A few days ago, I watched Star Trek (2009) again, for the first time since I saw it in the cinema over two Summers ago. This was a mistake. Maybe it was the spectacle - the big noises and flashing images - but I quite enjoyed it as a cinematic experience. However, upon leaving the theatre I experienced a moment of Fridge Logic, but I soon let it go. This time, I can't.

There is no consistent internal logic: do Star Trek's black holes destroy matter or allow time travel? Pick one and stick with it. If it's both, then what causes the switch, and why? As far as the film is concerned, the cause is simply because the plot demands it. Another example of that would be Spock's arbitrary decision to abandon Kirk on an ice planet. The purpose? Actually, threefold:

1. An excuse for another action beat: Kirk gets chased by monsters!;

2. For Kirk to meet Future Spock, who just happens to be living in a cave. It's okay though, because - as Future Spock explains - A Wizard Did It: a wizard named Destiny;

3. For Kirk to meet Scotty, who functions as another plot-device wizard, as well as lame comic relief.

Talking of Scotty, what purpose is he meant to serve? Well, he's the comic relief, and his transporter expertise saves the day on two occasions. So, why is his character so redundant? Earlier in the film, Chekov is established as both comic relief and a transporter whiz. What's the difference? Why set up Chekov in such a way, only to bring in another character to take his place?

Characters being set up with no pay-off is the theme of this film, and none is more frustrating than Kirk's (lack of) arc. We first see Kirk as a reckless, thrill-seeking child who borrows his step-father's car. By the end of the film, we see Kirk develop into a reckless, thrill-seeking child who borrows his surrogate-father's starship... hang on a second! There is no character development; Kirk does not learn to temper his daring, nor does he become a great leader - he bluffs, blusters, and lucks his way through the film.

And Nero, the antagonist? Well, he's just an idiot. "Spock tried to save Romulus, but he failed, which justifies me destroying every planet associated with him. P.S. I'm not going to warn Romulus of their fate one-hundred-and-fifty years in the future because I'll be too busy blowing things up with my MASSIVE LASER!" If you're going to use a revenge story, make it convincing; make it relatable.

In Star Trek II, Khan is the bad guy, but he at least elicits a degree of sympathy; you get a sense of what he's lost, and why - having nothing left to live for - he dedicates himself to punishing the man who wronged him. Nero has options at his disposal: he has the red matter, so could form another magic black hole, or he could warn his home planet of the impending disaster. Instead, he holds Spock responsible for an incident that was beyond his control. Does he believe that Spock deliberately fluffed his rescue attempt? For that matter, how the hell is forming a black hole meant to stop a supernova (a supernova that threatens to destroy the galaxy? Wow, that must be a big star)? How is no sun better than exploding sun? Either way, Romulus is doomed.

But hey, it's a movie: you're meant to leave your brain at the door, aren't you? No. Shut up.

I feel dirty. I think I need to watch The Wrath of Khan.