But I am here to review the science of the movie. I wonâ€™t worry about warp drive, transporter tech, or time travel; Iâ€™ll concentrate on the real stuff. And never fear: I am not going to reveal the overall plot here. I avoided as many spoilers as I could before watching it, and Iâ€™m glad I did. It really made the movie more exciting and fun to watch.
But I do have to do what I do, so do it I will. While I wonâ€™t reveal the plot, I have to reveal some details to write a review. So:
RED ALERT! SPOILERS DEAD AHEAD!
— Bad Astronomyâ€™s Review of the Science of â€˜Star Trekâ€™ | TrekMovie.com
He claims to love it, but in the link above, he goes out of his way to look at the “science” that Star Trek 11 abuses so liberally.
major nit pick of the movie was the amount of lense flairs.Â this is a webcomic about lense flairs, and it’s funny.Â Please laugh.
It was kind of like seeing a James Bond movie where Q is absent, Bond gets no gadgets and in fact 007 only shows up for like 15 minutes where he gets rejected by the girl (named Mary Smith) and then shot in the head. Maybe a great movie but it isn’t a Bond movie.
— Slashdot Comments | Is a $72.5m Opening Weekend Enough For Star Trek?
What I didnâ€™t like: Good lord, was the science in this one bad. Dear Kurtzman and Orci: The next time you play with black holes, wonâ€™t you please talk to an actual scientist? Also: â€œRed Matterâ€? Seriously? Mind you, I donâ€™t expect much out of Star Trek, science-wise, because, well. Letâ€™s just say the track recordâ€™s just not there. Even so, at a certain point the science in oneâ€™s science fiction should at least wave in the general direction of plausibility. Itâ€™s not too much to ask for.
— Quick Review: Star Trek Â« Whatever