Star Trek (2009)

antonio

I was growing up with Star Trek, and it had big influence in me in my teenage years... I am really a fan of that series and have emotional connection with it, like probably the most of us here. But for few years I "got away" from it, in the sense that I wasn't watching series anymore (or better say re-watching, because I saw all series back in my time) or thinking about Star Trek, and I was concentrating on other things in life... So when a film Star Trek came in 2009, I didn't go to see it... and neither did I see the ones that came after it. But then I found STO, and it has awaken Trekkie in me again... except playing the game, I started rewatching Star Trek... I saw once again entire DS9 and Enterprise, and partially also TNG... Lately I was rewatching films... And after I saw TNG films, which I loved every minute of, and which made me feel such a nostalgia... I wanted to finally see those new films which I never saw before. So, yesterday I saw Star Trek (2009). And I was so disappointed that I had to share it somewhere, so I am doing it here now...... I saw a typical brainless SF action movie. And SF action movie is everything what real Star Trek was NOT about!!! This was film without any deepness, any intellectual wisdom that all other Star Trek had. It had just a lot of crazy action, and typical American heros (no offence to Americans here) who are mostly portrayed as moronic hooligans who accidentally appear to be very clever and full of virtues in the same time. It's true that some Star Trek characters that we saw in real Trek had a bit of this attitude too: Kirk, Archer, Trip, Riker - they all had a bit of it, but the most of it had definitely Tom Paris. But not to this extreme extent. Trip, Riker and Archer were nevertheless very normal and responsible persons even if there was a bit of attitude... But those personalities which we have in this film, like the one when Kirk is eating apple on the exam, or drives crazily that car when he is maybe 11 years old, and so on.. I mean come on..... Let me not even mention very bad designed villains, and those ships that appear in that movie, like the Romulan one and Spock one... where did that come from? From which other SF did they borrow such design? And I could complain more and more.... But I should say one thing: that afternoon when I was 10 years old and I was bored, looking through TV channels, if I came upon this film, maybe I would see it, maybe it would be fun, but the very next day I would forget about it. But thanks God, on that afternoon 15 years ago, what I came upon by switching through channels was a real Star Trek, and after seeing the first episode, I started to love it, and saw all the other, and Star Trek will forever be in my heart. But real Star Trek, not this modern TRIBBLE. I don't even want to watch next films, because these people are killing all that I loved about Star Trek...

Unknown

This content has been removed.

jonsills

Now, if you'd grown up watching the real Trek, TOS...

More seriously, I think that's the divide. If "your" Trek was TNG, it seems you (generic you, not singling anyone out) are more likely to see the new movies as "too active", because your captain was no cowboy - he took committee meetings before making command decisions. Jim Kirk was always a space cowboy, taking the advice of a few people and then making up his own mind, as befits the commander of a starship that might be as much as a week away from Starfleet HQ by subspace (whereas Jean-Luc had them hovering over his shoulder constantly, no matter how far away he was). If you're used to the slower pace and the talky-talk, I can see where these movies might be jarring.

However, they capture fully, I feel, the spirit of TOS. Decisions must be made, they must be made now, and there's no time to hold meetings or ask higher-ups what to do - the captain must act. (Old military dictum - "Even if it's wrong, do something.") As for the actions of Jim Kirk as a child, recall that PrimeKirk had the benefit of growing up in a stable household, with a mother who stayed on-planet to raise Jim and his older brother Sam, and with a positive male role model in George S. Kirk, Starfleet officer; while NuKirk never knew his father, seldom saw his mother (who apparently spent a lot of time offplanet), and was being raised by a reputedly abusive stepfather. His actions are perfectly in line with such a person being raised in such a background - given those strictures, Kirk would rebel.

I do have an issue with Kirk suddenly being given the center seat (I'd have preferred his actions in the '09 movie be rewarded by confirming his battlefield commission as an ensign, then getting a montage of Kirk reporting to various ships as his rank went up meteorically, until finally, in the last shot, making Captain and assuming command of Enterprise), but the rest of it is in keeping with the variations introduced by the Kelvin incident.​​

thekodanarmada

There is no real Trek. The realest Trek out there is still Galaxy Quest.

jtoon74

antonio#4298 wrote: »

I was growing up with Star Trek, and it had big influence in me in my teenage years... I am really a fan of that series and have emotional connection with it, like probably the most of us here. But for few years I "got away" from it, in the sense that I wasn't watching series anymore (or better say re-watching, because I saw all series back in my time) or thinking about Star Trek, and I was concentrating on other things in life... So when a film Star Trek came in 2009, I didn't go to see it... and neither did I see the ones that came after it. But then I found STO, and it has awaken Trekkie in me again... except playing the game, I started rewatching Star Trek... I saw once again entire DS9 and Enterprise, and partially also TNG... Lately I was rewatching films... And after I saw TNG films, which I loved every minute of, and which made me feel such a nostalgia... I wanted to finally see those new films which I never saw before. So, yesterday I saw Star Trek (2009). And I was so disappointed that I had to share it somewhere, so I am doing it here now...... I saw a typical brainless SF action movie. And SF action movie is everything what real Star Trek was NOT about!!! This was film without any deepness, any intellectual wisdom that all other Star Trek had. It had just a lot of crazy action, and typical American heros (no offence to Americans here) who are mostly portrayed as moronic hooligans who accidentally appear to be very clever and full of virtues in the same time. It's true that some Star Trek characters that we saw in real Trek had a bit of this attitude too: Kirk, Archer, Trip, Riker - they all had a bit of it, but the most of it had definitely Tom Paris. But not to this extreme extent. Trip, Riker and Archer were nevertheless very normal and responsible persons even if there was a bit of attitude... But those personalities which we have in this film, like the one when Kirk is eating apple on the exam, or drives crazily that car when he is maybe 11 years old, and so on.. I mean come on..... Let me not even mention very bad designed villains, and those ships that appear in that movie, like the Romulan one and Spock one... where did that come from? From which other SF did they borrow such design? And I could complain more and more.... But I should say one thing: that afternoon when I was 10 years old and I was bored, looking through TV channels, if I came upon this film, maybe I would see it, maybe it would be fun, but the very next day I would forget about it. But thanks God, on that afternoon 15 years ago, what I came upon by switching through channels was a real Star Trek, and after seeing the first episode, I started to love it, and saw all the other, and Star Trek will forever be in my heart. But real Star Trek, not this modern ****. I don't even want to watch next films, because these people are killing all that I loved about Star Trek...

I pretty much agree with you sentiments, I'm a TOS and DS9 fan, not a big fan of the others, but JJ stuff just no.

artan42

It's four hours of film. The only film that had any real depth was TUC (TWoK and FC don't count as they're sequels so the plots have already been laid). I really don't know what people were expecting but you cannot even begin to compare character and plot development between several hundred hours and four hours.​​

antonio

jonsills wrote: »

Now, if you'd grown up watching the real Trek, TOS...

More seriously, I think that's the divide. If "your" Trek was TNG, it seems you (generic you, not singling anyone out) are more likely to see the new movies as "too active", because your captain was no cowboy - he took committee meetings before making command decisions. Jim Kirk was always a space cowboy, taking the advice of a few people and then making up his own mind, as befits the commander of a starship that might be as much as a week away from Starfleet HQ by subspace (whereas Jean-Luc had them hovering over his shoulder constantly, no matter how far away he was). If you're used to the slower pace and the talky-talk, I can see where these movies might be jarring.

However, they capture fully, I feel, the spirit of TOS. Decisions must be made, they must be made now, and there's no time to hold meetings or ask higher-ups what to do - the captain must act. (Old military dictum - "Even if it's wrong, do something.") As for the actions of Jim Kirk as a child, recall that PrimeKirk had the benefit of growing up in a stable household, with a mother who stayed on-planet to raise Jim and his older brother Sam, and with a positive male role model in George S. Kirk, Starfleet officer; while NuKirk never knew his father, seldom saw his mother (who apparently spent a lot of time offplanet), and was being raised by a reputedly abusive stepfather. His actions are perfectly in line with such a person being raised in such a background - given those strictures, Kirk would rebel.

I do have an issue with Kirk suddenly being given the center seat (I'd have preferred his actions in the '09 movie be rewarded by confirming his battlefield commission as an ensign, then getting a montage of Kirk reporting to various ships as his rank went up meteorically, until finally, in the last shot, making Captain and assuming command of Enterprise), but the rest of it is in keeping with the variations introduced by the Kelvin incident.​​

Thank you for your good quality opinion. Well, my first Trek was TOS, but on the other hand, I was 10 years old when I started watching it, and I don't remember it so well, that's true, I must admit that. I grew up with TNG and DS9 (I somehow never liked Voyager very much, but I saw all episodes), and later I started to appreciate Enterprise, even if it has some concrete minuses, and few terrible episodes. So, yeah, you are right, Picard and Sisko are my kind of captains...
However, even if this NuKirk grew up in those circumstances, I still find it hard to believe that his actions could be so radical, and if they were, I don't believe that such a person could manage to stay on Academy more than few months. Because Pike or no Pike, talent or no talent, but he was extremely undisciplined, maybe even mentally disturbed, and Starfeet is an army after all.
Second, all what is happening (destruction of Romulus and Vulcan, flying through the air, destroying salvo of Romulan torpedoes - I mean, that's something we can't do even in STO with "fire at will"...) is just too naive and "unrealistic" when it comes to Star Trek reality.
And then Kirk lands on the almost unpopulated planet, and just accidentally both Spock and Scotty are on the same planet, and they find each other during what is probably few hours. I mean, come on...

yreodred

I have grown up with the original TOS and have become a real Star Trek fan with TNG.
While i really love that series for it's philospohical approach, i also like the new films but for completely different reasons. I think Star Trek is big enough to be a place for both.
Don't get me wrong, but i don't like TNG movies at all, beginning with Generations (one of the most terrible things Star Trek has ever spawned, IMO) and the other three TNG movies which where a 180° turn from the series. The new movies (kelvin timeline), although they are dumb, are at least enjoyable to watch.

antonio

artan42 wrote: »

It's four hours of film. The only film that had any real depth was TUC (TWoK and FC don't count as they're sequels so the plots have already been laid). I really don't know what people were expecting but you cannot even begin to compare character and plot development between several hundred hours and four hours.​​

Well, I can compare character and plot development, because this film didn't invent new characters, but used old ones. So, there was very good occasion to put accent on some things other than pure action... They even tried it a bit, but they just did it a bad way...

mhall85

rattler2

yreodred wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, but i don't like TNG movies at all, beginning with Generations (one of the most terrible things Star Trek has ever spawned, IMO)

I think Nemesis was the worst one myself. Feels a bit like a rehash of TUC combined with a bit of not so good fanfiction. I mean several details were the same, but with some modifications.

• Diplomatic opportunity with a previously hostile power (Klingons in TUC, Romulans in Nemesis)
• Hostile supership that can fire while cloaked (Chang's BoP in TUC, the Scimitar in Nemesis)
• Last movie of that generation.
• Enterprise battered in the end.
• Enterprise gets help after the battle starts. (Excelsior in TUC, Romulan Mogais in Nemesis)
• Crew pretty much breaks up in the end. (Enterprise decommissioned in TUC, Riker promoted to Captain of the Titan in Nemesis)

Generations could have been better, but it was also a bit of a "passing of the Torch" movie. Insurrection was less action and more morality.

jonsills

Worst plot hole in Nemesucks, IMO - Picard is on the Scimitar, and they can't beam him back because transporters (and most other ship functions) are offline due to battle damage. So Data's solution is to ram and jump through space, which he can do because he doesn't need to breathe.

Doesn't the shuttle bay still have several shuttles, each of which is equipped with a one-person transporter? Can't he just take one of those out, approach the other ship (which is also partially disabled, and thus unable to take the shuttle down), and beam Picard out using that transporter? Why we gotta get all GI Joe about stuff now?

(And yes, Kirk randomly landing near PrimeSpock, then the two of them stumbling across Scotty, does stretch credulity - but that's a minor plot hole as far as Trek is concerned, definitely no worse than, say, finding George and Gracie in captivity in San Francisco a day before they were scheduled to be released back into the wild, or the newly-refitted Enterprise being the only ship in range to intercept V'ger before it gets to Earth, the very hub of the UFP.)​​

thekodanarmada

You're not gonna call out the energy delivered to each crew member being conveniently the equivalent of a low speed car wreck instead of each and everyone being pulped by forces involved?

There is no one silver bullet badness to Trek. It's all bad. It's a Thompson constantly spewing silver plot holes, every movie, every episode.

antonio

thekodanarmada#7342 wrote: »

You're not gonna call out the energy delivered to each crew member being conveniently the equivalent of a low speed car wreck instead of each and everyone being pulped by forces involved?

There is no one silver bullet badness to Trek. It's all bad. It's a Thompson constantly spewing silver plot holes, every movie, every episode.

Can you explain what do you mean?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

fmgtorres1979

I think I'm at that stage in my life that I'm just happy there's more Star Trek. It doesn't have to be good (of course I would prefer it was), especially because good and bad vary from person to person. I just don't see a reason for a reboot and an alternate time-line.

iconians

azrael605 wrote: »

For those saying KT Kirk may have some mental illness, well Reg Barclay graduated.

So did Janeway. She was more psychotic than Kirk.​​

iconians

antonio#4298 wrote: »

thekodanarmada#7342 wrote: »

You're not gonna call out the energy delivered to each crew member being conveniently the equivalent of a low speed car wreck instead of each and everyone being pulped by forces involved?

There is no one silver bullet badness to Trek. It's all bad. It's a Thompson constantly spewing silver plot holes, every movie, every episode.

Can you explain what do you mean?

If you draw an arbitrary line over what counts as "bad" for Star Trek, and you draw up those lines based on anything in the JJ Abrams films -- and you apply those same lines to the rest of Star Trek, you will find every episode and every movie about Star Trek is equally as bad as the JJ Abrams films based entirely on those lines.

That's what is meant by "It's all bad", because it is. It's perfectly acceptable to love Star Trek because of how horrible it all is, but to use the Abrams films as your litmus test for what makes something bad, you'll see everything is equally bad when you test the rest of the franchise by the KT standards.​​

themetalstickman

iconians wrote: »

azrael605 wrote: »

For those saying KT Kirk may have some mental illness, well Reg Barclay graduated.

So did Janeway. She was more psychotic than Kirk.​​

Pretty sure I already know, but just to confirm: Prime Kirk or KT Kirk?

iconians

themetalstickman wrote: »

iconians wrote: »

azrael605 wrote: »

For those saying KT Kirk may have some mental illness, well Reg Barclay graduated.

So did Janeway. She was more psychotic than Kirk.

Pretty sure I already know, but just to confirm: Prime Kirk or KT Kirk?

Yes.

When Cryptic releases an expansion for STO that revolves entirely around Kirk's psychotic decision making and leaving it to the player to deal with the long-term consequences of those psychosis-induced decisions, then maybe we can talk about which captain was crazier.​​

antonio

iconians wrote: »

antonio#4298 wrote: »

thekodanarmada#7342 wrote: »

You're not gonna call out the energy delivered to each crew member being conveniently the equivalent of a low speed car wreck instead of each and everyone being pulped by forces involved?

There is no one silver bullet badness to Trek. It's all bad. It's a Thompson constantly spewing silver plot holes, every movie, every episode.

Can you explain what do you mean?

If you draw an arbitrary line over what counts as "bad" for Star Trek, and you draw up those lines based on anything in the JJ Abrams films -- and you apply those same lines to the rest of Star Trek, you will find every episode and every movie about Star Trek is equally as bad as the JJ Abrams films based entirely on those lines.

That's what is meant by "It's all bad", because it is. It's perfectly acceptable to love Star Trek because of how horrible it all is, but to use the Abrams films as your litmus test for what makes something bad, you'll see everything is equally bad when you test the rest of the franchise by the KT standards.​​

So draw that line and prove me why. Because I don't agree with that statement. I have said some concrete minuses connected with J.J. Abrams Trek which make it bad Trek. How does those thing apply to other Star Trek films?

garaks31

the worst thing is ,we had a new member recently. 17 years old. and he said things like " i saw all two star trek works. jj is a genius for creating such a universe. hope they make tv shows from that ... " and i said to him " you beep beep beeeeep ,bip and bip beeeeeeep ... " and gave him some links like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek

grandnaguszek1

yreodred wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, but i don't like TNG movies at all, beginning with Generations (one of the most terrible things Star Trek has ever spawned, IMO) and the other three TNG movies which where a 180° turn from the series.

As opposed to TUC ?

angrytarg

"REAL Star Trek fan, grew up with TNG, love the depth and message" ... "I love every second of the TNG movies"

Sorry, this is factually wrong. A mathematical error.​​

themetalstickman

angrytarg wrote: »

"REAL Star Trek fan, grew up with TNG, love the depth and message" ... "I love every second of the TNG movies"

Sorry, this is factually wrong. A mathematical error.​​

OP doesn't seem to be aware that "true Trekkies" hate all the TNG movies except FC.

angrytarg

themetalstickman wrote: »

OP doesn't seem to be aware that "true Trekkies" hate all the TNG movies except FC.

Fixed that for you

No, but seriously. One cannot make a point against action movies with rehashed/flat plotlines because Star Trek was more cranial and had a social message and then say they love every second of the TNG movies which all are action movies (with a inexperienced cast for that type of movie) with rehashed/flat plotlines that also feature a lot of rewriting and retconning because they otherwise wouldn't work. It's an oxymoron.​​

jorantomalak

iconians wrote: »

themetalstickman wrote: »

iconians wrote: »

azrael605 wrote: »

For those saying KT Kirk may have some mental illness, well Reg Barclay graduated.

So did Janeway. She was more psychotic than Kirk.

Pretty sure I already know, but just to confirm: Prime Kirk or KT Kirk?

Yes.

When Cryptic releases an expansion for STO that revolves entirely around Kirk's psychotic decision making and leaving it to the player to deal with the long-term consequences of those psychosis-induced decisions, then maybe we can talk about which captain was crazier.​​

I can settle this , the kirk who can perfom the picard manuever (the emote) flawlessly lol

antonio

angrytarg wrote: »

themetalstickman wrote: »

OP doesn't seem to be aware that "true Trekkies" hate all the TNG movies except FC.

Fixed that for you

No, but seriously. One cannot make a point against action movies with rehashed/flat plotlines because Star Trek was more cranial and had a social message and then say they love every second of the TNG movies which all are action movies (with a inexperienced cast for that type of movie) with rehashed/flat plotlines that also feature a lot of rewriting and retconning because they otherwise wouldn't work. It's an oxymoron.​​

So, if you are a real fan of TNG, you must hate TNG movies because they are action movies? O.o First of all, by being a Star Trek fan, I don't have to agree with majority of Trekkies in everything. For example, Trekkies mostly hate Ezri Dax, while I love her, she's one of my favourite characters.. does it make me bad Trekkie? I didn't know that Trekkies are like Borg, with collective opinion.
Second, TNG movies can't even be compared with what J.J. Abrams have done. J.J. Abrams movie is not bad because it is action, it is bad because it has absolutely no Star Trek spirit in it, and because his characters are exaggerated and stereotypical characters for SF action movies. TNG movies have normal TNG characters, and yes, they have a depth and message even if they have action too. According to you, does it mean that every DS9 episode that has action in it is bad?

angrytarg

antonio#4298 wrote: »

So, if you are a real fan of TNG, you must hate TNG movies because they are action movies? O.o First of all, by being a Star Trek fan, I don't have to agree with majority of Trekkies in everything. For example, Trekkies mostly hate Ezri Dax, while I love her, she's one of my favourite characters.. does it make me bad Trekkie? I didn't know that Trekkies are like Borg, with collective opinion.
Second, TNG movies can't even be compared with what J.J. Abrams have done. J.J. Abrams movie is not bad because it is action, it is bad because it has absolutely no Star Trek spirit in it, and because his characters are exaggerated and stereotypical characters for SF action movies. TNG movies have normal TNG characters, and yes, they have a depth and message even if they have action too. According to you, does it mean that every DS9 episode that has action in it is bad?

At first, you have to get rid of the "real trekkie" thing. It's bollocks and I was mocking it

Second, your criticism towards the new movies was specifically the flat plot, shallow characters and lots of crazy action. All of this pecisely is true for the TNG movies, which is even sadder because they build on the shows and characters we came to like but simply rewrote them to somehow make them work in very shallow villian of the day plots. "Let that be your last battle field" has a moral message. "Q, Who" has a moral message. "Darmok" has a moral message. The TNG movies have movie messages, mostly "revenge is not good" but that's about it. Or whatever the trainwreck Insurrection was is about.

I'm not telling what you can like and what not, others do that for me I personally do not like the new movies for a number of reason, but mostly it's personal taste and disappointment that my personal view of it contradicts what we got as a movie. But most criticism I have for them can be used 1:1 on the TNG movies.​​

antonio

angrytarg wrote: »

antonio#4298 wrote: »

So, if you are a real fan of TNG, you must hate TNG movies because they are action movies? O.o First of all, by being a Star Trek fan, I don't have to agree with majority of Trekkies in everything. For example, Trekkies mostly hate Ezri Dax, while I love her, she's one of my favourite characters.. does it make me bad Trekkie? I didn't know that Trekkies are like Borg, with collective opinion.
Second, TNG movies can't even be compared with what J.J. Abrams have done. J.J. Abrams movie is not bad because it is action, it is bad because it has absolutely no Star Trek spirit in it, and because his characters are exaggerated and stereotypical characters for SF action movies. TNG movies have normal TNG characters, and yes, they have a depth and message even if they have action too. According to you, does it mean that every DS9 episode that has action in it is bad?

At first, you have to get rid of the "real trekkie" thing. It's bollocks and I was mocking it

Second, your criticism towards the new movies was specifically the flat plot, shallow characters and lots of crazy action. All of this pecisely is true for the TNG movies, which is even sadder because they build on the shows and characters we came to like but simply rewrote them to somehow make them work in very shallow villian of the day plots. "Let that be your last battle field" has a moral message. "Q, Who" has a moral message. "Darmok" has a moral message. The TNG movies have movie messages, mostly "revenge is not good" but that's about it. Or whatever the trainwreck Insurrection was is about.

I'm not telling what you can like and what not, others do that for me I personally do not like the new movies for a number of reason, but mostly it's personal taste and disappointment that my personal view of it contradicts what we got as a movie. But most criticism I have for them can be used 1:1 on the TNG movies.​​

Sorry, but no, it's not comparable. From your argument it is ok to conclude that TNG movies have less deepness than TNG series, because it is more concentrated on action. Ok, I can agree with it. But it's not comparable with what J.J. Abrams has done. TNG movies have their depth and message, maybe not as deep as series, but they have it, while Abrams' Trek is fully concentrated on action, and this action that is present there is not even comparable with the action we have in TNG films. Also, in what way did TNG films change so much characters? I really don't see it. But what Abrams has done is extreme. You are comparing a little rain with flood. In both cases we have water, but extent of it is so different that you can't even compare it.