I have never loved Star Trek. I watched The Next Generation regularly with my parents; as I recall it aired right before Earth 2, Sliders, and/or SeaQuest DSV, my preferred science fiction TV shows when I was 10. I enjoyed TNG well enough, though it had far less action than any of the other three shows and therefore tended to bore me. There were aspects I liked; I was pretty much in love with Geordi, thanks in large part to Reading Rainbow.
Point is, I was never emotionally invested in Star Trek as a whole, which ought to have made it easier to watch, and maybe even enjoy, the new movie. Not so much. Click through for spoilers and crumb-spewing.
The first question to be asked when one is presented with the idea of resurrecting Star Trek is, “Why?” Obviously the answer from those responsible for the movie is money, but I’d really like to know whether fans of the original series, spin-offs, and movies really believe it’s necessary to bring Trek to a new generation. If those hip young people with their iPhones and their rap music don’t appreciate Star Trek for the campy fun/philosophically challenging material/high drama/more campy fun it was in its various incarnations, is it really worth trying to breathe new life into the concept? Leave it for the people who enjoy it. Furthermore, if Ronald D. Moore (who later proved himself to be the patron saint of revitalizing cheesy decades-old science fiction shows into masterful works of art) couldn’t save Star Trek (and oh, he tried), where does J.J. Abrams get off thinking he can?
This new Star Trek (which I will refer to as Star Trek for the remainder of this post, rather than “the one J.J. Abrams directed”) is a prequel, an origin story about the crew of the Enterprise fans know from the original series (TOS). It is possible to do origin stories right–Batman Begins, for instance. Too often though, origin stories go horribly wrong, as in the case of the Star Wars prequels, which introduced a few dozen elements to the Galaxy Far Far Away that obfuscated things unnecessarily, and in several cases blatantly contradicted portions of the original trilogy. The Star Wars prequels were not straightforward enough. While I haven’t seen it yet, I’ve heard Wolverine errs spectacularly on the opposite end of the spectrum: it is far too straightforward, telling us almost nothing we didn’t already know and doing it in the least elegant or interesting way possible.
Star Trek fails as an origin story for reason I can’t sum up quite as neatly as those above. For one thing, it’s not even technically an origin story–at least not for the TOS characters as we knew them. It turns out that young, chisel-jawed jock James Tiberius Kirk is not quite exactly the same Kirk that sucked so badly at fight scene choreography in TOS, and it’s all because TOS Mr. Spock (played by Leonard Nimoy in a largely nonsensical cameo) opened a singularity that led into an alternate reality.
Yes, an alternate reality. This is how Star Trek can get away with so many horrible, unnecessary choices with regard to the plot and characters. This is how people can claim in their glowing reviews of the movie that it actually doesn’t invalidate anything that already happened in previous episodes and movies. Spock went into another dimension–and back in time, to boot!–and set the movie’s events in motion.
Right off the bat we have a giant copout. Think about it. What’s the point of a movie about the origins of characters who aren’t actually, really, the characters from TOS? Is that really Star Trek? Fundamentally, I say no, and as soon as I realized this was not a story about the Kirk and Spock from TOS, but rather about their alternate reality counterparts who have different histories and personality nuances thanks to this being an alternate reality, I lost absolutely all interest I may have had in the movie during its first few minutes. In fact, even TOS Spock is not really TOS Spock in that he is in this movie for no other reason than to break the Prime Directive. He does so repeatedly, by both direct and indirect action. That is not Spock. J.J. Abrams could have just changed some character names and started a new science fiction saga rather than slapping the Star Trek label on this.
Beyond the vexation caused by its very existence, there was plenty more about Star Trek that irked me. Lens flare was the most omnipresent and glaring (har) annoyance. I thought lens flare was awesome when I first got Photoshop, but I grew out of it and I’m not even a visual effects artist. J.J. Abrams loves lens flare like the Wachowskis love bullet time, like Zack Snyder loves slow-mo, and Abrams now occupies the same space in my mind as those awful hacks thanks to his overuse of the technique. There was lens flare in nearly every scene. The vast majority of the movie’s shots, whether or not there was a direct light source in the frame, had a blob of light obscuring some portion of it. Good God, there was lens flare inside a cave. The bridge of the Enterprise seemed to be made entirely of lens flare and saturated pastel colors. Those shots all looked like somebody’s artsy-fartsy LiveJournal icons; I expected Edward Cullen to show up at some point, sparkling. With lens flare. That’s not good design, and it’s definitely not good storytelling. If you ever meet J.J. Abrams, dear reader, please smack him upside the head for me and tell him to lay off the bloody lens flare.
The portions of the movie that weren’t covered in lens flare didn’t particularly thrill me either. I was initially pleased and surprised by the vintage, boxy look of the ships, but as soon as the Enterprise appeared onscreen, sleek and futuristic with transparent touchscreens on the bridge, a far cry from the spindly cardboard tube model of TOS, I lost all hope that the film’s style would make up for any of its faults. As one of the only negative reviews of Star Trek on RottenTomatoes points out, nearly every part of the movie that was meant to be cool ended up looking like it was taken from some other movie. They even used shaky handheld camera shots in many scenes, just like–ZOMG!–Battlestar Galactica. Handheld cameras? In space? How gritty and original! Except it wasn’t at all, and indeed there was nothing original about the rest of the movie either.
The only good thing I can say about the movie’s cast is that Zachary Quinto’s Spock and Karl Urban’s McCoy were spot-on. Eric Bana was both unrecognizable and completely wasted in his role, a villain even less memorable than Shinzon. Chris Pine’s fratboyish approach to Kirk didn’t even make an attempt at the convulsive gaps in dialog. Simon Pegg as Scotty irritated me to no end, which is not usually a problem I have with Simon Pegg, but his main scene was what prompted Aaron and Alan to dub this version of the Enterprise the Willy Wonka ship. Everybody else was essentially a caricature, down to the way overdone (yet somehow still adorable) Chekov.
The cartoonish feel of the movie started early on with some terribly unfunny Kirk/McCoy slapstick, and culminated with Scotty’s trip through the Enterprise chocolate factory’s plumbing. It all proved that Abrams can employ comedy with the same aplomb and subtlety as he does lens flare. I already know how the man writes his scripts, and when I got bored with the movie I started imagining what a given page of the Star Trek screenplay might look like. The mental image was way more amusing than anything that happened onscreen.
Much like the movie as a whole, the actions of most of the characters are completely pointless. In the big climactic battle scene, right after alternate reality Spock opens a singularity on Eric Bana’s ship, Kirk fires on said ship. Why the hell would you attack a ship that’s about to be swallowed by a black hole? A black hole that then devours Bana’s ship, grows larger, and threatens to swallow the Enterprise too. Why, why, why would you do that?
And that’s just the beginning (or rather the end) of a whole string of inexplicable actions leading all the way back to when someone in a studio somewhere said, “Hey, wouldn’t it be great to pump some more cash out of Star Trek’s corpse without having to pay all those old actors who are practically corpses themselves?” The result of that thinking led to a wholly inelegant attempt to fill in some gaps in TOS characters’ histories, which was at times as unnecessarily complicated as the Star Wars prequels. I really felt for Aaron, because I went through the same thing ten years ago that he went through while watching Star Trek. In fact, at many points in the movie I felt like I was watching a Star Wars prequel. I guess you could say that in the long-running battle between Star Wars and Star Trek, Wars finally won because in order to attract a new audience, they had to dumb down Star Trek as much as George Lucas dumbed down the prequels–and, indeed, borrow many stylistic choices and even a couple gags.
But everyone realized the Star Wars prequels sucked, whereas Star Trek currently has a 96% fresh rating on RottenTomatoes. People everywhere are lapping this up, and it seems like Aaron and I are the only ones who found the whole thing absolutely intolerable. This is a movie that never should have been made, that can’t justify its existence by being any good at all. If I had a really fast future-ship full of red matter, I’d make a singularity and go back in time to kill J.J. Abrams so it never would have existed. (Don’t whine at me about Lost, either–I wouldn’t mourn the absence of that show from television history in the slightest.) You can call me an elitist or a crumb-spewing nerd for my intense and vehement reaction, but please take my word for it and don’t make another inexplicable and unwise choice by wasting your money on a ticket.
I think the thing is, it’s not supposed to be an origin story in the Wolverine sense, so much as a reboot in the Casino Royale sense (though it’s not as elegant a reboot as that, certainly). I must say, however, that I’m surprised that the fact that these aren’t exactly the TOS characters bothers you so much, given the amount (you seem to indicate it’s very little if any) of emotional investment you have in the original characters as they were. Given the passion of Star Trek fans, it was at least concession to them to not simply wipe the slate clean on the original series, as was done with Casino Royale or Batman Begins. Now, is it really Star Trek? Is it worth making a series called Star Trek if it doesn’t have the original characters? Well, gee, I don’t know, that’s a rather subjective call. Most likely it depends on the quality of the series in question.
And while this certainly wasn’t the best Star Trek movie ever made (that’d be II or VI, depending most likely on how much you can stand 80s fashion choices), I think one would be hard pressed to say it was any worse than, say, The Final Frontier or Nemesis. That makes it hard for me to say it’s raping my childhood, because my childhood was already raping itself back in the day. (Or my early adulthood, in the case of the latter.)
As far as the lens flares go…I’m ambivalent about that particular visual choice. My issues were the film were mostly to do with the weaknesses in the plot and the characterization of the villain. As you mentioned, Spock and McCoy were pretty much dead on, and as far as the other characters being caricatures…that’s not really too far from the originals, either (especially in the TV series). Kirk was definitely the weak link as far as the bridge crew.
In short, I went into the film with fear and trepidation that it would try to tell some overarching mythologically inspired Hero’s Journey sort of story, and when it turned out to be an actiony space romp loosely based on a series I used to like as a child, I was relieved enough. It’s not as substaniative as the best of Trek can be, but that can be cured in the inevitable sequels (indeed, if they want to keep me coming back, it had better). As an introduction piece, I’ll accept it as better than it could have been.
(The lines “Well gee, I don’t know, that’s kind of a subjective call. It probably depends on the series in question.” should have been accompanied by links to the Wikipedia articles for TNG, DS9, and Voyager. Just to clarify.)
I have the funny feeling I’ll end up agreeing with you after I’ve watched the movie myself. Thanks for the review. Now I’ll just have to somehow work up the courage to go see it.
I agree that the new Trek film is disappointing. It struck me as implausible in a number of respects. Kirk and his fellow crew mates go almost directly from being cadets to running the flagship of Starfleet. As campy, cheesy and hokey as the original series was, it had a certain level of versimilitude; it was always made clear that Kirk had served on other ships and risen up through the ranks before he was given command of the Enterprise. The new movie also includes a surprising and unlikely romance between two characters. If the relationship had been woven into the characters’ development or integrated into a coherent and carefully thought-out plot, I would have been willing to buy it. But instead, it was just dumped on the audience (in a scene of wincingly bad dialogue) for shock value and never explained. And an inordinate amount of screen time was devoted to the convoluted “alternate universe” explanation, complete with flashbacks and narration by Nimoy — all solely to justify why Abrams had creative license to deviate from the original Trek characters and backstory. It seemed like a case of the tail wagging the dog.
I’m really puzzled by all the good reviews this movie is getting. I didn’t HATE it like you did, but it just didn’t strike me as a particularly interesting movie. As a Star Trek film, it’s a mess, but I don’t even care about that anymore. Like you, I’m a mild Trek fan who likes watching the show but doesn’t have any serious emotional attachment to it. But I thought the life was beat out of this franchise with the last couple TNG films and the mishandling of the Enterprise series, so I didn’t really care if this one was “real” Star Trek or not. Of course, the whole alternate reality thing - that’s a joke. You’re right. Why bother calling it Star Trek? This is not a prequel. It’s a whole new thing. And it’s not that great of a thing. Besides young Spock, most of the characters were just annoying. Scotty acted like some sort of meth-adled tech school drop out. “Old Spock” was like that clingy old uncle at the family reunion who won’t stop giving unwanted advice. The villain was completely forgettable - partly because he looked exactly like everyone else on his ship, so I was never sure if it was him or some other guy on the screen. And what was the deal with Scotty’s little “buddy” - Star Trek’s answer to Ewoks? On the whole, I didn’t hate it. It was OK summer fun. But I just don’t get what all the fuss is about.
And you want a plot moment that makes no sense? So, there’s this substance called “red matter.” Apparently a tiny little drop of this so imaginatively named stuff can create a quantum singularity that will wipe out an entire planet. So what do you to with it? You glob together an beach ball-on-steroids-sized mass of the stuff, you stick it in a tiny little space ship, and then you let a 200-year-old Vulcan fly it across the galaxy, so completely unprotected that some nut in a mining ship can grab him and then use it to start wiping out planets. Sure. Makes perfect sense.
Well, i have to disagree. I think Star Trek was amazing! The Enterprise looked so realistic and the actors were fantastic! It was funny and i think that it portrayed the star trek series better to people who haven’t really payed attention to it before. In fact, i’ve liked it so much that i’ve seen it 3 times already! and i might go back to see it another 3 times! I think it’s worth the money i’m spending! I’m a true trekkie and, no offence, but your opinions are a little strange to me. Everyone that i’ve spoken to about it say that they thought it was “the best movie they’ve seen for a long time”. Even “new” magazine rated it top movie of the week …and “new” magazine is a girly fashion magazine. So, i think you guys are totally out of it for saying that! Think of all the effort, acting, time and precious money that they spent on it! Then think of inappreciative people who (even though they probably couldn’t make anything better themselves) have to say how “bad” it was. Ridiculous. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to advertise it. People can like it if they choose. Furthermore, i think that Simon pegg was amazing - considering he’s a londoner - not even scttich. Think of how hard he worked to get that accent - then think of people who don’t care and who slate it off and ruin the experience for other people. >:( this review is a bad one! For goodness sake: it’s a movie!!! Don’t analyse it as if it were real-life!!!!
Where do I begin? I just saw this so called “Star Trek” movie. Will the real Trekkies (Like myself) stand up and protest this abomination?! Not knocking the effects and cast; All Ok. The story line is so “Been there–done that–”. How long are you gonna play this “going back in time” idea. It was done in Star Trek 4( Voyage Home) and done again in Star Trek “First Contact”. They should have relabeled the title “Star Trek– WE RAN OUT OF IDEAS AND MONEY SO WE THOUGHT YOU’D LIKE THIS”. There are so many inconsistencies I lost track. When did Uhura have a relationship with Spock? Did I miss that original episode? Star Trek gave people a sense of inspiration and hope for the future. This movie said to me after it thankfully ended–”Ha–we used the Star Trek name to bring you in and take your money. Watch Transformers and GI JOE so that we can kick you in the balls again?! This movie took Gene Roddenberry’s storyline and %$^*#$ all over it!!! They can’t even get the theme music right. Oh yeah, they finally play the original theme music after everyone is getting up and leaving the movie theater…DISGUSTING and DISAPPOINTING!! And what is up with Leonard Nemoy’s Cameo? Is this suppose to be an apology to the real Trekkies in the theater to tell them–”Hey we’re sorry we made a bad movie, but here’s someone that you know to make it all better…” Hollywood strikes again—Recreating and reinventing something that needs none of either. Lots of potential to make a really good movie.
Hi Emma! Thanks for commenting. You seem like a nice enough person, so I’ll present my responses to your points in a numbered list that’s more plain rhetoric than the snarky cynicism I usually prefer.
1. Simon Pegg is from Gloucester, not London. His accent was all right, but he seemed to have been copping it entirely from Craig Ferguson. Not a bad thing–Craig Ferguson is hilarious too–but it was distracting for me. I expect a lot of British people, particularly actors, can pull off a decent Scottish accent. It’s the same island. The fact that Simon can do it too, as talented as he is, isn’t anything to shout about, and it’s certainly no reason for me to change my mind about a movie I hated.
2. If “New” Magazine is a girly fashion magazine, what do they know about good film writing? And if I’m “out of it” for disagreeing vehemently with a magazine whose website’s front page bears a link to Heather Mills’ Twitter for vegan recipes (and that’s the most substantive thing I see on this site), I’m quite all right with that. I already feel little to no connection with the members of the populace who think the media Hollywood vomits up for our consumption is ZOMG the best stuff evar!!! If hating Star Trek distances me further from people like the writers and readers of “New,” so be it.
3. My husband is a true Trekkie. He was raised on the original series and stayed with the saga all the way through Voyager, when it became absolutely clear that no Star Trek show would ever again boldly go where no man has gone before, and contented himself with DVDs of classic episodes, The Next Generation, and Deep Space Nine. William Shatner is his hero. Out of morbid curiosity, he went to the theater and managed to sit through the whole thing. He hated it even more than I did. Like I said, when I looked at his face during the movie I saw the same look that was on my face during the Star Wars prequels.
4. When I think of all the effort, time, and precious money that they spent on making this movie, I feel ill. It would have been better spent on feeding the poverty-stricken residents of a third world nation for a few months. I’d have a lot more respect for J.J. Abrams if he did that instead.
5. Your parenthetical assertion that those who don’t like Star Trek couldn’t make anything better themselves is a pitiful ad hominem that accompanies a turning point in your comment where my opinion equals “bad” and yours, because it is congruent with the vast majority, equals “good”. This kind of thinking will get you into trouble. My opinions and your opinions are merely opinions, and it’s generally dangerous to ascribe a moral value to opinions. I have the right to post opinions, and you have the right to disagree. That is all there is to it–it doesn’t make my review a quantifiably bad one (in fact, I believe it was pretty well thought out and eloquently worded). Also, just because I don’t particularly care to direct my creative impulses in the area of television and film, and haven’t had the incredible success Abrams enjoyed with Lost, does not mean I couldn’t make anything better, nor does it invalidate anything I said in my post.
6. Obviously the effort I expended to say how “bad” the movie was didn’t ruin the experience for you, since you saw it three times and will probably go back to see it three more. As for advertising my dislike for the movie, this is my personal blog, on my personal webspace. You could think of it as my little piece of the Internet, to do with as I will. I put a link to this blog post on my Facebook profile, which is only visible to my friends. There was absolutely no advertising done on my part, but this post is the second of 671 results on Google for “Star Trek sucked,” and perhaps for this reason, it got linked on SF Signal and Gerry Canavan’s awesomely-titled Worst Blog Ever. I guess you could blame them and Google for spreading my post around and ruining it for everyone, but I wouldn’t recommend that either.
It is nice to know that i am not the only person who found this film deplorable. Everyone i know loves it. I cant stand it.
I write a computer security blog. I can’t understand why the heck I’d be near the top in the Google search. Maybe it’s a reflection on the fact that hackers are going to dislike the new Star Trek movie more than most people.
Hey, we are not alone. The movie DID suck, and was an exercise in the WORST kind of filmmaking. Check out my 100 Reasons Star Trek XI Sucked! http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.com/
Thank goodness I am not the only one who thought this movie was a pile of crap. I should have known because everything J.J. Abrams does is loaf. What is all the hype around JJ Abrams anyway? I feel like such a sucker, he got me again. First, he got me with Alias which turned to crap; then, he got me again with Lost which also turned to crap and now this…
I won’t even go into details about how stupid this movie was. The honest critics have already said it and the people who can think for themselves know it sucked big time. Can I get that two hours of my life back…???
Thank you for posting this. I thought I was going crazy because people I considered friends liked this movie. I agree with everything you said here and will start and underground movement as in the movie “They Live”. I will use your site as the special “sun glasses” so people can see Star Trek for what it really is….(place any expletive here)
You guys suck for hating this movie, it’s like you have a predisposition to hate it and since in my opinion the movie isn’t bad at all, in fact I loved it a bit, your attempts at finding things to dislike about the movie are so lame and futile it seems like you are nitpicking.. For fucks sake, the movie was good all round.. Sometimes you have to enjoy things alone and not compare it to what it was or because of that, what it could have been..
I know there are people who dislike Batman The Dark Knight.. I know! that movie was awesome, and you are probably going “this is the type of guy that uses the wod awesome for anything” but I’m not..
I know for a fact that a lot of people loved it more than hated it.. and I know a lot has to do with the fact that now its sort of populist that many trekkies are going like “wtf this used ot be our thing, where we could be DIFFERENT and feel like wierdos but at the same time be a group which can pretend like we don’t give a fuck about what other’s think… because we are trekkies!!!”
Grow the fuck up and accept that movies change, and at the end of the day Star Trek is about treks in space, duh, and the title just spells action and it has to be about action… the movie was a good if not great action movie and it satisfied my thirst for action.. fuck!
I get this funny feeling that you’re a little too close to the issue to be objective. J.J. Abrams, is that you?
Hey youguyssuck, I guess if your into watching meaningless action scenes thrown together with no coherent or even realistic plot and characters that irritate you rather than engender respect, this WAS a good movie.
Get a life and stop following the crowd…
Bo, There was nothing realistic about TOS in the first place. WTF were you expecting Star Trek meets ‘Children of Men’?
A measure of such gravitas as that seen in Children of Men might be advisable when the fate of the universe is in question.
I don’t know if I’m late for this, but I wouldn’t agree with the part about Spock’s characterization. At least some of the time. Since when did Vulcan’s start freely snogging people on elevators? Even if it is an alternate universe, I was under the impression their history was pretty much the same. I think I must have fainted at that part, somehow having missed all the other obvious things that were wrong with it. Otherwise my thoughts were pretty much the same about the movie. And now that I’ve started, I’m afraid I must rage about the horrid characterization of Mr. New Kirk. He seemed to be missing the half of his brain where his feelings were located [he was supposed to have all of them heightened, not just 'horny'] Although I must give some credit to the actor, he did know how to sit.
Oh, and if someone is answering me, I probably won’t know. I googled this site, I have no idea where I am.
My God! you are right. this movie did suck.
I cant believe rotten tomatoes positive review rating.
I guess if 3 wolf moon can be a top selling t-shirt, this can be a top movie.
It was torture to sit through! I wish i hadn’t
I thought the movie was awful. An insult to longtime fans, who have kept this franchise afloat for more than four decades. We suffered through the Berman & Braga years. Before that, it was the editorial malfeasance of Richard Arnold who chased such writers as Peter David away. Stupid. Simon Pegg bothered the hell out of me, too. This movie was supposed to be fresh, bold, and exciting—but we got a mix of Star Trek: Nemesis/Star Wars told badly, with technobabble and an incoherent plot. And the Enterprise looked awful: from the i-Bridge to the WonkaTubes to the bent nacelles. Plus—again—jettisoning the warp core saved the day.
Some psychologist could write a doctoral thesis on how “let’s bash the fans” was turned into a marketing tool. All around, it made no sense to me. After the movie ended and the lights went up, a few people clapped. Most were silent. The guy next to me muttered, “You’ve gotta be kidding me.” Too bad Manny Coto wasn’t the one doing this relaunch. Based on how creative he was with season four of Enterprise, this might have been good.
Lifelong Trek fan here. And this film disgusted me to know end. I left the theater feeling like I’d just watched a dear old friend succumb to end stage cancer. Star Trek is dead. All I have left are memories of what once was.
Wow, I am really late to this, but here goes.
I loved the film. Absolutely loved it, flawed? yes, but hey, that Sci Fi isn’t it?
If we can find something flawed in a ’soap’ then it sure as hell is not going to be exactly very difficult to find a flaw in Sci Fi, especially one which has endured for over 40 years.
The point is, entertainment is always changing, and it absolutely MUST change with the times, otherwise Star Trek’s fan base would consist only of a few thousand basement dwelling men who still live with their parents and don’t shower. Much like some of the people in the comment above ( I suspect )
This film, had everything that was required for a massive Sci Fi movie and I firmly believe that it brought that ailing Star Trek franchise back to life. Gene Roddenberry had a philosophy, which has been brought to us in the form of Star Trek. A future of optimism, hope and human achievement.
I get a feeling that some of you missed it.
Long Live Trek
http://www.sciencefictionstuff.com
I thought this movie was great. I will agree with some visual style issues, but I liked it. I don’t think it was anything like the horrid Star Wars prequels. I will agree that it was a different take on the classic Star Trek, much like the many incarnations of Batman. Most will have their reasons for preferring one series of Batman films over others. This is very much the same thing. Star Wars is different because the expectation for the prequels to follow in the same vain as the originals only makes sense. We have the original director and a necessary provenance for the characters and settings involved in Episodes 4-6. There is a required continuity factor that helps us set the stage. Star Trek just isn’t bound by that requirement. We could definitely argue and nitpick about that, but it’s probably pointless. The best thing about this film that separates it from the Star Wars prequel universe is that it had characters with dialog in it that you could at least enjoy. Lucas made his characters so robotic and unconvincing that I nearly wanted to gouge out my ears during Anakin and Padme’s scenes. I can agree with you that there were areas of Star Trek that could have used a bit more polish. The cartoonish humor could have been toned down or reduced to a scene or two. But I think comparing it to Star Wars prequels isn’t really fair. It had better characters, much more believable dialog, and special effects that didn’t beat you over the head as badly as Lucas’ crapfests.
Hannah, I appreciate that you went to the trouble to produce a very well-written, insightful criticism of this movie.
I just saw it on DVD last night- I was too cheap to see it at the theaters- so I looked forward to watching it for months, and so many people swore to me how great it was. But it was a profound disappointment in so many ways, and you’ve managed to address all the major problems here.
I see crappy movies on a regular basis, and I can forgive that, but I’m actually disturbed by Abrams’ Star Trek in the same way I was disturbed by the terrible Star Wars prequels and George Lucas’ demonic impulse to rewrite history.
I take solace in knowing that unlike in bad movies, time travel isn’t possible, and the harder Abrams’ tries to rewrite Star Trek history, the better he’ll make the originals look.
I know I am VERY late on these comments, but I figured since the Star Trek DVD recently came out, I figured I have my say on this. First let me say, I WANTED TO LOVE THIS MOVIE. Heck, I would have even been thrilled to at the very least like it. I went in w/ enthusiasm and and open mind. I read the reviews (which I thought were WILDLY overrated, after watching the film.) This Star Trek was an amusing, but ultimately boring cliche done for the masses. Sure it had action, but is that all that is required of a film to make it a hit these days? It would appear so. Unfortunately, many fans of the new Star Trek are like some fans I know of the prequels to Star Wars; no matter how bad they are, they will still love them. I have a friend who is a bonafide Star Wars fan, and to him it didn’t matter how bad the prequels were (in particular the boring, unwritten “Phantom Menace”), he will still defend it as a great film. This Star Trek was All Flash & Little Substance and was NOT a great film, period. I knew this film was in trouble when the BEST SCENE was the opening sequence. After that, it slowly, but surely goes goes downhill.
I love it when so-called “newbies” of Sci-Fi & Star Trek denegrate so-called traditional fans (like The Onion parody newspaper did when they got all snarky w/ their “Fans of Star Trek decry new film as Fun & Watchable” headline.) Why, because they miss the point entirely; MUST ALL MOVIES BE SO DRAMATICALLY DUMBED DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF 3 GRADE CHILD ANTICS TO APPEAL TO TODAY’S AUDIENCES SIMPLY TO MAKE MONEY? Couldn’t JJ Abrams have shown more ambition and atempted to make an intelligent, sweeping, dramatic, ambitious, sprawling epic that was also fun, action-packed and thoroughly watchable Star Trek across the board? Peter jackson did it w/ his LOTR trilogy. Don’t get me wrong; the new Star Trek is mildly entertaining at best (to the point of mind-numbing silliness…), but this film was nothing more than a misshapen tapestry of random incidents transpiring at the speed of light w/o any real direction, cohesion or point to it all (except to dazzle w/ action, and no more…). It was a script devoid of any kind of real sustained intelligence or drama. Example, the villian Nero was a cliched character, barely in the film and basically a terrible excuse to reshape the Star Trek universe (another dumb plot device). Let’s face it; this was just another shot at making money, period. Well, they succeeded, but given the average intelligence of summer movie goers and the media blitz this film got before it opened, it did not surprise me. I sincerely wish the new cast & crew luck, but quite frankly I was very bored w/ this film & won’t be getting in line for any new adventures.
Side note: while the cast did reasonably good job of portraying the characters including Karl Urban, I admit had a wishful hope that Gary Senise could’ve played “Bones” McCoy. I’m serious! Check him out & compare him to DeForest Kelley & you’ll see what I mean! He’s got the look, the voice, everything! What a missed opportunity…!
1. Who gives a shit if it sets a whole new storyline in motion? That’s what makes it interesting, and leads to a whole new world of possibilities. A franchise is dead when everything becomes boring and predictable. The destruction of Vulcan was a kick in the balls to be sure, but it just shows you that you can’t take anything for granted.
2. Why is everyone so pissed about the appearance of the ship and bridge? No shit it looks all sleek and shiny. That’s what happens when you aren’t using cardboard and plastic to make sets and models you dumbasses. Upgrades are allowed when you have the technology and budget.
3. Everyone who is bitching about a “deeper message,” go kill yourself. The message may have been harder to catch since there were things like fight scenes and space battles (imagine those in a sci-fi movie…gasp!). Regardless, there was a message, and when you’re finished wiping yourselves, come talk it over with the grownups.
If you want to get crushed in a discussion about this, feel free to try. My email is skimarcus@yahoo.com
Live long and prosper…idiots.
p.s. Fred M. “…this film disgusted me to know end.” Pay attention to the words you actually type, you illiterate fool.
I don’t know what Murray is trying to state. Constructive change is the fundamental ingredient of our lives, but does that include deterioration or films getting dumb and dumber?
This movie is sending wrong messages - if there are any to be found, and has nothing in common with any of Roddenberry’s visions of the future: Achievement through hard labor and learning (think Starfleet Academy as depicted in TNG), a common interest in space exploration, helping others and enjoying cultural activities what used to be a utopian picture of the future.
Leonard Nimoy: “Don’t use logic, do what feels is right”
I think the use of a little logic is in place to make the future a better one, we’ve had plentiful of our share what happens when certain people actually do what they feel is ‘right’ and only have muscles to rely on but no brains (like this movie).
Sorry, it rather felt like watching a STARSHIP TROOPERS sequel than a work that could or should be labelled ‘STAR TREK’.
I equally fail to understand all these over-enthusiastic reviews, but then again, nobody seriously minded Anakin Childkiller in SW III - We’re being razzle-dazzled and don’t notice it. Come to think of it, what was actually so bad about ST V? If it’s just form we’re talking about, I’m pretty darn confident that all that this movie needs is some re-editing and some new CGI effects and that movie will look like a revelation…
P.S. I’m a die-hard Trekker, live in my own house and have a very beautiful wife (at least that’s what my colleagues at work and my lawyer keep telling me).
Apologies to authors of recent comments–I check the spam filter on this blog about as often as I post nowadays.
Richard: You’re right about Gary Sinise. Back when Star Trek was still in the wild rumors phase, there were reports that he had been cast as Bones. That got me all excited, and as much as I love Karl, I think Sinise might have brought a bit more dignity to the movie.
Marc: You’re absolutely right about the death of a franchise. Back when Lucas Books started to realize that the Star Wars Expanded Universe novels had totally run out of ideas, they decided to cart in some extragalactic warrior aliens who couldn’t be sensed through the Force and had a fetish for pain (and who looked, according to descriptions and illustrations, exactly like the evil aliens in Galaxy Quest). They ended up destroying half the galaxy and killing Chewbacca along with one of Han and Leia’s kids. The justification for this was that it showed the fans they couldn’t take anything for granted. The Lucas giveth, and the Lucas taketh away. Was it a good decision as far as storytelling is concerned? Hell no. They would have found that out if they had skipped the executive committee focus group and asked someone who actually knew something about writing (they had access to Timothy Zahn, for Christ’s sake!). Likewise, if J. J. Abrams had an ounce of skill as a writer, not to mention respect for the series he sought to revive, he could have found any number of ways to “fix” Trek without making it unrecognizable.
I’m going to skip item two, because you clearly have no interest in continuity and visual consistency (hurr durr, it’s an alternate dimension and anything goes!) so there would be no point talking about it.
I found the deeper message: Jocks will inherit the universe. It’s not about the betterment of humanity or noble exploration without violating the Prime Directive, it’s about some jackass muscling his way to the top of Starfleet, and everyone who is smarter and more fit to lead than him just steps back and smiles, because gosh, he has balls.
Also, publicly insulting a group’s intelligence and inviting them to get crushed by your superior rhetorical skill over an e-mail conversation is a surefire way to get signed up for all kinds of porn mailing lists.
Frank T: Agreed on all counts, especially the comparison to Roddenberry’s vision. I heard an interview with some author on NPR a few months back about how the new generation doesn’t have any heroes like the original Captain Kirk. I think it’s a more telling statement to say we don’t even have the values those heroes once represented, which is why movies like this can get made.
What got me most about this movie is that it completely rejected Star Trek tradition. I mean, Star Trek may not be the most realistic as far as the science is concerned, but at least it’s consistent. Before this movie, you knew that black holes weren’t large black disks in space. You knew that you can’t see one planet from another as if it was right there. And you knew that things would make sense in the end. But this movie, it had none of that.
And if it isn’t enough that it’s a poor dumbed down version of Star Trek, it’s also a poor movie of it’s own accord. JJ is on the same level as Michael Bay in my book. He seems to think explosions translate into good story.
My god i aggree with your post 100%. So much that i dont even know where to begin..
I never liked TOS but was a die hard fan of TNG, DS9, VOG, THE MOVIES, even Enterprise. This movie completely erased the timeline..
The movie visually was great, and there is things I could have let slide for example:
The enterprise being built when he was a teenager.
The enterprise being built on land (even though all starfleet ships are built a Utopia Plantitia: sorry about the spelling)
I could even let it slide that a mining ship can be so outfitted that it was a warship.
But what i cannot let slide is:
Kirk a fresh out of school cadet who cheated on his test automatically gets bumped up to first officer.
Non of the fleet was guarding earth, head quarters of the federation.
Non of the fleet was guarding Vulcan, a head planet in the federation.
Uhora hooking up with spock.
Chekov was a complete joke. made me cringe everythime he spoke.
Spock coming back in time not to stop the destruction of his planet or fix the error in the timeline, but to make sure kirk and him become buddies.
scotty happens to be on that ice planet.
Nero has 150 years to prepare Romulus from being destroyed, but instead he decides to destroy the fed instead. AHH genius without the fed Romulus would be destroyed in the future either by the Borg or the Dominion. Or the Klingon’s wouldn’t be held back all those years and would have took over the alpha quadrant.
Vulcan was destroyed. Making all previous movies and tv ep with vulcan in it irrelevant. Which in turn erases Commander Tuvok from the timeline since he was born on vulcan.
I dont know how they are going redo Kahn since he had a prominent beef with Vulcan, not a planet that was made or founded for a bunch of Vulcan refugees.
Why in the world are they flying around with gallons of red matter.. if it only takes a drop to cause a black whole.. if a real enemy got a whole of that, the galaxy would be in trouble.
Im pretty sure in TOS timeline and before they had not yet made first contact with Cardassians, but Uhora ordered Cardassian ale at the bar.
They made the Romuluns of the 24th century to be some evil looking orks with tattoos. But around that time Romulus has a some what uneasy peace treaty with the federation, and the Klingon to protect the alpha quadrant from outside treats. ie the dominion, the Borg.
If their trying to escape a singularity why would they dump their warp core???.. They wouldn’t have the speed to escape it, let alone the blast.
Why is their a cannon in IOWA.
Why would you leave your keys to a 1950’s Corvette, which lasted 3 centuries a third world war, and the scrap yard, where a lil kid can take it up and drive it.
Man there is soo much things to list that was wrong with this movie.
If they wanted to revamp it they should have had a regular story line explaining how they came together.. They did not need to put time travel in it. Nemoy did not need to be in this movie. His whole purpose of this movie was to explain that the other time line and other shows is no longer relevant. Nemoy should be pissed that Abrams did this.
What was the point of spoks mother dieing.. What was the point of this entire movie.
Really when i think back about it, it was just so that Abrams could remake a franchise to make a few bucks.. Disregarding the fans.. Disregarding Gene R. Disregarding Rick B. Disregarding the movies, video games, and books. And just take a big shit on the time line/Universe of star trek.
And to all the Trekkers who like this movie, please please go and watch TOS all the way to Voyager.. and then you will hate this movie with a passion.. Cause basically this movie erased 40 years of franchise, 200 years of story time line..
JJ Abrams is an asshole. I for one will be boycotting any thing he is a part of.. One thing this movie has done for me is show me what he is about. eff him, eff his movies, and i hope he doesnt touch anything to do with any scifi show again.
I have to secretly agree!
The movie sucked ass. The plot was a joke and it was nothing short of a Star Wars film.
Jar Jar Abrams has ruined Trek
(insert annonying lens flare!)
Im glad im not the only one, seeing stuff like this makes my day. The problem with 2009 is that Abrams isnt a fan of star trek, nor undertanding that star trek was great because of #1. sense of humor everyone had (kirk,bones, spock, scotty, checkov etc) #2. allegory storytelling. its why the franchise continues to dwindle with
I liked pegg, quinto and urban in this as well as the kid who played checkov. the other problem this film has is the crew is not ballanced chemistry wise as the original was. Zaldana I was not impressed with or Choe’s sulu (I love Harold and Kumar 1 secretly lol). Choe just does not look like a kickass japanese samurai that Takie did. Thier is also less of an international feel to the crew (other than pegg and checkov).
Abrams tried to make an action epic movie like star wars, not recognizing people dont like star trek for its action, they like it because its stories make them think. The end of this movie also completely out of character as revenge is something not glorified in an upbeat future society. The villan in this is bland and although decently played, poorly written.
Lastly I really hated the music to this, its why TNG’s movies tanked balls and the classic as they removed the great music from star trek 1-3. Im almost tempted to rescore the movie and release a torrent (this, james bond, superman, terminator all need to go back to thier original music).
Abrams films suck, I love lost, but think that really has nothing to do with him and has more to do with the people writing it after seeing crap movie after crap movie he’s directed (MI 2, Cloverfield and this).I think im going to skip another star trek outing. Thanks 20 something cokeheads for messing up another franchise of my youth I loved *cough nightmare,bond,terminator,superman,batman,tron cough*. Only people that love micheal bay movies and have never seen star trek like this film.
the only message of this film is: If a bad guy destroys your homeworld and father, you kick his ass.
that is not what star trek is all about. I can only recommend star trek 1-4 and first contact.
Buy:Retin-A.Prednisolone.Zyban.Zovirax.Human Growth Hormone.Accutane.Nexium.Valtrex.Prevacid.Lumigan.Arimidex.100% Pure Okinawan Coral Calcium.Petcam (Metacam) Oral Suspension.Mega Hoodia.Synthroid.Actos….
Somehow I think that…. alot of passion, love and dedication was put into this film from every single person on the team. Every actor, writer, animator, set builder. These amazing, talented people have the vision to create and move forward.
It still amazes me that some individuals have the guts to pretty much say a huge ‘you suck’ to these people.
Believe it or not, a lot of passion, love, and dedication for good storytelling and quality filmmaking prompted my statements. Also, a little nuance, please–apart from J.J. Abrams, I have not said that any people involved with the production of the movie suck. The thing they created sucks. This is not (again, apart from Abrams) a personal failing. Likewise, hating Star Trek is not a personal failing on my part, and it doesn’t make me a bad person just because other people put so much time and effort into the movie.
Recliner http://wpink9kiw.copious-systems.com/tag/Recliner+Chairs+Motorized+chair+Patient/ : Chairs…
Chairs…