Comments on: Mark Altman’s Review Of ‘Star Trek’

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:00:04 +0000

Uhh, Mark,
Those of us with good taste would’ve liked Trek V a lot more, if it had a better story, not if it had better SFX, and, as much as you are in denial about this, theat lack of a good story in the film is the fault of your god Shatner.

By: Doctor Mobius

Doctor Mobius — Tue, 19 May 2009 09:13:46 +0000

I just plain dug this movie, especially the inside jokes and “cheesy” humor. The main reason those Trekkie only jokes worked so well, is there was no pregnant pause while someone winked at the camera. The jokes were for us long time fans alone.

But let’s face it, Trek has never been perfect. We fans place it far up on a pedestal that’s far higher than the series has ever risen technically. We tend to forget that this was a show that originally did poorly and was canceled mid season. The reason it is so good, and means so much to is isn’t production values, consistent technology and ship sizes, or high drama. It’s because Trek has told some wonderfully memorable stories.

In the long run, this latest film will go down with the truly greatest of Trek moments because of how much fun people had watching it. We won’t care that the brewery seemed out of place in engineering, or that the warp nacelles weren’t quite right. Watching it again, I can point out just as many problems with the holiest of holys; The Wrath of Kahn.

Star Trek has set itself among the great stories of history. Robin Hood, Romeo and Juliette, Batman, James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur, Exodus… All these tales are retold again and again, and each time with new perspectives, and contemporary ideals and ideas. Star Trek is beginning to take it’s place among the true classics.

This movie worked, and worked well. If you let nitpicking the details ruin this movie for you, then I truly feel sorry for you, because you missed out on a really good time with the rest of us. Oh we saw the flaws, and acknowledged them, but we were too busy enjoying ourselves to really care.

– DM

By: Charlie

Charlie — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:41:22 +0000

I grew up with TOS. I’ve stuck with every movie and series, even Enterprise when they flew Gene’s dream into the ground with so much time travel it made me sick. I’ve always felt that Star Trek was true, it just hasn’t happened yet. Guess I’ll have to give up on that future and plan for a new one based on time travel rather than space travel.

By: Bloons

Bloons — Mon, 11 May 2009 23:36:02 +0000

Altman always has to bash the post-TOS shows,

to paraphrase:

I would never live in the 23rd century……

By: Star Trek film review: Buttery, flaky, and a little cheesy. | Art & Entertainment | Ron S. Doyle - Professional Freelance Writer

Sat, 09 May 2009 23:30:08 +0000

[...] this film in a thin layer of cheese. I won’t give away the details, but let’s just say when Mark Altman’s review included the terms “ham-handed” and “Wonka-esque&#…, he was mostly on the [...]

By: Gavin Lively

Gavin Lively — Sat, 09 May 2009 06:23:27 +0000

There were definitely some storyline and technical inconsistencies in the story…What happened to Captain Robert April being the first captain to be the one on the maiden voyage of Enterprise and NOT Captain Pike?

What about the Arrow head emblem….Purists will note that the arrowhead starfleet emblem was not stadardized as the emblem that all starrfleet wore untill after Enterprises origional 5 year mission…If you view TOS you will notices that crew from diferent ships had different emblem badges…This was an obvious technical flub that will certainly bother the Star Trek purist.

By: Eli

Eli — Fri, 01 May 2009 13:55:23 +0000

I’m liking what Im hearing. And apparently, a Budweiser brewery WAS the stand-in for engineering, so Mark is very astute about that observation. Hopefully in JJ’s Star Trek II we’ll get a warp core built from scratch…

By: wkiryn

wkiryn — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:32:48 +0000

I think in some expanded universe book Chekov went over to excelsior and eventually head of starfleet security (maybe in that vulcan series that was out a few years ago)

rangerone314 thank you for your expertise.

By: weerd1

weerd1 — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:10:57 +0000

Well, at least Sulu went off to command. I wonder if they ever let Chekov do anything else after Reliant….?

By: Closettrekker

Closettrekker — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:55:13 +0000

#283—It’s true that Starfleet policy can be depicted as completely different than that of a modern military. That’s a given. I just think that it is rather unreasonable for such senior officers to be concentrated on one ship, basically serving in the same positions they held as junior officers.

More realistically (getting past a demoted Kirk receiving a starship command), Captain Kirk should have been assigned younger personnel to fill those spots under his command (IMO) and those senior officers should probably have, for the most part, moved on.

I have no issue with a man retaining the same rank for a long time. There are officers in the Marine Corps who never get beyond Lt. Colonel, and stay at that grade for a long time, and still others who get past that mark and remain Colonels.

Just as there are only so many spots for Flag Officers in our military, I would imagine that the same would be true for Starfleet. How many Admirals can you have? Given the extended lifespans in the 23rd-24th Centuries, some people would probably remain captains (or commanders, for that matter) for decades. That’s not an issue at all to me.

But beyond all of that, the whole misallocation of personnel thing was but one point in a long list of gripes I have about STV. If it were the only thing, or even one of very few things, it wouldn’t be much of a big deal to me at all. But compounding that with everything else I find to be wrong with the story— I just can’t stand it.