A good Sci-Fi movie; but somewhat troubling to a true Trekker

Rating: 5/10 (5 December 2009)

I gave this movie half of a perfect score because in the ranking I chose to rate it 50% for its quality as a good science fiction motion picture, (and it was every bit of that) and 50% for its fidelity to Star Trek--and I'm sorry to say that on this end, it came up with zero. I'm sure this won't be popular to those who champion the new set-up and inevitable "change"; but I really don't care as this is about my view of a movie that alleges to be about the "early days" of Jim Kirk, and his colleagues, and their start into Starfleet history. That said, we who "lived" the "five year mission", and loved every bit of it, and the following movies--will have a hard time reconciling much of what is presented here, with our deeply etched convictions of what is, was, and must be!
Let's look at the two major areas with which I have issues hence the zero in the last five stars, for its failure to be "true" to Star Trek: 1.) Inconsistency with original series. I didn't like the tangentially suggested/implied romantic aura existing between Spock and Uhura--for inconsistency reasons ALONE. The Nichelle Nichols character never remotely displayed any interest whatsoever in Spock--it seemed she did like Sulu a bit, and certainly Kirk. On the other hand, her hostility toward Kirk is uncomfortably palpable. The Nichols character is a thoroughly likable, gentle, and professional individual. This Uhura seems to have a major chip on her shoulder. And yet, the only individual who, from the get-go definitely had a MAJOR crush on Spock was nurse Chapel—who was conspicuous by her absence. Then there was Chekov, who didn't even appear till season two, and there he is already in action--even under Pike's command. Spock's "emotions" are far to manifest in this movie from his "illogical" fisticuffs with the other boys, to his irrational hostility toward Kirk, and even with others--I found him a very unlikeable character. As to James Tiberius... Kirk's first deep space mission was NOT on the Enterprise under Christopher Pike, who, for whatever it's worth only served with Spock under him, never Kirk. However as a young officer, Kirk's first deep space mission WAS working under a Captain Garavic, on the USS Farragut. (See "Obsession" TOS) It would seem they have re-written the entire history of what transpired before Kirk ever came in contact with either Spock, or the Enterprise.
I concede this poses no problem for youngsters who never became avid Trekkies; but for those of us who bought up the novels (I have over 90) and have owned the series (TOS) since its first release in VHS-- well, these inconsistencies are as irksome as fingernails on a chalkboard! Yes, I realize time was altered with Nero's interposition on the scene; but this nevertheless makes the claim of this representing the "early years" somewhat meaningless. Chronologically it had several faux-pas as well, since the first episode with Kirk in charge of the enterprise (Where No Man Has Gone Before) had a stardate of 1300-something or other, and these are already in the 2200's.
2.) I did NOT like the destruction of Vulcan I thought the irreversibility of this event, and the subsequent "fate" of Amanda were irreconcilable with what we know transpires in later episodes of Star Trek, including the motion picture series—this kind of thing would have had a HUGE impact in irreversibly changing just about everything in the remainder of the Enterprise's missions. I guess there never would have been an "Immunity Syndrome" as there certainly would not have been a Vulcan crew; and as to "Amok Time" (a Hugo Award winner), -- forget it, no T'Pring, no T'pau,-- no Vulcan at all-- Spock would truly be in deep trouble. For heaven's sake they talk so much about things like the Prime Directive, and their devotion to NOT changing history--and yet this production utterly shatters TOS history. So much of what happened in TOS is rendered impossible with these events, that, as a bona-fide devotee of the Trekkie generation, I found it terribly unsettling--this could have/should have been a totally different sci-fi movie; but as presented, NOT "Star Trek". Otherwise, (as was the case in ST III The Search For Spock, they should have found a way through time, just as Nero did, or left some wiggle room to, perhaps in a sequel if necessary, reinstate the status quo—positively this was the biggest negative in the movie in my opinion.
As I'd already stated, it's not a bad sci-fi movie, it's a GOOD one. But as for being true to what became TOS, if fails miserably, hence I can give it none of the remaining stars as I grade it a total flop in that arena. The writers should have studied a bit more on important details of the past, and built their plot more around actual people and events already KNOWN from TOS--they could've done a bang up job with that; but as is the case in all too many hitchhike movies, they seem to think they can improve on the background and make a better story, completely disregarding what the "faithful" know.
They didn't! If you're not a Trekkie, well versed in the wonderful history therein contained--you'll enjoy a good sci-fi flick. If you're a die-hard devotee of ST TOS, and catch every inconsistency--you'll want to pull your hair out. I know I did! Nola6015