test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Why do people think JJ ruined Star Trek?

1111214161720

Comments

  • ussprometheus79ussprometheus79 Member Posts: 727 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    No I was more thinking 1-4, 6 and 8. Generations was okay, Nemsis so-so, but in either case, they were better than the current two.

    We'll all have our favourites and that's great. I just don't actually know anyone over here who has enjoyed the last two films to a great extent.
    If you've come to the forums to complain about the AFK system, it's known to be bugged at the moment.
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Ive enjoyed both films. They remind me of Babylon 5.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • borg9870borg9870 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Guys, as far as im concerned, what JJ did to Star Trek can be easily fixed. Just write a story where the USS Relativity turns everything back to normal
  • ussprometheus79ussprometheus79 Member Posts: 727 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    bitemepwe wrote: »
    Ive enjoyed both films. They remind me of Babylon 5.

    Really? How? Babylyon 5 was amazing. I wholly support your right to opinion, but I just don't see it.... :confused:
    If you've come to the forums to complain about the AFK system, it's known to be bugged at the moment.
  • dariuskoronikovdariuskoronikov Member Posts: 40 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Ok heres why I didn't like it,

    1) Simon Pegg as Scotty, when you consider Paul McGillon (Carson Beckett from Stargate Atlantis ) was in the running, and was passed over for the role despite looking like a younger scotty and having a scottish accent, its the little things like that that got me (i'm a scotsman living in scotland and found it annoying that they passed up a scotsman for an englishman)

    2) the whole Kirk going from Cadet to criminal to captain. sounds like bad fanfiction, if iI were Spock, Sulu..or hell even the freshest ensign off the shuttle would be rightly pissed at this

    3) Destroying Romulus,..ok i'm a bit iffy with that.. but blowing up Vulcan too, it was a lil too much

    4) Why did they need to mess with canon/alternate reality? they couldn't write a story set in the TOS era that stayed somewhat in canon with a new cast, other shows/movies have managed this in the past, infact if an author wants to write a star trek book they have to show they can write a story that doesn't mess up the status quo to prove themselves, its not hard

    but of course Hollywood has reimagining/reboot fever and Star Trek is another victim of it

    All in all its like bad fan fiction, and I do worry about Star wars now
  • ricorosebudricorosebud Member Posts: 11 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    No I was more thinking 1-4, 6 and 8. Generations was okay, Nemsis so-so, but in either case, they were better than the current two.

    We'll all have our favourites and that's great. I just don't actually know anyone over here who has enjoyed the last two films to a great extent.

    I enjoyed the new films to a great extent
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • lostcause212lostcause212 Member Posts: 160 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    1) Simon Pegg as Scotty, when you consider Paul McGillon (Carson Beckett from Stargate Atlantis ) was in the running, and was passed over for the role despite looking like a younger scotty and having a scottish accent, its the little things like that that got me (i'm a scotsman living in scotland and found it annoying that they passed up a scotsman for an englishman)

    Fun Fact: Paul McGillion is actually Canadian; the accent he used on Atlantis was effected. He also had a bit-part in XI.
    yjIzVE9.png
  • jim940jim940 Member Posts: 178 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I think the reason some believe he ruined Trek is that his films favor style over substance.

    I was completely onboard after Trek 09 with new, but new quality Trek.

    IE: Iron Man was a phenomenally paced, acted, directed, and special effects heavy film that also had deep, fascinating character development in both the hero and villain.

    Some, myself included after seeing Into Darkness, are disappointed in 2 hour long effects reels with bare bones plot and development.

    I liked the 2009 movie, and I liked Into Darkness.

    Yes the plot seemed "thin", but Into Darkness combined elements of nearly the entire franchise to put together the movie. If your a Trekker and have the Franchise memorized, and got the references, it was a not bad movie.

    My only issues with both are the Klingons, first the make up, secondly that the Ketha Province is abandoned. But that is a personal thing, because I liked Martok and he comes from there.

    Jim
  • igorvalentineigorvalentine Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I enjoyed the latest two Trek movies. Sure they aren't as thought provoking as the shows. If they were, not nearly as many people would go see them.

    Star Wars came out in 1977 with an $11 million dollar budget. Wrath of Khan came out in 1982 with an $11 million budget. Star Wars had better special effects 5 years earlier.

    Most audiences aren't going to go see sci-fi movies for great plots(see the last couple of Star Wars films). I'm happy that Star Trek is getting a much needed special effects lift. More people will go see it which means more Star Trek films will be made, which makes me happy.

    I guess what I'm getting at is the writing was bad enough for me to hate it. It had some things that only trekkies would understand. I liked that.

    Something we have to remember, there aren't enough trekkies out there to support a movie with the budgets the last have had. The fact that changes are made to broaden the appeal is okay with me.
  • edited May 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • trek21trek21 Member Posts: 2,246 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    valoreah wrote: »
    I found this to be one of the more idiotic things with the last movie's plot as well.
    Well, considering the recent destruction of seven starships, they probably didn't have too many Captain's to go around.

    Kirk got the Captainship because he proved he could do extraordinary things, but as Into Darkness showed us, they could and did easily revoke it at anytime, should he prove incompetent or reckless

    Sorta like an 'acting' field promotion, but not an official one... not until he truly proved it.

    That's my take on it. It's similar to Picard making Wesley an acting ensign until such time as he proved (or not) that he was worthy of the actual rank (just a much steeper example)
    Was named Trek17.

    Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
  • edited May 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • trek21trek21 Member Posts: 2,246 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    valoreah wrote: »
    I don't buy that. Spock could have commanded the ship. So could any number of other officers. Starfleet suffered huge losses at Wolf 359 and in the Dominion war too. They weren't tossing cadets into the Captain's seat because of them.

    It was bad writing, plain and simple IMO.
    And I'm not trying to change opinions, merely for a possible explanation, as food for thought.

    But I might add, Spock logged his 'emotionally compromised' episode into the log; that probably negatively affected the choice. And I might also add, this is an alternate reality, so examples of what happened in the Prime Universe do not quite apply... this is a different Starfleet after all.

    Like I said earlier, it was basically an acting field promotion, NOT an official one. As Into Darkness showed, they easily revoked it when Kirk gave them an excuse to. If he was an actual Captain rank, I don't think he would have lost it that easily, personally.
    Was named Trek17.

    Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
  • igorvalentineigorvalentine Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Well, technically Kirk was a first officer at that point because Pike convinced Marcus to let Kirk have a little on the job training under Pike's supervision. :)
  • edited May 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • trek21trek21 Member Posts: 2,246 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    valoreah wrote: »
    I understand. :)



    He was also instrumental in defeating Nero. Think that wouldn't have hurt his chances. ;)
    Thanks for that :)

    And you've a point there lol. Still, I think Starfleet gave him the Captain seat due to forces they couldn't control. According to the universe, Kirk and the gang will always be together, no matter the universe... and as further proof, Kirk and 'Harrison' will always be at each other's throats XD

    But yeah, I'm not saying that Kirk going from Cadet to Captain wasn't a stretch; it was. I'm just saying there were reasons for it, along with theories, such as the one I stated above. And personally, those reasons/theories help, even if they don't necessarily ease every single issue.
    Was named Trek17.

    Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
  • scruffyvulcanscruffyvulcan Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    In Abrams' defense, he had a huge task put on his shoulders, and it was from the studio.

    JJ Abrams didn't just up and decide, "Hey, I'm going to make a Star Trek reboot for the masses." That was the mission he was given by the studio.

    And he had challenges no other Star Trek film has ever had.

    Every Trek movie ever made before 09 was a continuation of already developed characters... characters that the filmmakers understood the target audience already knew intimately. They had the luxury of expanding the characters without introducing them. They didn't have to define them. TNG's movies had 178 hours of development already established for its characters. They just continued that development. No introduction necessary.

    For example, the character development in Generations for Data him getting emotions. That's it. 1 minute of screen time is all it took for them to move that character forward.

    If they had been tasked with introducing Data to a new audience, define him to that audience, pack in 7 years of character development, THEN move his character forward, all in the span of 2 hours, I seriously doubt we'd have gotten much subtlety from his character.

    That's exactly what Abrams had to do, but not with one character. He had to do it with seven characters (at least). He had to pack 40 years of character development for an ensemble cast into a 2 hour movie, while at the same time making that movie exciting and fun for anybody who's never watched Star Trek.

    Others may disagree, but I honestly think he did a fantastic job accomplishing a mission that was difficult at best and impossible at worst.
  • gfreeman98gfreeman98 Member Posts: 1,200 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Star Wars came out in 1977 with an $11 million dollar budget. Wrath of Khan came out in 1982 with an $11 million budget. Star Wars had better special effects 5 years earlier.
    Wha...?

    I've seen both films many times, and I certainly don't recall anything in SW that's any better than WoK. What in SW do you think is better? Compare phaser fire in WoK with the blasters in SW. And you have nothing to compare with the Genesis demo.
    screenshot_2015-03-01-resize4.png
  • naeviusnaevius Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    He screwed up his mission, then.

    A re-boot is just that. There was no reason to have a tie to the old timeline, or to start with Kirk as a cadet.

    Why not start with Kirk as a Lieutenant who saves a ship? More like the way his father was portrayed?

    A bad movie. With lens flare.
    _________________________________________________
    [Kluless][Kold][Steel Heels][Snagtooth]
    [Louis Cipher][Outta Gum][Thysa Kymbo][Spanner][Frakk]
    [D'Mented][D'Licious]
    Joined October 2009. READ BEFORE POSTING
  • lostcause212lostcause212 Member Posts: 160 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    gfreeman98 wrote: »
    Wha...?

    I've seen both films many times, and I certainly don't recall anything in SW that's any better than WoK. What in SW do you think is better? Compare phaser fire in WoK with the blasters in SW. And you have nothing to compare with the Genesis demo.

    In fact, the only serious digital effect in Star Wars was the Death Star blueprints, which took so long to render that by the time they were done the design of the station had changed and thus they were incorrect; this is why the laser dish is on the equator on the blueprints and off on the upper hemisphere on the finished model.
    yjIzVE9.png
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    In fact, the only serious digital effect in Star Wars was the Death Star blueprints,

    Wow. You youngsters and your digital effects. Heh. Both movies were made in a time when special effects meant other things besides digital effects.

    Anyways, I think it's dumb to compare effects of those two movies considering the company responsible for the effects in each particular film.

    It's like saying the effects in Avengers were better than the effects in Iron Man.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • lostcause212lostcause212 Member Posts: 160 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Wow. You youngsters and your digital effects. Heh. Both movies were made in a time when special effects meant other things besides digital effects.

    That's my point. With the exception of that one sequence, every other effect in Star Wars was done the old fashioned way, with model spacecraft and rotoscoped laser beams.
    yjIzVE9.png
  • vantheman77vantheman77 Member Posts: 27 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I don't think JJ Abrams ruined Star Trek considering that it's in the alternate universe instead of the prime universe. The only way he'd ruin Star Trek is if the two movies took place in the prime universe thus conflicting with canon.
  • gibsonunderscoregibsonunderscore Member Posts: 98 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Star Trek: The Motion Picture
    Kirk relieves Decker as Captain and field demotes him to first officer without an explanation - even when confronted with the accusation (and the eventual proof, via asteroid) that Kirk is trying to command a ship that he is no longer comfortable with. Yet, Starfleet brass does not put a stop to this.


    Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
    Spock correctly presumes that Khan has no experience in a 3-dimensional battlefield and would not predict that the Enterprise would descend on a Z-axis to lead a surprise attack. The odds that Ceta Alpha, Regula One, and the Mutara nebula are all sitting on the same plane of space is almost impossible. Khan would have figured out that he could fly up or down if he wanted to. And in the 20th century, we had things like submarines, airplanes, helicopters... the third dimension has been a part of combat since we figured out how to travel through these spaces. Khan doesn't even seem as smart as the average fighter pilot in 1976 by these standards.


    Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
    If Spock was revived on Genesis, and started aging rapidly, why did he not continue aging until he withered and fell apart like wet sugar glass? If it's because he left the planet, why were the other visitors to the Genesis world not also aging every few minutes as well? What was making Spock get older, and why did the process stop at just the perfect time for Nimoy to take over his old role? Sounds like pure convenience to me. Not very science fiction.


    Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
    Who told the writers that flying really fast around the sun would send you back in time? And what kind of life would George and Gracie have now that Kirk has screwed with the timeline and dumped two lonely whales into an ocean that has probably developed a new ecosystem after the fallout of World War III?
    And when did Starfleet go from "violating the Prime Directive is punishable by DEATH" to "you saved Earth, so we'll kiiiiinda give you pass on this one"? Kirk has undoubtedly saved Earth about a thousand times by this point, so if you were going to factor in that, why bother demoting him at all?


    Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
    Excuse me... but what does God need with a science fiction movie?

    And how does the Enterprise fly at Warp 7 from the Romulan Neutral Zone to the centre of the Galaxy? That's about 30 000 light years. Even Voyager and that little band of magical space cadets needed 3 years and a lot of really good luck to get that far.

    Also, the rest of the movie.


    Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
    How does Uhura not know Klingon at her age? She's been a communications officer for about 30 years at this point. She served in Starfleet during several conflicts with the Empire. You'd think she would want to make herself more useful by learning Klingon in case she needs it to, oh, ya know, DO THE THING SHE WAS TRYING TO DO IN THIS MOVIE?!


    Star Trek: Generations
    Why did they bother with Data's subplot? It was never put to use to advance the story; all it was there for was so that Data could be the "comic relief", which he does much better by being Data, instead of some lame comedian.
    Why is the Enterprise-B the only ship within 3 light years of Earth? That seems like a major problem on Starfleet's part.
    Why the hell was Kirk in the movie? Like, at all? Shatner was old, overweight, and he's really not a good actor - especially when the director treats him like gold (something Nick Meyer didn't do. In fact, Meyer had Shatner repeat early scenes of Star Trek II over and over, until he was so tired that he just did the lines without the melodrama.)
    Why did Picard not bring the body of James Kirk to the Farragut for a proper burial? he just left the body on some uninhabited planet under some rocks. The disappearance of James T Kirk was probably one of the biggest mysteries in Starfleet history and it was just suddenly solved. And Picard doesn't even feel obligated to bring the body back.


    Star Trek: First Contact
    The Borg attempted to assimilate Earth using one Cube already. They ate their way through an armada, but lost thanks to ONE SHIP. Why did they think they could do the exact same attack plan and meet with better success? They lost another cube to the SAME CAPTAIN! Again, the Borg were WINNING until the Enterprise showed up.

    Why is Picard and the Enterprise told to stay away from the battle anyway? "Starfleet has every confidence in the Enterprise and her crew; they're just not sure about her Captain. They believe that a man who was once captured and assimilated by the Borg should not be placed in a situation where he would face them again. To do so would introduce an 'unstable element to a critical situation'." Riker's disagreement is perfectly valid and Starfleet can't seem to decide whether Picard is qualified or not. During the series, Picard leads a task force fighting Borg attackers late in the series, AFTER he'd been rescued from the Borg. Furthermore, even if Starfleet had changed hands from one Fleet Admiral to another, why would brass not have simply relieve Picard of duty and place the Enterprise under temporary command of Riker? He's more than qualified to command the Enterprise.

    When did Picard become obsessed with revenge? First Contact marks the point when he simply stops caring about being a diplomat, and jumps on the action-hero bandwagon. maybe it's a midlife crisis. He gets so angry that he nearly bitchslaps Alfre Woodard in the face with a phaser rifle. He's had way more chances to smack-a-b*tch before then, but he never did - because he's a Frenchman and a gentleman - and a DIPLOMAT. He's not a soldier. He's not a general. And he's not supposed to be a psychopath.


    Star Trek: Insurrection
    Why is Data on a survey team studying a civilization? He doesn't understand people yet. What the hell would he have to report on? Aside from how well the citizens handle sudden invisible-man-fights.
    Why is the duckblind sitting in the middle of the Ba'ku village? Wouldn't they want to install much smaller surveillance devices around the village and keep the duckblind far out of possible discovery sight, in case something happens to the holographic rocks? Which is something that happened in an episode of TNG, "Who Watches the Watchers?". Starfleet didn't seem to learn their lesson very well.
    Why all the subterfuge? The Ba'ku were going to figure out they're not in Kansas any more one way or another. So... why bother with the holoship and the invisible-people?
    If Starfleet knew that the Ba'ku used to be spacefarers (evidenced by Dougherty's very quickly stated assertion that "these people were never meant to be immortal"), why hide from them? If they didn't know that the Ba'ku weren't native , why would the hierarchy collectively agree to disregard the Prime Directive entirely? Furthermore, is this even a Federation planet? It certainly can't be, as the Ba'ku have been on that planet for longer than Starfleet and the Federation even existed. They were settling down around the time that we would have been reaching the very first stars in our neighbourhood.
    How does a face stretching machine kill Dougherty? You'd think those machines would be equipped with failsafes to make sure it didn't do that, considering they are operated by slaves and used on a bunch of 300 year old monsters who were very few in numbers.


    Star Trek: Nemesis
    Why is Janeway an Admiral??! She broke the Prime Directive basically once a bloody week. She started wars between races, allied with the Borg, and left scars on dozens of cultures simply to save her crew. She also violated the Temporal Prime Directive so many times that people from THE FUTURE were getting pissed off at her.
    How did the Remans go from slaving away in a space mine to having a "secret base" to build the largest warship in Romulan history? Where did the Remans get the expertise to do so? It's feasible that Remans may have been labouring in starship construction - but what about starship design?
    Why was Shinzon a ranked officer in the Romulan military? He was a cloned human; you'd think that the Romulans would keep him tucked away somewhere that Starfleet would never find him. Like... a pauper's grave.
    Why is everyone's response to needing a blood sample "I'll just slice my hand open with a big knife"? I don't think people in Star Trek understand what's just under the skin. Try pressing your fingers (gently) against the palm of your hand. Unless you're a big fat guy, you should feel tendons. You kinda need those for your fingers.
    Why did the Starfleet armada not start heading toward the Enterprise when it didn't show up at the rendez-vous? There was, after all, the Bassen Rift between them that screwed with sensors and communications.
    When the Scimitar sent the boarding party to the Enterprise, why did they not just seal off the compartment with forcefields and vent all the atmosphere? The phasers were set to kill anyway. Why risk your own crew?
    What the hell was Picard doing beaming over to the Scimitar? Send Worf. Pack him with Rambo gear and tell him to kill everything that moves, and blow up the weapon before it wipes out the Enterprise. You don't send over a 70 year old man with something to prove, armed only with a plastic phaser rifle that snaps in half faster than an AR-15 and a phaser that isn't even fastened into the holster. That, and isn't the Enterprise armed with shuttles? Why not launch them and use their phasers to disable the weapon's firing tips? That would have taken a matter of minutes. Forget procedure, put two crewmen on each shuttle and just open the bloody doors. It would have been done in time for Picard's afternoon tea.

    Star Trek
    How does Mrs Kirk give birth in nine minutes? Doesn't labour take HOURS?!
    Aren't officers supposed to enroll in Starfleet Academy, while crew are made of the "enlisted" folks who didn't want to be in command? If so, then why did Pike encourage Kirk to ENLIST and not ENROLL? He did, after all, state that Kirk could have his own ship in as little as eight years.
    Why would Starfleet be so cruel as to assign Chekov an authorization code that he couldn't pronounce?
    Spock must have a HUGE... um, "IDIC"... because I can't think of another reason why someone as passionate as Uhura would fall in love with someone as dispassionate as Spock.
    Why did Pike name Kirk as first officer and not someone with a rank, like Sulu? Kirk wasn't even an Cadet - his privilege of service was revoked for cheating during an exam.
    Why would Spock dump Kirk on a frozen wasteland? Especially considering the closest inhabited planet was just sucked into an artificial black hole.

    Why did I go through all of this? To prove that nothing is perfect - not even our favourites.
  • lored2deathlored2death Member Posts: 6 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Holy TRIBBLE. maybe add a TL;DR at the end to sum it up. Wow.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Star Trek: Nemesis
    Why is Janeway an Admiral??! She broke the Prime Directive basically once a bloody week. She started wars between races, allied with the Borg, and left scars on dozens of cultures simply to save her crew. She also violated the Temporal Prime Directive so many times that people from THE FUTURE were getting pissed off at her.

    This question answers itself. It was a move to get her OUT of the chair and behind a desk. Saving starfleet a LOT of headaches.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • lostcause212lostcause212 Member Posts: 160 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Why is Janeway an Admiral??!

    To keep her out of the Captain's chair and thus somewhere where the Starfleet brass can keep an eye on her.

    EDIT: Bloody ninjas.
    yjIzVE9.png
  • trek21trek21 Member Posts: 2,246 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Star Trek
    How does Mrs Kirk give birth in nine minutes? Doesn't labour take HOURS?!
    It does, but as we heard the assistant say, "We'll deliver in the shuttle". If anything, that implies she was already in labor even before she showed up. So onscreen, she was really just going through the last of the contractions, then the painful push, all as we saw it.

    At least, that seems the most likely version to me :)
    Was named Trek17.

    Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
  • gibsonunderscoregibsonunderscore Member Posts: 98 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Holy TRIBBLE. maybe add a TL;DR at the end to sum it up. Wow.

    If it's too long for you to bother, don't! You're not hurting my feelings by not caring.
    To keep her out of the Captain's chair and thus somewhere where the Starfleet brass can keep an eye on her.

    EDIT: Bloody ninjas.

    In any other organization, she would have been stripped of rank and sent to prison.
    trek21 wrote: »
    It does, but as we heard the assistant say, "We'll deliver in the shuttle". If anything, that implies she was already in labor even before she showed up. So onscreen, she was really just going through the last of the contractions, then the painful push, all as we saw it.

    At least, that seems the most likely version to me :)

    She was seen going into labour shortly after the initial attack. If she had gone into labour several hours earlier, would that not have been hinted at? Maybe with Lieutenant Kirk arriving on the bridge, having come from medical, when the black hole appeared?
  • lored2deathlored2death Member Posts: 6 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Abrahms didn't ruin Star trek, our culture did. That's why there has been such a different take on this film, extremes on both ends.

    The movie, for younger generations, is everything it could have been and needed to be. It was fast-paced, it had a basic, current political context (drone strikes) and Alice Eve in undies. A younger friend of mine who went to see it with me and is a self-proclaimed "Trekkie", LOVED it. He loved the throw-back jokes, the whole re-boot to "keep Trek alive" idea is strong in that one, I assure you. And I don't doubt him.

    I on the other hand, have a different recollection of Trek, because I'm older and lived when trek was addressing different social ideas. The Cold Wars was going on strong during Trek VI. The infamous Trek 2 is now recalled for Khan when the reality was it was the first time we got to saw a real Trek fight in space with the tech of the day. Khan was just a great tool used for the bigger story arc which is what the whole movie was premised on: sacrifice. That's what I missed in Darkness. An underlying "hrmm" moment.

    It was just simplified, in-you-face dilemmas that might speak to a summer movie-goer but not necessarily to me as a fan. I won't go into the 7 massive plot holes that made the movie too convenient. The worst part for me is how Spock was developed in writing. the acting was outstanding but what they've done is made Spock like everyone else but with pointy ears. I get he lost Vulcan. I get he's half-human. The thing is, now, other than the tone of voice and ears, Spock is now an average human with all those frailties and emotions. Yes, Vulcans always have those emotions but the suppression is what makes them inherently interesting. I didn't like Spock laughing in the TOS pilot and i'm not digging him doing so in the future. He's now a Data re-hash, striving to be more human in some sense rather then trying to stay away from emotions. Honestly, I blame the character of T'pol for all this, lol.

    TL;DR

    the movie is only bad or good, depending on the context of perception in which you view it. From my context, it sucked. Bad. it was like watching "zero-calorie" Trek, which I supoose is all the rage these days.

    Signed,

    Grandpa Lored2death
Sign In or Register to comment.