| Posted: June 08 2009 at 10:00pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
So...I've seen it now three times and I have to say I am quite surprised.
I know not everyone will agree with me, but I think STAR TREK as a film is far better than the whole of the Star Wars prequel trilogy.
The only two things I would add is expanding (on screen) where Nero was for twenty five years, and allowing Kelvin crew to obtain some portion of the Narada technology and use that to explain both the design asthetic and technological advances in this new alternate timeline. Bingo...flawless film.
This could have even explained NCC-1701 being built on the surface, athough why Iowa and not San Fran...is still beyond me. Why the hell would Starfleet base a shipyard in Iowa?? The only reason is to provide some way to get Kirk into Starfleet...and there were a hell of a lot of other ways to do that.
Those are the only two essential missing elements for me. Everything else would have been Trek candy. I can excuse most any other issue.
Loved the film...five solid stars.
|