I am a Trekkie. Let's just get that out there. And I was worried that Abrams, master of suspense and audience expectations, would make some relentlessly satisfying Hollywood schlock. I was right and it's great. What is most satisfying about Star Trek is that in this universe things break and people make mistakes: sometimes your hands swell up, or you transport yourself into a tank of water. Abrams' knowledge and skill with audience expectations is best displayed in these moments. His refusal to explain "red matter" is likewise satisfying, like the rabbit's foot in MI:3. Spoilers Ahead: What I take issue with is mostly in the melodramatic/hero's journey/Hollywood writing, which is a bit too "first level." Characters tend to say exactly what they mean at all times, with few lies, subtext, etc. Particularly glaring is Kirk's obnoxious belligerence and the Spock-Ohura relationship (what is up with that?). And the cathartic moments are often soiled by bad acting - I note specifically Spock's parents and the adorable Leonard Nimoy. I hope that the inevitable sequels will allow our favorite crew members to break out of their molds and take on some new, less obvious, character traits. My final complaint - sorry - is the conflation of the black hole and the worm hole. They may or may not be the same thing, but the red matter has to either destroy ships and planets or send ships and planets back in time: the logic must be consistent for everything that goes in.

Love,

Dan