Star Trek: The Backlash Begins?

Illustration for article titled Star Trek: The Backlash Begins?

Let's see: Star Trek gets great reviews, a good opening weekend and nerdgasms aplenty. So that would mean the backlash should be along any... minute... Yeah, this could be it.


I'm not talking about random Trekkies/Trekkers/Trekfans/whateverthey'recalled disliking the movie; that's all fine and dandy. I'm more interested in essays complaining that the costumes weren't consistent with the television series and concerns about product placement (Hey, Nokia was subtle compared with the Slusho shout-out).

Chud's Devin Faraci spent multiple tweets pointing out plot holes in the movie, before telling followers to "[d]emand smarter movies," while American Original's Jeff Katz had problems with Leonard Nimoy's presence and wondered why it got free passes that The Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones didn't (Cheap answer: Because it was good). Even SciFi Wire got in on the act early, with a list of 11 things from the movie that made them go "WTF?".


Is this just natural comedown from a movie that's ideal popcorn fodder but not classically Trek intellectual stimulation, the start of the much-joked-about fan backlash actually beginning, or just internet karma to balance out the comments section here? You be the judge.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter



Ok, this is the biggest BS criticism:

"If you accidentally get sent back 25 more than 150 years in time, it's better to take revenge on the person who was unable to save your planet than to actually, you know, TRY TO SAVE YOUR PLANET!"

The guy is broken and battered. His plan was to save his planet - but not just that. He saw an opportunity to ensure Romulan supremacy by eliminating what was historically its greatest threat.

Assume you're a Romulan citizen - you've probably been brought up with extreme anti-Federation propaganda. To Nero, the Federation is like Al Qaeda. Instead of simply saving his planet he's trying to rewrite history.