The Shuttle Pod Crew Revisits The Birth Of The Kelvin Timeline In ‘Star Trek’ (2009)

Shuttle Pod 68 – “The Future Begins” With ‘Star Trek’ (2009)

Subscribe to Shuttle Pod: The Podcast on iTunesGoogle Play Music, and Pocket Casts!
Like what you hear? Please leave us a review on iTunes.

To celebrate the 10th anniversary of the movie that was influential in the creation of, Shuttle Pod crew members Jared, Kayla, Laurie, and Matt travel through “a lightning storm in space” to discuss the first Kelvin universe movie. Listen as the podcasters discuss the buzz around the movie when it was released in 2009, the casting, the music, and more.

J.J. Abrams with the cast of Star Trek

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I like this podcast! It’s exciting!

Hahaha…Scotty! I just wanted to use a similar quote…
Now, could we have a towel, please?

Just going to say it; I have never found myself coming back to the kelvin films since they were released. Does that mean I think they are bad films? I don’t think so.
I think my feeling is that these films don’t resonate with me. I’m not particularly fond of the scores for these films either. The TNG films all had pretty good scores – I particular enjoy Generations and First Contact scores for example, and Insurrection and Nemesis were arguably saved quite a bit by at least a good score.
The problem I see with regards to the kelvin cast is that they are the first ensemble to start out at the movies and not actually have bounced off from television previously. They might be playing well known and iconic characters but audiences have only three movies (about 7-8 hours) to get to know this cast. Star Wars is Space Opera so a three movie format works well – Star Wars is made for the movies. Star Trek is traditionally more about ideas and morality tales and character exploring. The kelvin cast I don’t think really ever go deep in those areas because the movie format doesn’t allow it, especially the J.J. Action format!

I’ve always been puzzled by this notion. Why is it that you say it’s fine for Star Wars to be a certain way, but Star Trek shouldn’t be?

If one thing is good one way, why is another bad in that same way? First of all, I felt the characters were great in these movies, mostly because I was so familiar with them in the original series and films, but this version of them, I realize was different, but still interesting.

It’s like music, there should be no boundaries. There’s no reason to just limit oneself to one genre. Sci-fi is way more eclectic than that and Star Trek is too. I think that some ideas were certainly explored in the last three films. Star Trek eleven…the first JJ Abrams Trek movie, was about destiny, shaping destiny, duality and self-acceptance. The second one touched on terrorism, friendship and propaganda. The third film, Star Trek Beyond…was practically an episode of the original series.

What exactly isn’t Star Trek about that? Oh sure, you got more action scenes then you seen in the TV show. But wasn’t Star Trek Insurrection and Nemesis pretty action packed? Sure, I see that you say the only thing that saved them was the score…well…maybe you like orchestrated music? I see…well I was always more of a rock and roller which is why I prefer the music of the new films. Although the orchestrated bits in all the other movies are fantastic…especially Wrath of Khan and Nemesis.

Not to say that mistakes weren’t made in the Abrams films (LENS FLARES!) But I still felt they were worthy of the franchise and better than any Star Wars film. They Into Darkness might even be among my favorites, right up there with the other ten films.

You totally lost me when you say the J.J films are better than any Star Wars film.
Maybe it’s the eclectic pace of the films that I don’t like – all the trek’s have fairly quick run-times but the kelvin films move a warp speed and character building is pretty non-existent really.
The villains are weak as well. Nero was pretty weak and by the numbers. Cumberbach was disappointing and should not be playing ‘Khan’ (nothing to do with the racial thing; I don’t feel Khan needed to be in movie at all). Idris Elba’s villain was just a bit, boring? I don’t know what it is, but I didn’t really like it.
The last decent trek villain was way back in 1996’s First Contact IMO. Everything since has been a bit disappointing. And some great actors have been hired, which makes it all the more surprising really.

While I can agree with most of what you said here, especially about the villains…but the character building? I don’t know…I didn’t think they did bad at that at all, especially with Kirk, Spock, Bones and Uhura. Pike was a well-developed character too I thought.

I was glad Khan was in Into Darkness though…that’s one good villain to me. And As for Idris Elba? I don’t know about that really…but the characters I mentioned felt well-developed enough for me, and if there would ever be more films, the there’s opportunities to develop them further.

To be honest I’m more a TNG fan so that’s an issue I guess. The acting is good don’t get me wrong. I just didn’t find the stories interesting for whatever reason. They don’t seem to have rewatch value (for me) like the other 10 films previous. One scene in Into Darkness I actually cringe st is the Kirk death. It totally ruins or at least sours the movie for me. I’d love to see that entire scene ejected in a special edition (lol)

“Why is it that you say it’s fine for Star Wars to be a certain way, but Star Trek shouldn’t be?”

Because Star Trek, for the most part, has had a different ethos from Star Wars; that is it deals with specific matters within science fiction. Star Wars typically doesn’t concern itself with the minutia of how its universe works, and when it does, as with the case of midichlorians, it goes off the rails. But Star Trek can tell those stories — about science, history, philosophy, sociology, etc. It can deal in the kind of specifics that a space opera/fantasy can’t, nor should.

Star Wars is science fantasy and opera. Its spectacle. It’s a fairytale (Which explains why Disney ‘in theory’ was a good fit for Star Wars).
Star Trek is fiction but it’s about Earth and humanity. Star Trek is traditionally more about exploring ideas. Star Wars is about plain Good Versus Evil and depicting insane creatures and space battles.
I love Star Wars, but I don’t think Star Trek needs to imitate it at all to be successful. Hopefully whoever is in charge of Star Trek at Paramount will try to steer things in a different direction when the inevitable Trek #14 finally gears up.

I don’t think it should imitate Star Wars either…And I agree with most of what you’re saying, BUT…I think there’s nothing wrong with having a little more sci-fi in a Star Wars movie and a little more action in a Star Trek movie, every now and again…it doesn’t harm the overall franchises especially now that we got all this new material coming out.

For old fans like us, we can look forward to Star Trek: Picard, the newer fans might enjoy the next season of Discovery more. Out kids will probably be digging the Nickelodean show, and Futurama and Orville fans might find themselves attracted to Lower Decks more.

My point is that we shouldn’t be so biased. Diversity is really what I’m talking about. I may not like every show coming out of the franchise in the next several years, but I hope to find at least a couple, and really cling to it…I just hope everyone does.

Oh, and I wasn’t dissing Star Wars, I actually just like Trek that much better. It’s just my opinion. I actually thought Star Wars could be a little more sci-fi at times. Anyway, you can have your opinion, I didn’t mean to attack it.

The Beyond opening scene is for my taste totally silly. That’s Star Wars right there! Which would be fine, but do we really want that in Trek movie?
I just hope Paramount or whoever try to bring a bit more ‘realism’ and ‘grounding’ back and not do silly scenes just for a show off of CGI.

What are you talking about? The underpinnings of SW is about the nature of humanity, both as “Man vs. Man” and “Man vs. Self”. Same with ST, but only with a different setting and emphasis.

Simply saying that neither should be bound to any rules. There’s no reason for not having a variety of film types.

“There’s no reason for not having a variety of film types.” I agree. That’s what different movies and different franchises are for–folks can choose what they’d like to see.

my feeling are, as usual, only into darkness gave me any kind of excite.

i really must needs say, I think star trek original series is still the very best, full of excite and action!

I enjoyed all three. But as with Disco, I don’t feel any special connection with them.

I rewatched Nemesis earlier today and felt it was superior to any of the aforementioned above.

Honestly, I can’t see the point of ducking out of the Prime Universe if all you’re going to do is throw tribbles all over the place, reference Harry Mudd, go to Delta Vega, etc. etc. etc.

It was always about having the freedom to re-exploit key iconography from the series. They weren’t looking to stake out new territory.

That was my primary disappointment with the Kelvin movies, truly. I thought the first one was OK – charismatic cast, pretty standard SF plot (though with enough repercussions for the Prime timeline to keep my interest), weak villain, too much lens flare. But I liked it enough to see it twice in theaters and was hopeful that we’d see some actual bold new ideas for the franchise. STID being an inferior retread of WoK just crushed my enthusiasm for the new series; I sat that one out (and would have done the same with Beyond if it hadn’t been the closest I felt I could come to paying my respects). I don’t mind Easter Eggs, but each of these Trek incarnations should really be its own creature, and I flinch when reboot properties do no more than mindlessly ape what’s come before.

I really wanted to hear Brian’s take on JJ Trek. These two sentences say a lot. Thank you.

I’m not sure they do. I agree with him on both points, but still think it’s a great movie (ranked at 3rd place).

Yup. But then that has been the playbook of almost everything in the mainstream for the past ten years or so, and it’s only getting worse. I just saw yesterday where they’re talking about resurrecting Perfect Strangers, Step by Step, and Family Matters!

Guess Hollywood now gets their ideas from old T-shirts and lunchboxes on ebay.

Well… There is the thought that if you are going to redo an existing property you redo the garbage with the hope of making it better. It’s rarely a good idea to reboot something that was good to begin with. So yea, reboot Battlestar Galactica. Reboot Perfect Strangers, Step by Step and Family Matters. Maybe they can be better this time….

On the subject of redoing garbage, let’s reboot ‘Black Hole.’ Great premise, great ending. Plenty of room for new storytelling for talented storytellers to fix the vacuum in between. If Disney gives up its theatrical rights, how about a streaming show . . .?

…and make Kirk a horndog, destroy Vulcan, turn Spock into a raging lunatic…

Like Kirk has never been a horndog.

No. He wasn’t. He loved one woman at a time, and each time it was genuine.

Or it was something he had to to for the sake of his ship or mission.

As people have pointed out, Captain Kirk was fun to watch as he would either f**k or fight his way across the galaxy!

I think cadets have rank. I doubt she’d go from Cadet Lt. to actual Lt., but hey… the light flares made my head woozy, so I stopped asking. Also, Starfleet is master of fudge recruiting and promotions. You can join at any age and advance at any rate.

ST09 seems sooooo long ago now.. who’d have thought 10year on we’d have seen an epic $200m redo of TWOK (with a white man as Khan!), heard tantalizing rumours of Shatner coming back as Kirk for the 3rd film before witnessing the series crash in a dull non event film (so bad the 4th film was cancelled), and see Trek back on TV with a hugely expensive streaming show with Jason Isaacs and Michelle Yeoh that split the fanbase early TNG style, and Picard coming back in his own show. And theres a very real possibility Quentin Tarantino will make a Trek film (not just a jokey rumour)..

That’s a lot of Trektivity over 10years

Unless the Picard show can have much more consistent writing than first two seasons of STD, the Quentin Tarantino film may be all there really is to look forward to.

The best thing about the movie was Leonard coming back. Also the general public liked it, but they missed the boat with the next one.

I think most of the general public actually liked the 2nd one as much as the 1st and thought it was a pretty cool fast paced space action film with some awesome set pieces. It was the 3rd film that ‘normal’ people gave a big ‘meh’ to.

That’s been my impression as well. Beyond was the Insurrection of Kelvin Trek.

the comparison is apt. it even looked abit like Insurrection

Didn’t Into Darkness do better in Asia than any other region of the world (aside from America)?

If I remember right, there was an active effort to promote that film aggressively outside of English speaking countries. Where Trek had traditionally not fared as well. As far as I know, it was the only film where the studio did such a thing.

‘Mr. Nick Meyer, what did you think of Star Trek into Darkness’?

‘I think JJ Abrams should write his own movies’.

The JJ-verse seems almost irrelevant now that we’re getting high quality Trek on TV.

The latter remains to be seen. We’ve had two seasons of STD start out strong and then fall apart.

“And then fall apart” …. how does a show fall apart when they’ve had 2 successful seasons and are about to begin production on the 3rd and have added much more to the slate because of it?

They have yet to show they can write a coherent season story arc for ST. That should go without saying. It does go without saying.

That’s not entirely true. There have been story arcs on DS9 that lasted many episodes. And season 3 of Enterprise was a 20+ episode season long story arc. One that many feel greatly improved the show.

I don’t think Sam was suggesting Star Trek hasn’t had successful story arcs before, he’s only suggesting Discovery hasn’t had it yet. At least that’s how I read it.

And I have to agree. You know my feelings about season one which was a complete mess IMO. Season 2 was better by far but sadly still dropped the ball in the end and was a complete mess as well. It was just a more enjoyable mess is probably the best way to put it.

I didn’t think the third season of Enterprise arc was that amazing and probably ran a little long, but I’ve watched it about four times in its entirety. I can’t even bring myself to watch the first season of Discovery a second time yet.

And neither show gets anywhere close to what DS9 did and at the rate Trek is going probably never will again.

I think Enterprise S3 was pretty good, myself. But let’s focus on what we both think worked well, DS9. They managed to have story arcs that both moved the major story along and focused on the people involved. This part is what Discovery is lacking. At least, that is what it feels like is lacking. There could be a number of reasons for this. Maybe it’s the short season. Maybe it’s because they jumped straight into the major story without letting the audience really get a chance to connect and flesh out the characters a bit. All I can say is that I’m really not caring much for the original Discovery people and I really don’t think I’m alone in that assessment. My thinking is that the show is harmed by the short season aspect. It doesn’t give us time to really become invested in the characters. Thus far it seems the show has never given us more than one character driven episode in row. I get the short season for streaming shows. But sometimes one needs to take a step back and look at the bigger picture for the greater good of the show.

That’s nothing. ‘Three’s Company’ ran for 8 successful seasons and launched several spin-offs.

I agree with Sam. I think both seasons started out very strong . . . but they couldn’t stick the landing either time. S1 descended into a series of increasingly absurd twists that only seemed designed to bring folks back the next week. S2 just had a giant mystery box strategy that fell apart once one had time to look back on the whole season. Maybe it was a reflection on a lack of a clear plan. I assume it’s at least in part a reflection of, what, four different showrunners/showrunner teams in two seasons?

Which brings me to the second point: a third season of Discovery does not equal two successful seasons. All the behind the scenes drama actually suggests quite the opposite. I welcome a third season. I wouldn’t be a Trek fan if I wasn’t optimistic. But I think more Discovery is more a reflection on CBSAA’s investment in Trek than in the overall quality of the show so far.

Correction. We are getting high quality production values in Trek. High quality Trek overall is debatable at best.

My general reaction to Trek ’09 was that I was completely excited to see a reboot of the franchise and thought it would be fun to see new actors inhabiting the classic characters. And for the most part, I was fine with the casting. I felt the weakest was Quinto but he wasn’t bad. So none of the changes made I had a problem with be cause I saw this whole thing as a reboot. I was not a huge fan of embracing the “Kirk beds a lot of aliens” cliche, however. The fist fights did not bother me as much as it was Kirk pretty much got his ass handed to him each time he got involved in one. It was a bit more action’y, yes. But that wasn’t a huge issue for me in this one either. Nothing really stood out as being overtly dumb. Regarding shooting the drill bit outside… I heard it was shot in the parking lot at Dodger Stadium. Still wish the disc had a commentary track. I think the commentary was only found on some appleTV version or something. I cannot imagine that TNG would ever get such a reboot treatment. Mainly because Picard and Data and Co. just don’t resonate with the public like Kirk and Spock do. I gotta say, Gianccino is quite good at emotional beats like Labor of Love. He came up with some really good ones in Lost and his other work as well. But I have to say, I really like the Spock cue he wrote a GREAT deal. It is true that the most successful Trek movie was the whale one. But the fact is the one that had the most appeal was also the most non Star Trek movie of them all. That is something that really ought to carry some weight when it comes to feature film success. FYI… The scene of Kirk staring at the Enterprise under construction JJ actually called a “Star Wars moment”. The Cadet to Captain thing, while silly, I tend to ignore. We knew Kirk had to end up in the Chair. So I forgive them for that. It may have felt like too much too fast but the movie did move rather fast itself. That is JJ’s style. The only thing that really raised an eyebrow was Spock being both a teacher, essentially, and also first officer to Pike. How does THAT happen? My main plot thing was that the friendship between Spock and Kirk felt forced. Nimoy Spock told Quinto Spock that they would be friends, so Quinto Spock essentially shrugs, and reluctantly accepts it. For some reason that bothered me more than the rank rising stuff. The comments about slowing everything down regarding their rise in the ranks… That would be possible in a TV show over 10-13 episodes or even a 20+ episode season. But this is a 2 hour feature film. They cannot take the time for all that. We just have to accept that they swiftly moved into the positions they were supposed to be in. Kicking Kirk off was rather emotional for Spock. Which was out of character. But Kirk did say in his personal log it was a violation of some regulation and it is possible the intent was to land the pod near the outpost. But, yeah… For someone they felt was just being a hot head it did feel a little extreme. Which supports my thinking that this was the series where Spock was not Spock yet. He still had a LOT of growing to do. It did feel like the film played fast and loose with galactic geography. But one could claim part of that, Spock watching Vulcan implode, was more a representation of what he was feeling. But that is not how it was presented on screen. At least, it wasn’t obvious. The “trans warp” beaming thing was pretty ridiculous. I originally thought it was beaming while ships were at warp! I honestly thought they were going to get into that ship there at the outpost, somehow head off close to Enterprise while at warp and THEN beam them over! Not beam them FROM the dang planet to a ship that left hours ago! And, unfortunately, the device showed up again in the next film. I think we can all agree that what appears to be nearly unlimited range sorta ruins the concept of transporters. I was fine with the sets. But the thing that felt BAD was the Budweiser plant. For the record, I don’t live in LA but I recognize an industrial brewery when I see one. And I was wondering why were there huge vats of beer in engineering? And the concrete floors sure didn’t help sell the illusion. The opposite, in fact. Using… Read more »

Really enjoyed this podcast. I think JJ did not do it as a way to get Star Wars, as he was already an accomplished film and TV producer/creator. As yall said you can see the love and respect of the characters in the movie, and I believe that JJ was truly in it 100%. He brought things that were much need to the movies, things that you see in Discovery…such as seeing the saucer from the Bridge, giving the overall look some depth and dimension, versus the flatness of previous movies and TV series. People lauded the look of the Enterprise in warp, and it being to Star Warsish. I thought it was appropriate, given the ships are travelling faster than light. Similar to the trans warp conduits seen in Voyager. Shit, you are travelling like a bat out of hell, maybe it does create a tunnel effect. JJ said himself that if you look at the Enterprise in passing, it has imperfect lines, as it is created by people, there will be imperfections, just like in the warp drive.

Jeremy Pike,

Re: 100%

Your 100 percent would be a more believable number if, JJ, himself, hadn’t said he wasn’t going to jump ship out of 100% Trek characters’ loyalty, and then went ahead and did just that, proving that he truly wasn’t in Trek 100%, but rather something less than the 100% he was into STAR WARS.

I think JJ put in 100% once he got the job, but I think he probably was just using it as a steppingstone to Star Wars.

I’m still amazed about how these movies started out so strong but ended on a whimper after just three of them. And I remember how people talked about these movies after the first one came out. I actually read Trekmovie review thread of the first one a few months ago. It’s pretty interesting how people felt. Some acted like the Kelvin universe was going to be the lay of the land from this point on and the prime universe and all the former actors are now completely forgotten and part of a by gone era. It was all about the JJ verse and setting Star Trek on a new course for a new era of fandom…yeah.

And ten years later look where we are now? They can’t even get the fourth film off the ground and it sounds like its all but cancelled indefinitely. Meanwhile the prime universe is now roaring back to life and Patrick Stewart is back in his iconic role as Picard probably shooting a scene somewhere as I type this. A nearly 80 year actor who hasn’t played the role in over 15 years is what has most of the fanbase giddy with excitement right now. And not if Chris Hemsworth is ever coming back to play Kirk’s dad again. It just proves you can’t just dump 40 years of a franchise because over a few slick looking movies. The prime universe is just too big, too vast, too known and too important for most fans who grew up watching it from TOS through Enterprise to just abandon it completely.

I think the Kelvin films were mostly successful obviously and they did get new fans into Star Trek. The problem was it never truly created a new league of committed fans like the old shows and films did. It was more a ‘hot’ new shiny toy but pretty easily to move on from after you played with it enough. And of course a big part of the reason (outside of fans still mostly devoted to the prime universe) is that they didn’t strike while the iron was hot and did more with it. IF they produced more films faster and maybe a TV show set in that universe, that would’ve built a more loyal audience and clue us in to why we should care about the Kelvin universe. But then STID came out and just gave us different versions of Khan and Section 31 while taking its ending from a 30 year old iconic film. It just sort of reminded everyone these things were already done in the prime universe…and better. And then it doesn’t help when every film, every single one, is about an uber-villain who wants revenge on the Federation. C’mon????? You make one 2 hour movie every four years, think outside the freaking box!!!

The Kelvin movies could’ve really set itself apart beyond just cooler CGI and sets, bigger production budgets and even bigger ships but it never gave us a reason WHY we should be invested in the Kelvin universe itself beyond its just cool to have Kirk and the gang in their prime again played by good looking people…but it wasn’t enough.

$1,196,533,731 – box office WW
$525,000,000 – total budget

Star Trek 3-Film Kelvin Trilogy


$443,999,497 – box office WW
$199,000,000 – total budget

Star Trek 4-Film TNG Quadrilogy

There is little doubt that the Kelvin films are a ‘success’ based on the numbers after three films.
I didn’t love them (I felt they were mostly OK), but I can’t deny they were successful.

if it wasn’t for MCU now making 1b+ every movie about 3 times a year making everything else look like a flop in comparison then Trek and others like Xmen etc would probably be seen as very successful franchises instead of ‘it didn’t break 1b? Losers! they are so gettin rebooted!’

I said they were mostly successful. The problem is they never reached the expectations Paramount wanted given their budgets. And Beyond basically failed putting into question the films from this point on. And three years after that film the series all but appears to be dead.

The first two were successful, but they were never huge. And in this day and age where half a billion is considered the minimum mark of success for a major brand, none or those films ever achieved that.

And its really unfair to compare them to the TNG and TOS films because those films didn’t have nearly the size of releases in America, hardly any international distribution outside a few countries in Europe and no IMAX or 3D formats to speak of. And their marketing budgets were minuscule compared to the Kelvin movies. They were mostly made to perform for American Star Trek fans first and foremost and little else. The Kelvin films were made like all blockbusters, to have the widest appeal possible and were treated as so. Outside of TMP, the other Trek films were made with much smaller audiences in mind from the outset although most performed well given their budgets.

In fact all most successful TNG and TOS films made at least 3 times their budgets (TWOK is still the most successful film to this day and made 7 times its budget). For all the hype with the Kelvin films, none never even made even that. STID being the most succesful got the closest making about 2.5 times its budget. So again, you have to dig beyond just the basic numbers.

The films just never performed at a level that was probably expected of them given the budgets, marketing and wide distribution.

Beyond didn’t help either. The 50th anniversary movie and there was no real hook to excite audiences like there was with 09/ID besides the Enterprise gets destroyed. Again (yet in 2014/15 everyone was pretty excited about Shatner returning and even the mainstream press had picked up on it. That was the movie to do for the anniversary. it probably would’ve been like Treks Endgame and made $500+).. and then there was that dreadful Trek To The Furious trailer coming out at the time when even the trekkies were wetting themselves in excitement for TFA. in fact Wars coming back really pissed on Treks campfire to the point the fire went out and its going to take something like Tarantino directing to get it going again

The franchise’s 50th Anniversary was handled disgracefully.


“galactic geography” is a nonsense phrase.

From the OED:


Pronunciation /dʒɪˈɒɡrəfi/


1. The study of the physical features of the earth and its atmosphere, and of human activity as it affects and is affected by these, including the distribution of populations and resources, land use, and industries

That is the height of being nit picky. Most understood the message being conveyed.


Accusing a production of specifically having “played fast and loose” with a personally made up nonsense concept that doesn’t appear in their canon, isn’t a very convincing debating tactic.

Correct. It is not a convincing debate tactic. Which is why I do not employ such failed strategies.

Thank you for the tangent.


“It did feel like the film played fast and loose with galactic geography.” — ML31

Well, thanks for admitting that you didn’t mean anything by it.

There is a failure of comprehension on your part going on here, my friend. Nowhere did I admit making a post where I didn’t mean anything by it. Now you are just making stuff up. I don’t mind discussing things but you need to make a genuine effort here.


If you didn’t intend the statement to be convincing that the film played fast and loose with some essential quality of STAR TREK, as you appear to be attempting to assert, then I am at loss as to what arguable quality you feel it conveyed? Precision and clarity were most obviously NOT your objectives.

I am guessing that you did not pick up on the incredibly thick irony of your comment.


Let me try this another way, you can’t dismiss “nitpicking” in a response to a canon argument, because nitpicking is the very definition of a canon debate.

Incorrect. Because “nitpicking” the comment, in this case, is ignoring the point being made and going off on some other tangent that had nothing whatsoever to do with the original comment. Which is still valid, btw.


No it isn’t, “Galactic geography” is not a part of STAR TREK canon, nor is it a defined term in astronomy, therefore it is impossible for a STAR TREK production to play fast and loose with a concept it never dealt with, nor had the scientific possibility of ever so doing.

I’m bummed that Kayla didn’t discuss the science faux pas from this movie. And there were a lot! My biggest problem was the fast and loose use with the concept of a black hole. But other things bothered me like “supernova threatened entire galaxy” and the fast travel times between planets. But all that pales in comparison to making a cadet a captain just because he saved the world. That was stupid then and it’s still stupid.

I hope that Picard goes into some details about that supernova. It didn’t make any sense when Spock was talking about it, but maybe Spock doesn’t know the full story.

I revisit the 09′ film every couple of years, STID never (and never will again, likely), and Beyond once or twice since it was released. Without the tie-in to the prime timeline, I probably never would have watched 09′ again. And I still fast-forward through the Beastie Boys part. Ugh.

…and yet no word from BobOrci any this one. A little disappointed. I always like when he pops in to add his thoughts. I would be especially interested to hear his thoughts on the the writing process and creative decisions for this film.

Just a quick note to say I thoroughly enjoyed the podcast. Lots of good insights, perhaps especially Spock’s reference to “Lt. Uhura” and all the characters fulfilling their pre-programmed destinies. Thanks!

@ 56:17 The “best” thing to remedy the situation (of Kirk being promoted to the Captain’s chair too soon) would have been to add a “time skip” at the end of the film, in which the normal flow of history resumed its “logical course” off-screen, only to pick-up with Kirk stepping unto the Bridge as the Enterprise’s captain. The explanation as to why Spock would be Kirk’s first officer would be explained with Spock taking a leave of absence in order to settle things on “New Vulcan”, before returning to duty.