I saw 40 minutes of one of them once. They lost me at building the fucking starship on the ground in a field like a barn or something. For as fast and loose as Trek plays with physics, ignoring the obvious problems inherent with that for the sake of a plot point was a bridge too far for me.
That I could forgive. What bothered me most was Kirk’s entire character arc, which went approximately as follows:
Be a criminal fuck-up with emotional problems.
Become Starfleet cadet (because nepotism?).
Fuck up some more, and mutiny.
???
Get appointed captain?!?!?!?!?!!?!??!?!?!?
Kirk should’ve been thrown out the fucking airlock when Spock had the chance. Or at least ended up court-martialed and in a penal colony.
Oh, and by the way, Scotty invented a teleporter that worked at intersteller distances, which rendered the entire premise of the franchise – TREKKING between STARS – moot!
Theres a huge difference between a “bad boy” and a competent leader that bends the rules to accomplish big picture goals. Bad boys are largely unsustainable and they can only have a redemption arc long term. A bad boy doesn’t reprogram Tue Kobayashi Maru to be the only person ever to succeed. They break the simulator and get a technicality D-.
It’s fine. Solid casting, especially Urban as McCoy. Biggest gripe is that its essentially the plot of Star Wars, which JJ went on to repeat with Episode 7. That and the excessive lens flare. I’ll still watch it once in a blue milk moon.
That we didn’t get more of Urban’s McCoy is the biggest failing of the series. Could’ve done a whole TV show where he’s a doctor stationed on some remote space station, getting annoyed at every problem that comes into Medbay.
Stylistically, it’s spectacular. Plot and theme are both weak, but a good introduction to the characters. I do appreciate how much TOS tribute it fits into the package.
Into Darkness intoduced more classic Trek anti-militarization messaging, but the story was dreadful, and somewhat presaged what happened with Abrams and the final Star Wars film.
Beyond was the best Trek film of that era but, of course, Abrams wasn’t involved in it.
Was “into darkness” the one where an assassin casually uses an interstellar transporter to escape to kronos from earth in the opening scene? You know, a technology that undermines all of trek lore, and is somehow not the central plot point?
Even if I accept the rediculous elements, the plot is so shoddy. There’s some dropped plotline about Kirk’s health failing that gets referenced at the start but then forgotten entirely? It reminds me of Finn’s near death confession of something to Rey in JJ’s Star Wars that also receives no follow up. It’s like he gets bored editting his own movie and just nopes out after one pass.
The air of something interesting in place of actually having something interesting to say. That’s just how Abrams writes. It’s not like just a mistake he makes kinda frequently, it’s deliberate. He has a whole TED talk about it.
I do enjoy the Kelvin movies, but they are a bit controversial for some. They are more action based, and less philosophical than was expected. Jj Abrams was also controversial as he wasn’t invested in Trek.
It’s an ok sci-fi action move, but Star Trek has never been about the action, the best stuff was always when two sides come together and learn from one and other. That’s the whole point, really.
That’s fair! I mostly love it for being the closest thing we’ll ever get to an EV Nova movie (there are tons of references and sound effects from the game scattered about, and the plot follows a similar beat to most of the EV Nova storylines)
It’s been a while but I remember they felt too action packed. And the dialogue scenes just didn’t have “it”.
When Picard or Kirk have a conversation with an adversary there’s a certain pacing that creates an intimacy and intensity to it. Which is to me peak Star Trek. I don’t really remember feeling that with those movies.
Having said that, it has the name star trek, but it’s not star trek. Star trek is something specific, it’s more than a ship called enterprise. Star trek is not pew pew. Star trek is not CGI explosions every 3 seconds. Star trek is not action on the edge of your seat. Star trek is not fighting, anger, depression, darkness. And FFS, they even called a movie “into darkness”
Star trek is about morals and ethics, and not to slap you over the face with it but to present you a situation, and make you think about it in a positive way. I can think about certain TNG episodes for days, still.
Too bad they stopped making star trek after ST: Enterprise but there is good news: Watch The Orville, it’s basically TNG for the 2020’s, made by people who love star trek for people who love star trek
Do people not like the 2009 Star Trek movie? I thought it was awesome.
It has plot holes big enough to drive a starship through.
I saw 40 minutes of one of them once. They lost me at building the fucking starship on the ground in a field like a barn or something. For as fast and loose as Trek plays with physics, ignoring the obvious problems inherent with that for the sake of a plot point was a bridge too far for me.
That I could forgive. What bothered me most was Kirk’s entire character arc, which went approximately as follows:
Kirk should’ve been thrown out the fucking airlock when Spock had the chance. Or at least ended up court-martialed and in a penal colony.
Oh, and by the way, Scotty invented a teleporter that worked at intersteller distances, which rendered the entire premise of the franchise – TREKKING between STARS – moot!
Theres a huge difference between a “bad boy” and a competent leader that bends the rules to accomplish big picture goals. Bad boys are largely unsustainable and they can only have a redemption arc long term. A bad boy doesn’t reprogram Tue Kobayashi Maru to be the only person ever to succeed. They break the simulator and get a technicality D-.
Not to mention an entire universe history of them being assembled in orbit.
It’s fine. Solid casting, especially Urban as McCoy. Biggest gripe is that its essentially the plot of Star Wars, which JJ went on to repeat with Episode 7. That and the excessive lens flare. I’ll still watch it once in a blue milk moon.
That we didn’t get more of Urban’s McCoy is the biggest failing of the series. Could’ve done a whole TV show where he’s a doctor stationed on some remote space station, getting annoyed at every problem that comes into Medbay.
Stylistically, it’s spectacular. Plot and theme are both weak, but a good introduction to the characters. I do appreciate how much TOS tribute it fits into the package.
Into Darkness intoduced more classic Trek anti-militarization messaging, but the story was dreadful, and somewhat presaged what happened with Abrams and the final Star Wars film.
Beyond was the best Trek film of that era but, of course, Abrams wasn’t involved in it.
Was “into darkness” the one where an assassin casually uses an interstellar transporter to escape to kronos from earth in the opening scene? You know, a technology that undermines all of trek lore, and is somehow not the central plot point?
Oh lets not forget:
Even if I accept the rediculous elements, the plot is so shoddy. There’s some dropped plotline about Kirk’s health failing that gets referenced at the start but then forgotten entirely? It reminds me of Finn’s near death confession of something to Rey in JJ’s Star Wars that also receives no follow up. It’s like he gets bored editting his own movie and just nopes out after one pass.
The air of something interesting in place of actually having something interesting to say. That’s just how Abrams writes. It’s not like just a mistake he makes kinda frequently, it’s deliberate. He has a whole TED talk about it.
I think I blacked out after the teleporter scene. It was likely for the best.
I do enjoy the Kelvin movies, but they are a bit controversial for some. They are more action based, and less philosophical than was expected. Jj Abrams was also controversial as he wasn’t invested in Trek.
It is okay to like them.
It’s an ok sci-fi action move, but Star Trek has never been about the action, the best stuff was always when two sides come together and learn from one and other. That’s the whole point, really.
I mean… I don’t want to spend a lot of time defending 2009, but that does describe Kirk and Spock’s story arc in the film.
That’s fair! I mostly love it for being the closest thing we’ll ever get to an EV Nova movie (there are tons of references and sound effects from the game scattered about, and the plot follows a similar beat to most of the EV Nova storylines)
It’s been a while but I remember they felt too action packed. And the dialogue scenes just didn’t have “it”.
When Picard or Kirk have a conversation with an adversary there’s a certain pacing that creates an intimacy and intensity to it. Which is to me peak Star Trek. I don’t really remember feeling that with those movies.
It’s fucking drek
Having said that, it has the name star trek, but it’s not star trek. Star trek is something specific, it’s more than a ship called enterprise. Star trek is not pew pew. Star trek is not CGI explosions every 3 seconds. Star trek is not action on the edge of your seat. Star trek is not fighting, anger, depression, darkness. And FFS, they even called a movie “into darkness”
Star trek is about morals and ethics, and not to slap you over the face with it but to present you a situation, and make you think about it in a positive way. I can think about certain TNG episodes for days, still.
Too bad they stopped making star trek after ST: Enterprise but there is good news: Watch The Orville, it’s basically TNG for the 2020’s, made by people who love star trek for people who love star trek