 

How are they able to make new ships quickly enough to fight a prolonged war? Fans often ignore these questions so we can sit back and enjoy the (really awesome) war arc.

Starfleet's not very tolerant

Just as the various crews are intentionally diverse, Starfleet is supposed to represent the ideals of cultural tolerance. After all, you can’t really explore “strange new worlds” if you are trying to impose your own cultural values on every alien race you meet.

Star Trek has a weird history of its characters being fairly intolerant.

We see multiple officers weirded out by Data (and especially Data in command), and there’s even a special trial to determine whether he’s anything more than Starfleet property. We see extreme pushback to the idea of a Ferengi joining Starfleet Academy. We see all Vulcan crews with open contempt for humans. We see captains using the racially-charged term “Cardies” to refer to Cardassians. Sometimes, it makes sense for a given character, but taken altogether, it seems evidence that the super-tolerant future is pretty darn intolerant.

Those crazy admirals

Nominally, the chain of command is very important in Star Trek. Everyone has their own duties and responsibilities, and the higher up people are in the food chain, the more subordinates they have. However, Star Trek subverted our ideas of the chain of command with one of its weirdest tropes: the insane admiral.

It seems like the main requirement to a promotion is to insanely evil.

Seriously, there are so many insane admirals in Trek . Admiral Satie tries to go after Picard and his whole crew in a weird witch hunt, Admiral Pressman blatantly violates treaties with Romulans, Admiral Dougherty tries to forcibly remove an entire planetary population, and so on. Admiral Marcus unleashes Khan and murders people to cover it up, and Admiral Leyton attempts a coup of Starfleet.

Shuttles are insanely dangerous

The shuttles are a pretty natural invention for Star Trek . For times that the transporters don’t work or that crew members need to go on a road trip, there’s always the faithful shuttlecraft. There’s just one problem: every time a crew member steps inside, they are putting their lives at risk!

Travel by shuttle is the single most dangerous thing to do in the Star Trek universe.

In the Original Series , we see Spock barely survive crashing onto a hostile alien planet. In Next Generation , characters like Geordi LaForge and Deanna Troi are kidnapped by Romulans when traveling to conferences. On Deep Space Nine , a conference trip for Bashir resulted in him being kidnapped and replaced by a Changeling. The worst offender was Voyager , a show in which no less than ten shuttles were lost, forcing fans to wonder where they kept getting new ones!

Intergalactic taxi service

Star Trek typically goes out of its way to tell us how special the show's ship is. For instance, the Enterprise is the flagship of the Federation, and they are regularly entrusted with missions that could determine the fate of countless people. However, they have another mission they take more seriously than anything else.

They are basically Uber for the entire galaxy!

Think about it: how many plots start out with the Enterprise having to ferry an ambassador or a scientist from Point A to Point B? Sure, these are important people, but it seems insane that ships like the Enterprise-D (with over a thousand souls onboard) are regularly sent to be a taxi service. It also seems irresponsible, as every week-long trip carrying some random official is a week that the most powerful ship of the line cannot do anything else! And in a moneyless society, they can't even get surge pricing...

The holodeck makes no damn sense

Part of what makes Star Trek fun is seeing technology that really brings the future to life. The best example of this is the holodeck, which is basically virtual reality taken to its logical extreme. With a simple voice command, our characters can use a combination of holograms, tractor beams, and replicators to bring any scenario to life.

There's just one problem: the holodeck makes no sense!

We see instances of characters stepping outside of the holodeck and it takes a long time for them to disappear. Shouldn't they go away immediately? We see other instances of characters eating inside the holodeck, which implies some things are replicated and some things are not. How does the holodeck figure out how to do that without breaking the illusion? When we factor in that the right commands create sentient creatures like Moriarty, this is the most unbelievable tech ever seen on Trek!

Klingons aren't actually honorable

The Klingons on Star Trek: The Original Series did not have a lot of detail as an alien race. They were mostly mustache-twirling villains. Later portrayals of Klingons in Star Trek: The Next Generation added the new dimension that they were obsessed with honor.

Even if you discount earlier portrayals, we can see that they aren't honorable at all.

We see warriors like Duras betray their race to the Romulans, and we see the Klingon Council try to hide his crimes. We see a pattern of Klingon ships conducting sneak attacks on everyone from the Ferengi to the Federation. Of course, these bold warriors constantly hide behind cloaking devices. Worf sarcastically comments on this at one point, saying that nothing is more honorable than victory. This makes the “win at all costs” race completely dishonorable!

Transporters are deadly

Transporters are some of the most revolutionary bits of technology in all of Star Trek . Sure, warping around the galaxy is cool and all, but being able to travel thousands of miles with a simple voice command is the kind of technology we all dream of every day. Despite being a staple of Star Trek since the beginning, though, this technology continues to be rather horrifying.

We are meant to laugh at Dr. McCoy and other characters when they are scared to use the transporter. However, the technology literally works by destroying your body and then creating a copy of it (complete with your mind and memories) somewhere else. This means that, on a real level, committing to Starfleet means committing to killing yourself countless times.

Throw in the real risk of a transporter accident and it's amazing everyone doesn't avoid these things like the Tarellian plague.

Every alien looks too human

Fans put up with a lot of Star Trek silliness because of their sheer love of the show. However, there is one issue that the franchise has had since the beginning, and because it's tied to budget, is not likely to go away. Here it is: almost every single alien they meet looks like a human who put on a sampler of Party City clearance supplies.

The whole mission is to explore “ strange new worlds ,” but to look at the aliens, these worlds are pretty damn familiar. Almost everyone has two arms, two legs, one head, and so on. Even the most iconic aliens like Spock can be visually described as “human with some pointy ears.”

Maybe if enough fans write in, the money that goes to the annual Klingon redesign can go towards making other aliens look more alien!

What else do fans ignore about Star Trek ? Let us know in the comments!

Star Trek: Infinite reviews crater as Paradox announces it's dead, Jim

The company's stability crisis continues.

It was meant to go boldly where no man has gone before, but instead, Star Trek: Infinite is going quietly into that good night. The Paradox-published space 4X—developed by Nimble Giant—has announced that it will no longer be receiving updates (via RPS ).

Actually, it's been dead (Jim) for some time. The announcement came via a dev diary posted on the Paradox forums two weeks ago, on March 27, but it's taken a while for anyone but ardent fans of the game to notice. 

"Sadly, we must inform you that Star Trek: Infinite will not receive further updates," wrote a Paradox staff member on the game's forums, before going on to offer absolutely no explanation for that whatsoever. Instead, the bulk of the post is dedicated to thanking Paradox's business partners and the game's fans.

That it took so long for most of us to notice the game's passing probably goes some way to explaining why the game is being left behind, but it's still a kick in the teeth for those who hoped the Stellaris-y Star Trek 4X was set for a long tail of updates like most of Paradox's own self-developed strategy games. 

Alas, it's going the way of Imperator, Paradox's own antiquity-themed strategy game that's been quietly shuffled off to a latifundium upstate after a milquetoast response from players. The response has been pretty much what you'd expect: The recent reviews tab on Steam has turned an ugly shade of red as negative responses turn it "Overwhelmingly Negative" (the overall reviews are still "Mixed," for now). 

"What a colossal disappointment this game is," says the very first response to the announcement on the Paradox forums. "Announcing a new custodian team would have been better," reads another, "Not a great addition to the recent string of abandoned or troubled PDX related titles."

It's another misfire in a long line for Paradox, which has found itself in a bad state these past few years. On top of Star Trek's failure, it's dealing with the chaotic development of Vampire: the Masquerade – Bloodines 2 , a split with Harebrained Schemes after Lamplighters League sold poorly, and the continuing fallout of a C-suite shuffle after former CEO Ebba Ljungerud resigned and was replaced with Fredrik Wester.

PC Gamer Newsletter

Sign up to get the best content of the week, and great gaming deals, as picked by the editors.

Wester had been CEO prior to Ljungerud, but resigned in 2018. Less than two weeks after replacing Ljungerud in 2021, he apologised for " inappropriate behaviour " towards a colleague after the majority of women working at Paradox reported mistreatment at the studio . More and more, the company seems stuck in a time of troubles.

One of Josh's first memories is of playing Quake 2 on the family computer when he was much too young to be doing that, and he's been irreparably game-brained ever since. His writing has been featured in Vice, Fanbyte, and the Financial Times. He'll play pretty much anything, and has written far too much on everything from visual novels to Assassin's Creed. His most profound loves are for CRPGs, immersive sims, and any game whose ambition outstrips its budget. He thinks you're all far too mean about Deus Ex: Invisible War.

Darkest Dungeon 2 is getting a free new game mode later this year that will feature 'some of the permanence and roster management' of the original game

Total War: Warhammer 3's Thrones of Decay reveal has finally made me excited about the game again

Rise of the Triad: Ludicrous Edition update adds cross-platform multiplayer, another cut character, and more

Most Popular

• 2 Best wireless gaming keyboard in 2024
• 3 Best gaming laptops in 2024: I've had my pick of portable powerhouses and these are the best
• 4 Best gaming chairs in 2024: the seats I'd suggest for any gamer
• 5 Best graphics cards in 2024: the GPUs I recommend for every budget
• 2 Alienware 32 AW3225QF review
• 3 Glorious Model D 2 Pro 4K/8KHz Edition review
• 4 Nextorage X Series (NN5PRO) 2TB review
• 5 Scuf Envision Pro review

• Search Please fill out this field.
• Manage Your Subscription
• Give a Gift Subscription
• Newsletters
• Sweepstakes
• Entertainment

Who Is George Takei's Husband? All About Brad Takei

George Takei and his husband, Brad Takei, have been married since 2008

Sarah Title is a contributing writer at PEOPLE. She has been working at PEOPLE since 2022. Her work has previously appeared in Brides, The Knot, Betches, Nicki Swift and Style Me Pretty.

Anna Webber/Getty

George Takei and his husband, Brad Takei, first met each other in the 1980s.

The actor was not publicly out at that time, but he did join an LGBTQ+ running club called the L.A. Frontrunners, where his now-husband Brad was also a member. “He was the best runner in the club," George told Oprah Winfrey on an Oprah: Where Are They Now? episode. "And also great-looking. So I went up to him and I asked him to train me for my first marathon. Before long, we became partners."

It wasn’t until 2005 that George, who played Mr. Sulu on Star Trek , publicly came out to Frontiers magazine. “Because of the changes that are happening, I see the potential for significant change —[the potential] that I might be able to contribute to the gay community as I have to the Japanese-American community and to the civil rights movement,” George said of his decision. “Because of the changing public and political climate, I think we need to get the numbers, and I can play a part in trying to bring some rationality to our society.”

The pair tied the knot in 2008 in a Buddhist ceremony in downtown Los Angeles. Nearly 200 guests watched George and Brad exchange vows in a circle of yellow rose petals. The reception was held at the Japanese American National Museum. George's former Star Trek costars Nichelle Nichols and Walter Koenig were their maid of honor and best man.

So who is George Takei's husband? Here’s everything to know about Brad Takei and his relationship with the actor.

Brad was a financial journalist when he met George

Amanda Edwards/Getty

Brad was a financial journalist when he met George in the 1980s but became George’s business partner in the early 1990s.

“Eventually, I helped George with some of his public relations, press releases and various projects,” Brad explained on the podcast Oh Myyy Pod! . "He needed somebody to help make sure that things got accomplished so that he could be a visionary and artist and I could do the detail work — and it sort of gradually evolved that I became his business manager.” 

Brad joined George on an episode of The Newlywed Game

Kevin Mazur/Getty 

In 2009, Brad and George became the first openly gay couple to compete on The Newlywed Game since its inception in 1967. "I grew up watching the show in the 1970s where [host] Bob [Eubanks] would talk about 'making whoopee' and now Carnie Wilson just asks how often you have sex," Brad said. "It shows how much our culture has changed."

George also recognized the magnitude of the moment. "We're boldly going where no other same-sex couple has gone," the actor added. "We want to be seen [on the show] in context throughout society as no different from other couples who preceded us, in the context of normalcy and commitment to each other."

Brad changed his last name from Altman to Takei

STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty

After being together for 26 years, Brad changed his last name from Altman to Takei in 2013, despite George’s resistance . “I argued with him on that,” George told Access Hollywood Live .

“He wanted to become a Takei.” George even suggested hyphenating their names, to which Brad replied, “I feel Takei.”

Brad joined George on-screen for their documentary

David Livingston/Getty

After years behind the camera as George’s business manager, the couple filmed a documentary together about their advocacy work, called To Be Takei .

“The mission statement was to allow access into our private lives to show fair-minded Americans that a same-sex couple, this is like everyone else in our culture dominated by opposite-sex couple,” Brad told The Wrap . “Maybe if our doc showed we’re just like everyone else, just the same gender, maybe fair-minded people will think twice about wanting to discriminate against the LGBT community.”

He believes in the longevity of George’s career

Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty

Brad has always been extremely supportive of George’s career.

“I always say George is the next Betty White . The middle years of her career, she was a very prominent American actor winning Emmys left and right and very well known to the American public, but she didn’t become 'Betty White' until her very mature years,” Brad told The Wrap. “That path is what’s happening to George. He’s not that guy from Star Trek — which is not a bad thing to be, he’s proud to be part of it — he’s simply George Takei.”

He won the International Vanguard Award together with George in 2014

Vincent Sandoval/Getty

The couple's LGBTQ+ work earned them the honor. In his acceptance speech, George took a moment to thank his husband for being his partner in all aspects of life. “He’s my husband, we’re married, but we’re also professional partners in life. We build our lives and our career together, and I feel so blessed in having him and I feel very blessed to be gay.”