Star Trek

I liked the film because it was daring but the major flaw was clearly the villian who is out for revenge.  It has been done to death in Star Trek and this villian isn't anywhere near as interesting as those from Star Trek II and Star Trek Generations.

James

Nero's ship was there to produce a visual effect and had nothing to do with Rumulan design of any kind, especially if it came from prime universe, even as a mining ship.

What does a Romulan mining ship look like?

This is an other reason this film is flawed, its like if the wrote the script to make it an origin story, but realized they screwed up and turned it around and said it was a alternate universe????

......No.

Well in prime universe I have never seen or heard about a mining ship,

Then you can not accurately hold the design against the ship that it "doesn't look like a Romulan design" since we don't know what a Romulan mining vessel looks like.  Especially when I believe all of the ships we've seen belonged to the Romulan Empire, and the mining vessel is likely civilian.

The tentecle on Nero`s ship have no use, except for the spotlight,

Spotlight?

I will have to say, that the design doesn't seem like anything that would resemble a mining vessel, though, one might to some degree argue that alien design ethics vary, but then, there is the notion of form following function....a huge, impressive ship, nonetheless. 

Oh, absolutely.Why would a mining ship need the kind of weaponry, that almost bottomless supply? On the screen, we get no answers as to how it came to be. I think that a line,say, to Pike in the interrogation chamber, something like, ''I've devoted every rescource at my disposal, to make this ship into a weapon that NOONE-be it the mighty Federation, or any other, could stand in the way of my revenge. AND I WILL HAVE IT, CAPTAIN..WHATEVER THE COST''  would have simply and quickly given some sort of indicator. Hey, that wasn't bad!..LOL...

One thing I liked about ST XI was the rawness in sets and in explanations. Admittedly even science FICTION has to be somewhat believable that one scenario follows another or that a set of circumstances can be dealt with logically this way or that. But even the actors of TNG will tell you the episodes spent 75 % of the time making reports or problem solving and 5% actually dealing with the thing or solving it... the rest is commercial time. So it came across there for a while like the old Superman television series where 75% was boring build up and 5% was the man in tights swooping in, solving the problem, standing against bullets and ducking empty guns thrown at him...

B O R I N G ! ! !

In Enterprise Berman at least (and I believe much more but I digress) fixed this problem with the scripts.

In ST XI Abrams used simple backdrops with a few complicated sets (you know, like TOS did the show that started it all) where it was not all about the sets and props and there was a believeability to styrofoam rocks and red lighted walls for alien skies...

And if you want to drill holes in scripts for "unexplained" things or things explained but alternatives not considered, then any ST script will produce these anomalies. This is where I just put my worried mind at ease and just enjoy it as entertainment. 

If you want flawless anything, don't bother with sci fi or actual technical manuals in science (which are generally rewritten every 5 years)...

No, STAR TREK 2009 is not a good Trek movie. But in all defense, It does make a good sci-fi movie. For one it did not "FEEL" like Star Trek to me. It felt like more a cross between it and Star Wars. The story of the main villain with no sense of morality wanting to destroy Earth in one way shape or form incessantly done to death. Of course the special FX were quite good (besides the lens flares) and all those explosions and yelling that went on, No wonder so many "non fans" propelled the Box office take.

Now before I get flamed, I am not a youngin' or a "newbie". I have been watching Trek since I was a wee one back in the early 70's. (you can blame my grandmother, but I won't..) I liked EVERY show and movie that came along, EVEN the "so-called" bad ones.  

I have mostly lurked on here and the majority of other forums but rarely posted here. AND exactly like those other boards, along with here, I see that there is almost as much immature banter and back and forth attacks from both sides. 

GOOD DAY one and all.

Star Trek XI boils down to one thing... desperation.

Glad it worked though. I enjoyed the movie but there were many points of contention, which i am happy to overlook if it can continue to generate new interest into Star Trek.  

It boils down to the fact that it was just a good science fiction movie with the words "Star Trek" in its' title.  It was not a real Star Trek movie anymore than Matthew Broderick's movie with the word "Godzilla" in it was a real Godzilla movie.