Star Trek (2009) The Film That Changed The Franchise 

CTRL has the best tasting protein rich products I've tried and have helped me on my day to day quest of trying to be healthier. Give them a try using my code DaveCullenShow for a discount! drinkctrl.com/davecullenshow

One bright spot for me was Karl Urban's Mccoy. the guy became Deforest Kelley. Mannerisms and even sounded like him. I guess the portrayal hit Nimoy hard, cuz it was so spot on.

One of the aspects of if this film that disliked is how ridiculously they treat rank. Having someone advance from being a cadet to Captain of a startship, let alone the flagship of the fleet, in no time flat is completely bonkers.

Love how Nero just sat and waited for like 20 years. I can imagine him sitting in his chair saying, "any minute now," over and over again.

I’ve been rewatching Star Trek: The Motion Picture recently (the Directors Cut) and when comparing TMP to the Abramsverse, it is depressing to see how far we’ve fallen. I couldn’t make it through TMP in one sitting in my teen years, but now at 54 I really appreciate its grandeur and its portrayal of the Enterprise crew as philosopher-explorers. From Star Trek II forward they were military officers, which did seem to appeal to a larger audience. In the Abramsverse, they are sugared-up children in adult bodies.

Dave, let's not forget that the 2009 Star Trek film had lens flares--lots and lots and lots of lens flares. Classic Trek never had that.

Could not agree more with your assessment. Jar Jar Abrams did nothing short of vandalism.

14:20 - "I also like how Bones got his name. It's a very clever line." - No, it's not. It's daft. Bones got his name because he's the ship's sawbones.

I remember seeing this when I was young with my dad when it came out. I remember being blown away at the action and spectacle and liking the sharp characters, especially Pegg. I remember walking out and asking my dad excitedly if he liked it, knowing he was a huge Star Trek fan when it was first released. He raised me on all the series that came out in the 90s and reruns on TNG. After I asked him, there was a pause and a "well..." He didn't want to upset me. There was deep disappointment in his voice. All these years later, I understand what he felt then.

Like with most things JJ makes, everything happens at mach 300, so you don't have time to process what's actually happening.

The reason the brewery was used is because of budget. They spent all the money on the bridge. JJ did not care at all about scale or logic in the sets. Imagine a 12 year old normie's idea of making Star Trek like Star Wars. That's the movie in a nutshell.

I do give this movie credit for curing me of being a Trekkie. Before this movie, I caught every single Trek movie in the theater and watched all the shows. Since 2009, I haven’t watched anything Trek-related at all. I’m sure that’s saved me a few bucks I would have spent at the theater. Rise of Skywalker accomplished the same thing.

"The story serves the action, not the action serving the story." SPOT ON. You summed it up so well here. True in the JJ "Star Wars" as well as the Abrams (So-called) "Star Trek" as well.

I love Star Trek. I HATE this film. I was meh during the first part of it, but then I found myself screaming at my screen, "No captain would ever make a disgraced, expelled, stowaway cadet second-in-command of his ship!" That scene completely destroyed my suspension of disbelief. Haven't watched any of the movies since made. I will agree that the cast did a good job despite the bad script.

As for the scene where the young James T Kirk drives a car over a cliff into a canyon--Kirk was born and raised in Iowa. Assuming he was still in Iowa in this film, there are no canyons there!

JJ "So how much do you want this Star trek thing dumbed down?" Paramount "Yes"

I was a projectionist when this film came out, and I’ll give them credit for appealing to a new audience. Of course it came at a cost, but I was always surprised how many mother and daughters were in the audience, and how long this film continued to bring people in outside of the first 2-3 weeks. But fans paid the price for all of this unfortunately.

Your points were right on. My main issue with this movie is that I could never get past how Kirk took command. The original Captain Kirk was a highly-trained and experienced officer. Even when facing outrageous circumstances, like fighting rock creatures, he did so in a way that seemed plausible for someone with an extensive military background. But Kirk in this movie was just a smart and cocky kid. His promotion to captain had no grounding in the real world. I was never able to accept him leading a starship crew because such a person would never lead a seaship crew, or a submarine crew, or probably even a McDonalds crew. That fanciful premise destabilized the whole movie to me, and turned it more toward fantasy than science fiction.

When kid Kirk drove a Corvette off a cliff to the Beastie Boys, I knew it was a action movie with Trek aesthetics. That scene is a metaphor for modern remakes lol.

One thing I'll never understand about the Kelvin timeline, the timeline changes in the first movie because dude went back in time and told them Romulus' sun was going to go Nova, they had a hundred years almost to prepare for it happening but, when Picard picks up in the future, they just weren't prepared for it.

By changed you mean killed. And by franchise you mean corpse 😂

I actually hated that "explanation" for the nickname. It was supposed to be short for Sawbones, a word used for surgeons back when cutting off limbs was the only way to stop infections.

The biggest problem with this movie was that J.J. "Lens Flare" Abrams is a hack director with no original vision. He couldn't direct traffic effectively.

Soon Star Trek will be rebranded as Michael Burnham: Space Queen.

Someone once said that the bridge looks like an apple store. Hilarious!😂😂😂

i called it "Star Trek Babies" after the cartoon "Muppet Babies". i even predicted them referring to "Sabotage" by The Beastie Boys as "classical music" later on in the franchise. it was so predictable. Karl Urban was the only good thing about it, and he was way better as Dredd. which, unfortunately, we'll never get a sequel to.

The reboot is really 90210 meets sci-fi.

A fundamental problem I have with the Abramsverse - on top of everything you said - is the idea that time travel is used to destroy Vulcan, the bad guy succeeds in doing this......and the Federation just lets that stand. Kirk lets it stand. Old Spock lets it stand. The Department of Temporal Investigations lets it stand. This doesn't happen in Star Trek. SOMEONE would at least make an attempt to correct the change, particularly something of that magnitude. Old Spock pioneered a method of time travel himself in the events of Star Trek IV and that was to save Earth. Now he sees his own planet obliterated and just accepts it? What the.....

Apparently Rick Berman pitched an idea for a new star trek movie that would be about the Earth Romulan war, but Paramount rejected it.

The birth of NuTrek. And the beginning of the end of True Trek. The characters (and not simply the actors) were very different. Kirk became an entitled brat and whiner. Spock became a bad-ass action hero. Shura became a sassy girl boss. Only McCoy and Scotty were relatively unchanged.

Good point on the firing at the ship. Many times in star trek they rescued the bad guys even when the bad guys didn’t want to be saved. They have transporters so Prime Kirk would have teleported all the romunlans onto the enterprise. A trek captain would never destroy a helpless ship that was being destroyed. That’s the equivalent of a fire fighter asking if someone wanted to be saved from the building on fire and when the victim says no, the fireman then throws gas on the building.

Kirk’s 5 minute ascension from cadet to captain always bugged me as someone who’s served in the military. In my experience, it be like a West Point cadet visits a division of soldiers that are suddenly mobilized and the cadet is randomly promoted general because the commander knew the cadet’s dad. Makes no sense at all.

"Style over substance" - that sums up the Kelvin Timeline.

I believe the correct response for Spock against Kirk would be a slight flinching of the spine a moment of self reflection and then he would logically agree that he is emotionally compromised.

I totally agree with most of Dave Cullen's take on this "film". Bones' name came from old American slang. Back in the day doctors were called " Saw Bones" which is a reference from Civil war surgeons sawing off damaged limbs. Saw Bones/Doc - Doctor or Surgeon Head Shrinker or Shrink - Psychiatrist Dame/Broad/Doll - A woman. Gams - a women's legs Gum shoe/Dick/Flat foot - Detective or Cop

"This isn't your Daddy's Star Trek! We're Edge Lords - we walk between the raindrops."

I never understood why the Vulcan Defense Force didn't just target the drill or swarm the Nerata and destroy it? You're 100% right on your take with the low brow running about and dumbing down things instead of keeping it all logical in a Stark Trek sort of way. It makes me think of episodes from TNG like "The measure of a man" which had no ship battles or action and just had to do with the ethics of being a sentient being. Maybe you could cover certain episodes and talk about those because they are definitely worth going over again. Great vid by the way, keep up the great work!

Excited to see a new Star Trek movie with the original characters, I mentioned to my wife that the worst way they could screw this up was to be unfaithful to what we knew of the characters and the universe before the original series and, well….

The young Kirk scene is there because JJ saw Treasure Planet. The Enterprise riding an explosion out of a black hole & Kirks "I've got your gun" are from the same movie. The Crescentia space station ended up as Yorktown in Beyond.

I'll admit, I quite enjoy this film for what it is, and intended to be. I think the appeal for me is not only action to a degree, but I think mostly so the characters. I enjoy seeing these particular actors portraying these characters. Having rewatched the movie a few times, and asking myself why, that's the biggest reason. But of course I do concede to most of your points. It's pretty hard to argue those when you put a spotlight on them..lol. Id agree it can't be enjoyed on a more meaningful level, and it's got more plot holes than Swiss cheese..lol. But knowing that going in, its a fun ride.

Two things- the Enterprise NCC1701 has a dedication plaque, and on that plaque it is quite explicit that she was built at the “San Francisco shipyards”, so I agree it makes no sense to build her on Earth, but at least that part is canonically correct. However, the San Francisco Shipyards are in San Francisco, NOT IOWA where we saw Kirk riding. Second, can anyone explain how the Cadet training works in this universe? I earned my very real commission after five years of college, 3 of which contained ROTC instruction. The Service Academies have four year tracks- no more, no less- to earn a commission. There is a clause in the ROTC cadet contract where the Cadet acknowledges they may be activated and sent to active service, but as far as I know that has never happened. We can only point to one time in history when West Point allowed some of their cadets to commission early- 1944-45- and that for fairly obvious reasons, but they ALL entered service as 2nd Lieutenants- the lowest rank an Army Officer can hold, and advanced from there. Nothing like WW2 is happening in ST2009, so why is the entire class of third year cadets essentially graduated, commissioned at various ranks, and handed the keys to multi-billion dollar starships without proper training or experience?!? At BEST the entire class, aside from Spock and Pike who were commissioned instructors, would all be Ensigns and none of them would be sent straight to Commander. This premise in the film makes absolutely zero sense.

The film that PRETENDED to be the franchise.

Star Trek: Where I Will Go No More.

I can't remember who coined the phrase "rapid fire stupidity" but it definitely applies to this film.

Nero: "So, Spock, this 'red matter' can allow one to travel through time and would stop the affects of the supernova, saving Romulus and my wife?" Spock: "Yes." Nero: "Then I shall use it to destroy your world and the Federation!" Star Trek 2009 makes my brain hurt. The other Kelvin movies are not much better.

I know you're correct because my wife liked it and I've been a Star Trek fan for over 40 years

The very last Star Trek I ever watched.... Not seen any since. Prequel movies make me nervous now. I still have my vhs collection in the loft of ''pre-woke'' classics.

Ruined I would say, it ruined Star Trek from a series about hope, doing the right thing no matter how hard, obligation to the truth, and the betterment of humanity to flash in a pan action, being overly emotional, and a debasement of humanity. At the end of Star Trek 2009, the real Kirk would have still tried to save Nero when his ship was falling into the black hole, there was no point at firing all weapons when his enemy had already lost. It was a debasement of the character lashing out in revenge when they had already won and doing so almost got the Enterprise sucked into the black hole as well, another thing Kirk and crew would never do. It’s a travesty that has continued in all Trek since and hopefully will be excised at some point soon

"It never occurred to me to think of space as the thing that was moving. " -- Jar Jar Abrams's Scotty. Seriously? That doesn't occur to Scotty? I knew that that was how a warp drive was supposed to work when I was twelve.

"In the 24th century romulus is destroyed by a supernova" That's the number one reason neither this movie nor anything that came after could possibly count as canon. The universe was vandalized, simple as. The whole thing has to be scrapped and started over if Star Trek is to ever be respectable again.

"Lobotomy Trek 2009"🤤

I liked the actors for each character in the new movie - good job there. Too bad the movie was just a lot of shouting and running in the hallways, it could have been so much more.

How in the holy mother does JJ Abrams keep getting work?

Dave, This video was the word-for-word sound track going thru my head as I sat in the dark at one of the first showings of this film. Constantly saying: “WTF is this?”

TWOK: “I shall leave you as you left me… Marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet.” TUC: “ I can see you, Kirk. Can you see me? Cry Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!” 2009: “SPAAAAAHCK! I WANT SPAAAHCK DED NAOOOOO!”

Chris Hemsworth looked more like a young Jim Kirk in his brief appearance as George Kirk. I wonder how that would have worked if they'd cast him in the lead instead.

If it had been real Trek, Spock would have shed a tear. A subtle, soil, but powerful example of his emotional compromise. But nah, let's have him go full Wolverine.

Bones got his name as a nod to the real US Navy where Doctors were known as Saw Bones. The explanation in the film was really jarring.

You perfectly summed up my reaction to the film in 2009. I'd read almost universally good reviews of it (this was before film criticism had completely debased itself sucking up to the studios) and I was shocked by how shallow and frenetic and stupid it was. As you say, it's Star Trek for the Fast & Furious and Pirates of the Caribbean audience. I didn't even think that much of the cast, though I've liked them in other films. Up to that point I thought JJ Abrams was a talented guy. I'd enjoyed Alias and Mission Impossible III. Star Trek is trash though and the only good thing I can say about is that the sequels were even worse.

One of the things this movie did that annoys me is perpetuate the "green skinned space babe" myth about Kirk. If you actually pay attention to TOS, most of the "girls of the week" are KIrk seducing them for a purpose. He's using them to save his ship and crew. It's a bit like what James Bond does. However, that's business not his personal life. When we see women he was actually interested in, they were much more tender and long lasting. There's really only a single "one night stand", Helen Noel from Dagger of the Mind. The others were not only relationships, but except for Janice Lester, they all held Kirk in high regard and have great affection for him. They're even willing resume a romance if only for a short time. Also note all of them are educated, professional women with careers of their own. He definitely has a type. There's also something to be said that he purposely goes for women where their careers will take them in different directions because commanding a starship will always be his first love. On another note, there's some evidence in TOS that Kirk's maverick persona is something he developed over time. He was described as an overly serious academy student in at least two episodes. He followed the book to the letter and reported a close friend's mistake. In my head canon, I like to think the first encounter with the cloud creature and death of Captain Garovick was the catalyst. His guilt led to him always putting himself in danger alongside his crew when a captain really shouldn't. It's also why he began playing fast and loose with rules where his ship and crew were at stake. This movie made these things KIrk's whole personality and it was the caricature of Kirk we got, not the real deal. Also "first officer" is not a rank. I don't care what you do, you don't rank up from expelled cadet to Captain in one week.

You can summarize this movie in five words-running, jumping, crashing, exploding, and punching.

Temporary emergency promotions don't bother me. What bothered me is at the end when they were all arbitrarily given actual promotions to the ranks and positions that should've taken them 15 years to attain. Kirk completely skipped all the ranks. He went from cadet-in-trouble to captain-of-the-flagship in one day, slapping every officer who earned their positions in the face.

"Let's throw away 40+ years of canon to appeal to plebs!" How to Kill a Franchise 101.

To your point around 8:30, whether you like the film or not, there's no indication that Nero won't go to Romulus and save them all. He states that he wants to create a universe where Romulus is free from the Federation, and he plans to do that by destroying the key federation worlds. So, that's what he's doing, and he'll still have plenty of time to save Romulus afterwards. He may still be a weak character, but there are plenty of crazy people in the real world.

"Somehow Alex Kurtzman has returned."😮

Thank you for this analysis! I gotta tell you in hindsight it was obvious what fate Star Wars will have.

It's funny you mention Transformers, as the duo of Kurtzman and Orci were responsible for the "writing" for lack of a better term, on Revenge of the Fallen. And just like the 2009 Star Trek film forever changed Star Trek, so too did the live-action films alter the perception of that franchise from how it was in the 80's and 90's, and not for the better.

I've been to Iowa quite a few times and never saw a giant gorge

Kirk could have been stargazing, pulled out some fancy future binoculars, amd just randomly caught a view of the Enterprise under construction crossing the Moon in silhouette. That would have been even more "cinematic" than the motorcycle scene.

Your thoughts here are basically my thoughts when I was sitting through this in the theater in 2009. Very juvenile movie. One of the things that made Star Trek so interesting to me when I was 15 years old (a teenager) was that it was more adult and mature. It’s better to bring pupils and audiences up to your level rather than going down to theirs...or below theirs.

One has to wonder if this movie actually ushered in the "leave your brain at the door" cinema era.

Haha I LOVE your criticisms of this. That is exactly how you tell a true Star Trek fan from a Star Trek 2009 fan.

True story: On my old raido show, I interviewed someone who was in every Star Trek movie (TOS and NG). Before the 2009 movie, he met with Abrams. In the office there is a statue of of Roddenberry that had a sheet over it. Abrams said it was because if Gene knew what he was going to do to Star Trek he'd roll over in his grave.

The Bridge of this 'Kelvin-Reality' Enterprise -1701 looks more advanced than the 1701'D of Next Generation! Completely destroying any believability. I agree; they're just too busy and too cluttered with consoles and monitors.

I think it was a fair enough, to want to update star trek ie. Effects, visuals and to some degree language etc. To draw in a newer audience. You can do and show alot more today, than you could in the past. But at it's heart it should have stayed star trek... And I just didn't get that vibe.

Loved it, and accepted that it deviated from the legacy ST that we knew & loved. Favorite scene was when Pike realized he was right about Kirk all along, that Jimmy was one in a million, and promoted him to first officer. Second favorite scene was the end of Spock's conflict with his Love for his mom & his Vulcan obsessiveness with Rationality. Spock's dad points out that he loved his wife - something he never admitted before. Spock, admittedly too quickly & conveniently, de-fractures his own psyche. This is also addressed in the novel. They made one to go along with the movie, and it has infinitely more detail than the flick.

In the book "A Flag Full of Stars" we get the detail that Kirk had the idea for the saucer to be finished on Earth where the gravity would enable the work crews to finish the details (carpet, furniture, supplies, etc) in normal gravity to allow things to go a little faster. The secondary hull remained in drydock up in orbit while they finished the engineering section.

You misspelled "permanently ruined."

I vividly recall watching this movie years ago when it came out. I watched it at a theater with a girl on the date. It was her request. I enjoyed the movie at the time, but I say that as someone who never watched Star Trek (Just never appealed to me. I was a Star Wars kid growing up). I was surprised to hear years later this movie caused a domino affect.

Giachinno's soundtrack was one of the few redeeming aspects.

Yet another great analysis Dave, Thank You. I can remember going to watch this movie when it was released thinking ‘Trek is back’ and literally walked out the cinema saying ‘it isnt really Star Trek is it’ when asked what I thought of it.

I don't have the burning hate for Star Trek 09 as much as other old skool Trek fans of my era... I accept it is a remake in an alternate timeline and just turn my brain off for a lot of it... but I cannot accept the Nu-Trek tv iterations that try to say they are in the Prime timeline... no fucking way I will ever accept that, not even Picard season 3.

8:50 "Somehow, Palpatine returned."

This may be my favorite of your reviews. I have so many issues with this movie and you managed to reveal a few that i didn't consider. Great job.

Rip apart Into Darkness next, please! :)

Very good video! I liked the 2009 movie for all of its many flaws. Unlike real Star Trek, which examined a variety of philosophical subjects with actual depth and provoking thought and discussion, the New Trek Movie was just a fun roller coaster ride with no depth and nothing to take away from it. The cast did very well with their roles. The cast did a very good job portraying alternate versions of the beloved original cast. Too bad the writers didn't have a clue about how things were done on the original show, because apparently they saw two minutes of clips of original movie action scenes and that was enough. Standard Bad Reboot. And Captain Lens Flare goes overboard with his, at the time, favorite narrative detail: blinding the viewers. The script was complete batcrap, and while that made it superior to the follow up movies, it didn't make it any damn good. But they do their best to give us enough flash and fanfare to cover their ineptness in crafting stories. And it worked for a roller coaster ride, but that's what they were making, not a movie. I enjoyed the ride once, but I've no desire to watch it again. But I do remember the ride, or much of it. I also saw Into Darkness, and I remember almost none of it because it lacked any kind of substance. When you waste a cast this good, including Benedict Cumberbatch, on the second movie, you deserve to never work in the industry again. However, for some reason, Bad Reboot became major players going forward, and I can't understand why. But, for what it's worth, the 2009 movie was far superior to anything Star Trek that came after it, possibly excluding Picard season three where, by mistake, Kurtzman accidentally gave control to someone competent.

Hi Dave. Prior to the release of this film I had seen many stills and video clips which led me to the conclusion that it would be a load of (expletive). So I never wasted any momey on it. My friend went to see it and enjoyed it, which surprised me since we were both fans of Star Trek from its premier on the BBC back in '69. He believed that I couldn't properly criticise the film without seeing it first. So he then did me the disservice of buying the DVD for me. I subjected myself to the film three times, just to make sure that I was being fair in my criticism. I ended up sending him a 20 point e-mail on what was wrong with the film. Not problems that I was making a point of looking for, just the pure stupidity that kept jumping out at me repeatedly. Spock ejecting Kirk from the Enterprise. Didn't they have a brig on the ship? A shoddy way of getting Kirk and Spock together. Spock saves Kirk from the monster in the cave. Then tells him that there is a Starfleet base nearby, So why was Spock hanging around in the freezing snow when he could have been in the warm base? When they get to the base they just walk in, no security! etc etc etc. From that point on for me Star Trek no longer exists. Anything produced under the Star Trek banner is simply output purporting to be Star Trek. More accurately known as an abomination purporting to be Star Trek. The only good thing to come out of these obscenities is that I developed a better appreciation for Voyager and Enterprise. Although still my least liked of all the incarnations, they now complete my box set collection. Roddenberry era and Berman era Star Trek is all I need.

People decades ago had brains with thought out storylines. This is the level of intelligence of people, including the producers, today.

This movie is garbage. From start to finish. I knew it was a problem when Scotty was stuck in an oversized “habitrail” in the Engine Room, with no one else around except Kirk. Then there’s “Red Matter.” Please. Everything you said about this movie is correct. I had to see it twice to really grasp the depths of its vacuity. Nothing makes sense. But it’s flashy. Yuk. I never watched another new Star Trek movie or TV show after this.

I was fooled by this film all the way up to Into Darkness. I had problems with it but it was ok at best. I had sense enough to know it was not at all Trek. Then I saw into Darkness and a pattern was born. Instead of getting to the smart morality plays the franchise was known for, and devolved into thin, foul tasting swill. I’ve been happy to hear rumors of the franchise losing paramount untold millions just due to them eventually being forced to stop.

I appreciate that you did the ad read at X1.5 speed Dave. Thanks.

Was fan of Star Trek growing up. The original series, TNG was my favorite and DS9 and a little Voyager I loved watching the movies with my dad, by the time Enterprise came out I wasn't watching tv much so I didn't watch it at all, I plan to someday. When my wife and I were dating when we moved in together I started watching TNG and DS9 again and had her watch Wrath of Kahn and The Undiscovered Country. She hated them but she loved the JJ Abrams movies. That's when I realized shes just a pop nerd not a real nerd.

DUDE you *NAILED* that Nero impression. I'm ☠

I was a teenager in the '90s, and a pretty big Star Trek fan. This was a time when geek culture wasn't trendy. I went to conventions (non "cons"), and let's just say there weren't hot girls walking around in skimpy cosplay back then. I witnessed what seemed to be the death of Star Trek with "Nemesis" and "Enterprise", and I was one of the fans who bailed around 2002. So when Star Trek (2009) was released, I was open-minded, as I thought it was better than nothing. Truth is, I thought it was a fun movie. I had friends who previously would never be caught dead watching Star Trek suddenly taking their girlfriends to the theater to see a Trek film. I appreciated that it made an effort to explain differences with a timeline split (even though many visual differences preceded the actual split). They got Nimoy involved. Say what you will, but this production cared more than "Discovery", which bulldozed canon with zero care or explanation. I think the worst thing about this film is its sequels, and that it set the stage for Kurtzman.

It was hilarious to me that they had Spock and Uhura as a 'thing', which progressed, extremely annoyingly through the 3 films. TOS had the trinity of Kirk, Bones and Spock, but of course they could never replicate that in the modern era, so had to shoehorn a lesser female character in somehow. I thought Spock and Bones were fairly ok though, Kirk's character was a joke, reaching a high level of command, with NO experience, and an attitude to boot. This film was the best of the 3, and it's barely watchable! A revenge movie, then Into Darkness - a revenge movie, then the 3rd one (can't remember it's title), another revenge movie ... brilliant, insightful writing from Simon Pegg !!

"Don't Ask Questions, Just Consume Product"

The parallels between this and the Force Awakens are massive. Initially, we had little idea just how TERRIBLE star trek and wars would become...

One thing I hated was how Engineering looks like a damn grain elevator. Did this Enterprise run on ethanol instead of antimatter? I heard this was done because they thought the Engineering in other Treks might be confusing to new audiences 😆 Yeah a grain elevator the size of 3 Walmarts makes much more sense. The costumes look close enough to the TOS versions that I don't know why people always bring that up but the frigging corn processing center is never mentioned.

I remember seeing an interview with JJ and he has said he wanted to make Star Trek more like Star Wars . Fast paced all action. Well that's what he did.

It appears that mining ship was designed by the same people that built the Death Star weapon in Star Wars. Family Guy did THE BEST parody when they had a conversation between the 2 guys at the console on the ledge complaining that there was no guard rail. "They said that we would lean on it all day! Can you believe that?".