[quote=collegepark2151;5834451]I have two, but the one main, over-riding, makes the freaking movie almost unwatchable:



LENS FLARE!!!!!!!!!!



I mean, I could barely tell what was going on the bridge of the Kelvin for the most part. I really wanted to put some mini-blinds or something on the viewscreen/window.

Second, kind of nit-picky, was the fact that the Enterprise was assembled totally on the ground and then somehow magically made it through the thick atmosphere at escape velocity without the rather flimsy nacelle struts breaking off. I know you could say it was all beamed into space, but in ST: IV, Scotty was having a heck of a time beaming just two whales and the associated water into the ship. I know, this is the Abrams-verse where the rules aren't the same, but still.

Maybe they could have used tractor beams from another ship to pull her up lol

[quote=gibbon1182;5834021]I know the JJ Abrams Star Trek is a rather touchy subject with most Trekkies, but I felt the need to get my pet peeves with the movie out there. I have three.

1. The warp "core" in the movie was multiple cores which doesn't make sense to me. Could anybody explain why they did the warp core this way instead of the standard warp core from all the other Star Treks.

Maybe the person who designed the enterprise in the prime universe died on the kelvin meaning somone else got there plans chosen instead lol

[quote=seanftd;5877701]that's the sort of thing I was thinking. But.... trutuhfully, when you really think about it..... the Warp Core of the Ent D, despite being HUGE, was rather pitifully small compared to the actual size of the ship. Seriously.... it's supposed to be 2000 feet long.

Quick answer: that's the way the brewery they rented to dress up as "Engineering" was constructed. The set designers could only do so much with what they had.