How long does it take you to "digest" whether you like a movie or not? lol.Again, I've only seen it once but in the time I've had to think it over, let it digest, and take the good and the bad (and process with David Banner earlier in this thread.
Honestly, I think if you take that long to dissect whether a movie works or not by analyzing every plot development there probably aren't too many films out there that hold up under that kind of scrutiny -- especially in the sci-fi/fantasy genre. This movie is a FANTASY. It's not reality. The plot isn't meant to be held up under a microscope and every aspect of it dissected on that kind of level. I mean, if you did that to STAR WARS or SUPERMAN or any work of fantastic fiction, most of the time you're going to come away with flaws. (And of course they needn't be brainless, yet they are essentially works of fantasy).
At any rate, I completely disagree with you guys on the visuals. The Romulan ship aside visually I felt the movie looked nothing like NEMESIS whatsoever. This movie had loads of primary colors -- I had NEMESIS on AMC for a moment the other day and it was all washed out and green-hued, some of the ugliest cinematography I'd ever seen. Outside of the Romulan ship this movie's visual scheme isn't even remotely similar to it, which is one of the things I liked about it. And for me, the shaky-cam aspect I don't think had much to do with being influenced by BG than it does every TV series on the air today...it was more like LOST and Abrams' other shows with the handheld, zoomed-in stuff. Agreed there was too much of it but it didn't ruin it.
Overall I think the movie's effectiveness with long-term Trek fans varies from individual to individual, which I can respect (that's a different issue than whether or not most casual movie-goers like it -- the box-office receipts are clearly indicating that they are). The performances didn't work for some, they did for others, etc. Personally I felt it was much more like the old show, which I liked more than the TNG era anyway, and I think if you're more of a TNG fan, this probably doesn't resemble Star Trek to you, which is also fair.
Yet for all the dissection and the nitpicking this movie has gotten from the old-school Trek fanbase (and if you rip apart FIRST CONTACT the same way, for me it's a much more flawed movie), this movie isn't being aimed at them. Never was. Parts of it are (mainly in Nimoy's appearance), but overall this is a piece of mainstream, pop entertainment -- that's the whole point of it. If they wanted to continue making the same kinds of TREK movies you'd have gotten a sequel to NEMESIS (which nobody wanted because nobody saw it).
On that level I still (three viewings in) haven't seen anything like it in years -- and indeed it's the first film of 2009 to hit the $200 million threshold, something that no TREK movie has ever done before.
In the final analysis, Abrams had a tough task here and never could have pleased everyone with this movie. As the box-office numbers and critical consensus indicates he did, however, manage to please most viewers. That is a major accomplishment given the history of the franchise and the amount of critical scrutiny this movie was under. He was able to make a STAR TREK movie "for the masses" without irritating most pre-existing fans too badly that they threw a hissy-fit. In other words, the movie achieved exactly was it was supposed to.
Whether or not the hard-core Trek fanbase "accepts" it or quibbles about what it does or doesn't do that the old shows did is, quite honestly, besides the point now that the public -- prior Trek fans and non-fans alike -- has by and large embraced it.
I basically found it enjoyable and entertaining and worth the admission price.