I enjoyed the movie and will watch it occassionally. I just wish that JJ would have worked a bit harder to avoid plot holes and have some better sense of science. (The planet from which Spock can watch Vulcan's destruction bothers me personally the most, actually.)
But I liked the aesthetics, the actors and their performance. Maybe a bit less lense flare would be okay, but it didn't bother me.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
It was bad and just thrown together. Really. It was actually supposed to be another TV series (Star Trek Warp 2 or something like that) then they decided to make it a movie instead trying to cash in on Star Wars popularity of the late 70s.
___________________
"There is no problem in the universe that can't be solved with a bribe, a paid assassin, or an overpowered fighter." - Chubain from Jumpgate Evolution
Oh great... another who didn't understand Lost's true meaning.
Lost was the best show of it's kind. It raised more questions than answers, but that was it's appeal, in addition to the constant shock moments and mysterious happenings. And anyone would could keep hold of multiple threads could easily understand the show, even if some things remained open.
Lost was a show for those who wanted a mental challenge
Lost was horrible. Saying i didn't understand it, doesn't help your point because there was to many time they could have left the island but didn't. Among many other plot points that were extreme stretches. Many of the points didn't interlock. Just like new Trek. Nero's ship was more powerful than anything seen from the Romulans even from the timeline in the future or even before that. The ship was massive, so what changed on their timeline?
Also, re-adding new characters, when we had a myriad of old characters that could have fit into a new ship, basically is making the past show's irrelevant, and the actors as well. If JJ wanted to change everything into his image, he should've picked another franchise. Star trek's timeline has existed far to long to throw it out like bad meatloaf in the fridge.
PS: I respect everyone's opinion on this, but there was alot of room to grow with new characters in the original timeline, while keeping the old guards of the 2300 century. It just seems lazy, and an attempt to be able to break away Canon, which was all trek had left.
Plato Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Plato
Lost was horrible. Saying i didn't understand it, doesn't help your point because there was to many time they could have left the island but didn't. Among many other plot points that were extreme stretches. Many of the points didn't interlock. Just like new Trek. Nero's ship was more powerful than anything seen from the Romulans even from the timeline in the future or even before that. The ship was massive, so what changed on their timeline?
Also, re-adding new characters, when we had a myriad of old characters that could have fit into a new ship, basically is making the past show's irrelevant, and the actors as well. If JJ wanted to change everything into his image, he should've picked another franchise. Star trek's timeline has existed far to long to throw it out like bad meatloaf in the fridge.
PS: I respect everyone's opinion on this, but there was alot of room to grow with new characters in the original timeline, while keeping the old guards of the 2300 century. It just seems lazy, and an attempt to be able to break away Canon, which was all trek had left.
I still say wrong about Lost not making sense, in my opinion Having the ability to connect every dot possible makes it much better
As for Nero's ship, the Countdown comic explains it was outfitted with reverse-engineered with Borg technology. That and the trip through the wormhole changed it's appearance (gave it the spikes).
And canon? It exists in an entirely different timeline, leaving the prime one intact (other than spock and nero missing). I'd say that does not violate canon, considering that the two timelines exist simutaniously.
Plus using other characters would have confused people who didn't know Star Trek well, except for the vague knowledge of the important ones like Kirk and Spock. That wouldn't have helped the newer audience IMO.
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I still say wrong about Lost not making sense, in my opinion Having the ability to connect every dot possible makes it much better
As for Nero's ship, the Countdown comic explains it was outfitted with reverse-engineered with Borg technology. That and the trip through the wormhole changed it's appearance (gave it the spikes).
And canon? It exists in an entirely different timeline, leaving the prime one intact (other than spock and nero missing). I'd say that does not violate canon, considering that the two timelines exist simutaniously.
Plus using other characters would have confused people who didn't know Star Trek well, except for the vague knowledge of the important ones like Kirk and Spock. That wouldn't have helped the newer audience IMO.
I'm not going to get into lost anymore. Neither of our opinion will change on that. Bringing in new characters because of recognition is once again, selling out the franchise canon for the sake of an alternate universe. If they continue on this alternate universe, it will further pollute the timeline. When the show's went offline there, what's hopes that one day we would see. Picard or some of the older actors possibly in Admiral positions or otherwise.
At least they did the battle at Vulcan the same as Wolf 359, you know everyone dead, and "here they come to saaaavvveeee the day!".
All in all. I hope if there is a TV series, they go with old trek, and release these in theatres to attract people in to the genre at the very least. With the amount of money the last one made, momentum is on their side for that. Unfortunatly people are too interested in realities shows nowadays, which is tragic for good drama.
Plato Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Plato
It just seems lazy, and an attempt to be able to break away Canon, which was all trek had left.
Can you say Temporal Cold War? When was First Contact with the Borg? Kor, Kang, Koloth? Can you turn at warp or not (Paris and Janeway say no, TNG says yes)? Is Gold worthless or not? Those are just a few, but there is a series of YouTube videos with more if you want to check them out...
You're looking at someone who has grown up with star wars. I hated star trek, the special effects were lame, and was old and worn out in my opinion. Then i saw the new movie.... wow.... It even puts starwars ep 3 to shame, the effects, music, combat, everything was awesome. Say what you like about the new movie- you now have a legion of new fans.... including me. And if it wasn't for the new movie- i wouldn't be here playing STO.
You're looking at someone who has grown up with star wars. I hated star trek, the special effects were lame, and was old and worn out in my opinion. Then i saw the new movie.... wow.... It even puts starwars ep 3 to shame, the effects, music, combat, everything was awesome. Say what you like about the new movie- you now have a legion of new fans.... including me. And if it wasn't for the new movie- i wouldn't be here playing STO.
Agreed, look at starwars- i also play SWTOR and the starwars story line is now so in depth and vast. If we listened to the original whingers and moaners who grew up with the movies from the 70's, we wouldn't have all the extra content/movies/characters/FANS and really, the franchise would be dead by now, you can only keep one series rolling on for so long before it needs an upgrade.
I'm not going to get into lost anymore. Neither of our opinion will change on that. Bringing in new characters because of recognition is once again, selling out the franchise canon for the sake of an alternate universe. If they continue on this alternate universe, it will further pollute the timeline. When the show's went offline there, what's hopes that one day we would see. Picard or some of the older actors possibly in Admiral positions or otherwise.
At least they did the battle at Vulcan the same as Wolf 359, you know everyone dead, and "here they come to saaaavvveeee the day!".
All in all. I hope if there is a TV series, they go with old trek, and release these in theatres to attract people in to the genre at the very least. With the amount of money the last one made, momentum is on their side for that. Unfortunatly people are too interested in realities shows nowadays, which is tragic for good drama.
How is it polluting the timeline when, in the first place, the alternate timeline exists independently of the normal one? That sounds like abnormal logic to me...
And why would staying with the old Trek be any better, when all signs pointed to old trek being in a serious rut before the new movie? Everything needs change and new stuff to breathe new life into franchises, and the new ST did that.
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
There's a difference in Canon changing because of new shows, and Canon going away because they want new actors, to cover old names. It's something that it occuring to much nowadays. In my view there will never be another Spock/Kirk because those stories have already been told.
If we do a new storyline. It shouldn't have the old characters name forcing us to say "old kirk/new kirk" Oldspock/newspock. When you make new characters you give new personalities and new stories. Old characters mixed in with new characters along the same timeline would've been perfect balance for both old and new. But i guess i'm regressed to watch the old ones until they're done with this whole fiasco. It's seems like a sellout to the mainstream that costs the fans. They're retreading enough nowadays.
Plato Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Plato
You're looking at someone who has grown up with star wars. I hated star trek, the special effects were lame, and was old and worn out in my opinion. Then i saw the new movie.... wow.... It even puts starwars ep 3 to shame, the effects, music, combat, everything was awesome. Say what you like about the new movie- you now have a legion of new fans.... including me. And if it wasn't for the new movie- i wouldn't be here playing STO.
Agreed, look at starwars- i also play SWTOR and the starwars story line is now so in depth and vast. If we listened to the original whingers and moaners who grew up with the movies from the 70's, we wouldn't have all the extra content/movies/characters/FANS and really, the franchise would be dead by now, you can only keep one series rolling on for so long before it needs an upgrade.
And YOU are looking at somebody who grew up with SW and ST, and has recently also become a fan of Stargate. (other than Universe, which is just as terrible as the new ST movie.)
I've watched all 6 SW movies (and forgotten quite a bit about them before rewatching) during the first half of the past decade, as well as most (if not all, except for TOS) of ST. Loved it all (except for Enterprise, that series is WAY too canon-breaking... nice ship though). But seriously, while the new movie DOES have better effects and stuff, it just IS NOT STAR TREK. THAT is why I hate the movie. Not because it has better graphics and stuff, but because it simply isn't what it says it is. It's just not the same. You CANNOT stuff SW-style effects into a ST movie and expect the ST fans to like it.
The argument about the Kelvin being superior in weaponry due to the Narada is false, as the Narada didn't upgrade it or anything. It was armed with 3 billion phasers because the director wanted it. If they did that only to the Enterprise, then I'd understand that excuse. Jellyfish wasn't too bad though
Edit: To elaborate on my hatred of SGU: It's no longer a comedy. It's become a DRAMA. If I want a drama, I'll go to a theater and watch Romeo and Juliet (never managed to read it more than once, I hate it). SG-1 and SGA have both been comedies carrying the storyline forward.
I mean, which would you rather watch: "We could be like Batman and Ronon" "You keep this up and it'll be Fatman and Ronon", or "I'm a superhero!" "You also eat too much."? I'd definitely watch the former, because it advances the storyline whilst at the same time incorporating tons and tons of comedy.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
There's a difference in Canon changing because of new shows, and Canon going away because they want new actors, to cover old names. It's something that it occuring to much nowadays. In my view there will never be another Spock/Kirk because those stories have already been told.
If we do a new storyline. It shouldn't have the old characters name forcing us to say "old kirk/new kirk" Oldspock/newspock. When you make new characters you give new personalities and new stories. Old characters mixed in with new characters along the same timeline would've been perfect balance for both old and new. But i guess i'm regressed to watch the old ones until they're done with this whole fiasco. It's seems like a sellout to the mainstream that costs the fans. They're retreading enough nowadays.
That sounds more like you think the new ones will replace the old ones... the thing is, they can NEVER do that. Nothing can, in or out of ST.
To me, what you don't seem to understand is this: the newer versions of the same characters are to be judged on their own merits, maybe with some comparsion to the old ones... but just because the new ones are here now does mean they make the old ones meaningless. That's absurd.
In other words, it's a way to expand on the characters, by having new situations and new everything. It does not replace the older stuff, because it still exists. I hardly call that a sellout
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
That sounds more like you think the new ones will replace the old ones... the thing is, they can NEVER do that. Nothing can, in or out of ST.
To me, what you don't seem to understand is this: the newer versions of the same characters are to be judged on their own merits, maybe with some comparsion to the old ones... but just because the new ones are here now does mean they make the old ones meaningless. That's absurd.
In other words, it's a way to expand on the characters, by having new situations and new everything. It does not replace the older stuff, because it still exists. I hardly call that a sellout
When is the last time in trek, that old characters, were put to new actors. As far as an entire cast and crew. The timeline of the 2200's should have been kept as it was in the past, or create new actors.
So i don't think you understand what you think you understand.
Also note, the timeline's do exist separatley. Doesn't mean it's not a cheap re-story, the only expensive part of this movie was the special effects. Eye candy can't replace substance and originiality.
Plato Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Plato
When is the last time in trek, that old characters, were put to new actors. As far as an entire cast and crew. The timeline of the 2200's should have been kept as it was in the past, or create new actors.
So i don't think you understand what you think you understand.
Also note, the timeline's do exist separatley. Doesn't mean it's not a cheap re-story, the only expensive part of this movie was the special effects. Eye candy can't replace substance and originiality.
True it's a first time old characters were put to new actors... but I still don't think there's an issue at all, between old and new.
And cheap re-story? Hardly... the only thing cheap about the story were the scientific holes (but a lot of shows do similiar stuff anyway). I'm not saying the rest were expansive or anything, but they weren't terrible either.
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Even though some of his "character" jokes aren't funny, I have to agree with his main point: Star Trek (2009) wasn't as much of a "Star Trek" movie as it was an action movie. My theory is that this is the reason why many (unclear how many) Star Trek fans don't like the movie.
I liked the movie and I really hoped that it would breath life into the franchise. I get that they had to TRIBBLE with time, again, in order to give them a chance to tell new stories in that time period.
I like the new characters, Bones had me laughing the minute he showed up.
Some of the things were kind of stupid, like how did they get a 900 foot long ship off of the planets surface after they built it.
But what I really did not like were the sets, anything that did not take place on the bridge or in the transporter room looked like it was shot either in a brewery or an abandoned warehouse.
Did they use up all of their budget making the interior of the Narada?
What the hell was with all of the plastic drapes, were there no doors on those ships? What the hell do they do if the ship gets hulled, hold their collective breaths and stuff tribbles in the holes?
No a lot more money could have been spent to make it look like a 23rd century space craft and not the inside of Budweiser's production floor.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
This thread got me to rewatch this review of the movie, I think its take ont he movie is probably the most accurate: it's not that bad, but it's not that great; it's TRIBBLE, but it's TRIBBLE that made something of itself. And whatever else you can say about it, it did renew interest in Star Trek and brought new fans to the franchise. There is cussing in the review, though, so if you have sensitive ears, you prolly wanna avoid, but otherwise, it's very enjoyable, plus a whole bunch of other star trek movie and episode reviews.
What I hated most about the 2009 movie, is the transporter scene, right after they meet Scotty. Horray! We can transport onto a moving starship lightyears away! Horray! The Enterprise and half the point of Star Trek is rendered obsolete! Yay!
Bleeeeeeackth...... :mad:
That and why in the name of the almighty did they use a Brewery for the interior of the Enterprise!??! It doesn't look like a ship! It looks like a Brewery!
But maybe I just know too much about booze for my own good. :P
And the lens flare sucked.
So did the villain. Old what's-his-bucket is a freaking moron.
Also Uhura. The new Uhura.... is a TRIBBLE. I'm not looking forward to Yeoman Rand... <shudders>
Other than that..... I didn't actually hate it. It was fairly entertaining in places even if most of it was terrible. Kind of like a modern "Judge Dredd".
Oh great... another who didn't understand Lost's true meaning.
Lost was the best show of it's kind. It raised more questions than answers, but that was it's appeal, in addition to the constant shock moments and mysterious happenings. And anyone would could keep hold of multiple threads could easily understand the show, even if some things remained open.
Lost was a show for those who wanted a mental challenge
Right.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. After watching a few episodes of Lost I came to the conclusion that they had no idea what they wanted to do with the show, or even what direction to take it. Year's later I watched the series finale, and I realised...
I didn't like the movie becuase it didn't feel like a startrek movie to me, but it also wasn't a good scifi movie, action space opera sure. The villain lacked any sort of depth. The plot point that drove the story was just shoved in there to drive the action. Though the whole supernova thing had to be re-explained and rationalized by STO. Just proves how weak and bad it was, as a plot trigger and science fiction writing.
positives of the movie.
1. kirk's actor did a great job.
2. The opening scene was simply awesome and heart wrenching.
3. Speeding up the pace and action and new special effects to pull in new fans ( though I honestly loved the old slow tension building of the other movies, though they had their frantic parts as well)
4. The actors all did a pretty good job as their characters.
5.Killing kirks father thous making this timeline's characters different and forcing relationships to change as well.
negatives of the movie
1. Villain is weak, you find out very little about his motives or his drive. Even who he is as a person. He was just some crazy dude out for vengeance.
2. The ship interiors were just so horrible. Who after seeing the genius bar in apple store decided to make a replica o.O or the biggest slap in the face yes engineering looks like a painted oil refinery or sanitation plant *rolls eyes*. ( Whats next mario the plumber will be scotty's new assistant for the next movie)
3.Supernova's do not threaten galaxies and there is not enough mass in space for one to continually grow like that.... I don't care that there are plenty of supernatural stuff in startrek at least most of the crazy stuff was based off current scientific understandings of the time. Red matter though wasn't too implausible but it still suffers from the simplest worst naming of all time.
4. Building the enterprise on the ground.... something does not compute. Why even have shuttles if you can just land the ship and take off..
5. transporting to a moving ship light-years away... Other point that screws with the original timeline.
6. blowing up Romulus and Remus to make this movie plausible... Again TRIBBLE with original timeline. How many other planets and systems got destoried by all this O.o?
The portrayals of the old characters were from Excellent to good. Just one did not do it for me. Even though he did do well.
Now for my negative marks.
Portrayal of Kirk these writers got Kirk all wrong. Too much of a punk but I blame the writers for it not the actor.
Revisiting old characters and time in Star Trek mythos was a bad mistake. It could have easily been in a new century with a entirely new cast and it would have worked just fine. This remaking or reimagining of the old things is not original its a lame attempt to find new fans when a better gamble would have been again a New Century and a new ship and a new crew.
The script itself was full of very shaky science and convienent plot fixes and plot holes. (same screen writers as Transformers so you can expect me to say these guys are NOT good screenwriters.)
The film sorely missed the chemistry that the Original crew had the camaraderie and the openness. I know this is all when they first met but you did not need to do a story like that and it doesn't help the film.
Nero... Nero was a very 1 dimensional villain, but we never saw him in a different state of mind. Sure his motives were explained but they were not ORIGINAL. Destroy the Federation... Ho hum how many times was that done before? try about 10 other times approx. not to mention the series' cannon. You would think they FINALLY GIVE Q or someone menacing a role against the Enterprise.
Some of the sets put me off. The bridge... Apple store. Engineering looked too much like a brewery (which it was filmed in a brewery.)
JJ Abrams- He openly admitted that he did not know what made the original cast tick or even click together. This is a serious flaw if he is given the future of Star Trek. Because Trek was more about the Human journey and the Human experience. Basically being Human and living. Now I don't think he is a terrible director he has done good work. But I think he should actually try and understand the source material.
Overall, Was Star Trek 09 a bad film? No. Not necessarily. It was a great nostalgia trip, and a great summer popcorn flick that did not have or need emotional depth that is a hallmark of the franchise. Did the Nolanization work? Yes and no. This kind of film probably would have been better if the film had a actual NEW crew, ship, and a new century. Moving forward is always better in gaining new fans and less of a gamble at pissing off old fans. But it did breath a new life into Star Trek after a seven year hiatus since the last film and over a decade since the last big hit. Do I approve of this new direction? I have some very bad doubts.. But since we are all strapped in I will give it one more chance before I give this new direction a final verdict.
Bit over the top me thinks , I mean u wanted to puke!! Naa
And after 5 mins u made up your mind, not really giving it a chance atall. Also I think most people are just taking back because it's differrant, I'm not saying better because I still preffer traditional trek but this is now part of trek weather you all like it or not.
Of course I didn't give it a chance. Why I can tell when its TRIBBLE from the start. It wasn't a Star Trek movie, it was a JJ Trek. To me it spit on the whole Star Trek franchise. It will never be part of Trek to me the show ended with Enterprise, and Nemesis as the last movie. This is JJ. Trek.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
Some hate it, some love it. To me it was Epic. Specially the part how they showed the refit in dry dock, now that was awesome.
Most want all kinds of action and stuff. Well you don't need that in a movie all the time. This movie was mainly a thinking and figuring out movie. Plus this movie was more on the characters as well. As a good chunk of the movie was for them and their development. The Motion Picture will always be one of my top favorites. You can just feel how epic it is.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
Some hate it, some love it. To me it was Epic. Specially the part how they showed the refit in dry dock, now that was awesome.
Most want all kinds of action and stuff. Well you don't need that in a movie all the time. This movie was mainly a thinking and figuring out movie. Plus this movie was more on the characters as well. As a good chunk of the movie was for them and their development. The Motion Picture will always be one of my top favorites. You can just feel how epic it is.
For me TMP would have been a good film had it been shorter, better paced, and of course had a little more action than it did.
Worst film in the series though still goes to Nemesis.
For me TMP would have been a good film had it been shorter, better paced, and of course had a little more action than it did.
Worst film in the series though still goes to Nemesis.
Nemesis wasn't that bad. I liked it for a most of it. However there was several parts in it I didn't care for or they should done different. But you have that in every movie. I still rank it good in my Trek movie list. Everyone has an opinion and I respect that. Just like the 2009 movie, some loves it some hates it. You will get that out of every movie. That is what makes us who we are, we all are different. We each have different likes and that is what we look for in a good movie.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
I didn't like the movie becuase it didn't feel like a startrek movie to me, but it also wasn't a good scifi movie, action space opera sure. The villain lacked any sort of depth. The plot point that drove the story was just shoved in there to drive the action. Though the whole supernova thing had to be re-explained and rationalized by STO. Just proves how weak and bad it was, as a plot trigger and science fiction writing.
positives of the movie.
1. kirk's actor did a great job.
2. The opening scene was simply awesome and heart wrenching.
3. Speeding up the pace and action and new special effects to pull in new fans ( though I honestly loved the old slow tension building of the other movies, though they had their frantic parts as well)
4. The actors all did a pretty good job as their characters.
5.Killing kirks father thous making this timeline's characters different and forcing relationships to change as well.
negatives of the movie
1. Villain is weak, you find out very little about his motives or his drive. Even who he is as a person. He was just some crazy dude out for vengeance.
2. The ship interiors were just so horrible. Who after seeing the genius bar in apple store decided to make a replica o.O or the biggest slap in the face yes engineering looks like a painted oil refinery or sanitation plant *rolls eyes*. ( Whats next mario the plumber will be scotty's new assistant for the next movie)
3.Supernova's do not threaten galaxies and there is not enough mass in space for one to continually grow like that.... I don't care that there are plenty of supernatural stuff in startrek at least most of the crazy stuff was based off current scientific understandings of the time. Red matter though wasn't too implausible but it still suffers from the simplest worst naming of all time.
4. Building the enterprise on the ground.... something does not compute. Why even have shuttles if you can just land the ship and take off..
5. transporting to a moving ship light-years away... Other point that screws with the original timeline.
6. blowing up Romulus and Remus to make this movie plausible... Again TRIBBLE with original timeline. How many other planets and systems got destoried by all this O.o?
10000000000000000000000000000% agree with you
Hopefully I'll come back from my break; this break is fun; I play intellectual games.
Some hate it, some love it. To me it was Epic. Specially the part how they showed the refit in dry dock, now that was awesome.
Most want all kinds of action and stuff. Well you don't need that in a movie all the time. This movie was mainly a thinking and figuring out movie. Plus this movie was more on the characters as well. As a good chunk of the movie was for them and their development. The Motion Picture will always be one of my top favorites. You can just feel how epic it is.
This ship looks like it was built by monkeys, and guess whose job it is to get it right.
Nemesis wasn't that bad. I liked it for a most of it. However there was several parts in it I didn't care for or they should done different. But you have that in every movie. I still rank it good in my Trek movie list. Everyone has an opinion and I respect that. Just like the 2009 movie, some loves it some hates it. You will get that out of every movie. That is what makes us who we are, we all are different. We each have different likes and that is what we look for in a good movie.
True. Very true.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Worst film in the series though still goes to Nemesis.
Why[/QUOTE]
Dialogue, story, the score wasn't that inspired either, the acting seemed routine by that point (Tom Hardy tried his best), Data getting a good death but I did not really see much of a need for it.
The saving graces of that film were few
Tom Hardy
Patrick
Battle in the Basan Rift
Data's death well handled
Good Ending with some closure.
None of those though could save this poorly cut film. Interesting fact about it is that like ST V it had a 1/3rd of the movie cut (most of those were character moments with the best acting in it.)
Nemesis wasn't that bad. I liked it for a most of it. However there was several parts in it I didn't care for or they should done different. But you have that in every movie. I still rank it good in my Trek movie list. Everyone has an opinion and I respect that. Just like the 2009 movie, some loves it some hates it. You will get that out of every movie. That is what makes us who we are, we all are different. We each have different likes and that is what we look for in a good movie.
I would agree with that (most of it.) Just keep in mind though the film classes and my major keep me from liking a bad movie as the flaws are all there for me to see. (Call it conditioning.)
Comments
But I liked the aesthetics, the actors and their performance. Maybe a bit less lense flare would be okay, but it didn't bother me.
It was bad and just thrown together. Really. It was actually supposed to be another TV series (Star Trek Warp 2 or something like that) then they decided to make it a movie instead trying to cash in on Star Wars popularity of the late 70s.
"There is no problem in the universe that can't be solved with a bribe, a paid assassin, or an overpowered fighter." - Chubain from Jumpgate Evolution
Lost was horrible. Saying i didn't understand it, doesn't help your point because there was to many time they could have left the island but didn't. Among many other plot points that were extreme stretches. Many of the points didn't interlock. Just like new Trek. Nero's ship was more powerful than anything seen from the Romulans even from the timeline in the future or even before that. The ship was massive, so what changed on their timeline?
Also, re-adding new characters, when we had a myriad of old characters that could have fit into a new ship, basically is making the past show's irrelevant, and the actors as well. If JJ wanted to change everything into his image, he should've picked another franchise. Star trek's timeline has existed far to long to throw it out like bad meatloaf in the fridge.
PS: I respect everyone's opinion on this, but there was alot of room to grow with new characters in the original timeline, while keeping the old guards of the 2300 century. It just seems lazy, and an attempt to be able to break away Canon, which was all trek had left.
Plato
As for Nero's ship, the Countdown comic explains it was outfitted with reverse-engineered with Borg technology. That and the trip through the wormhole changed it's appearance (gave it the spikes).
And canon? It exists in an entirely different timeline, leaving the prime one intact (other than spock and nero missing). I'd say that does not violate canon, considering that the two timelines exist simutaniously.
Plus using other characters would have confused people who didn't know Star Trek well, except for the vague knowledge of the important ones like Kirk and Spock. That wouldn't have helped the newer audience IMO.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Cloverfield holds the honor of being the worst movie I've ever seen.
I'm not going to get into lost anymore. Neither of our opinion will change on that. Bringing in new characters because of recognition is once again, selling out the franchise canon for the sake of an alternate universe. If they continue on this alternate universe, it will further pollute the timeline. When the show's went offline there, what's hopes that one day we would see. Picard or some of the older actors possibly in Admiral positions or otherwise.
At least they did the battle at Vulcan the same as Wolf 359, you know everyone dead, and "here they come to saaaavvveeee the day!".
All in all. I hope if there is a TV series, they go with old trek, and release these in theatres to attract people in to the genre at the very least. With the amount of money the last one made, momentum is on their side for that. Unfortunatly people are too interested in realities shows nowadays, which is tragic for good drama.
Plato
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM
(Note: It's from The Onion)
Can you say Temporal Cold War? When was First Contact with the Borg? Kor, Kang, Koloth? Can you turn at warp or not (Paris and Janeway say no, TNG says yes)? Is Gold worthless or not? Those are just a few, but there is a series of YouTube videos with more if you want to check them out...
Star Trek canon is fluid and ever changing
Agreed, look at starwars- i also play SWTOR and the starwars story line is now so in depth and vast. If we listened to the original whingers and moaners who grew up with the movies from the 70's, we wouldn't have all the extra content/movies/characters/FANS and really, the franchise would be dead by now, you can only keep one series rolling on for so long before it needs an upgrade.
And why would staying with the old Trek be any better, when all signs pointed to old trek being in a serious rut before the new movie? Everything needs change and new stuff to breathe new life into franchises, and the new ST did that.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
If we do a new storyline. It shouldn't have the old characters name forcing us to say "old kirk/new kirk" Oldspock/newspock. When you make new characters you give new personalities and new stories. Old characters mixed in with new characters along the same timeline would've been perfect balance for both old and new. But i guess i'm regressed to watch the old ones until they're done with this whole fiasco. It's seems like a sellout to the mainstream that costs the fans. They're retreading enough nowadays.
Plato
And YOU are looking at somebody who grew up with SW and ST, and has recently also become a fan of Stargate. (other than Universe, which is just as terrible as the new ST movie.)
I've watched all 6 SW movies (and forgotten quite a bit about them before rewatching) during the first half of the past decade, as well as most (if not all, except for TOS) of ST. Loved it all (except for Enterprise, that series is WAY too canon-breaking... nice ship though). But seriously, while the new movie DOES have better effects and stuff, it just IS NOT STAR TREK. THAT is why I hate the movie. Not because it has better graphics and stuff, but because it simply isn't what it says it is. It's just not the same. You CANNOT stuff SW-style effects into a ST movie and expect the ST fans to like it.
The argument about the Kelvin being superior in weaponry due to the Narada is false, as the Narada didn't upgrade it or anything. It was armed with 3 billion phasers because the director wanted it. If they did that only to the Enterprise, then I'd understand that excuse. Jellyfish wasn't too bad though
Edit: To elaborate on my hatred of SGU: It's no longer a comedy. It's become a DRAMA. If I want a drama, I'll go to a theater and watch Romeo and Juliet (never managed to read it more than once, I hate it). SG-1 and SGA have both been comedies carrying the storyline forward.
I mean, which would you rather watch: "We could be like Batman and Ronon" "You keep this up and it'll be Fatman and Ronon", or "I'm a superhero!" "You also eat too much."? I'd definitely watch the former, because it advances the storyline whilst at the same time incorporating tons and tons of comedy.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
To me, what you don't seem to understand is this: the newer versions of the same characters are to be judged on their own merits, maybe with some comparsion to the old ones... but just because the new ones are here now does mean they make the old ones meaningless. That's absurd.
In other words, it's a way to expand on the characters, by having new situations and new everything. It does not replace the older stuff, because it still exists. I hardly call that a sellout
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
When is the last time in trek, that old characters, were put to new actors. As far as an entire cast and crew. The timeline of the 2200's should have been kept as it was in the past, or create new actors.
So i don't think you understand what you think you understand.
Also note, the timeline's do exist separatley. Doesn't mean it's not a cheap re-story, the only expensive part of this movie was the special effects. Eye candy can't replace substance and originiality.
Plato
And cheap re-story? Hardly... the only thing cheap about the story were the scientific holes (but a lot of shows do similiar stuff anyway). I'm not saying the rest were expansive or anything, but they weren't terrible either.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Even though some of his "character" jokes aren't funny, I have to agree with his main point: Star Trek (2009) wasn't as much of a "Star Trek" movie as it was an action movie. My theory is that this is the reason why many (unclear how many) Star Trek fans don't like the movie.
I liked it. As an action movie.
Formerly Traven158
I like the new characters, Bones had me laughing the minute he showed up.
Some of the things were kind of stupid, like how did they get a 900 foot long ship off of the planets surface after they built it.
But what I really did not like were the sets, anything that did not take place on the bridge or in the transporter room looked like it was shot either in a brewery or an abandoned warehouse.
Did they use up all of their budget making the interior of the Narada?
What the hell was with all of the plastic drapes, were there no doors on those ships? What the hell do they do if the ship gets hulled, hold their collective breaths and stuff tribbles in the holes?
No a lot more money could have been spent to make it look like a 23rd century space craft and not the inside of Budweiser's production floor.
This thread got me to rewatch this review of the movie, I think its take ont he movie is probably the most accurate: it's not that bad, but it's not that great; it's TRIBBLE, but it's TRIBBLE that made something of itself. And whatever else you can say about it, it did renew interest in Star Trek and brought new fans to the franchise. There is cussing in the review, though, so if you have sensitive ears, you prolly wanna avoid, but otherwise, it's very enjoyable, plus a whole bunch of other star trek movie and episode reviews.
Bleeeeeeackth...... :mad:
That and why in the name of the almighty did they use a Brewery for the interior of the Enterprise!??! It doesn't look like a ship! It looks like a Brewery!
But maybe I just know too much about booze for my own good. :P
And the lens flare sucked.
So did the villain. Old what's-his-bucket is a freaking moron.
Also Uhura. The new Uhura.... is a TRIBBLE. I'm not looking forward to Yeoman Rand... <shudders>
Other than that..... I didn't actually hate it. It was fairly entertaining in places even if most of it was terrible. Kind of like a modern "Judge Dredd".
Right.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. After watching a few episodes of Lost I came to the conclusion that they had no idea what they wanted to do with the show, or even what direction to take it. Year's later I watched the series finale, and I realised...
...that I had missed absolutely nothing.
positives of the movie.
1. kirk's actor did a great job.
2. The opening scene was simply awesome and heart wrenching.
3. Speeding up the pace and action and new special effects to pull in new fans ( though I honestly loved the old slow tension building of the other movies, though they had their frantic parts as well)
4. The actors all did a pretty good job as their characters.
5.Killing kirks father thous making this timeline's characters different and forcing relationships to change as well.
negatives of the movie
1. Villain is weak, you find out very little about his motives or his drive. Even who he is as a person. He was just some crazy dude out for vengeance.
2. The ship interiors were just so horrible. Who after seeing the genius bar in apple store decided to make a replica o.O or the biggest slap in the face yes engineering looks like a painted oil refinery or sanitation plant *rolls eyes*. ( Whats next mario the plumber will be scotty's new assistant for the next movie)
3.Supernova's do not threaten galaxies and there is not enough mass in space for one to continually grow like that.... I don't care that there are plenty of supernatural stuff in startrek at least most of the crazy stuff was based off current scientific understandings of the time. Red matter though wasn't too implausible but it still suffers from the simplest worst naming of all time.
4. Building the enterprise on the ground.... something does not compute. Why even have shuttles if you can just land the ship and take off..
5. transporting to a moving ship light-years away... Other point that screws with the original timeline.
6. blowing up Romulus and Remus to make this movie plausible... Again TRIBBLE with original timeline. How many other planets and systems got destoried by all this O.o?
Special Effects looked great
Nostalgia High
Most of the sets were good
The portrayals of the old characters were from Excellent to good. Just one did not do it for me. Even though he did do well.
Now for my negative marks.
Portrayal of Kirk these writers got Kirk all wrong. Too much of a punk but I blame the writers for it not the actor.
Revisiting old characters and time in Star Trek mythos was a bad mistake. It could have easily been in a new century with a entirely new cast and it would have worked just fine. This remaking or reimagining of the old things is not original its a lame attempt to find new fans when a better gamble would have been again a New Century and a new ship and a new crew.
The script itself was full of very shaky science and convienent plot fixes and plot holes. (same screen writers as Transformers so you can expect me to say these guys are NOT good screenwriters.)
The film sorely missed the chemistry that the Original crew had the camaraderie and the openness. I know this is all when they first met but you did not need to do a story like that and it doesn't help the film.
Nero... Nero was a very 1 dimensional villain, but we never saw him in a different state of mind. Sure his motives were explained but they were not ORIGINAL. Destroy the Federation... Ho hum how many times was that done before? try about 10 other times approx. not to mention the series' cannon. You would think they FINALLY GIVE Q or someone menacing a role against the Enterprise.
Some of the sets put me off. The bridge... Apple store. Engineering looked too much like a brewery (which it was filmed in a brewery.)
JJ Abrams- He openly admitted that he did not know what made the original cast tick or even click together. This is a serious flaw if he is given the future of Star Trek. Because Trek was more about the Human journey and the Human experience. Basically being Human and living. Now I don't think he is a terrible director he has done good work. But I think he should actually try and understand the source material.
Overall, Was Star Trek 09 a bad film? No. Not necessarily. It was a great nostalgia trip, and a great summer popcorn flick that did not have or need emotional depth that is a hallmark of the franchise. Did the Nolanization work? Yes and no. This kind of film probably would have been better if the film had a actual NEW crew, ship, and a new century. Moving forward is always better in gaining new fans and less of a gamble at pissing off old fans. But it did breath a new life into Star Trek after a seven year hiatus since the last film and over a decade since the last big hit. Do I approve of this new direction? I have some very bad doubts.. But since we are all strapped in I will give it one more chance before I give this new direction a final verdict.
I give it a 7.45/10 and Buy it on Blu Ray.
Of course I didn't give it a chance. Why I can tell when its TRIBBLE from the start. It wasn't a Star Trek movie, it was a JJ Trek. To me it spit on the whole Star Trek franchise. It will never be part of Trek to me the show ended with Enterprise, and Nemesis as the last movie. This is JJ. Trek.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
Some hate it, some love it. To me it was Epic. Specially the part how they showed the refit in dry dock, now that was awesome.
Most want all kinds of action and stuff. Well you don't need that in a movie all the time. This movie was mainly a thinking and figuring out movie. Plus this movie was more on the characters as well. As a good chunk of the movie was for them and their development. The Motion Picture will always be one of my top favorites. You can just feel how epic it is.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
For me TMP would have been a good film had it been shorter, better paced, and of course had a little more action than it did.
Worst film in the series though still goes to Nemesis.
Nemesis wasn't that bad. I liked it for a most of it. However there was several parts in it I didn't care for or they should done different. But you have that in every movie. I still rank it good in my Trek movie list. Everyone has an opinion and I respect that. Just like the 2009 movie, some loves it some hates it. You will get that out of every movie. That is what makes us who we are, we all are different. We each have different likes and that is what we look for in a good movie.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
I hope STO get's better ...
Why
I hope STO get's better ...
This ship looks like it was built by monkeys, and guess whose job it is to get it right.
Nope, worst film still goes to ST11. Previously, I have no idea what it was.
True. Very true.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Why[/QUOTE]
Dialogue, story, the score wasn't that inspired either, the acting seemed routine by that point (Tom Hardy tried his best), Data getting a good death but I did not really see much of a need for it.
The saving graces of that film were few
Tom Hardy
Patrick
Battle in the Basan Rift
Data's death well handled
Good Ending with some closure.
None of those though could save this poorly cut film. Interesting fact about it is that like ST V it had a 1/3rd of the movie cut (most of those were character moments with the best acting in it.)
I would agree with that (most of it.) Just keep in mind though the film classes and my major keep me from liking a bad movie as the flaws are all there for me to see. (Call it conditioning.)