I’ve had an interesting relationship with Star Trek films over the years. Many people think that the odd–numbered ones are bad. Based upon my earlier article (Why The Motion Picture is my Favorite Star Trek Film) the first one has the deepest significance for me. I’m also partial to number three, The Search for Spock. So, obviously, I think the odd ones are fine.
But, honestly, the only Trek film that I can’t stand is Insurrection. I can find something likeable in virtually all of them — yes, even number five, The Final Frontier.
An encounter with “God” at the conclusion of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier from 1989.
A Franchise in Trouble
As for Trek on TV, like a lot of fans, I was pretty frustrated by the latter years of Rick Berman’s tenure as Executive Producer (although I blame Brannon Braga far more than Berman). I facetiously called Voyager ‘Star Trek Lite’ — and don’t even get me started on Enterprise. While the narrative that 24 producer Manny Coto brought to the final season was a bit more on track, it was really too late.
The modern Star Trek franchise was becoming recycled, trite, and creatively bankrupt. I was happy to see the 18-year run — that began in 1987 with The Next Generation — come to an end. It was time to give it a rest. But, deep down, I felt that production would return eventually.
I was right. A year later, in 2006, the announcement came that J.J. Abrams was taking over the property with a new film. The teaser poster featured the emblem of the original series. Oooh, a reboot! That was exactly what the forty–year–old series needed.
As a fan of Lost, I was pretty excited. Abrams’ feature film directorial debut, Mission: Impossible 3, was fairly smart and entertaining. He’s a smart guy, so I figured that I would keep an open mind.
On the set of the Enterprise bridge, J.J. Abrams directs his reboot of the original Star Trek.
Mixed Signals with a Hint of Hope
When the teaser trailer appeared in January of 2008, I had some questions. While I loved the audio of JFK, I was deeply concerned about the Enterprise being constructed on Earth. It just didn’t make sense. I didn’t see why a ship that big would be built on the surface of a planet.
But again, I remained open-minded. The production values were excellent. I read it had the highest budget ever for a Trek film. Cool. Maybe we would get something truly epic — that didn’t feel like a glorified TV episode on the big screen.
Once I saw the first full-length trailer, it didn’t look too bad. I was not that impressed with Chris Pine’s Kirk, but the other actors looked pretty good. Especially, Karl Urban as Bones.
I was NOT enthused by the quick shot of Zoé Saldana’s Uhura taking off her top. It seemed like gratuitous pandering to teenage boys: “If you come watch our movie, you will get to see explosions, killing, and breasts!” Lame…
However, the film’s final trailer showed real promise — great music, emotion, and stunning visuals. It looked like the film was going to gel. I was stoked! “Fire everything!”
A pre-release promotional poster for Star Trek (2009) featuring the principal cast.
The Sober Reality
I finally saw the simply-titled Star Trek at a free advanced screening a week before its debut. I was not enthused or impressed. In fact, I was a little angry. I’m glad I didn’t spend any money.
Why? Where do I begin?
The problems started with video I saw of the PR tour before the film’s release. J.J. Abrams was always quick to point out to the press that he was never a fan of Star Trek. He said it as if he was almost ashamed to be associated with such a geeky phenomenon. Abrams’ first love was Star Wars.
Well, he managed to finally make his own version of George Lucas’ classic. That’s exactly was what Star Trek (2009) became — a Star Wars ripoff. The visual effects team jettisoned all of the Trek traditions, like the Warp streak and flash, and instead imitated the Star Wars hyperspace jump. Gone were the passing star fields that, to me, always exemplified the name of the show!
The new film’s key plot points — like a fatherless farm boy challenged by an elder to leave his home and venture into space, and an entire planet being destroyed halfway through — were completely derivative of Star Wars. The only problem is that the two franchises have nothing to do with one another and never should! They are based on totally different foundations.
Trek is about a semi-plausible look at OUR future, while Wars is a space–based fantasy in a galaxy “far, far away…” (For more about the differences between sci-fi’s most enduring franchises, check out Why the Original Star Trek is Cooler than Star Wars.)
An example of the Enterprise’s new Star Wars-inspired Warp effect.
Science Fiction without that pesky Science
In fact, the pseudo–science of Trek was what rooted the series for me. While they definitely stretched the physics and made things up via significant ‘technobable’ (especially on The Next Generation) there was still some sense of reality and possibility. That was totally thrown out the window on Abrams’ reboot.
First off, the film starts off with a ship emerging from a weird space anomaly that looked like a black hole. I had heard that the lead scientist for NASA’s Cassini mission, Carloyn Porco, was the science advisor for the film. I’m sorry, but she did not do a very good job.
The entire film is riddled with horrible science. I mean horrible! A supernova that threatens the entire galaxy? Maybe a gamma ray burst could do that, but a not a supernova. And what about Red Matter?
At the end of the film, a black hole forms INSIDE a Romulan vessel! The crew sends messages back and forth while the spacecraft is slowly being consumed. I thought black holes sucked up everything — even light. Surely, it can stop radio signals. Just a drop can destroy Vulcan, but a huge ball of the stuff takes forever to dissect a ship?
Then the Enterprise, after dumping multiple Warp cores and exploding them, escapes the black hole. How does that work?
Red Matter? I don’t get it. Seems a little contrived.
What’s Up with the Sets?
The set designs were atrocious. The Kelvin was hideous inside and out. There are clear PLASTIC curtains inside a shuttlecraft? Engineering and other parts of the Enterprise were shot in a brewery. That’s right, a brewery. And it looked like it. The film had a $150,000,000 budget and it was shot in a brewery?!
What about the bridge? It looked like an ADHD Apple Store. Who could possibly work with all of those lights and lens flares glaring at them all the time? Why wouldn’t the film’s designers give even a little sense of the original design?
The Engineering Deck was an Anheuser-Busch brewery in Van Nuys, California.
I had absolutely no sense of how the outside of the ship corresponded to the interior. The sets were incongruous and inconsistent. A 2001 hallway connected to what looked like a steam plant. A turbolift that takes you from engineering to the bridge in two seconds. What the heck was going on with the production team?
Lastly, the design of the ship itself — which was more than twice the size of the original. The new look completely destroyed the aesthetic of Matt Jeffries and Andrew Probert.
It was a mess of oversized nacelles (that are too close together) and an oddly elongated engineering section connected to a saucer that was some sort of ripoff of the ship from The Motion Picture. And why the would they possibly build it in the middle of Iowa?!?!
How did they get that out of Earth’s gravity well and into space?
The Story was a Mess
Enough on the design. How about the narrative?
The story was virtually incomprehensible. It tried to be both the old Trek and some new conglomeration. Things made no sense, if you knew anything about the Trek canon. And, sorry, since they weren’t actually starting the story over from scratch — the presence of Leonard Nimoy precluded that — I had to take the old canon into consideration.
Pike commanded the Enterprise years before Kirk was around. The Enterprise wasn’t new when Kirk took command. Spock and Bones were both considerably older than Kirk. Delta Vega — where Kirk is marooned — was a planet they visited in the second Star Trek pilot that was situated on the rim of the galaxy, and not (what appears to be) an icy moon of Vulcan. But these issues were minor.
Leonard Nimoy reprised his role as the Vulcan Spock to provide continuity from the original timeline.
A few questions that plagued me: How would a ship come out of a black hole? And, then, why would it just start shooting at you for no reason? Why would Kirk run into old Spock in the one cave he was hiding in on an entire planet? That’s the same as being randomly dropped off on Earth and chased by a mugger into the one McDonald’s where your best friend is eating.
Speaking of that: why would the new Spock jettison Kirk in an escape pod? Why not just put him in the brig? Then, once on the surface of Delta Vega — Kirk is chased in a lame, derivative (Star Wars: Episode One, YUCK!), and very pointless action sequence.
Plus, why would a leather-skinned lizard creature exist on an ice planet? AND how far away was Delta Vega from Vulcan? Old Spock could see it destroyed like it was as far away as the Earth’s moon. Closer even!
The whole Romulan subplot was pointless and lacked any real motivation. Nero had to be one of the weakest bad guys in the history of Star Trek. Blathering, murdering, and scene–chewing. It was simply awful. And, can I add that the little gremlin assistant to Scotty was out of left field and just plain stupid?
Ultimately, I think that many scenes were contrived for sensationalism — to keep viewers from getting bored. For example, Kirk’s big hands and Scotty beaming into a water pipe.
Kirk’s big, allergic reaction hands… What does this have to do with Star Trek?
Any Redeeming Qualities?
You may wonder if there was anything I liked about the film. Actually, I did enjoy some of character interactions. I liked the visual realization of Vulcan — especially the school and stalactite buildings — and Ben Cross played a fine Sarek.
The bottom line for me: Star Trek (2009) was awful, and it really causes me to worry about the future of my favorite sci-fi franchise. I have had this argument with a lot of people. They say, “But it was fun and it reminded me so much of the old show!” Really? I find that hard to believe.
If the film had not been called Star Trek and played on the pop cultural zeitgeist and good will that the franchise had built over so many years, people would have thought the film was utter nonsense. Folks went in with a feeling of warmth and nostalgia that kept them from truly seeing that mess for what it was.
I’m completely fine with the idea of a reboot. But, then, actually reboot it and do an intelligent job. Don’t act like all that came before is irrelevant. After all Star Trek had been around for four decades when the keys were handed to Abrams. Clearly something must have been going right for it to have endured that long.
Buildings on the planet Vulcan — truly one of the film’s few inspired designs.
Production is underway on Star Trek 2. Again, I will try to have an open mind, because Abrams’ Trek is currently the only game in town. I think it’s still possible to have an intelligent and comprehensible story — filled with action and effects — that can reach a broad audience. No matter what, though, let’s hope that they build their own engineering set this time and stay away from Budweiser.
Oh, one final thought: why would a third-year cadet be promoted to first officer? I would like to see that happen on one of our naval vessels!
Loading ...
48 Comments
I completely agree with all of the points you made about the 2009 Star Trek film. However, I feel that calling it a “terrible” movie was the wrong way to go about it. If you strip away the name of the movie and the connections it has with Star Trek it’s a very well made movie with some great scenes.
My problem with it is the fact that it was given the Star Trek name in the first place. In my opinion it comes no where close to deserving of the Star Trek title. I think it was a complete mockery of actual Trek canon. I felt as though J.J. Abrams had purposefully chosen the direction of this film in order to mock Trekkies.
So while the film itself is not terrible I will personally never consider it as an actual Star Trek movie.
This was a bad movie for all the reasons stated above, and one more: As Dorothy Parker would have said< "There's no there, there." All flash, no substance. I had seen the movie twice, and then happened to see it on FX a month or so ago. I came in about halfway, and realized I had no idea what was going to happen next, or how it ended. Completely unmemorable. Just a two-hour excuse to put a Beastie Boys song on the soundtrack.
In regards to building the ship on Earth, if we look in to the TNG universe, there’s a scene where we can see a Galaxy class Federation starship on the surface of Utopia Planitia ship yards (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Utopia_Planitia.jpg). So the ship being build on Earth then sent in to orbit is not really unimaginable. Heck, once the warp core came online, I’m sure the ship could enter Earth orbit under it’s own power.
The Kelvin was designed to look old, worn out, etc as it was a very old Starfleet vessel. And the plastic sheets in the shuttle? Now you’re just being nitpicky for no real reason.
As for the ship appearing from a black hole, who’s to say that a black hole doesn’t act like a form of time travel? We don’t know.
@ TrekkieForever – I beg to differ on whether or not I can call it a ‘terrible” film. In actuality, there are lot of aspects of the film production itself that I take issue with. The super fast-paced editing, the obnoxious sound effects (especially on the bridge), the lackluster score. The incomprehensible action scenes. In my opinion, it simply was not a good film! I mean no offense to you or anyone else who likes it. It is simply my opinion. And we are all entitled to our opinion right?
@Flint – Thanks!
@ Matt – Sorry, plastic shower curtains in a ship from the 23rd Century is ridiculous. It’s not nitpick, it is just a plain stupid design choice. I will agree that using a warp drive should be able to push a ship off a planet. Not sure I would want to be in Iowa when they turn it on though! As for black holes as a time tunnel, I suppose you could be right if it weren’t from the proven massive radiation and gravitational forces that will rip anything (including huge stupid Romulan jelly fish ships ) to shreds before they could possible emerge ‘elsewhere’ in time. Again, if you just want to like the film, go for it. To me it totally sucks and I stand by that conclusion. Here’s hoping the next one is better! I will keep an open mind.
Of course, there IS a ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation’ episode which refers to the Romulans using an artificial singularity as a propulsion system (the one where Picard and company are returning to the Enterprise in a Runabout and come across the Enterprise and a Romulan Warbird engaged in a battle and frozen in time) so maybe… Willing Suspension of Disbelief. The 2009 film is just badly written.
Not a propulsion system. A power plant. Where the Federation ships used mater/antimater reactions to produce power for the ships systems – The big Romulan ships were supposed to use a artificial mini blackhole to convert mater to energy. Good idea if you can do it. Bad day if you lose control, since mini blackholes like that explode pretty quickly.
Oh great, more moaning about Star Trek. *yawn*
Oh great, another arrogant fan with what appears to be very little critical-thinking ability when it comes to Star Trek-flavored nonsense. If you want to have real discourse about the film, I welcome it. Otherwise, why don’t you keep your yawns to yourself?
You did forget one other point about this movie. and that was they had the planet \vulcan with a blue sky the original series and the movies always had Vulcan with a red sky.
Technically, the “Enterprise” 2-parter on Vulcan stated that Vulcan *occasionally* had blue skies. I imagine this was just to allow the production crew to avoid needing to tint everything red, so it was a cop-out.
IMO, this movie was an alt timeline of an already alt universe, as Vulcan’s sky is *always* blue and Delta Vega is clearly a moon of Vulcan, which is bad for 3 reasons:
1) Vulcan has no moons (ST1 messed this up, but it was edited out in re-release video).
2) any moons would have been sucked into the black hole.
3) Delta Vega is, as noted by Mr. Morris, on the rim of the Galaxy, and Vulcan is not.
Just saw this one. In general.. Oh hell yeah!!
I’ld quibble
Given the federation can control gravity pretty easily, building on Earth and lifting the ship up makes some sence – assuming its not to fragile — but a fragile warship? A open air shipyard? IOWA?!!
None of the ships seemed to follow Trek rules. The Enterprise looked like just like a fisher price toy version of the Enterprize. The inside must use Tardis technologies given the lower decks extended far beyond the extent of the shipyard!
The bridge looked like a Apple store or bar – not in any sense a practical operations center.
Red mater?
One science adviser on a tech series was asked about how crappy the science was i the show – he nodded and said, but you don’t know how bad it was before I started advising.
The Gene Roddenbery and Gene Coons? from the first show put a lot of stock into making the science as real as you could so the rest felt real – they fought the networks and studio on that –the Networks and studio types won out now.
Oh, and yes. The plot was nonsence. If Spock would toss a argumentative subordinate into the wilderness – they’ld throw him into prison.
The actors weer pretty good with completely nonsensical lines etc.
I was a old trek fan – I was not a JJ A fan. – at this point I think Abrams pretty much killed Trek in any real sence.
Probably the worst parts of the movie for me were:
The sacrifice of the original series’ focus on idealism, for a more salable, shoot em up action emphasis.
The Fisher-Price Enterprise bathtub-toy-knockoff external design, which looks to have been left the same for “Into Darkness”, despite all the complaints (what little appears in the teaser has the same basic design, although widened space ‘tween the nacelles may have been hinted at)
The internal sets: all horrible. “Into Darkness” at least looks like it MIGHT tone the bridge down drastically, from some teased scenes.
As noted by Mr. Morris, no actual science or logic in general were involved in this movie.
Quinto’s Spock lacks the aloof aristocratic air of Nimoy’s portrayal; this is a sore loss, as 90% of Spock was that hidden highbrow humor. Also. . Would someone please get around to applying Mr. Quinto’s makeup? Vulcans are yellow-greeninsh, and Spock had dark-hooded eyes (it gave him real presence!)
I understand why Kirk is more aggro than his original alternating blend of clipped and charming, but why the hell was Sulu so *despondent*? He is supposed to be a happy fellow, in a similar manner to Kirk (both were very positive people in TOS). Sulu nearly always had a smile, even when times were bad.
Warp speed is now replaced by a hyperspace jump, so no combat occurs at warp, indicating a lesser tech level.
The uniforms look like everyone is wearing colored paper towel pullovers.
High points of the movie:
Urban as Bones. Didn’t think he could, but he did it.
The phaser pistols. Quite nice.
Spock conversing w/Spock. Even tho Quinto did not convince me.
Uhura has a 1st name, and the “romance” with Spock was actually precendented in hints in several TOS episodes (Uhura came on to Spock quite often).
It isn’t a drab work, as everything from TNG on has been (IMO).
How big a mess was Star Trek: Nemesis? Stuart Baird, no proper understanding of Star Trek. I completely disagree with you on set design, and the uniforms.
Most of the directors, except for possibly The Motion Picture make Trek their own, Nicholas Meyer (Wrath of Khan, The Undiscovered Country) wasn’t a Star Trek fan either, he used creative licence to add new concepts (I never heard of the Kobayashi Maru before that, and suddenly Klingons with pink blood), yet these are two of the best films in the series.
I had no problem with the film personally (though I really, really dislike the design of the Enterprise) the original movie ship looks way better in my opinion. One thing does confuse the hell out of me, he is a full Captain at the end of the film… WWWHHAT!! So he just flies up the ranks, Vulcan and Romulus destroyed, an alternate timeline created, what does this mean for future Vulcans like Tuvok?
I’ll probably go to my grave insisting that the 2009 Trek film (which I call STINO… Star Trek In Name Only) is an awful movie. And Star Trek Into Darkness (which I call STD) gives me fears of being more of the same. That said, I’ll give the impending 2 Trek 2 Furious a shot when it comes out.
I’m heartened that other people see that the emperor has no clothes, because the backlash against anyone criticising this movie is unreal to me. I’m not some angry fanboy in my mother’s basement. I’m a *discerning* fan of Trek. I have an adult love of Trek in that I see an episode’s or movie’s flaws where it has them, and — having seen every episode of every series — I can tell you there are about as many flaws as there are Tribbles on K-7.
The biggest problem for me with STINO is the completely nonsensical script. Nothing makes sense in the film. Not the plot, not the entire lack of a story, and certainly not any of the character’s motivations or actions. A lot of people say the film is fun. If you like an aimless lightshow, then okay. But I like a movie where I know what someone is doing and why. Where there are actual stakes? That’s when a movie becomes fun.
I have problems with many of the sets (a brewery in a spaceship?) and some of the casting (Pegg as Jar Jar Scotty sends me up the wall), but the fact that script is so utterly bad takes a front seat to all other concerns and prevents me from even enjoying the movie. I think it’s an abomination of Star Trek, and I think JJ Abrams and his “screenwriters” are opportunistic hacks.
[...] have been controversial in nature; I’ve really enjoyed the discourse they’ve inspired. “Why Star Trek (2009) is a Terrible Film” and “Why The Motion Picture is My Favorite Star Trek Film” both seem to generate firm lines in [...]
Agreed on ALL points, Jeffrey!
As a child, attempting to build the AMT kit of the Enterprise, the genius of Matt Jeffries was driven home, as the droopy, wobbly nacelles proved that this was a spacecraft that could only live outside a gravity well.
I enjoyed the film.
I agree it wasn’t like old trek, but then old trek had been done to death for me. I’m fairly certain that if JJA had produced a faithful old style trek film, he’d have been receiving criticism for being unimaginative.
I also agree that there weren’t the nods to science that we’ve come to expect from trek. But I’ll take Star Trek IV (a fan favourite) as example, if you look at the size of a Klingon Bird of Prey…how the hell did they fit 2 full size Humpbacked Whales + Water into a compartment in it (gutted or not)?
A Bird of Prey is a fraction the size of the Enterprise A and I doubt if they’d have fit the whales in that! They also managed to time travel by sling shotting around the sun..yep..great science being illustrated there.. But I love that film, and so do many other people.
So I tend to blissfully ignore the pseudo-science, it’s all technobabble anyway, we haven’t a clue whether any of it might actually work, it’s 3 centuries in the future, it’s like getting Copernicus to postulate on the processes of a Nuclear reactor.
As a film I loved it for the characterisations and the interplay between them, it was uncannily accurate, while stopping short of parody. Character is what Trek has always been about, the best series worked because you loved the characters, not the back-drop they were in.
I have got an answer for why Spock chucked Kirk off the Enterprise rather than just putting him in the brig, a fully rational and older Spock (TOS version) who have imprisoned him, 2009 Spock was a hair short of being mad with grief and the psychological trauma of trying to conceal that. I’m only surprised he didn’t shoot him!
Just my 23 cents
completely agree. abrams is a micheal bay prodigy, bay and nolan in my opinion are simply
product engineers rather than movie makers targeting 13-26 year olds living in thier moms basement with very little film history producing demographic based films.
I know this and transformers werent done by “oh god i love this franchise” but “what franchise can we buy that will generate enough interest to attract young people”
I personaly prefer star treks II-4 and first contact as well as tos, tng and ds9.
ive hated the trek movies since they dropped the score from star trek I/II, its the only thing
id like to see return to star trek and allegory style movie making.
star trek was hugely socialy inspiring and revelant in the 60s and 80s, this is nothing more
than a micheal bay loud explosions for teens/twenty something hence the pg-13 rating these films get.
This is star trek for dumb jocks not star trek fans. I respect abrams for lost and revolutions but havent been impressed with any of his films, hated the mission impossibles he helmed as well wich also canned the mission impossible score from the first.
music is 89% of a sequel franchise and just as important as a character in it, it makes a film have continouity and feel like an extra 2 hours of the original wich is what a good sequel should do.
i liked pine, quinto, yeltchin (?)(checkov),urban and didnt care much for the rest of the cast also a major flaw. chris helsmworth whos kirks dad should have been kirk. kirk was friendly warm and intense he was never angry or hatefull, the bickering between the three was always brotherly with humor laced. bad bad bad.
i wish alot of these franchise would simply get their dropped original scores back (cough terminator, hellraiser, superman, etc.).-cheers
I agree this stunk. I’m not really a trekkie, I love STTMP for various reasons, and the original TV show that everybody watched but not so much what followed although the Voyage Home is a nice film. I managed 60 mins of this 09 effort before it sent me to sleep and I turned off. The DVD has sat in a plie unwatched since. Defintely will not waste time on another one from this director or writers. I think the whole concept is terribly flawed anyway.
Hey,
I have to say I agree completely with you, I actually didn’t read any sum up of JJ Trek that I could identify myself with so well – good article, thanks!
Thanks! It’s always nice to know you are not alone!
The problem with building the Enterprise on Earth isn’t just the power required to get something that large into orbit. It’s entire design would collapse in Earth’s gravity. It’s enormously front heavy. The saucer and nacelles supports couldn’t keep from bending unless they’re made of something entirely different from the rest of the ship. They’d be expending an enormous amount of energy to keep it stable, prior to its engines coming online.
I think it’s just plain stupid and a real lack of imagination. I have heard people say that if the ship can handle warp speed then why wouldn’t it be able to withstand those types of gravitational stresses. I just makes more sense to build these things in space.
great article, it is not Star Trek it pays no respect to Roddenberry’s vision of the future which is kinda weird when you consider that his son advised JJ Abrams on the film. quite clearly didn’t listen to his old man did he. It’s the biggest pile of garbage in Star Trek on par with the ending of Enterprise (which was terrible). what really bugs me though is that this entire storyline is now considered canon …. so what happened to the 40 years of history
I found the editing too herky jerky for me. It seemed like a tv ad stretched out to movie length. I saw it at an IMAX theater and almost got vertigo from all the jumping around. My biggest fear is that Abram’s interpretation is going to kill the franchise, which would be a very sad day.
I actually enjoyed the “movie” in a cheesy braindead summer blockbuster way (think Transformers or Battleship), but couldn’t handle any of the Star Trek references. That’s all they were really, references.
The movie wasn’t Star Trek as I understand it. To me, it felt like what Star Trek would be if Michael Bay took it over and that’s not a compliment. I am absolutely stunned that so many people loved it. Even many of my Trekker friends seem to not only like it, but to enthusiastically applaud it as a reboot. I feel like I’m living in crazyville. Like how is it that I’m the only one who sees how bad it was? Thanks for this article. It’s truly nice to know I’m not alone.
FINALLY! SANITY ONLINE!
Here’s my bitching. A distilled-down, simplified version of my 10 or 12 page review (which nobody would keep posted online, lest I insult Abrams and/or the new fans!)…
Please, someone wake me the hell up, because I’ve died and gone to Hell!
Star Trek has now become a teen angst movie! THE most juvenile Star Trek movie ever!
Fan films are more mature and Trek-relevant than this joke. Don’t be fooled by the high ratings: checkout what demographic is voting. Males outnumber females by over 5 to 1, and the vast majority are in their teens and 20′s. Because never before has Star Trek been targeted at a juvenile audience! Up until this stage, Trek was primarily aimed at, well, ADULTS.
Critics, in order to please the masses now side with the masses. It’s easier to join the love group and accept bribes… So the ratings for this steaming pile of flash keep rising. And the young jerk director, Abrams, (who admits to never having been a Trek fan!) is glorifying in all of it. The biggest, saddest joke of all is that this 2009 quote Star Trek movie now rates higher than any other Star Trek movie bar none! The masses have been bamboozled and bought out.
They’ve All swallowed this spiel that “Star Trek NEEDED to be reboot…” I’ve read that particular bullshit line over and over again, right along with “This is not your father’s Star Trek.” Damned right it isn’t. Obviously this advertising is needed to justify the extremes to which this non-Trek film goes. Like wiping out all of Trek history, so the new directing/writing team doesn’t have to, you know, research anything about the Trek universe… because they’re all brand-spanking new to it, and many hadn’t even been born when the original series first aired. They’re all children of a much later generation.
Yeah, it’s awesome for a dumbed-down, non-thinking idiocracy audience which appreciates Michael Bay films, the likes of Transformers. It’s the same writing and directing team, you know. Don’t believe me? Checkout the credits yourself.
This is not science fiction. In fact, any of the 6 Star Wars series of films are by far better science fiction than you’ll have in this mess. They had things like, uh, characters and plot.
Take this Romulan villain, Nero, for example. He is THE most simplistic, cardboard nemesis ever presented in ANY film. I mean, forget V’ger, Khan, Kruge, Sybok, Chang, Soran, the Borg, So’na, and Shinzon. They were all real and motivated antagonists, with some background.
Basically Nero, played by Eric Bana, has a few lines that amount to “I’m going to destroy Vulcan and Earth, because you destroyed my world in the future!” and that’s it! Anyone could have played him. Anyone. The rest is rampant CGI, to blind the audience to, well, actually thinking and asking simple questions about plot. There are no real characters or character development here. Things happen for no damned reason other than to hurry along things into the next pointless action scene.
There’s CGI everywhere, accompanied by lens flare and the shaky camera routine. I want to see some plot — not action scene after action scene. There is no meaning here. No awe. No thought provoking dialogue or concepts. Just young jerks running amok. We got deeper and more meaninful stuff in old Lost in Space episodes — sans big screen special effects, of course. But as long as the lowest common denominator keeps paying for crap like this, we’ll get more and more crap like this.
And Abrams etal will become more and more famous; as he’s already being called a Visionary and the New Steven Spielberg. For what? For paying CGI artists to paint pretty pictures for the babies. Remember Barney’s Great Adventure? That was a big hit, too. A vast money-maker. Of course the target audience for THAT was 5-year olds.
Hack the intellectual writing down a few more notches, and maybe that will be the next step in Trek‘s “evolution” if given time… I can’t believe countless millions of dollars were poured down into this gold-plated toilet. With that money they could have re-created all of the Enterprise sets from ALL of the movies and series!
Instead we got cheated with crap designs which were an abomination to the Enterprise/s of old. Oh, I can’t go into it all… from the Engineering Deck brewery to the Bridge Apple Store. It’s THAT painful! Nothing made sense. Not even the new uniforms! Which only makes sense since it was thrown together by Non-Trek-Fans who have NO ense of Star Trek!
The real burning hell part is this: I’m the only one left who can actually SEE this piece of garbage for what it is! Everyone else has been Borged into thinking Abrams’ “Masterpiece” is The Greatest Star Trek Film Ever! Where the hell are all the people who Hated the Transformers films? “Oh, but this is Star Trek, I CAN’T hate Star Trek! It’s now the new Canon!”
YES; thank you! I agree with everything. I can’t believe this got such a big rating on IMDB! It was atrocious, not Star Trek at all.
Yeah, it was terrible, for all the reasons stated above.
And I’m not sure the ship being built on the surface of Earth was the Enterprise, it was just another ship.
It wasn’t just another ship, it Was the Enterprise in that movie being built on Earth–in Iowa of all places! This is verified by snaps, the DVD, (and even the novelization, I think).
But for even bigger stupidity, Into Darkness will have the Enterprise “parked” beneath the sea!
Yeah, it just keeps getting worse and worse… But that’s what science fiction films have become lately. Comic book crap. Give it time and pretty soon the science in Superman will look more sophisticated than what Trek’s degenerated into.
The next Trek movie shouldn’t be written and produced by these jackasses. It Should be written and produced by the likes of people associated with that sleeper film “Moon” starring Sam Rockwell. But those folks don’t have the PR or the “vision” BS that Abrams and friends have; those Hollywood celebrity genes and filthy-rich parents in the business for generations. You know, the ones who handed their son the Goldmine Franchise of Star Trek. Plopped it right down in that undeserving kid’s lap. Not just a goldmine, but all the technology and workers to happily mine it, the world over. That must have been one hell of a sweet deal. I wonder how that worked out! And everyone thought B&B were bad. B&B simply got lazy and careless. Instead of, you know, Hiring New Writers they’d stuck to their tight friendly close-knit bunch of pals to recycle simple ideas endlessly. The fewer and smaller, the more loot there is to go around. The richer they become. Paramount’s Pocket Books Trek novels is facing the same problem. They’ve become greedy at the expense of quality. That’s why their editors are equally their authors and pals. Another tight little group of greedy bastards. They don’t even Bother to hire cover artists when they can just plaster any old futuristic CGI shot there. Oh, hell, they won’t even pay for the rights to use the old Star Trek FONTS for the covers, either! That’s more money for them to Pocket!
Trek’s gone to dumbed-down hell. And wait’ll J.J. Abrams takes on Star Wars. If you thought the Prequel trilogy was bad…! Abrams obviously does things His Way and Only His Way. I can just see him featuring Han and Chewie together–and royally screwing over the expanded universe timeline of events. Maybe they’ll pull a Paramount-like “non-canon” declaration about the books, and the Star Wars fans will simply sit back, smile, and say “We know better now! The films are more important than the novels” etc. Works for Trek fans all the time. From one RPG to another. From peeing on the old Ballantine and Bantam blueprints and books to the next “authorized” publishers and Their revisions…
Bottom Line: Abrams and Friends should stay the hell away from Established Film Series!
(But I’m all alone here, as usual. Money rules. What happens happens. I’ve signed the online petition against Abrams directing Episode VII. All the fat good that will do. At least real human lives aren’t at stake!)
I’m 50 years old and started watching Star Trek with my father during its original run. All I can say is lighten up, Francis. All the different films and TV series had elements fans didn’t like; just because Abrams didn’t create the film you’ve been producing in your head all these years doesn’t mean it sucks, and criticizing the science is utterly ridiculous.
You’ve gone over the nerdy edge of fandom into the abyss of whiny dorkdom, and no one cares what dorks think.
You don’t have to agree with my perspectives, but by calling names, you are proving that your opinion is the one that’s irrelevant. It would have been nice to have real discourse as opposed to bullying. I would normally trash this response, but I think it’s better to just let everyone see how ineffective you are at communicating.
I, unlike most people here didn’t have a problem with the film BUT more elements of things that bothered me not to mention the ‘JJ’ Enterprise design (which I really dislike personally) and recently found their ship design is size of the original (which is about the size of the Enterprise-D).
Additional problem:
-Destroying Romulus and Vulcan and creating an alternate timeline. Every other Trek series/from the 1966 series to 2001′s ‘Enterprise’ is a progression or prequel of the same timeline.
-Something Jonathan Frakes had mentioned at a convention I watched on YouTube, when Kirk is ejected from the ship to the planet surface, chased by the creature into the cave, a big coincidence that Spock prime was there.
Have got this wrong?
The one thing that plays on my mind the most (only seen it three times) is the fact Kirk goes to the Academy, meets some of his future crew, cheats his way onto the Enterprise, as a cadet (that’s one thing) but by the end promoted to Captain.
Was he on some kinda graduate track scheme?, surely anyone commanding a starship would need Starfleet experience in:
- Leading away missions
- Learning responsibly to your crew
- Diplomacy
- First Contact experience
Picard, Sisko, Janeway, Archer all served as officers before getting own command. Kirk, nah! Please, have I got this film all wrong?
The movie was a failure on all levels of narrative. A rollercoaster ride for the masses, and juveniles at that. You take away all the flash, see it in 2-D instead of 3-D, analyze it, and it falls apart at the seams.
When I was growing up there were Intelligent science-fiction films. Yeah, many had great FX if substandard by today’s standards, and many had next to no FX. But both made me Think. Made me imagine things beyond this world and of the future. There were themes present, about the human condition (something which Classic Trek often focused upon).
J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek was a movie aimed at those who Do Not Think. Just shut your brain off at the door and get bombarded by lens flares, shaky camera, and lots of CGI dazzling. Throw in juvenile “teen angst” action and humor…and you’ve got the Anti-Star Trek Movie.
The fact that many people fell for this polished turd speaks volumes for today’s mentality And the power of marketing. But considering what goes for “entertainment” on TV these days, I’m not really that surprised. The dumbing-down of humanity continues…
I would like to bring up some points that I haven’t heard anyone mention here yet. I also disliked Star Trek (2009) for many of the same reasons mentioned above. But the things I miss the most in this film are the chemistry, comraderie, and cerebral nature of the original Star Trek.
What I came to enjoy most about Trek (beyond the action scenes, technology, and creative vision of the future) was the way the Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelly versions of the main characters worked together and interacted with each other. In addition to witty writing and good acting, I think it was the way the characters’ personalities in the original cast both
contrasted and complimented each other so well that created interesting tension, humor, and relatability.
They weren’t just cocky, angry, Captain wannabe’s at-each-others throats, like in much of the reboot. They were a team. There was a certain amount of comraderie and friendship that developed which allowed viewers to become more involved in the positive virtues and relationships of the characters, so that when something really dramatic happened, you cared
to some extent.
I’m not saying it was all shmooze and roses or that they were best buddies. I don’t think that would be realistic in a military type setting. But at the end of the day, they were usually able to recognize some value in the other guy, even if they didn’t always get along. Maybe I wasn’t looking hard enough, but I don’t see those qualities being represented as
much in JJ Abrams film.
Also, Star Trek was always more of a cerebral approach to solving problems. I was disturbed to see the new Spock character being so emotional. Vulcans are supposed to be a logical group of people. Even being half-human, the emotional aspect would have been played down. I had always seen the Bones character as being the more passionate one. Spock was
always level-headed and informative, giving the leader (Kirk), a balance of input. Here, they’re all just a bit too on-the-edge, and — with the increased number of action scenes and popping-in-your-face special effects — this movie seem more like a modern video game than a classic sci-fi film you can take something away from.
And then there’s the like-ability factor. Shatner’s Kirk could be arrogant and demanding, but he had a heart too. He wasn’t all business. He was likeable. I don’t think Pine’s Kirk is really that likeable. He doesn’t come across as a good leader either. Furthermore, how many memorable one-liners can you remember from this film? Whatever happened to memorable lines in movies in general?
Well, maybe these ideas are old-fashioned and don’t draw big box-office results with the modern crowd. That’s too bad. Not that Star Trek was ever perfect or anything — I’ll admit some of it was corny or just plain weird. But now they’re even further away from perfect than ever. It’s like a whole different movie series with the Star Trek name slapped on it, a phenomenon which is happening to many film series these days. If this is the approach we can expect in the next film, my interest in the Star Trek storyline has sadly come to an end.
I absolutely agree that the plot makes no sense, and also find it hard to believe that so many Star Trek fans don’t care that it makes no sense. Okay films are just entertainment and you have to suspend belief sometimes, but this is ridiculous.
Has anyone found a plausible explanation of the plot?
Why did the Romulan mining ship have such superior weaponry — which looked to me like bits of metal being flung out at high speed?
If the Romulan and Spock’s ships survived falling into the black hole to reappear in the past, shouldn’t the supernova have reappeared too and wreaked as much havoc as it did in the future?
If you thought ST 2009 was bad, you’re going to have a field day with ST ID…
There Is a plausible explanation of the plot–but to get it you have to use convoluted logic and read some comic books released After the film (called “Countdown” or something of that sort) to try and justify this train wreck of a flick. Either way you cut it, the film is Bad Science all around, which is rather typical of these days for what passes For “science fiction” film making. Catering to the Transformers crowd.
But if you think it’s bad wait’ll you get a load of Into Darkness. I know, not quite appropriate for this thread so I’ll be brief: More of the same! Lots and lots of CGI, running around, explosions galore. That’s what carries the film as a kind of idiot-remake of ST II. It should also appeal to lovers of Armageddon and Battleship. It’s Not Star Trek. There’s no characters here beyond the cliche one-liner droppings.
If you go to the Above Top Secret site, a bogus script was posted up there last year. It was typed up in under an hour, I’m told, as a kind of spoofy send-up of JarJar Abrams’ film. Guess what? With all its derivativeness and hokey garbage, It’s a better script than what they went with for this 2nd disaster movie!
When I watched Star Trek in the cinema back in 2009, I was initially overjoyed and felt that Abrams had delivered a good effort that did the franchise justice. Within a few weeks I came to regard the film as the cinematic equivalent of The Emperor’s New Clothes — underneath the special effects there is little more than a hugely overrated (albeit well polished) exercise that lacks the soul of its predecessors.
The clueless comments by film “critic” Mark Kermode and Gavin Esler during Kermode’s review of the sequel, Into Darkness, provided a revealing insight into the demographic that Abrams is pandering to when Esler complained that the TV series had been “far too talky” and Kermode proudly confirmed that Abrams had put paid to all of that.
There you have it, the intellectualism and thoughtfulness that defined the franchise has taken a backseat to formulaic, shallow film-making that caters to the lowest common denominator who want to a theme park ride instead of offering challenging material that makes you reflect.
If anyone has seen the sequel, please share your thoughts. I won’t be spending any money on this time on Abrams empty-headed vision, but I’m curious on the verdicts.
@Andre, FutureDude will be posting his review of Star Trek Into Darkness this Thursday, May 16th — the day the film opens.
I felt pretty much the same way about this film. It is a perfect example of what is wrong with many of the Star Trek films: it was sloppily thrown together to milk the franchise. It lacks a plot and has lousy science and substandard effects. My recommendation would be to see the first two films (be sure to get the Director’s Cut of the first film) and skip the rest.
The engine room would have worked much better in a steampunk film. And I don’t like the bridge design, either. However, the biggest effects let down in any of the Star Trek films so far was having a bad guy’s terrible super weapon turn out to be a cheap model rocket in one of the earlier films.
Abrams rips off not only Star Wars but also Wrath of Khan and perhaps Nemesis.
I disagree that Abrams is the only game in town, though. There are very good fan films and fan episodes out there. Check out the Phase II project, for example. I won’t be spending my money on Into Darkness; why support incompetent hacks? In fact, as I recall, one of the guest stars in an earlier Star Trek film once said in an interview that Star Trek fans should be more demanding and not go see lousy films.
Moreover, Star Trek is not the only science fiction out there. And there’s good fantasy to see, such as the Lord of the Rings films.
Star Trek Into Darkness… DON’T SEE THIS FILM! Repeat: if you are an adult and fan of TOS, DON’T SEE THIS FILM! It’s the lobotomized continuation of Abrams’ first film, strictly for non-thinking, intellectually-challenged children. To sum it up: imagine the writers of Transformers and Armageddon remaking Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Yes, ponder that!
You know, I take back most of everything I’ve said about the many Trek fan films on the Internet. You see, at least those fans TRIED to do something Star Trek. They didn’t have the resources, the actors, the money. But at least they TRIED. Abrams never tried. Abrams didn’t have to try — he’s in it for the money and is NOT out to please Trek fans, but to please His New Audience. It’s Abrams way or the highway…
I’m sick of reading: “I’m a new Star Trek fan because I LOVED the 2009 film, my first Trek movie.” I’ve had it up to here reading about how Abrams is this new Visionary, the New Steven Spielberg. “Well, Harve Bennett and Nicholas Myer who did ST II didn’t know about Star Trek either.” Yeah, but they had Talent and Experience; they were capable of telling Stories and they more or less did their homework on Star Trek. Above all, they knew about things like Characters and Plot — and they weren’t catering to a teen crowd of movie-goers either!
Abrams has No talent whatsoever — but a CGI crew who does the work for him! Maybe the CGI crew should be getting the praise and the big bucks — they Are these films. I think this is one of the top reasons I’m so furious: unwarranted praise of a talentless film director. Seriously, if Ed Wood, Jr. had been given this kind of budget and CGI wizardry Abrams has been given… All Abrams can do is deliver banal dialogue to somehow tie one action scene together to the next action scene, with lots of noise and explosions… Plot, characters, and Intelligence is virtually non-existent… The 2009 movie was more like Star Trek For Dummies, in which case, Into Darkness will be Star Trek For Idiots!
Abrams is Science Fiction’s filmdom’s worst nightmare. There’s just no Science left in it anymore, just comic book brainlessness exposition. Next we’ll have Kirk and crew fly out of the Enterprise without wearing pressure suits and zapping everyone with their phaser guns, like some bad kiddie cartoon: no gravity, no physics, no sense. That’s pretty much the future of Trek: it’s a Nightmare! It’s Trek in NAME ONLY! I don’t see it getting any better.
The last REAL Trek movie was Nemesis… Even with all its flaws it was at least aimed at an Adult audience (deliberately ignoring the B4 subplot’s forced “humor”) and wasn’t a kiddie rollercoaster ride constructed around a CGI fest! It at least was set in the Real Trek Universe, had our real characters — and played by the real actors, and a serious plot with decent acting.
I agree that the Star Trek reboot was horrible. I just recently googled to see if anyone agreed with me that the reboot was awful and lo and behold! Now since the reviews for the second movie are coming out and so far the reviews are coming back that it’s a boring drag.
I saw this move in the theatre in May of 2009 and never looked back. I never wanted to give it a second watching I just hated it. I hated the pacing of the story, the pacing reminded me too much of seeing my stepson take his Adderall. I could not buy into the fact that a cadet would be given command of the flagship vessel of the Federation after 1-2 weeks of service. In fact that point alone is my biggest resistance to whole reboot. Even if Starfleet is decimated, there has to be more experienced officers than a green Ensign to hand command over to. How insulting is that to Spock to be a commander and work his way up and pay his dues and some punk a** rogue comes in and is anointed Captain. It would never ever happen in any Navy.
And I see that they destroyed Alderaan (oops, I mean Vulcan) as kind of a point to make the Bad Guy appear bad but it appears the Federation goes on without a beat. There didn’t seem to be an socio-economic affect on the Federation to losing a key member planet. It’s like New York City getting nuked and the US humming along without skipping a beat. And see for the long term of any movies along this time line as missing Vulcan has shooting themselves in the foot. Naturally the Vulcans will find themselves as a third rate power within the Federation and will probably spend the next 100-200+ years re-establishing themselves.
Overall, I just hated it and it never waranted a rewatch for me. I’ll probably look at the new one just because I like Trek, but not until it’s been out for a while.
Against my better judgement, I ended up watching Into Darkness yesterday and it is even worse than the predecessor.
As other posters have already commented, the film is a mindless remake of TWOK (with elements of Nemesis thrown in for good measure) that lacks the depth and pathos of the original. Many scenes even use exactly the same dialogue as TWOK, line for line.
Instead of developing new ideas, Abrams and co have simply produced a shallow, bland remake of a vastly superior film. I watched it with a friend who said they never liked TOS, had never seen TWOK and methinks this is the target demographic for Paramount/Bad Robot/Abrams: young people who are unawares of Abrams’ creative bankruptcy.
A lot of the acting is dreadful (in particular Alice Eve’s performance), the writing is lazy and much of the dialogue is truly cringe-worthy. None of the plot points are explored properly and it just feels underwhelming. In 133 minutes It fails to achieve what an episode of TOS was able to within a fraction of that time. A wasted opportunity and this doesn’t bode well for Star Wars: Episode 7.
I agree completely the film sucked. In the new film, they have warp like Star Wars hyper-space. Kirk remarks no one can catch them at warp? Really? Did Nero’s temporal meddling change the laws of physics?
[...] Star Trek so much that I would become so blatantly frustrated with the current version. Based upon my review of Star Trek (2009), you know that I’m not a fan of J.J. Abrams’ take on Star Trek. It didn’t start that way. [...]
I agree with everything you said; absolutely everything. I watched it once — as did a friend of mine — and we were both seriously angry at the end of the total hash they made of it. The only thing we both found okay was, as you stated, Urban as Bones.
I have all the series and movies on DVD from Enterprise (which I actually don’t mind too much), The Original Series, TNG and Voyager. I’ve only watched Voyager once as I absolutely hated the Chakotay character as much as I hated Wesley Crusher in TNG I suppose. But I liked the rest of the cast in TNG while more than a few others annoyed me in Voyager.
My point is that I thought the real lows were these two characters, but this outlook changed somewhat when I watched this bloody film.
This film made me hate it so badly that I will never watch it again. I also have no intention whatsoever of watching the second one; the atrocious first one put paid to that.
I will keep watching my DVD’s of The Original Series, TNG and DS9. I can love Wesley Crusher and even Chakotay if I have to. Anything’s got to be better than this film.