The new Star Trek movie

Couldn't agree more. Terrible letdown -- and while I like "Star Trek," I'm not obsessed over it, and would have no objection to a reboot of the series if it had been done with any thought. Here's my review from Amazon:

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

Cliche-ridden and lame-brained attempt at "backstory", December 7, 2009

This review is from: Star Trek (Three-Disc Edition) [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray)

The first five minutes are terrific, and I thought to myself, "This movie has no business being this good." And guess what -- it isn't. Right after that we get a cute kid driving a fast car, and from there it hardly ever gets any smarter. Great look, great effects (and the Blu-ray looks vivid and sharp), but what was the story again? Oh yeah - we're putting the band back together, and there's a big ugly ship we have to go blow up, because it's already blown up our ships, and a planet too. And it came from the future through a black hole - though that really doesn't matter (because in a movie, evil ships can come from anywhere). Except that the half-a**ed time travel and alternate universe hooks do give us a convenient excuse to take our Muppet Babies characters and file them down to the most rudimentary clichés (e.g. Kirk is a passionate human, so he rides a motorcycle, gets in barfights, and sleeps with any random green-skinned slut he can bed down), and then claim that they were "reimagined." Bring these clowns together by a series of stupid coincidences, and what do you have? High-priced crap.

I'm no pointy-eared conventioneer, but this made me feel sorry for what the show originally was.

 

So I assume you're familiar wth the slash fiction, then? Would a film about lust between Kirk and Spock and the ethical implications of same be of interest? All shot in one room on the Enterprise, with no action, only monologues and philosophy? Per an earlier post?

 

I agree again with kevintomb here. This is a caricature of TOS, not a reboot. Kirk was not that "throw caution to the wind," and even in a different time line, why would Spock and Uhuru hook up, Scotty and Chekov were so over the top it was ridiculous, and cringe inducing. McCoy was the ONLY character that seemed "right." Even Nimoy seemed to be phoning it in for the check. This was a fun movie, I liked it, but I'd rather watch Spock's Brain for its deep philosophical science fiction content. This move had such huge plot holes, how did it get green lighted? Well, I guess compared to the recent comic book themed mindless action movies it can be excused. It'll be great fun to hear Mr. Plinkett tear this up. I, too, would unwaveringly endorse it if it had used other names for the characters. With the budget they had, it sure seems they should have come up with a better story, and used the characters more "in character" than this.

 

I liked the movie a lot--deviations from the original Trek canon included. But heck, I really liked Enterprise too, so what do I know . . .

 

Whatever i think this was one of the more interesting and good to watch ST movies, This was not meant to be a new chapter in the Start Trek series.
A new movie based on characters well remembered. This movie looks like it was filmed in 2009 or so not in 1969 like some would prefer. That stuff wouldn't draw any youngsters in the theatres - but some are notorious ...

 

I enjoyed the movie although I was taken aback with all the accolades it received as I didn't think it deserved them. It was good but not great. The effects were the best thing about the movie.

I didn't mind the changes in character types or what have you either. I figured it would be a departure from previous characters/series and it would be sexed up a bit for a newer crowd. it was expected in my eyes.

I'm still looking forward to the franchise in general though.

Eddie

 

I dont mind new looking visuals and action, but there has to be some actual believable characters, realistic reasons for how the plot moves forward, and a bit of respect for the audiances intelligence.

To me it played as a comic book, try to imagine if you will...each scene actually could be done as a sizable comic. No real depth or extended dialogue, shots of flashes of light, a dark scary ship, a corvette plummets over a cliff..Kirk hits someone in a bar.....Vulcan seen exploding, Federation crew jettisoning down to the planet! Imagine every scene as a storyboard, and it resembles a decent comic book much more than a motion picture.

Not to insult what was honestly very amusing and entertaining, but it was not truly trek. They could have changed the names of the characters and you could call it any title and you wouldnt even know it was supposed to be Star Trek at all.

 

Reboots can be a great idea:

Battlestar Galactica
Batman
James Bond series

All great in that they expanded and made the overally characters and "world" seem much more realistic, interesting and with greater action and big budgets, but they DIDNT dumb them down, to pander to the "average" movie goer. Batman or james bond or Battlestar, never went the silly route in their reboots. Trek did many times. It seemed as if they threw in cliche moments JUST for the sake of attracting a broad audiance, that would think the silly plot and humor and nonstop action and lights were "entertaining". Everything was "fun", "over the top" "trying to get a reaction", but there was no real depth. It was a series of scenes trying to keep the attention of a MTV type audiance. Hey Kirk after doing all kinda wrong things and sneaking onto a ship, somehow through a series of coincidences saves the world, hey lets make him captain of the Flagship of the federation, even though he just got out of the academy and apparently has no real on board ship experience, let alone NO command experience.....

You mean to tell me of all the captains and second officers in the entire federation, they choose a Cadet fresh out of the academy to pilot and be in charge of officers that have served YEARS!!

Sure you can call it a shortcut to get him into the captains chair, but where is the drama, the respect, and intelligence in that. So if someone else "saves the world" 3 months later in an even more dramatic fashion, will Kirk be kicked out of the chair for the new "captain"??

 

I assume you're referring to the most recent run of Batman films, not the Michael Keaton ones. By the second one with MK, it was very clear they were doing what we're accusing "Star Trek" of doing, specifically, loading it with recognizable characters, well before a reason for their appearance had ever been contrived, simply to put fannies in seats.

 

For the same reasons ocean going vessels are not built right in the ocean.

I just saw it on dvd. Pretty good movie.
Love how Spock and Uhura are an item. I thought it was well done.

 

I think that was the biggest problem I had with the story.

 

I can't wait till they have kids and the resulting spin-off show, Mr. Spock Knows Best...

It's high time Kirk didn't get all the girls. He'll just have to settle for the green ones...

 

That green chick is HOT

 

Yes, the beautiful and very intelligent Rachel Nichols.



You know, way back in the beginning of Season One they showed Uhuru very interested in Spock in a romantic way. . . and I like that they brought this into the movie.

 

They did? Not saying they DIDN'T, but I don't remember that. I remember it was Nurse Chapel who pined for Spock...

 

They did. Watch the first season, you'll see it. It's quite pronounced in the episode where Spock plays the future-harp-instrument in the canteen and Uhuru sings. I'm not enough of a Trekkie to tell you the name of that one.

 

"Charlie X"